The Press. Tuesday, June 1, 1916. The Military Service Bill.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 15605, 1 June 1916, Page 6

The Press. Tuesday, June 1, 1916. The Military Service Bill.

In the coursc of his excellent speech on the Military Servisp Bill. }lr 1.. M. Isitt—quite, unintentionally, we are t>Ure —put rather unfairly one aspect of the weakness of the voluntary system. What ho hated in the system, lie said, was its injustice: lie wa« offended by a system under which, one saw a rich eligible man shirking and a patriotic poor man going to tho front. Tho ■well-to-do shirker is certainly a deplorable creature, and it is one of tho virtues of the new system that his shirking and everybody's' shirking will bo brought to an end. But nothing could bo more unjust than to • ignore the fact that the voluntary systern could equally well be described as one under which tho patriotic man who ■ is well-to-do goes to the front while the ■ . poorer man tvho wishes to shirk can do

so. The fact is that there have been shirkers amongst all classes. The single man of militaiv age, without dependents, who is earning, My, £3 a week, has a duty to serve as imperative as that of the eligible, single man with £1000 a year. A shirker is a shirker, whether be is rich or poor. We. do not know in what class or section ol the community, measured by income, the proportion of shirkers is the highest. The only attempt to get at the fact that has been made was contained in a letter from Mr Charles Lewis, which wo some time ago. Mr Lewis proved, as far as figures could prove anything on the point, that the well-to-do classes seem to have responded best of all to the call for

.service. His figures were not disputed. and no figures to the contrary have been advanced by auybodv. It is regrettable, therefore, that Mr Isitt should have spoken in such a way as to suggest what we bc'icve is the exact contrary of the real facts. If we aro to believe tho UerJ Feds and Social Democrats inside and outside the House the bulk of the shirkers belong to tho section for whom the Labour leaders profess to speak. Now that the Military Service liil! has come, such wellmeant but mistaken observations as Mr l.sitt'.s <\innot do much harm, but it was just such unjust and incorrect statements as those that were relied upon by the real enemies of recruiting in the past. As for the rest of Mr Isitt'* speech, it was an admirable, reply to those members who are either openly hostile, to tho Bill or else unable or unwilling to approach it honestly and intelligently.

One member, ivho declared that the Government m«;:t bo nuppoi'tcd, declared that nevertheless he could give a hundred reasons to justify his entire opposition to compulsion. If compulsion is necessary and right, his hundred reasons must be all unsound. Tliii is a fine example of confused thinking. How we should describe Mr liindmarsh's declaration that tho Bill is introduced, not for the purpose of winning the war, but only -'out of spleen," v.e confess that we do not lcnov»\ The

"conscientious objcctor" appeared .yesterday in more than one speech as a proper subject for friendly consideration. We can see 110 grave objection to the providing that a ''conscientious ob- " jeetor" may be exempted from combatant service. But a man who pleads that his consciencc forbids him to take life is all the more bound to undertake the "work of mitigating the miseries of the battlefield. There arc people, liowcvor, whose "'consciencc'* forbids them c\er to strctch a hand to a wounded soldier. Such men deserve 110 consideration. They add to the cowardice of the shirker the vice of hypocrisy. Most men think of the conscientious objector ivho is opposed to all service in tho war -what was said of him by the Judges of tho King's Bench in a recent case. "Can you tell me," asked Mr Justice Darling, "how a per- " son holding these conscientious ob- " jections reconciles it with his con- " scienco to take advantage of the '• laws, "which protect life and property, which depend wholly and entirely "on force? Tho real conscientious ob- " jeetor," he added, "ought to bo an "outlaw." Mr' Justice Lawrence said that the applicant claimed to take all the benefits of citizenship and perform none of it 3 duties. "A more uncon- " scientious claim it is almost impos- " sible to conceive. He says he has a " conscience that is too tender to do " anythiug for tho State in war.. Such " a conscienco is only worthy of the utmost contempt." And so every decent man will say. Mr McCombs's amendment proposing the rejection of the Bill has served the useful purpose of bringing into tho open the fact that seven members, but seven only, are opposed to the policy nocessary to win the war. Wellington will deal with Mr Plet'.'hor in due courso. The electors of Christchurch East may do a little useful thinking as to what they will say to the member whom they were foolish enough to iand to Parliament.