The Conscientious Objector.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 15649, 22 July 1916, Page 8

The Conscientious Objector.

Parliament came to a final agreement yesterday upon the treatment to bo accorded to tho "conscientious objec- " tor" under the Military Service Bill. As it left the House the Bill mad© no provision at all for "religious" or "conscientious" objections, but the Council inserted a clause which would allow a Military Service Board to exempt and to put to "non-military " work or services in New Zealand" any person who was on August 4th, 1914, and had continuously remained, a member of any religious body which taught that "the bearing of arms and " the performance of any military ser"vice" was "contrary to divine reve- " lation." Tho long delay in an agreement between tho House and the Council was due partly to the desire of tho Council to retain its amendment intact and partly to tho hostility of a section of the House to any measure of exemption whatever. Tho solution is a compromise between the two unreasonable extromes. and although such compromises do not always lead to a truly golden mean, in this case tho solution is the wiso ono which wo have constantly suggested. It is now provided that a bona-fide religious objector may secure exemption from orI dinary combatant service, but only by expressing his willingness to perform such non-combatant work or services as may be required of him, including service in the 'Medical Corps or the Army Service Corps, whether in or beyond New Zealand. The House accepted this by 44 votes to 18, and the majority apparently included not only tho people who desire perfect liberty for the

"religious" objector, but those who desire that ho shall receive no special treatment at -all. Wo aro confident that this settlement of the question will have the approval of nearly everybody in th© country. The public will only bo fortified in its opinion by the statement of tho case for the still-aggrieved religious objector. For that case

.amounts to a plea of sanctity for a conscientious refusal even to give succour to tho wounded or comfort to the dying. There are, unhappily, persons who have persuaded themselves that they must not fire a shot for the defence of the flag, their liberty, and their fellow-countrymen, and there can bo no benefit to anyone in forcing such persons to bear arms. What tho plain man cannot understand and will not endure, however, is the man who holds that he has a divine commission to refuse to mitigate tho sufferings or reduce tho perils of his fellow-country-men in arms. In Great Britain an applicant for exemption, who was taking the extreme view which our Bill as now amended refuses to admit, was confronted with a hypothetical case. Suppose—it was put to him—that a German air-raid was in progress, and aviators were fighting overhead, and supposing that a British aviator was shot down, and came to earth sorely wounded but alive. Would the objector, if he chanced to be within a few yards, turn aside and leave the wounded man to his suffering? The question was a fair one, and went to the heart of the matter. An affirmative answer would destroy the whole of the ob-

jector's case. A negative answer would destroy his claim to receive any consideration whatever at tho hands of his

fellow-creatures. We do not think that the final decision of Parliament will cause any actual trouble if and when the Act is put into force, and in the meantime it is a matter for satisfaction that the Legislature has for once refused to allow sentimental clamour to lead it away from justice and eoni-mon-sense