The Press. THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1918. The Conscientious Objector.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16118, 24 January 1918, Page 6

The Press. THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1918. The Conscientious Objector.

B The ' debate in the House of Commons upon the proposal to disfranchise the .conscientious objector was interesting mninly; for. the absence of the hoat and Jrcjudice which might have been exjected in.a discussion which involved two matters upon whicli Englishmen I have always thought very seriously, namely, electoral privileges and the rights of conscience. The motion i for disfranchisement came up as a private iccmbor b amendment to the Representation ol the People Bill, and the Government, which had earlier been vnderstood to oppose this special disfranchisement, gsve the House a free land. As moved, the amendment was not free from objection, for it was iu.'gomo respects too sweeping, and in ether respecis it did not go far 'enough. Tlio proposal was that the vote should be withheld from "any "peraon who has been exempted from v ',mili.tary service on the ground of '• conscientious objection," or any per- - , son who, as a member of the forces, has been sentenced for refusal to obey orders, find who has alleged conscientious objection as a reason for such refusal. It was urged that this would . disqualify men who had pleaded conscientious objections, but had cheerfully accepted non-combatant service or work of national importance—Quakers, . for example, who have bccome minetweepers or (stretcher-bearers. On the ether hand, it would not catch nil the conscientious objectors who should be caught. After the amendmont had been carried, Sir George Caye gave f notice of the Government's intcntiou >: to amend it by setting a torm to the disqualification—seven years—and by V making provision to protect men who, I becoming subject to the clause, proved within a year after the war, that they had rendered service of a military or naval character, or service afloat or abroad in connexion with the war in any work of the Red Cross Society, or ! any other, body with a similar object. There are in England somo conscicn- ' tious objectors for whom everyone has sympathy, man whom it might bo a little harsh to disfranchise, but these K are i only a small fraction of the general body, whoso conscientious objec- / tions aro part of their political equipment, ud wi&o neither recognise any

duty nor render any service to the State. There are conscientious cb.jcctors who regard all war as wrong, but who, nevertheless, are willing, soc-

ing their country at war and in need of service, to l:el_> unselfishly in some way cf ihoir own. Their theory is illogical and almost past understand-

ing, but tlioir sincerity and goodwill are clear. -t is the contrast Vwhich these people offer to the others Ivhcsc conscience knows no kita of fluty that has aroused public indignation, and that has compelled Parliament to declare that they arc unworthy of a part in governing the country. Mr I'onar Law. in supporting the amendment, nleadod that "the safety

"of the State is the first rule of tho " State'' —a doctrine that has its dangers unless it is acccmpanicd by rules and definitions. If any encouragement were given to the "absolutist'' objectors, lie said, they would create absolutists in such number s as they could not possibly deal with. It would be a deterrent if the House took tho view, which was taken by the whole country, that tliero was a difference between men who were ready to obey the service of tho State and give their lives in defence of the State, and the men who thought they were not called upon to do so. Tho case of the oonsciontious objectors was pleaded by Lord Hugh Cecil in an eloquent speech, which Sir George Cave said ''would long be quot"od bv Anarchists in all countries as "justifying disobedience to the law." This was not an unfair comment upon the application which Lord Hugh Cecil mado of his own doctrine that there is " a higher law than tho law of the "State." If thorc were no higher law, ho asked, how could they blame the German Government, which pleaded the safety of tho State as a justification for any action whatever? By " punishing" men for being "mistaken "in opinion" they were returning to the old ground of religious persecution. Tho amendment appeared to place the law of the State above tho moral law. According to "The Times" Lord Hugh Cccil's "fine oratorical effort" made a deep imnrossion on the House, but the impression was largely removed by two thoughtful speeches that followed. Mr Ronald McNeill said there was no question of religious persecution or even of punishment. "What the House was discussing was not a penal statute, but whether certain iiersons were or were not pormitted to exercise the franchise. Then Mr Austen Chamberlain pointed out that the vote was a privilege and a trust, to the exercise of which the Stato had a right to attach conditions. "In tho greatest crisis wo had ever "known these men had been asked for " their services, and they had refused "to givo them. If they wero unable to " give the assistance demanded, by " what right could they take part in "deciding the future of the country?" We do not euppose that in actual practice the effect of the disqualification can be appreciable. Its value is in its adoption of .the sound doctrine that citizenship imposes obligations besides conferring privileges. As tho sympathisers with conscientious objections are generally found amongst the people who believe themselves in tho van of progress and democracy, and who ask for more brotherhood in our socioty, it is astonishing that they should not bo the first to welcome what is really a condemnation of anti-social and selfish individualism.