The Dominion. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1910. PASSING ON THE BURDEN.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 940, 6 October 1910, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1910. PASSING ON THE BURDEN.

One of the opponents of the Defence Bill, speaking in the third reading debate on Tuesday night, declared, and plainly believed he was passing the .severest possible condemnation upon the measure, that "as'a matter of fact the Bill came more from the Opposition than from the Government." That the country has to thank the_ Opposition, and Me. James Alleh in particular, for tho forward movement in defence matters is admitted. But tho question is not a.party one. We are not going to discuss the measure just passed by the Houso in any detail now, although its value is serioußly marred in many particulars, and in none more than m tho dele-

gation to the Executive of the work of deciding matters of administration that should have been settled by Parliament. Amendment will be ■necessary next session, and since nothing of any consequence can be dono within a year, we may accept these removable defects as a not excessive price for the extension and reinforcement of last year's Act. There is one glaring defect, however, for which it is quite impossible for us to find any sound excuse in expediency or the necessity for compromise. We refer to the amendment to Clause 6 moved on Thursday by the Prime Minister, and adopted by the House without comment, to the effect that young men who are at present over the age of 21 shall be exempt from the general training that is' compulsory upon their younger brothers.

We can understand that some of those members who , wish compulsion to .stop at 21 years in all casesi are (juito Honest in their views—that they are inspifed by worthy,' if quite mistaken, motives, in opposing the extension of the age of subjection' to 25 years. But we cannot understand, nor, we are sure, will any honest man succeed in understanding, how there can be any . noble or worthy motive in those-who, while approving. the major age-limit ot the. General Training section, yet wish to exempt from the operation of it thoso who are already between the ages of 21 and 25. . It is obvious enough, we should think, that the explanation of the discreditable decision of the House is that members feared that by doing the right-thing for the nation they might incur the hostility of those 'of • their constituents who are ! between 21 and 25 years of age. It is another illustration of the readiness of our present-day politicians to shirk the responsibilities of the moment and pass them on to posterity/ No reason in principle was advanced ,by anybody for this discreditable trick. If such-a reason exists, we shall be glad to have it pointed out. The Government will probably say that unless this variation o£ ihe .general proposal had beon, made'the general proposal itself, would have failed. But that would be only a .frank /confession that members ; would have allowed their fear for their seats to drive them into betraying the nation's interests., Even 'this shabby, defence, • however, is not available to members, for before the- amendment had been brought on the age-limit of 25 , years had been agreed to. If tho Prijjb Minister had then .withdrawn his amendment,; what could anybody have dared to do -against the Bill?

The practical result of; this - arbitrary,'.- irrational, and. indefensible act of discrimination will be, , of course,_ that the central clause of the Bill will not become fully operative -for; four. years. The young men of that time between the ages of 21 and 25 are the boys of to-day. The young men of to-day between the ages of 21 and 25 are' to bo exempt, presumably because , they: have votes, hut 'the boys of ; to-day under tho age of 21 will'have to .undergo the training prescribed.'up_,to.the'ago of 25. The practical ■ disadvantages ■' • of ■ the in dolaying . tW coming : into operation of the iull scheme are of loss moment than its; disclosure of the, temper and spirit of the Government and the House. • We need not; stop to inquire whether the charac- 1 ter of the male; voters between theages of 21 and 25 justifies the appre : . hensions of , , members. The .only thing to remember is ; that' these valiant legislators . showed • their valour. by insisting, on the general training .only in .the case .of . the' voteless, boys. , Projporly' to round o(t their work they should-have that the exemption shall. apply /to those who are over the age of twenty years at the date of the jjassing of the Act; For they must , remember that the boys who; are now twenty, and left unexempted, will be twenty-one and possess the suffrage at the next election. In condemning ,the whole : House we have made no discrimination, but it must not be left unsaid that some of the members—it was early morning, at the end of a long and trying .sitting —probably did not realise what was; being done. ' The amendment, - however, is discreditable to Parliament. It is a shameless decision to exempt every voter in the; country' to-day and to" throw the burden on those who to-day have no votes—a bad, beginning indeed for a national - de-, fence scheme. .'