EXEMPTIONS

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3008, 20 February 1917, Page 6

EXEMPTIONS

Sir,—There seems to be a general consensus of opinion that the working .of the Appeal Boards, under the Military Service Act, is far from satisfactory—not from want of.'tact on the boards' part, but from some anomalies in the Act. To my mind, what should have been, included in the Act to meet these conscientious objectors. is something 'like the late Lord .Roberts included in his Military Service Bill,,: which he introduced into the House ot Lords. It was a penalty of £20 on. anyone who would not conform to military training. ■•'lf this had been done here it would have silenced a lot of these C.O.'s. But instead of £20 here in New Zealand it should have been. £50. The argument may be put fortii that this would penalise tho poor mau. Well, then, here is a provision that will not take anything out of his pocket, namely, the forfeiture of civil rights, say, for 15 years. I see the question is being discussed in Britain. I Should those who decline to serve be I allowed to share the privileges which freemen enjoy? I I -was very much surprised to see the ' Anglican Churoh following the fiomaii in its plea for exemption for some oE its younger clergy. Archbishop' O'Shea pleaded "canon law." What struck me on reading that was a wish that all the leaders of the churches had adhered to the law—non-Itonians as well as Eoman. ' The history of Europe might have been very different. Indeed some of the early fathers recognised, by the Anglican and Roman were valiant military leaders and drew the sword on occasions which does hot make them less respected to-day. And there was no ambulance corps in those days. Then the argument is used that tho clergy being so few that it would not matter much whether they served or not. This statement is not in accordance with fact. Anyone in closely watching the list of honours conferred by our King in this,war will see how soino of these men were ablo to retrieve what looked like a very serious position into complete victory on their part of the front by their, coolness and judgment. Who would dare to say that some of our young clergy wouid not be able to do likewise°'in' a critical moment? The fact of the matter is that as far as I can see the Anglican Church has not tried to do with less clergy in this war. Most of them still attempt to crush four or five services into most of the churches on Sunday where two would do. Their wholo energy is devoted to ministering to the pious few, tbe rest don't count. The General Assembly of tho Presbyterian Church took a sensible step by not appealing for any of its younger clergymen. Some of the churches in. this city could be worked very well by two men where four are now engaged. As for pastoral visitation, it seems to be a lost virtue, if ever it was one with some of them. —I am, etc., THOMAS M. MILLIGAN. February 19, 1917.