"CONSCIENCE" v. COUNTRY.

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 13, 15 July 1918, Page 3

"CONSCIENCE" v. COUNTRY.

MR. HOLLAND'S REPLY.

"Bishop Sprott and the Conscientious Objector," was the subject of an address by Mr. H. E. Holland, M.P., at the Alexandra, Hall last evening.

"Dr. Sprott," said Mr. Holland, "iterates and reiterates tho assertion that. it is 1 the conscience of the community and not merely its power .that, the individual objector is opposing. Obviously that ia a far-stretched view of the situation. The individual objector opposes the 'will' or conscience of the State in nothing but the matter of the violence it requires him to do to his own conscience. He in no way seeks to make the State violate its own conscience in the matter of the things its aggregation of members want to do so far as they are individually concerned. The objector doesn't stand forward and attempt to forcibly prevent other men from going, to the war if they want to go. He merely says that his own conscience forbids him to do what certain other men have, without consulting him, decreed he must do. Even if we were to concede the Bishop's foundation point that it is a case of the individual conscience against 'the conscience of the community,' how has the' Bishop ascertained the state of the collective conscience ? In what country in the world have the people— the community—ever been consulted on the.making or the ending of wars? In what country other than Australia has the community been allowed to express its 'conscience' on the matter of conscription ? .In wha% way can the will of the people be ascertained other than through the; freedom and secrecy of the ballot-box?

"Bishop Sprott strikes the best note of his lengthy address when he protests —very mildly, it is true —that the CO. should be withdrawn from military control and placed under civil authority His idea is, apparently, that the CO. should be compelled to work 'for the State as a prisoner instead of being compelled to figure as a military prisoner. But why imprison , him at all? Every CO. is quite willing to follow his usual calling and render social service in the same way that other working men do. The wealthy members of th£ community who refuse to let the State have either their money or other socially-pro-duced commodities except on their ownterms are never sent to prison, neither are their' !.wives and families made to suffer want because of their actions.

"Why, then, imprison and punish the Christian (and his wife ' and children as well) because his conscience will not let him follow both Christ and Mots ? Why penalise the Socialist who finds that he cannot serve humanity and render military service at the same time£ Why gaol the Irishman who sees an historically foundationed obstacle rising up to forbid military servics on his part ? Of course, the Christian and the Socialist and the Irishman are all abominably wrong—from the viewpoint of the military law—but why make them, suffer indescribably because of their conscientious objections? The Bishop's suggested remedy is better than the present method ,• but it is not 'the' remedy. The remedy is to make full provision for 'the man who objects to military , service—to permit him to do the work he is fitted to do, and to do it,as a free man and not as a sort of a slave."