LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
[Letters of the /moth of one of our leading paragraphs are often more read, and therefore more effective, than chose which fill treble the space.]
THE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR.
[To ran EDITOR or THE " SPECTATOR.'
have read with much pleasure your article in last week's Spectator on this question. It is the fullest and most temperate of the many articles on the subject I have read. Yet to my mind, if principles be kept strictly in view, there is no real difficulty. Without doubt Parliament went wrong when it put upon Tribunals the task of doing un impossibility—i.e., the task of determining who are true conscientious objectors and then granting them exemption. Conscience is something secret—hidden in the deep recesses of the human breast, where no eye can penetrate or ever has penetrated. When a man therefore tables his conscience with a view of securing some great privilege to himself, he knows he is tendering some- thing which no man can perceive, and he loudly protests because the Tribunal will not accept his bare word far it. The Tribunals are accustomed to deal with evidence, and one of their rules is that the evidence of one man (even though a disinterested party), however reliable, is not sufficient to prove a fact. What can the Tribunal do, then, but find there is not sufficient legal evidence to satisfy them that in truth and in reality the objection proceeds wholly and solely from the objector's conscience The objector pleads Parliament has given him the right. This is a mistake. Here again the mistake of Parliament comes in, by laying on the conscientious objector the task of doing an im- possibility by proving that which it is impossible to prove in order to obtain exemption. It is just another instance of our genius for muddling through. Parliament sees a difficulty. It evades it by throwing it upon a set of conscientious men with more courage and more independence than it has itself. These men are accustomed to do justice between man and man without fear or favour and reject the applicant's claim for privilege: se in this roundabout way real justice is done, to the country and also to the conscientious objectors. I admit Parliament doer not cot a very heroic figure; but it must bear the odium which attaches to every one who evades his duty. The conscientious objector is cute enough to try to make capital out of the error of Parliament and make another move to extort his privilege, by abusing Parliament for inconsistency—quite a popular cry no doubt, but one which cannot benefit him. The truth is the blame rests on himself alone. He chooses to claim a privilege upon grounds he is unable to prove, and all the injury Parliament has done him is to My: " Well, if
• aIr Arthur Pearson's appeal appears on p. 200.
Ton can prove to the Tribunal you have what you claim you have, you will get your privilege." No doubt a little more courage and the exercise of a little more common-sense would have saved Parliament from the ignominious position into which it has fallen; but no injury has been done to the conscientious objector. He has had the opportunity of bringing on Iris monster, and lei it has dissolved into thin air before the Tribunals.—I am
TRYING TO CLEAR MY HIED OF CANT.
Previous page
