For His Name's Sake.

THE Military Service No. 2 Bill, introduced by the Prime Minister on 5th January, 1916, saw the introduction of Compulsory Military Service. It applied only to single men and became law on 28th January. It was soon extended and applied to married men, and in its completed form received the Royal Assent on 25th May 1916.

In these measures, the Tribunals - Local, Appeal, and Central - were set up. Full and generous consideration was frankly promised in all cases of real hardship. The widow's only son was not to be taken, and the clergy of all denominations were exempt. Why this latter exemption we cannot guess, unless it was to leave them free to carry on their great work of national importance, which the great majority had so faithfully (?) been doing. The Government recognising their faithfulness kept faith with them and they were not taken. Not so, however, with the widow's only son, nor with the conscientious objector, concerning whom the Government's frank promises were as "scraps of paper."

In the Bill, however, the case of the conscientious objector was fairly met, and the

proposed treatment was really generous. The clause was drafted without reference to Church or Creed. It simply ran "on the ground of conscientious objection to the undertaking of combatant service" and provision was made for absolute, conditional, or temporary exemption according to circumstances. Not only was the sanctity of conscience recognised and respected by the Act, but the conscientious objector was promised fair play and a judicial and impartial hearing. In the official circulars issued by the Local Government Board for the guidance of Tribunals, it was said: "The functions of the Local Tribunal will be of a judicial nature; persons will therefore be appointed who will consider the cases impartially." And Again: "The Local Authority, in making their appointments to the Tribunals, should bear in mind that the Tribunal will have to hear, among the applications, those made on the grounds of conscientious objections. Men who apply on this ground should be able to feel that they are being judged by a Tribunal that will deal fairly with their cases." The fault was not with the Act so much as with its working, and the greatest weakness and fault lay with the men who composed the Tribunals. Instead of being made to feel that they were being judged by a Tribunal that would deal fairly with their cases, conscientious objectors were made to feel the very reverse. As for my own experience before the Local Tribunal, and it was one of many similar, I was made to feel that all the members of the Tribunal who spoke - and they all spoke but one, and he impressed me as being ashamed of his company - were quite decided as to their decision before the case was heard. The chairman was simply a bully, and did his level

best to browbeat the conscientious objector, for whom he showed a very special antipathy. If one was not prepared to submit to the bullying, then there was a row in which the chairman's voice was very prominent. A more injudicial procedure could not well be imagined. The military representative, in this case, was a perfect gentleman. He pointed out to the Tribunal that the letter which he had on my behalf from the Church of which I was a member stated that, "the Churches with which we are associated hold views in common with the Society of Friends and other strongly opposed to war in general," but it was no use. Sound argument was at a serious discount, and the hot discussion was suddenly closed by the chairman peremptorily shouting the word "dismissed." The oracle had spoken, so the case was dismissed. Feeling it my duty to lodge my protest against such a travesty of justice, I rose and attempted to speak, whereupon there was a furious uproar and cries of "sit down." This I did not do, and managed in the end to get a quiet hearing to my protest against the injustice which had been done. A report of the proceedings was drawn up which, after having been signed by several witnesses, was sent to the Home Secretary for Scotland. On the following day, a deputation of four pacifists who heard the proceedings went to London to see the Home Secretary, with the result that further instructions were issued to Tribunals.

Further instructions indeed! Of what avail were further instructions to Tribunals which were a law unto themselves? Tribunals composed of men who were often, perhaps we should say generally, quite unsuited for the position, often unutterably void of logic and packed full of bitter prejudice to boot, were

vested with a little brief authority, and exercised their powers with most tyrannical sway. It was part of their official instructions that 'the Tribunals must interpret the Act in an impartial and tolerant spirit. Difference of opinion must not bias judgment.' Tribunal after Tribunal in every part of the country declared that it had not power to give complete exemption. Pledges of the Prime Minister were quoted to them and reference made to official circulars from the Local Government Board and they said, as at Durham, "We are not bound by any statement made by any Member of Parliament, or any circular issued by the Local Government Board." Some Tribunals would not let conscientious objectors speak at all. The Clerk at one Tribunal openly declared that he did not believe in conscientious objectors. A military representative said he did not think they ought to waste any time on conscientious objectors. One magistrate stated that he could not deal with any question of conscience; he was there to "stop that rot." At Wirral, the chairman of the Tribunal candidly announced, "I wish the Government had not put this clause about conscientious objectors into the Act at all. I do not agree with it myself." At Girvan, a bailie on the Tribunal said, "he would put all conscientious objectors in the very first line; it was all bunkum about conscientious objectors." But the Tribunals "must be impartially constituted." Consequently Erith District Council, having ascertained that their representative on the Local Tribunal held views antagonistic to the Military Service Act and therefore could not exercise an impartial judgment, had him removed from the position and a new "impartial" representative brought in, thus purging the Tribunal from all reproach

of bias! A conscientious objector before the Liverpool Appeal Tribunal asked to be allowed to read certain letters giving evidence as to the sincerity of his objections.

Chairman: "Anyone can produce evidence. If a friend comes to me and asks for evidence I try to please him."

Applicant: "Would you tell lies to please your friend?"

Chairman: "No."

Applicant: "The friends who have given me these letters are in just as responsible positions as you are, and they do not tell lies."

Chairman: "We will dismiss the case."

What a noble way out of a difficulty! He just shouts "dismissed," and the chairman's troubles end.

An appellant known to the writer personally was told by a Scottish tribunal that he could not be a conscientious objector because he repaired boots for miners who went down the pit to dig coals which were used by the navy! With such logic his case was dismissed. He refused to obey military orders and was sent to prison, where I had the privilege of visiting him. Thus, instead of justice, they received insult, and in place of fair judgment were treated with scorn and derision. But we are pleased to be in honour bound to say that such unfair and cruel treatment was not always given to the conscientious objector. It was my honour to be chosen to fight the religious test case for the city of Glasgow at the appeal Tribunal, and despite the fact that a scurrilous anonymous letter had been received concerning me, I am pleased to testify that I was given a good hearing, and received splendid treatment from both the military representative and the tribunal. I had to make a special appearance six weeks

The foregoing sounds like Alice in Wonderland. But no; it is British history concerning the first steps in the persecuting of Christians, during a war which was ostensibly fought for freedom. A war which had the almost unanimous support of nearly every Christian denomination in this alleged Christian land. Christians worked for it. Recruiting for it was encouraged from gospel platforms and pulpits all over the country. Public prayer was continually being offered for the success of the carnal weapons of warfare, and fervent thanksgivings ascended to God every time news came of great slaughter in the enemy ranks. Such prostitution of prayer aroused in some of us feelings of revulsion, which must have been akin to those which moved our Scottish national poet, Robert Burns, to pen the following lines concerning thanksgiving for victories over the French in his day:

Many of the individual members of the churches, and I say it to their shame, gloated over the newspaper stories of the persecution of Christian conscientious objectors, and joined in the vulgar laughter when the faith of these Christians was held up to derision. Many not only disregarded the Sermon on the Mount, but found that they hated not only their enemies but everyone who did not share their hatred. The conscientious objector was boycotted in Church and State; and some of us do not need to travel far to find a church where the conscientious objector is boycotted even to this late date. What a travesty of New Testament Christianity - Christian liberty, fraternity, and equality!