CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16159, 13 March 1918, Page 4

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

CHRISTCHURCH PITESBYTERY 11ESOLUTIOX. ' The C'hristehurch Presbytery yesterday decided to protest to the Government against the treatment accorded to conscientious objectors of the Presbyterian faith. Tho subject was introduced by tho Rev. Dr Et win, who, in an eloquent deliverance, protested that tho law was subverting tho principles of liberty and consciencc. Dr. Erwin referred to tho case of three ''deserters" recently tried by court-martial in Christchureh, all three receiving substantial terms of imprisonment. One of these men had held anti-militarist views for eighteen years. Tho great principle upon which Protestantism was built was the right of tho individual to interpret the Scriptures for himself, and ttio Presbyterian Church simply asked a profession of personal faith in Jesus Christ, a man being accepted on that ground, irrespective of any of his other views. '"Is the Church to allow the State to overrido the principles which have been fought for and won in the past?" continued the speaker. "It is commonly rumoured that conscientious objectors were ill-treated, and while a man must be prepared to suffer for his views, it i 3 not right that a professedly Christian Stato should pcrsecuto a man on account of his conscience. It is_ admitted by men whose Christianity is beyond question that war is contrary to the word of God. I question if in fighting German militarism we are not fostering a militaristic spirit that will itself have to be warred on." The Rev. C. Murray supported Dr. Erwin's remarks, tho matter being of supreme importance to th» country; and to the Presbyterian Church. Sir James Allen's remarks regarding conscientious objectors were not in accordance with tho tenets of tho Presbyterian Church, m tho matter of conscience. A man was responsible to God, and God alone, and neither tho State nor the Church had tho right to interfere. He had written to Sir James Allen on the subject, and the Minister's reply had been that the Presbyterian Church did not como under tho recognition of the statute. He had in person attended tho court-martial of tho imprisoned objectors, and ho considered more ministers should have been there, as the matter was ono which gravely toucl.ed upon religion. He moved that the Presbytery protest to Cabinet against the treatment, of Presbyterian religious objectors. 'The motion was seconded by tlie Rev. John Paterson who said that while he had ni) sympathy -with the conscientious objector individually, the Church should protest that it was tired of seeing the Roman Catholic TKmscicnce treated with tlie utmost circumspection, while tho Protestant conscience was ignored. Last session Parliament deliberately refused exemption to clergy and religious brothers, bub it was being given. The position was that when a Protestant clergyman was called up he bad to go up for examination, hut tho. Roman Catholic priest or brother was graciously exemnted.

M ho Rev. J. Johnston said he was in entire agreement with Mr Paterson. He thought that great Protestant alliances should bo formed throughout the country, and pressure brought on the Government through them.

The Rov. C. Murray, in reply, said that Mr Henderson had told him that his place of confinement on tho night of his airest was very small, and contained six bunks. During tho night four persons v.-ere put into the room with tho prisoners, three of whom were horribly drunk, and had acted disgustingly. Mr Henderson had had to sleep with a man who had been arrested in the afternoon, and thoy had ouly one blanket to cover thorn, while another prisoner had to sleep next to an Austrian. Colonel ChafToy had f.t first refused to beiieve that the men had been so treated, but ho had 'since admitted 'that it was not •right, and should be remedied. After the resolution had been carried, the Revs. Dr. Erwin. John Paterson, C. Murray, and F. Rule, and Mr John Tulloch were appointed a committee to draw up tho letter of protest.