COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXI, Issue 87, 13 April 1911, Page 7

COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — I, and I am sure many others, liave read with appreciation "Anti1 Conscript's" letter ot protest, published in your columns on Saturday last, ft is only now that the public seems to be awakening to the fact that in the new Defence Act there has been placed upon the statute book a most iniquitous piece of legislation. At the present time we hear a great deal said of British justice. Indeed, it has been the • boast of our nation for centuries past that every Briton is a free man. The system of conscription in force in Germany is looked down, upon with horror by every lover of British justice. But does the public at the present time realise that we are to have a similar system here shortly? Does the public realise what the Defence Act means? I think not. The great men of our nation have been those who showed tenacity of purpose, a spirit of independence, and who developed into manhood early in life. It is the M'ish of every parent to see his sons become men of this stamp. Now, a youth of to-day at about the age of 18 years has not been long away from school. He is beginning to know his powers, to feel that he is his own master, to be self-reliant, and is just developing into manhood. To place him under instructors who will bully him and order him about like a dog is to break that young fellow's spirit, or, at any rate, to bar his developing into perfect manhood. It will knock out of him every manly quality which he has acquired, and he will lose all the spirit of patriotism which ho might have tad. If every young fellow in this country is to be treated like this the race will deteriorate very soon indeed. There can be no doubt but that the nation as a whole is opposed to every man's being trained. If this were not so why would ©very man in our nation look down upon tire German system of conscription? There is another point which should be considered, and that is : If military training is necessary, why has it been enacted that only xliose who could not vote against it should be mado to undergo it? This is, indeed, a specimen of British justice! I am sure that if our young men between the ages of 18 and 21 (many of whom can give their seniors a few points in learning and common-sense) were represented in Parliament when the Defence Bill wasbrought up it would never have become law. The present Government's action in the matter has proved them to bo nothing more or less than a body of . legislators without principle, or, if they had any principle, then without the courage to enforce their convictions. They knew that if the public were consulted as to whether every person physically fit should be trained they would have had an emphatic answer in the negative. Why, then, did they see fit to place the burden of training upon those who -could not protest in Parliament? Have they not shown their accustomed cowardice and want cf backbone? As a proof of their fear that they might be rejected at the next election, I may point out the fact -that they backed down ignominiously in exempting from training those between the ages of 21 and 25 years. Now, as a lover of justice and a true supporter of the ancient rights of every British subject, I appeal to those whodesire to see justice done to chow their protest against this iniquitous Act of Parliament in the most emphatic manner. What is required is some systematic organisation, which I trust we will soon have. If we require an army, let those whose possessions are to be protected pay for its upkeep, as they pay now for other things whici. they want. I trust all fair-minded citizens will do their duty by protesting at the earliest possible opportunity against the enforcement of the Act. — I am, etc., A TP.UE BRITON. Wellington, 12th April, 1911.