METHODISTS ON DEFENCE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8355, 15 February 1913, Page 4

METHODISTS ON DEFENCE

The New Zealand Methodist Conference had before it for discussion last Thursday a most important motion in regard to defence. The resolution which the Her. D. McNicholl asked the Conference to adopt consisted of two sentences —the first approving the principle of international arbitration in preference to war; the second emphatically protesting against compulsory military training as being ‘-not only a serious reflection on the patriotism of the people of the Dominion and fraught with great moral perils to our youth, but also entirely out of harmony with Christian teaching and the traditions of British freedom.” The Conference treated this proposal very wisely, it separated the issues, adopted the first portion of the resolution unanimously, and rejected the second by 79 votes to 55. We do not know whether the squatters’ organ will claim this division as expressing the views of 79 “Reformers” as against 50 “Liberals ot Progressives, or Socialists, or what not.” Nor do we care m the slightest. Examination of the report of the debate, however, gives that discomfited journal no’ support in its atrocious attempt to claim for tts political party a monopoly ol patriotism as well as a “corner” in purity. The speakers in defence ot compulsory training included one or two gentlemen well known in public affairs who would certainly not care to be seen in political association with self-styled “Reform.” But lot that pass. Let us leave the squatters’ organ and return to the more agreeable company of the Methodists. j I ere we have a gathering ol delegates representing a large constituency, comprising one of the most peace-loving and non-militant sections of the community, backing up the defence system by a substantial majority. This decision is both significant and welcome. We have been convinced throughout that the great majority of New Zealand people cordially approve the determination of Parliament, expressed in statute form at the instance of Sir Joseph Ward’s Government, that the manhood of tho country should prepare for eventualities. That is really the essence and spirit of the Act, notwithstanding the Hon. James Allen’s recent tactless incursion into tile regions of jingoism. We are merely establishing a system which shall drill, train, qualify, and equip tho male portion of the population to resist possible invasion of our shores by a foreign foe. Mr McNicholl’s belief that compulsory training “is an insult to tlio nation” seems rather out of place alongside his emphatic assertion of tho intense patriotism of New Zealanders. Tho best and wisest patriotism lies not alone in willingness to fight for one’s country, but also in readiness to prepare for such an emergency. Mr McNicholl himself said — and lie is to bo commended for it — that ho did hot object to fighting or defending the country. What he did object to was being forced to fight at tlie point of tho bayonet. To this wo would respectfully suggest that it, unhappily, there should be occasion for our men to go to battle in these islands, the real compelling force will be the bayonet of the enemy. The issue will certainly depend on patriotism, but common sense imperatively demands that that essential and magnificent quality must be allied with efficiency. That, in our view, is really the crux of the situation. With the first portion of Mr McNicholl’s resolution we have complete sympathy. Every effort that is made to induce nations to arbitrate by discussion instead of by the sword must have the goodwill of* reasonable people. But until that happy state of affairs shall have been reached individual nations valuing security as well as peace, or hoping for either, must bo ready for possibilities. This is a phase of tho question which evidently impressed tho Methodist Conference. The delegates are to bo Complimented alike upon the tone of tho debate and the nature of their decisions.