The Debating Society

President : THE HEADMASTER. Chairman : L. BURGESS, Esq. Committee : F. F. STEELE, G. LONG, A. A. SHORT, R. R. L. PRYER.

This term the society has continued a flourishing existence, in spite of losing a very able chairman in Mr. Le Tocq. Mr. Burgess has filled the breach, and we have to thank him for the large amount of work and thought he has given to the society, and for the excellent results obtained.

Under pressure of other events, only three meetings were held this term, but these were well attended, and some very good speeches were delive red.

The first meeting of the term was held on Saturday, 1st February.

Before the debate began, Mr. Burgess made a short speech on his succession as chairman to Mr. Le Tocq, in which he announced some changes in procedure,

Following this, G. Long proposed the motion, " That the society wishes to record its gratitude to Mr. be Tocq for his services as chairman, and its appreciation of his success in reviving the Debating Society and promoting it to its present flourishing condition." The proposition was carried nem. con., and duly recorded in the minutes.

The House then proceeded to public business.

The motion before the House was : " That this House would welcome a return from petrol to oats."

In proposing the motion, R. S. F. Webber looked at the horse more from the romantic and pleasurable point of view than from the practical aspect. He compared fox-hunting to high-speed motoring, and ended up by discussing the state of the world to-day if there was no petrol, saying that there would be no air forces or tanks, and wars would therefore be far less horrible.

R. R. L. Pryer then rose to oppose the motion. He enumerated the advantages of petrol and the internal combustion engine, and then pointed out that the present day world could not exist without petrol, food transport and communication services having reached such a high state of development that any breakdown, or even a drastic slowing down, would produce chaos.

J. A. Denison, speaking third, made a very amusing, if rather irrelevant speech, saying he had been reading up 20

accounts of stage coach days, and had found that travellers, on arriving at an inn for the night, were greeted by a hearty kiss from the chambermaid. This seemed a very important point to the House. He then proceeded to glorify stagecoaching days, which he succeeded in doing very well.

Speaking fourth, R. E. Dodd pointed out that petrol had merely increased the mobility of modern warfare, and not the number of casualties, quoting those in the Battle of Flanders as an example. He said that the most destructive weapons were high explosive and the machine-gun, and thus petrol could not be responsible for the present state of the world.

The debate was then thrown open to the House, and several speeches were forthcoming.

In summing up, Webber pointed out that both the Greek and Roman civilisations had existed without petrol and without a knowledge of electricity, and therefore, with our knowledge of electricity why could we not abolish petrol and live in a cleaner and better world ?

A vote was taken and the motion was carried by 14 votes to 11.

The next meeting was held on Saturday, 15th February.

The motion before the House was that " Publicity is the curse of the modern world."

In proposing the motion, G. Long traced back the history of publicity, illustrating his arguments largely from the " puff " technique, as shown in Sheridan's play " The Critic." He then dealt with various forms of publicity, as adopted by various film stars and actors. In his opinion, publicity had become a Dictator, misrepresenting things that were unnecessary as necessary in everyday life, and he also criticised the way literary and film critics misrepresented bad books and films as being good purely to induce people to buy them.

In opposition, D. G. Middleton made a very amusing speech, showing how much we depend on publicity for a knowledge of present day articles, such as razor-blades, soap, and other household commodities. Included in his speech were several pointed remarks to the proposers of the motion which invoked much laughter from the House.

M. M. Barker, ostensibly rising to speak for the motion, made a highly unintelligible speech, interspersed with frequent and highly irregular exhortations to the opposition to stop laughing at him, and then sat down, nobody having any idea what he had been talking about. 21

D. Taylor, speaking fourth, started off in a whisper but increased in volume throughout until he gave an excellent imitation of the oratory of Mussolini. He mainly added to Middleton's list of commodities which we knew about because of publicity, and quoted several examples of the better kind of publicity.

The debate was then opened to the House.

T. M. S. Scott caused much amusement in the course of what he called " applying common sense " to the subject.

F. F. Steele gave examples of the right and the wrong sorts of publicity, arguing that publicity of the right kind, well used, could be a blessing to the modern world.

Various other people spoke on or off the subject, though few of their speeches reached any very definite conclusions.

In his summing-up Long reiterated points already made, and on a vote being taken the motion was defeated by 18 votes to 2.

The last meeting of term was held before a crowded House on Saturday, 15th March, when we were honoured by the presence of the Headmaster, who presided.

The motion before the House was " That this House believes that Federal Union offers the best possible chance of peace with justice after the war."

Dr. B. G. Whitmore proposed the motion and made a clear and forceful speech.

He pointed out that continued wars would destroy civilisation and that through this war we must win a lasting peace, which would give freedom for the individual, justice and tolerance.

There seemed three possible ways of endeavouring to secure peace, he stated :- (1) By the domination of a single country. (2) By the control of a body such as the League of Nations. (3) By a Union on the Federal principle.

The first must be rejected ; • the second had been tried and had failed. Therefore we should adopt the third. He then outlined the proposed Union, which was to be an association of the western European countries, with federal assemblies, much on the lines of the U.S.A., and based on the democratic principle. The proposal postulated the substitution of a Federal force for national armies, etc., and war between members of the Federation would be automatically 22

ruled out. Such a union would bring with it economic and other advantages to the constituent States, and many causes of friction between the nations would be removed.

Mr. L. Burgess then rose to oppose the motion and in doing so delivered one of the best pieces of oratory the House has heard. In condemning the proposal he insisted that it was vain to design a very desirable residence (as the Proposer undoubtedly had) if the only available site were a fever-stricken swamp. He dwelt at some length on the past record of Germany because more than one-third of the population of the proposed Union would be Germans. It was admitted that Democracy was the first essential of the scheme. The Germans had yet to prove that they could be democratic. The Union called for co-operation. What evidence was there that the Germans could co-operate ? Further, the association of Britain with a European Federation would probably mean the disruption of the British Commonwealth (most certainly the weakening of its cohesion) and we should sacrifice the substance of security for its shadow. " Idealism in a hurry " had brought us once to the brink of destruction. It must not be allowed to do so again.

Speaking third, J. A. Denison condemned the opposer's speech as unduly pessimistic, and then proceeded to give an excellent account of the rise of the human race. He said we had passed the stage of countries combining for purely defensive reasons by pacts, etc., and mankind had reached a point of development where a fuller co-operation could begin to exist. Federal Union had become a practical possibility.

G. Long spoke fourth. He said that there could not be peace and goodwill by artificial contrivance. Man, he said, was not naturally peace-loving. Nations could not be moulded into shape, as the results of trying Esperanto as an international language had showed. The coming of lasting peace was a natural development and could not be accelerated or forced and thus Federal Union, which at this point would be a forcing process, was of no avail.

The debate was then thrown open to the House.

R. R. L. Pryer made several points against Federal Union. He said that Germany would have to be forced into union with somebody, thus arousing natural resentment in herself, giving a basis for war inside the Federation. Also, he could not see nations with entirely separate ideals, such as Britain and Russia had, federating themselves. Federations between powers of similar ideals would eventually resolve into wars between federations. 23