The Debating Society

It was, to say the least, with some trepidation that the Society embarked upon what in retrospect may be described as a most successful term. For, at the start of the new school year, prospects indeed looked gloomy, and the scales seemed weighted against us. At the last meeting of the Society, in March, the attendance had sunk to a mere thirty; although, of this number, many were fine speakers, and the standard of debating was high. Now, many of this nucleus had left, and practically all of the more eloquent had resumed their seats for the last time, at any rate in our Society. So it will be agreed that our fears were justified, and we were not, therefore, anticipating a particularly good term, although if the proverb "silence is golden" were accepted, it promised to be a most prosperous one.

It is most gratifying, therefore, to be able to report that the Society is flourishing and enjoying a popularity, perhaps unique in its history. We have discovered many members from all sections of the School, who are willing to stand up and voice their own humble (and occasionally irrelevant) opinions, and if their philosophy is not as abstruse or their oratory as eloquent as some might hope, it does show that the Society is in a very healthy state and can look forward to a rosy future. In the coming term, it must be our policy to try to raise the standard of debating as high as it was last year, and even higher; and with the considerable talent at our disposal that lies dormant or barely roused in so many members, this objective does not seem wholly unattainable.

The Secretary has calculated, after much mathematical manipulation and many sleepless nights, that the average attendance this term has been about 125. One has not far to look for the reason for this phenomenal increase over last year's figure, and we realise that many flock to our meeting rather than attend the counter-attraction of another gathering, held simultaneously—preparation. We have no objection to harbouring these fugitives if they wish to shelter beneath the benign countenance of our Chairman rather than expose themselves to the harsh glare emanating from the duty monitor's steely eye—that is, so long as they sit quietly, and listen intelligently : we do not expect them to appear completely enraptured by the proceedings. The Committee, however, after considering the matter at great length, have decided to take an unprecedented step and limit our membership. Any member, however, who has attended our meetings with any sincerity will find no difficulty in obtaining membership—far be it from us to convert the Society into a "closed shop", and "open" meetings will be held at least once a term.

Let us pass now to our activities during the past term. For the opening debate it was felt that a popular topic was essential to induce as many as possible to attend. M. E. Kershaw therefore rose to

20

propose "That the present low standard of British sport is due to professionalism, and the fact that we are a nation of spectators". With E. Robinson seconding, the main points of the proposition were the great shortage of training facilities, the over-commercialisation of sport, and the general lack of participation by the public at large.

In reply, Mr. Wiseman, seconded by R. M. Hodgson, contended that professionalism had contributed a great deal towards the improvement of athletic standards, and they questioned whether our standards were as low as had been made out. It was pointless to expect the general public to participate in sports when the great majority had little or nothing to contribute. They finally succeeded in having the motion rejected by 70 votes to 57.

The next meeting was in a more humorous vein, when Mr. Rhodes proposed "That Columbus went too far". In attempting to show that America's contribution to civilisation was purely materialistic, with little moral value, he mentioned and heartily condemned jazz, chewing-gum, the cinema, and tobacco—and he loathed the Yankee brag.

D. G. Hilton, opposing, took a less trivial view of the matter, and reviewed America's contribution to the world through the ages, from the beginning of her history when she had opened her gates to the persecuted of every nation, up to the present day, when she was our bulwark against the East, restoring us to our feet with Marshall Aid.

M. C. M. Lochore, seconding for the proposition, not to be outdone in the light-hearted vein, spoke of the American citizen's character, and concluded that he must be on the verge of insanity (we refer to the American, not Lochore).

W. B. Powell, speaking fourth, concentrated on hard facts and mentioned the numerous raw materials and products America exported to Great Britain. On being thrown open to the House the debate started in a lively mood, but degenerated into an inquiry on the merits of chewing-gum, and the motion was subsequently rejected by 95 votes to 29.

Our third meeting was held on 4th November, and, in anticipation of the morrow, J. H. Chilman asked us to re-assert "That this House is proud of its association with Guy Fawkes". In an eloquent speech he traced the history of the Gunpowder Plot, and of Fawkes himself, and on religious grounds justified Fawkes' actions. The case, he said, was analogous to that of Cardinal Mindzenty; both were brave men, willing to die for high ideals.

Opposing, Mr. Cummin claimed Fawkes was a scoundrel, guilty of high treason, and suitably punished. He, too, drew an analogy between Fawkes and, not 'Mindzenty, but a Communist agitator; both were extremists and blind fanatics.

A. W. Driver, seconding the proposition, regretted the failure of the plot, entertaining the not unimaginative hope that a change in gavernment then might have led to a change today.

A. P. Buttrum, for the opposition, thought that this was clearly a case of much ado about nothing. An insignificant historical event had been seized upon merely as an excuse for a pyrotechnical display. The ensuing discussion became a trifle irrelevant, and the exorbitant price of fireworks became the subject of many lengthy discourses. The motion was ultimately rejected by 72 votes to 52.

At our next meeting, M. E. Kershaw, seconded by H. P. G. Shaw, proposed "That the present system of education fits a man neither for his work nor for his leisure". Their main attack was to criticize the system as catering only for the average boy, and as attempting to level all out to that standard. They were also dissatisfied with the University entrance system, and with the general lack of sports facilities at State schools.

In reply, the opposition, led by Mr. Craven and seconded by C. D. King, showed how, under the present system, technical education had spread, and more adult educational institutes had been provided. They denied that the brighter boy was held back, and claimed that specialisation at too early an age was now prevented; indeed, our system was the envy of every nation. After being thrown open to the House, the motion was, for the first time this term, carried, the voting being 69 for, 57 against.

Finally, the last meeting of the term was held in the form of a Trial as held at an Assize Court. M. J. F. Everitt was charged ". . . that he did feloniously misappropriate from a shelf in the Manor House, two silver cups. . ." and a large pile of circumstantial evidence seemed to indicate his guilt. 'M. B. Markus, Counsel for the Prosecution, and R. J. Kelsey, Counsel for the Defence, crossexamined their many witnesses with a thoroughness and a lack of restraint that would have been the envy of any King's Counsel, and E. Robinson presided over the somewhat lively proceedings with a truly judicial air. Other reputations may have been damaged, but that of the prisoner was wholly untarnished, and Everitt was gloriously vindicated—although as he left the courtroom, his halo seemed perhaps to have slipped a little.

So much for last term : as we stand on the threshold of the next. let us resolve that it shall be equally successful. And let us solemnly swear the Burgessian oath—We shall open our mouths wide : very wide and very often.

D.G.H.