The Debating Society

If last term's notes ended on a note of resolution, this time we open on one of satisfaction, a satisfaction not of the smug, contented variety, but rather that of the inexperienced mountaineer, who, having narrowly surveyed the lofty peaks towering above, has tackled the first slopes with some success, and is at last within striking distance of the formerly unattainable summit That the satisfaction is of partial and not complete success, is merely indicative of the high standard we have set ourselves.

The last six months have seen far-reaching changes in the Society, both of policy and of character. Instead of having a skeleton of the intellectuals remaining from last year sparsely sprinkled around the Hall like a mass meeting of the Liberal Party, we had a minor invasion with which to cope. This major influence led, however, to a serious decline in the standard of debating. The walls of Big Hall ceased to resound with the sustained wit and elegant humour of our classically-minded predecessors; instead, the decaying stones either trembled before the acclamation of a rather dubious anecdote, or were subjected to such a torrent of political abuse, that they echoed with the misdeeds of a Socialist government.

The situation called for decisive action, and the constitution of the Society was amended by the Committee, who decided to limit the membership to eighty. The notices for application were hardly posted before they were covered with no fewer than one hundred and fifty signatures. All those who had spoken at previous meetings were immediately admitted, and also all those above the fifth forms; there then remained but twenty places to fill. The selection of these was carried out quite impersonnally by the Committee, wh3 endeavoured to choose those whom they considered potential debaters. Seventy boys had to be rejected, but they will all have their chance another year, and whether they accept it or not will prove the extent and endurance of their enthusiasm. To the Secretary has fallen the lot of consoling seventy outraged souls, who have threatened him with most of the better-known fates; some have even suggested where he may spend his after-life, while others have contented themselves with a defiant resolution to draw all our members to a rival society. The seventy have not been neglected however, since they, and any others so desiring, may attend, normally, two out of our five meetings each term. On these 'open' occasions they will have the opportunity of delivering a speech, at the same time bringing themselves to the notice of the Committee, thereby ensuring membership in the future.

Let us now turn to our actual activities of last term. The first meeting was an open debate, when E. Robinson rose in optimistic mood to propose "that this House considers 1951 to be a year of good prospects". He attempted to predict our future, using the affairs of today as a basis, and he dwelt principally upon the prospects of major

25

hostilities in the coming year, assuring the House that a declaration of war from Russia was most unlikely.

Mr. J. F. Lavender, emerged from the murky depths of gloom on the other side of the House to predict a grim future for the British taxpayer. He asked not to be waved aside as a mere pessimist, declaring that he was a realist, forced to face a host of very disagreeable facts. War he agreed was the major issue, but he could not share the Proposer's hopes of universal peace.

R. D. Wheatley, seconding for the Proposition, discussed the future benefits of our welfare state, and looked forward to a year of prosperity. He preferred the idea of an open war rather than the present unnerving cold war. Speaking fourth, D. A. Haxby argued that the immense cost of rearmament, coupled with rising prices could lead only to inflation, with its accompanying social crises.

The motion was subsequently rejected by 64 to 59.

The next meeting was the first held 'for members only', and there were two short debates. For the first, R. J. Kelsey proposed "That this House would support the Scottish Nationalist movement". He outlined the aims of the movement, and claimed that Scotland received an unfair proportion of the national expenditure. M. C. M. Lochore denied the latter, and thought that the Scots were as well off as we were. This was certainly no time to threaten our national unity. The unity of the House was threatened however, and it divided in favour of the Opposition-35 votes to 16.

J. M. Booth then proposed "That this House would welcome the advent of interplanetary travel". With a vagueness, born of supreme confidence, he inferred that the planets would be utilised for housing surplus population and for growing food supplies, which would be transported to the earth.

In reply, Mr. E. S. Jeffs, with characteristic scientific method, dealt with each planet individually, and showed how small were the possibilities of exploitation. He produced that rather interesting fact that Mr. Fred Hoyle, the well-known mathematician, had proved that a rocket in its translation from one planet to another was about certain to collide with an astraloid.

The House did not appear unduly alarmed 'by this statement however, and carried the motion by 28 votes to 23.

Our third meeting consisted again of two short debates, and Mr. D. K. Crews opened by moving "That this House considers that `Discipline is the means whereby you are trained in orderliness, good conduct, and the habit of getting the best out of yourself' ". This is of course the opening sentence of the "discipline card", with which it was suspected that the proposer was not unconnected. Mr. Crews claimed it was just too obvious for words, while Mr. R. Calder, opposing, made out a very good case for rejecting the statement about `getting the best out of yourself.

The House, immediately suspicious of anything connected with the discipline card, could throw little light on the subject, and rejected the motion by 38 votes to 20.

D. G. Hilton then rose to suggest "That this House would look before it leapt". He stressed the disasters that befell a failure to look ahead into the future, illustrating the point on both a small and a large scale. One of the most important cases was that of Road Safety. j. B. Weightman, for the Opposition, said that a full life should be an adventurous one. Progress was never made by over-caution, and one should have the confidence to take one's hurdles as they came.

On the motion being put to the vote, 45 voted for and 11 against.

There were again two short debates at our next meeting, both of which went so well that they could have been full debates. R. D. Wheatley first proposed "That this House approves the Government decision to conscript farm labour for National Service". He began by showing how small the percentage of farm workers affected was, and added that with increased mechanisation, it would be just as easy for the farmworker to serve his two years, as for anyone else.

A. Cawood, for the sons of the land, spent most of his speech slinging mud at the Government. He had, however, a small united front in the House, and Messrs. Markus, Kelsey, Burdass, and Powell produced a battery of arguments. There was no more P.O.W. labour; the W.L.A. had been disbanded; the services could not properly employ farmers; and anyway, conscription was just a waste of time. They carried the motion by 21 votes to 14.

E. Robinson then asked us to support the motion "That this House is tired of politics and politicians". At every debate for years, he had heard politics introduced, and he was frankly fed up with the whole business. There was too much Party idealism and not enough expression of individual views in politics today.

Mr. L. C. Le Tocq ingeniously swung practically the whole House to the other side, by making the somewhat subtle distinction between `being tired of and 'disliking'. He set the House a little test (where for once, he was only too anxious to give marks away), by which he made it clear that though many may dislike politics, nearly all were interested in them. The motion was rejected by 31 votes to 4..

Our last meeting was an open one, and the standard was noticeably lower. Proposing "That this House prefers the cinema to the living theatre". Mr. F. j. Wiseman, seconded by P. Taylor, brought forward all the technical superiorities which were used in film-making. The quality of performance was as good in York as in London, unlike the theatre; films could show movement and travel much more adequately; and the cinema catered for a much larger audience.

For the Opposition, Mr. D. E. Ray, seconded by F. B. Hudson, claimed that the theatre stimulated much more intelligent thought than did the cinema, and its very limitations improved the skill of the stage technicians.