In our last report we made a plea for better attendances at debates. Whether as a result of this or not, considerably more interest has since been shown in the affairs of the Society, especially by a number of the women students. Unfortunately this enthusiasm has not yet driven them to mount the platform, but it cannot be doubted that their presence in the audience has largely accounted for the increased rhetorical ardour among the male contestants. Incidentally it has been whispered that the improvement in attendance—notably of the section already mentioned—has been in some part due to the Students' Association social teas. We repudiate such a suggestion.

Why do the women students not take more part in the debates themselves? The Society invitingly trailed its coat-tails early in the session, but with little effect. One of them has boldly asserted that they hold back to give the men a chance, and there may be more in this suggestion than meets the eye, especially when the positions they have at times gained on the judge's lists are noted. It might have the desired effect if the Society were able to offer a separate prize for the most successful woman debater. Here is a chance for some old friend of the Society.

At the first debate of his term Mr. J. Davidson moved, and Mr. W. A. Sheat seconded: "That the Russian Revolution being the opportunity for the free development of the true genius of Russia, intervention in Russian affairs is unjustifiable."Mr. Wiren and Mr. R. V. Kay opposed. The debate was remarkable for the ignorance—or shall we say uncertainty—concerning Russian affairs displayed by both sides, but that was not allowed to interfere with the argument. Numerous speakers followed, but neither side seemed able to convince the audience, which charitably allotted an equal number of votes to each side. The chairman was, by that time, too confused to give a casting vote. The judge, Mr. G. G. G. Watson, M.A., LL.B., placed the five best speakers as follows: Messrs. Martin-Smith, Sheat, Pope, Wiren, Davidson.

At the next meeting of the Society, the President, Mr. B. E. Murphy, M.A., LL.B., B.Com., gave an address on the subject of "The University and Contemporary Problems." The lecturer gave his audience a remarkably lucid exposition of the industrial and the international problems as they exist to-day. He deplored the fact that so large a proportion of mankind, on account of environment and heredity, accept their opinions ready-made, and tend to perpetuate the present evil state of affairs. The University should help to mould public opinion, and to amend it in the light of knowledge gained, otherwise it would not be fulfilling its functions in the State.

Mr. Murphy was accorded a hearty vote of thanks for his lecture, which was generally considered one of the most interesting and practical ever delivered to the Society.

The next debate was held on August 9th, when Mr. Miller, supported by Mr. Martin-Smith, moved: "That a lawyer is not justified in concealing the truth in the interests of a client." This was vigorously and effectively opposed by Messrs. Leicester and Ross. A record number of speakers took part; the budding lawyers being keen to defend their most sacred right. The motion was lost by 20 votes to 6. The Rev. S. Robertson-Orr, who judged the debate, gave the following award: Messrs. Leicester, Ross, Martin-Smith. McPhee, Pope.

The members of the Social Democratic Party invaded the College in considerable strength on August 16th to defend the motion: "That it is the people's duty to uphold the cause of the conscientious objector." This was proposed by Mr. T. Brindle and very ably seconded by Mrs. Beck. A good fight was put up by our representatives, Messrs. Evans and Leicester, and a splendid debate followed, in the course of which page 43 Mr. S. Mansfield made an exceptionally forcible speech. On being put to a vote the motion was lost by 38 votes to 30.

At the next debate Mr. Pope moved: "That the experience of four years of political truce demonstrates the advisability of an early return to party politics." He was supported by Mr. Davidson and opposed by Messrs. Sheat and Martin-Smith. The lack of interest evinced in this subject was, perhaps, due of the fact that Sir Joseph Ward had thoughtlessly forestalled our decision upon the subject by two days. A fair number of speakers, however, thought it their duty to air their views, and the judge, Mr. J. Caughley, M.A., considered that the following had shown least lack of merit:—Messrs. Pope, McPhee, Martin-Smith, Wiren, and Davidson. On a vote the motion was lost.

The final debate centred round the much vexed Liquor Question. The motion was: "That State Control offers no satisfactory solution of the Liquor Question." This was upheld by Messrs. Sheat and Miller, and opposed by Messrs. McPhee and Haigh. The same old arguments were trotted out on both sides, nothing very original resulting from the introduction of a new issue. Several speakers followed the openers, but probably did little to affect the opinion of the audience, which went by a substantial margin in favour of the motion. Mr. W. J. McEldowney, LL.B., who was the judge, placed Messrs. Wiren, Sheat, Davidson, Miller and Martin-Smith in the above order.

The winner of the Union Prize for the most successful debater of the year is Mr. C. Q. Pope, and we congratulate him on his uniform good debating. He is not exactly a fighting debater, preferring to present his own side of the case rather than to attack that of his opponent. He is always well supplied with matter—often too well supplied—and expresses himself in lucid and appropriate language. He rarely, however, gives his audience time to appreciate one point before he is on to the next.

The runner-up, Mr. P. Martin-Smith, was only one point behind the winner. He is a debater of a very different stamp. Possessed of a voice more suited to the open air than to a drawing-room, he sometimes forgets that he is speaking to a small audience in a small room. When well prepared, he makes a really good speech, and occasionally one is almost convinced that he believes what he is saying. When not well prepared, his frequent use of the "oratorical pause" gives undue scope to the rude interjector; as witness the scene at the last debate:

P.M.-S. (ff): "The great thing is to eliminate waste." (Pause.)

R.I. (p): "You've got a pretty fair one, Bobby."

Mr. J. A. Ross had the highest average number of points, but did not speak in sufficient debates to qualify for the Union Prize. He is a convincing speaker, ready in repartee, and able to attack his opponent's case as well as to present his own. With an improvement in platform style and the infusion of a little more vigour into his speech he should make a very able debater.

Mr. S. A. Wiren, as might be expected of a President of the Students' Association, takes too judicial a view of most subjects to be a very effective advocate of either side. Having a pleasing voice and a good platform style, he should with more decisiveness, make a good speaker.

Mr. McPhee is a humorist, and it is at times doubtful whether one is expected to believe him or not. His speech is generally a bright spot in a debate, and, like others, he has shown considerable improvement during the year.

Mr. J. Davidson is one of the most promising of the younger speakers. He takes debating very seriously, and speaks with conviction, but would hold his audience better if he were to introduce some lighter touches to his speeches.

Dear "Spike,"—If you are a philosopher, You are puzzled at the existence of such things as Debating Societies. If you are a psychologist you realise that "they may have their uses in teaching people to 'spout.'" Yet, if you are a member of one, you endeavour to account neither for one nor the other—you are far too much occupied in accounting for yourself. Until a man has taken his stand upon a Debating Club platform, he has not realised how few opinions he may possess on any" subject! More, he has not not realised how few of the opinions he does possess really count. And it is here that he encounters a real danger. If he be an orator like Burke, or a fine dramatic actor like Mr. Chamberlain; if he can "feel" himself into an argument with a fervour not to be surpassed by Parnell, there is a very grave danger that he may hold that opinion for the rest of his life. Of course, if the subject be an unim page 44 portant one (and fortunately very few of the bones of contention of the "talking clubs" ever are important) he is in no danger; for whatever bis opinion on Conscription, Free Trade, or Bible in State Schools may be, they are not likely to matter. These issues were decided long ago. It is only when such important things as free drinks and Sunday tennis arise, that he is likely to be influenced in the wrong way. For if a man commences life by opposing Beer or the Bible (two very noble things) he is highly likely to be found in the ranks of the Prohibitionists or those of the repentants. And when a man repents it only means that he is sorry he has been caught.

Yet, all things considered, the Debating Society is a flourishing one. One does not always find the young Demosthenes chewing the pebble beside one at lectures, nor if he did, would it be altogether conducive to the comfort of his comrades. The main trouble the budding Burkes must contend with is a lack of audiences. It gives one almost a Parliamentary sense to continually address empty benches. Of course, this the Students' Association tries to remedy by giving social teas before debates; but as most of the people who attend restrict their sociability to the tea itself, and determinedly disappear before the first plaintive "Mr. Speaker" shivers through the empty gymnasium, one can hardly call the well-intentioned effort of the Students' Association a success.

It almost makes one inclined to agree with the cynic who said that the chief characteristic of University people was their determination not to be educated. Beyond the merrymaking of some young men from Masterton, only too few of the serious spirits attend.

The second bad influence on the debates is indubitably the Union Prize. However much this prize may ensure the attendance of leading speakers, it has not led to the creation of an altogether good spirit. The Society needs members who love debating for its own sake, and not those who are eternally thinking of their average in the secretary's notebook, and that is to what the establishment of the Union Prize has tended. Again, the prize itself robs the Society of presumably its best speaker each year, as though the regulations permit the grant to be won twice, nobody ever attempts it. Consequently it is dubious whether the cohesion, which is presumably the object of the prize, has been secured. A third factor we would like to mention is that something should be done to secure equal distribution of seconding amongst all the members of the Society. It is really time the present haphazard methods were abandoned, and we are sure all members of the Society will agree with us when we say an amendment of the rules to deal with this factor will not come any too soon.

Women's Club

That the V.U.C. Women's Club, though young, is exceedingly popular, was fully demonstrated by the enthusiastic spirit evinced by the members who attended the Annual General Meeting held on August 5th. Its numbers are steadily increasing, but the Club would like to see a larger number yet of the former students among its members, it being one of the club's chief aims to strengthen the tie between old and present students.

A competition was held early in the term in which a prize was offered for the best suggestion as to the form of entertainment for our next evening. The prize-winners were Miss E. Wilson (spook's evening) and Mrs. Taylor (camouflage evening), while many of the other suggestions were decidedly interesting and original. The spooks' evening, on September 5th, was pronounced by all who attended an eminent success. Most of the students wore sheets, but a touch of variety was given by the presence of a well-bearded Charon and a glittering Mephistopheles. Tombstones were ranged round the walls, and at times the only light was that given by a candle in a skull, or by the electric torches of some of the "spooks." (Spookdom, evidently, has all up-to-date conveniences.)

Dancing was the main form of amusement, a competition, ghost-story, and songs being interspersed between dances. It speaks well for the nerves of the present generation of women that no one fainted, and that no one seems to be suffering from after-effects.