page 31

General Impressions of The First Debate.

To state that "comparisons are odious" is to begin with a hackneyed phrase which will probably deter most people from reading further, but to give a true impression of the debate, comparisons must be drawn. That the Wellington representatives did not appear to advantage was clearly noted by all. . Earnest, well-informed on their subject as they were, their laborious, involved, and not always grammatical speeches compared most unfavourably with those of their opponents. Each Wellington speaker over-pitched his voice, which was surely inexcusable considering the experience each had had. To those sitting in the front seats the effect was decidedly unpleasant, and also militated against the bringing home of a good point by the speaker.

Lest this criticism appear "Spikeful" and unnecessarily condemnatory, it must be said for our speakers that they were decidedly at a disadvantage in that they had not had the opportunity of dwelling among surroundings so steeped in tradition as those of Oxford. The characteristics of the manhood of England and New Zealand, or, one might say, the difference between the antiquity of England and the potential "youngness" of New Zealand, was very clearly demonstrated Those who attend seats of learning in the Old Country must, without exception, become, to some extent at least, imbued with or aware of, the culture, the traditions, the mellowness of the atmosphere. If they be persons of intelligence and ambition the influence of this atmosphere becomes apparent in whatever branch of work they take up. This was evidently the case with the three representatives of the Oxford Union. On the other hand, in a young country such as this, and particularly in Wellington, which is in no sense a University town, the atmosphere is lacking, and what there is is of a vigorous democratic nature, with the idealism gradually working to the front. These qualities were all exemplified by Messrs. Campbell, Martin-Smith and Davidson, and we may well be proud of them. They should learn many lessons from the debates with the Oxford representatives, which will, no doubt, be of great benefit to them.

To turn particularly to the visitors, in whom naturally most interest was taken: each seemed fully in harmony with the other. They capped each other's allusions with surprising capability, and Mr. Hollis in particular had the gift of applying topical references to his subject without appearing in any way irrelevant. His was a peculiarly fascinating personality, which was enhanced rather than detracted from by his extraordinary restlessness while delivering his speech.

Mr. Woodruff, dead of eye and with lisping speech, and a most annihilating sarcasm, albeit amicable, was not the least interesting of the trio. His facility of speech and freedom from use of notes proclaimed a brain of unusual ability, and his speech was certainly the most entertaining of the evening—abounding in witticisms which caused the audience to roar with laughter, but on not more than two occasions caused the speaker to smile!

Mr. Malcolm MacDonald was welcomed with interest, possibly due to his relationship with Britain's late Prime Minister. By far the most "knutty" of the Oxford three, his delivery took the form of a short staccato "bark," which he emphasised by page 32 jerky movements of the body. His accent, a combination of "Scotch and Oxford," was at times quite diverting, and for the moment puzzling! He was well versed in his subject, but was inclined to shout, and the full value of some of his points was lost in this way.

To discuss our own men is needless. We know them all— their virtues and their shortcomings—and but one point more is worthy of mention, the lack of the Socialistic element. No exception could be taken to Karl Marxian theories, for none was expressed, whether intentionally or otherwise. There was a complete absence of the "red" element, for which "the Lord be thankit!"

X.Y.Z.