Free Discussions Club.

"Truth—That Elusive Lady."

The efforts of the Club to nail down Truth, or at least to get some glimpse of her, have been pursued with more than customary vigour and enthusiasm since our last Spike report, and members have done their best either to support, or to tear to pieces, many interesting subjects.

On 10th June, Mr. F. Miles, M.A., opened the evening with a paper on the Place of Patriotism in the Modern World State. The world, said the speaker, was not economically equal to the task of producing enough wealth and food which might enable all men to live on equal terms with one another. The reason for tins was that the interests of the working classes in different countries, instead of being similar, and thus allowing all to strive for the common good, were radically different and often in actual conflict. In one way, however, this state of affairs might be considered desirable in that it could be argued that unity in variety was better than unity in uniformity. It was apparent, continued Mr. Miles, that true patriotism should aim at bringing about the state of affairs where each country makes a contribution to civilization, most educated people in modern times have become so nauseated by glib talk of the Bottomley sort that they snub the claims of patriotism altogether. This is really illogical, for the right teaching of a country's greatness is the best antidote to national system. Moreover, nobody should be in the service of the State unless he is prepared to support the State with this exception, that if the individual conscientiously believes a certain course of action to be correct, and can will it to become a universal law, then that individual has the right to defy the State. Finally, in times of special emergency, the State has the right to enforce its unity by whatever means its executive officers consider to be necessary. The fraternal unity so evident in England during the Great War, and especially in the army and navy, showed the possibilities of the heights to which patriotism, once aroused, might rise. Desultory discussion followed on various points raised by the speaker; the meeting closed with a vote of thanks to Mr. Miles for his penetrating and interesting address.

On July 1st we had the pleasure of listening to Miss Ogilvie, B.A., on some of China's Present Problems. Miss Ogilvie, herself a missionary in China, put before us a lucid and extremely sane and balanced analysis of the situation in China. In that country, apparently, there are two chief problems: the first is internal, and is due to the lack of communication between the various provinces, to the language difficulty, to the difficulty of exercising political control over such a large population, to the almost impossible task of providing any sort of education for the masses, and finally, to the incessant civil war, and to the ravages of the industrial revolution. The second problem is external, and is largely the result of the unequal treaties which the western nations have forced upon the Chinese for the purpose of exploiting the country; especially also the opium treaties, tariff autonomy and foreign concessions for British, American and Japanese financiers rankle in the minds of every true Chinese patriot. The speaker also touched briefly on the riots in Shanghai, and the awakening of the student class; on the anti-Christian agitation, directed against the missionaries, who are supposed to be agents for foreign exploitation; and on the so-called Bolshevik influences which are considered to be turning Chinese thought away from Western ideals. Miss Ogilvie showed that this latter was really a bogey raised by interested parties as a cover to the real causes of discontent. Summed up in a few words, what China wants is tariff autonomy, extra-territoriality, leaders, and money. Given these, she would be in a position to take her place among the leading nations of the world.

The speaker was kept bard at it answering the host of questions, which soon suggested themselves, and the meeting closed with a hearty vote of thanks for the trouble Miss Ogilvie had incurred in addressing the Club.

Mr. Brailsford, B.A., a journalist recently returned to New Zealand after some years residence in Japan, opened the discussion on July 8th with a talk on Japanese Contrasts. Mr. Brailsford briefly traced the history of Japan, contrasting the ultra conservatism of the earlier period with the spirit of progress so evident in the last fifty years; that is, from the opening page 52 up of Japan to Western influences. He mentioned also how strong were the bonds which bound families together, the paternal bond being specially evident in the relations of employer to worker. The Government, though nominally parliamentary, was not parliamentary in our sense, since Ministers were not responsible to the people's representatives, but to the Emperor himself. Difficulty was experienced too in the government of the country owing to the isolation of the Islands which are included within Japanese sphere of influence. The treatment of Korea, of China, and also of foreigners by Japan was also touched upon. Then Mr. Brailsford considered the people themselves, and we had interesting sketches of the young lady, the student, the matron and so forth. We learnt of a new religious teacher who was rapidly gaining a following by the holiness of his life and work. Finally, militarism was painted out in lurid colours, and it was made evident that the military spirit which has a hold upon the Japanese owing to its being founded on the feeling of self-sacrifice so characteristic of young Japan, was leading the country straight to destruction. Mr. Brailsford professed to see no ray of hope for Japan while militarists controlled the destiny of the country. Discussion was turned into a process of asking numerous questions, which the speaker answered to the best of his ability. A vote of thanks for an interesting and instructive address closed the meeting.

A week later the Rev. Father Gilbert, S.J., honoured the Club by speaking upon The Roman Index and Freedom of Thought. Previous to tackling his subject Father Gilbert laid down several immutable principles, the one eternal nature of Youth, etc., i.e., the infallibility of the Church, on which he wished to base his discussion of the subject. From thence the point was made that the Index was a law, and the Church, being a divine institution with a mission from Christ, was honour bound to enforce that law. The Rev. Father professed to show that non-Christions live under a heavier censorship, i.e., that of the State, than do Catholic Christians; ignoring the fact that Catholics, living within the State, have imposed upon them a double censorship. A few remarks were made about the condition of the history section of V.U.C. Library; it was unfavourably compared with the Library at St. Patrick's College. The principle of the Index was apparently this:—If a work is subversive to the truth of the Church, as she sees it, the Church would be unfaithful to her mission and her flock, to allow revealed truths to be flouted, her children corrupted, and led away into darkness. Therefore, she is in honour bound to guard the morals of her children who put absolute faith in her wisdom, to decide all manner of questions which might perplex their security and fill them with honest doubt. Father Gilbert then gave a short account of the method of procedure whereby a book is placed on the Index. Finally, the impartiality of the Hibbert Journal was impugned, modern philosophers, such as Bosanquet, Bradley, Dewey, etc.. were, in the Rev. Father's opinion, not in the same rank as the scholastic philosophers, and the Dublin Review was instanced as the best all-round literary journal of the day. Discussion was not as bright and forward as might be desired, members being more or less overwhelmed by Father Gilbert's arguments. Mr. J. C. Beaglehole endeavoured to clear V.U.C. Library of its slur. Mr. Steele mentioned having looked into Cardinal Mercier's dusty volumes, but he could not understand the Catholic attitude towards the infallibility of the Church. Mr. Miles said a few words about the necessity of some kind of censorship, at least in the modern state. Mr. Wilson waxed eloquent about the evils of censorship. Between them, Father Gilbert and Mr. P. J. Smith endeavoured to clear up misunderstandings and possible misapprehensions. Whether they were successful or not, only those present could tell. As usual, Mr. Campbell had a few pointed remarks to make regarding, in this instance, the weight of the censorship. If we remember rightly he also quoted J. S. Mill with no apparent effect. A vote of thanks closed the proceedings.

July 20th was the date of a unique event in the history of the Club; for it was on this evening that a determined attack was made on Freedom of Speech within the Club. Mr. McWilliams wrote a long letter, touched with attempts at humour, to the Committee. (1) Charging the "Spike" reports with deliberate misrepresentation, unfairness and incorrectness; (2) Calling upon Mr. James, Mr. Heyting, Mr. Rollings, and Professor Hunter to answer, and if possible, to prove, certain statements made by them at a meeting earlier in the year. To page 53 allow the gentlemen concerned to answer these charges the meeting was convened. Mr. E. Beaglehole, one of the culprits in the "Spike" reports, considered there was nothing for which he could apologise. Mr. Steele, the other criminal, resented hotly any implication of deliberate misrepresentation; while apologising for any annoyance he might have unintentionally caused, he still considered the reports substantially correct. Professor Hunter had to prove that the statement made by him about a certain synod of Catholic bishops, which said that "Women have no gouls," was literally correct. In reply, Professor Hunter admitted that the statement was not the official declaration of the synod itself; he proved, however, that all reliable authorities, i.e..authorities from Mr. Mc Williams' point of view, Considered to be biassed and of no account, attributed the statement to a certain individual bishop who was present, but who was not speaking officially. Furthermore, the Professor quoted with good effect from Lecky and Draper, to show what was the general contempt in which women were held at the time. Mr. Rollings, by quoting at length from several reputable histories, proved conclusively, to our way of thinking, that John Wycliffe was burnt and his ashes dug up and cast to the winds by orders of the Catholic Church for the heinous crime of translating the Bible into English. Mr. James repeated his statement of a case where a Catholic priest had broken up a home in which the father was a Protestant and the mother Catholic, by informing the mother that her children were not legitimate in the eyes of the Church. This he proved by the production of written statements from an impartial person who knew the case, to the effect that the facts were as stated. Finally a letter was received from Mr. Heyting which practically stated that the writer was too busy to be troubled with Mr. McWilliams' trivialities. After the principal's statements, discussion was general. Mr. J. C. Beaglehole read Mr. McWilliams a homily on Historical Method. Mr. Davidson made a few pertinent remarks about Wycliffe. Mr. Pitkowski considered, for no understandable reason that the "Spike" reports were unfair. Mr. Cook's remarks wore to the same effect. Mr. McWilliams' trivialities. After the principals' statements, discussion interest of Truth, with a capital T. He also stated that none of the speakers had proved his case, apparently because the evidence was, according to Mr. McWilliams, either biased or unreliable. Incidentally, Mr. McWilliams produced no evidence for many of his astounding statements, save once when he quoted from a work by a certain unknown gentleman, by name Father Hill. As the hour was now late, and as interjections were becoming more and more frequent the Chairman declared what proved to be a memorable and educative meeting, officially closed.

The last meeting of the second term was held on August 13th, when Mr. F. J. Dyer addressed the Club on the Principles of Communism. Mr. Dyer launched a vigorous attack upon the present capitalist organisation of society. Class monopoly of the means of production, education, civics, professional classes, industrial competition, distribution of wealth, trusts, kartels, both national and international, banking concerns—all came under the vigorous lash of the Communist whip. We were so overwhelmed with figures and with authorities, proving that and proving this, that at last those of us who were not well up in economic theory were beginning to feel slightly dazed and bewildered. However, we brightened up when Mr Dyer painted in lurid colours the down-trodden condition of the workers and the simple inevitableness of a bloody revolution in which the capitalists would be trampled under foot by the victorious workers, and on a foundation of mangled capitalists would rise the splendid edifice of the Communist State: quite inevitable all this, if one could only believe revolution was an economic necessity, and had nothing whatever to do with moral considerations. In the following discussion, Mr. de Montalk proved an illogical upholder of the present economic state, including the League of Nations, the British Empire and trusts: his statements, however, seemed to impress nobody. Mr. Wilson expressed his faith in Communism, and looked towards the ultimate triumph of the Cause. Mr. Steele wished to know more of the Marxian interpretation of history; Mr. Dyer's exposition of Marx evidently being not enough to satisfy Mr. Steele. Mr. E. Beaglehole stressed the futility of looking towards revolution and class conflict to usher in the new world. Education, though a slow process, would seem to be the hope of the page 54 world. Mr. Cook quoted copiously from some favourite author in a strain derogatory to Communism, until the Chairman ruled that long quotations were not in order. Mr. R. Smith attacked Communism from the view-point of academic economics and showed to his own satisfaction, if not to Mr. Dyer's the impracticability of Communism. He mentioned also the lack of any constructive Communistic programme. Finally, Dr. Sutherland pointed out that although according to Marx, Communistic principles were due to take root in the most highly industrialized countries of the world, i.e., America, nevertheless they had started in Russia, which was hardly developed industrially at all in comparison with America. Mr. Dyer's reply was a good example of the attempt to pass a camel through the eye of a needle. We are still unable to grasp the why and wherefore of his statement that Russia relatively, was the most highly industrialized country in the world before the debacle of the Great War. Probably we are dull-witted. We are indebted, however, to Mr. Dyer for his trenchant criticism of modern society, even if we do not agree with him that the future lies along the red road of revolution. A hearty vote of thanks to the speaker closed the meeting.