Attendances at recent V.U.C. debates indicate that the College is at last beginning to take a healthy interest in the extra-mural world. At each debate this year an extension of time has been granted because of the large number of speakers from the floor and on each occasion progressive ideas have carried the vote.

On Friday night the motion "That compulsory military training should be introduced in New Zealand" was lost by an overwhelming majority. It was especially interesting to see the changed outlook of students towards war. Those who three years ago would have said "I refuse to go to war under any circumstances" are now revising their attitude. Given a social order we could honestly defend, we would defend it.

This was the principal argument used by the speakers opposing the motion Mr. W. Wah was [unclear: Chietty] concerned with Japan's menace to new Zealand a menace which Mr. Lewin effectively showed did not exist.

Our Fatal Clamate.

"The system of defence which has been sufficient in the past, that is, the volunteer system," said Mr. Wah "has served its purpose and is now of no further use, in face of the forces threatening New Zealand." He pointed out the suitability of our climate for Japanese immigration and said that conquering China would not solve Japan's problems. He instanced a number of other dangers arising from our inadequate defence system and perorated. When the time comes we do not what recruits, but soldiers. . . . We must arm ourselves so that we shall prove a discouragement, not a temptation, to ambitions neighbours."

"Our opposition to the motion is a double-barrelled on," said Mr. J. P. Lewin. "We oppose it, first on practical, and secondly on moral and philosophical grounds." He left the second barrel to Miss M. Short all.

The inadequacies of the present defence system were due to the inadequacies of our economic system. One could not expect a man to defend a thing he had no stake in. It was not by compulsory military training but by the organization of society, that we could best defend our country.

Deflection of Energy.

He then showed that New Zealand's problem would not be one of invasion. Japan with a full-sized war on her hands and a vigilant Russia nearby, was hamstrung for the next few years, so far as invading New Zewland was concerned. The nature of the war prospect we faced was not one that could be met by compulsory military training. Britain did not need our man-power, but our economic resources, and these could be defended best by our navy and air force for both of which there was actually an over-supply of [unclear: recruit] The suggestion of the affirmative [unclear: a] practiced would deflect our energies into less efficient methods.

"Wars are won by economic resources." Said Mr. Lewin. Economically the aggressor nations were badly situated. He touched on the Bristish Government's pro-Fascist leanings later elaborated by Mr. Scotney and said that once we could count on a sound foreign policy in Britain, we could soon call the bluff of the sabre-rattling nations. One of our best defences was Mr. Jordan at Geneva.

Reaction in the Ranks.

Mr. C. Myers, seconding the motion, said that the voluntary system attracted reactionaries and militarists, and was therefore a danger to democracy. A compulsory system would be an insurance against any attempt, as in Spain, by the reactionaries to usurp power.

"Under a compulsory system, the officers would be reactionaries," said Miss Shortall in answer to this. "There is nothing democratic about an army."

Speakers from the floor included Messrs. R. W. Edgley, McDonald, Braybrooke, Barnao, Ongley, Morrison, Meek and Scotney.

The Judge, Mr. A. B. Sievwright, placed Mr. Lewin first, Mr. Scotney second, and Mr. Wah third.

— H.W.G.