—May I make a final reply to Mr. Hall? He refers to my belated effort to refute him, but in fact my letter was submitted two or three weeks before it was published.

When Mr. Hall says that I ignore his "fundamental contention that the Church of Rome exists [and, implicitly, "has existed"] primarily as a political organisation and is unscrupulous in obtaining its desired ends" he is quite correct. There are some subjects which, because of their wide and general character, do not lend themselves easily to discussion within a restricted space. It seems that Mr. Hall does not appreciate the nature of historical statements, in particular the inductive character of historical generalisations. For its truth to be demonstrated, an historical generalisation like his "fundamental contention" quoted above requires support both by "subordinate" generalisations like "The Jesuits have always (or usually) done X" and by particular statements like "Pope (or Bishop) A did B". Historical generalisations about an organisation covering as many centuries and countries as the Catholic Church are not easily established. Thus even if all the statements Mr. Hall made about Pius XI were true—and they certainly are not—they would not by themselves prove his "fundamental contention" but only provide some support for it.

It was for these reasons—and because it seemed to me obvious that Mr. Hall was very fanatical and sweeping in argument—that I limited myself to refuting two of his concrete assertions:

With regard to the first matter, I am content to let those competent in such fields as political science to judge whether the passages I quoted (2/7/58) are a condemnation of the totalitarian character of Nazism and Fascism and I shall not argue this point further with Mr. Hall.

But Mr. Hall's reply on the second point is more interesting and revealing about his methods. He quotes Pius XI (characteristically he gives no reference) as hailing Mussolini as "a man sent by Divine Providence" and claims that this "more than justifies" his associating the Pope with Mussolini over the Spanish Civil War, even to the extent of maintaining, by implication, that the approach of some Spanish Catholics to Mussolini in 1933 was the same thing as approaching Pius XI! Now Paul Blanshard (American Freedom & Catholic Power, p. 245) also quotes Pius as saying this—though he, too, gives no reference—but he gives the date of this statement as December, 1926. So that even if Pius XI did express this opinion, it would be illegitimate to infer from it approval of an event taking place ten years later, let alone to say that this remark ten years earlier justifies anyone in asserting that the Vatican promoted the Spanish Civil War and that an approach by a Spanish group to either Mussolini or to Pius XI is the same thing. Even persons in close agreement retain their separate identity! Mr. Hall's shifting of ground on this point is quite fantastic and most illuminating.

Of course, there is no doubt that Franco did receive aid from Italy and Germany, as did the Republicans front Soviet Russia (see John R. Hubbard, "How Franco financed his war", Journal of Modern History, Dec., 1953) and that a group of Spanish Monarchists concluded an agreement with Mussolini (see William C. Askew, "Italian intervention in Spain: the agreements of March 31, 1934, with the Spanish Monarchist Parties" J. Mod Hist, June, 1952). However, this has nothing to do with Pius XI, who must surely be allowed to change his mind about Mussolini if he saw fit. Some of the opinions expressed in the 1920's about Mussolini by prominent British politicians and writers read rather oddly today. But behind Mr. Hall's strictures lies the assumption that democracy is the only lawful form of government, not only for States but for the Church as well. He may be right or wrong about this but it is not a position that is self-evidently correct. It requires some sort of justification.

In his third letter Mr. Hall says that Pius XI "attacked Mussolini's indoctrination of the children solely because he much preferred that they should have his own particular brand of political totalitarianism . . . pumped into them ..." How could Mr. Hall know this.' This is a statement about the Pope's motives and intentions and the only evidence for an assertion of this sort would be the Pope's revealing that this was his motive. As far as I know he never did this. Certainly Mr. Hall produces no such evidence.

It would be a good idea if in future Mr. Hall were to rely less on such writers as Blanshard (part of paragraph 6 in his letter of May 6 is an unacknowledged quotation from Blanshard, op. cit., p. 252), to make fewer assertions but to back them up with evidence, something which he rarely does; in short, to adopt scholarly methods more suitable in a discussion at a university level.

—As a student at Victoria and as a member of the Executive of the New Zealand Alliance I was amazed to read the reference by "Partisan" in the last issue of your paper to the alleged failure of the New Zealand Alliance to express its disapproval of the licensed trade in its flagrant disregard for the law as shown by its organised flouting of the price order on beer. Readers of your paper should be able to trust that as a student publication its outbursts would be based at least on the very minimum of research required. "Partisan's" failure to take the trouble to consult the New Zealand Alliance leads me to suspect the reliability of any of his utterances. The failure of our daily newspapers to report the relevant resolution of the Alliance is no excuse for "Partisan's" unjustified reference. Perhaps the matter was sub judice at the time the resolution was passed, for prosecutions were pending for breaches of the price order.

For your information the following resolution was passed on this matter at the recent Annual Meeting of the New Zealand Aliance:

"That we view with concern the attitude of disrespect for law demonstrated by the Licensed Trade in its organised flouting of the Price Tribunal Order regarding retail beer prices. Apart from the merits of the lease, we believe that the law, even when inconvenient and unpopular, should not be defied for selfish reasons."

—In reference to the Literary Society's recent production "Experiment," I would like to congratulate the Society on the excellent standard of their advertising placards placed around the University notice boards.

The art work in these placards contained colour, imagination, and all the other qualities of art that were unfortunately lacking in "Experiment." Indeed I can say I have never read such utter crap and would suggest to the bearded ones and others that they revert from the pursuit of literature to that of art Where their true potential obviously lies.

R. E. J.

Now that there is talk of forming a women's Judo Club, might I not suggest that, in view of the physiological structures (and superstructure) of many of our female students, we have a wonderful potential in a women's rugby team. Those interested contact Gary Thomas (common room).

Sports Editor.

Chess Notes

The Chess Club has again entered B and C Grade teams in the Wellington Inter-club Championships.

Extra Protection!

The B Grade team, which was runner-up to the strong Wellington Club last year, has begun with good wins over Workingmen's Club and Civic. Three of last year's team are back and we are also fortunate in the quality of our new recruits.

Our C Grade team has also made a most encouraging start with comfortable wins over Rongotai and Wellington Colleges. On present strength and form they will be strong contenders for the C Grade Championship.

We should like to remind readers that we continue to hold Club nights on Monday in C4, and visitors are very welcome. Also, thanks to our grant and generous donations we now have an up-to-date library ranging in scope from "first steps to finer points". The books have been carefully chosen with the needs of time-haunted students in mind.

A.J.J.

Fundamentals

Chemical analysis of women, recently published in a scientific journal.

"Thought to be a member of the human race. Accepted at 120 lb. though known isotopes vary from 80 lb. to 250 lb. Seldom found in natural state. Surface usually coated with a solution of paint. Low boiling temperature and freezing point varies. Is highly explosive and dangerous except in qualified hands. Extremely active when in vicinity of opposite member of species. Chiefly ornamental, probably the most powerful seducing agent known. It is illegal to own more than one specimen although a certain amount of exchange is permissible."