Text Of The Toast Speech At The 60Th Anniversary Dinner

A short and lively account of the history of the Debating Society.

The first number of Spike, June, 1902, stated: "A Debating Society is a necessary adjunct to every university," and this fact seems to have been realised when our university was opened in 1899. The Students' Society founded almost as soon as lectures commenced, immediately inaugurated a Debating Society. Rules and standing orders were drawn up and a committee was elected at the first meeting held in Wellington Girls' College on June 3, 1899. Routine business was not enough for the founders, however. A debate had been prepared to follow and, the business done, Mr. Fitzherbert stood up to move a subject chosen with astonishing prescience, "That any system of control of the drink traffic is inimical to the highest development of civilisation."

The membership was 45 and at the end of the year the financial position was stated to be "good." There was a credit balance of £3/5/8.

It seems to have remained fairly steady round this figure for several years and this may account for the fact that Lord Plunket. having possibly a more realistic idea of what constituted a good financial position, not only endowed his medal but on his return to England sent back a supply of medals to last for several years.

By 1905, from its own funds, and with a legacy from the Wellington Literary and Debating Societies Union, the Victoria College Debating Society was able to institute the prize named after that Union, and the following year a prize for new speakers was introduced.

Lively and provocative topics were debated from the earliest days; Prohibition, The Rise of the (British) Labour Party. Votes for Women, and. above all, Home Rule for Ireland.

In 1905, ••One of the most successful debates held this year was on the perenially fresh question of Home Rule . . . The attendance was about 120, a record for an ordinary meeting. Though some of the Irish Party came armed with clubs, no breach of the peace was recorded."

Two years later "in the first debate G. V. Bogle and J. M. Hogben moved 'That female franchise should be granted in England'." The arguments of the movers were directed not so much towards showing that there were good reasons why women should vote as that there was no good reason why they should not. They enlisted the sympathy of the audience and neither the persuasiveness of R. Mason nor the blandishments of S. Elchelbaum availed to convince to the contrary. Eichelbaum endeavoured to show that though the female franchise in New Zealand is a success, the inferiority of women of the United Kingdom in political discernment made it quite impracticable there.