Acting under the impression that the "play was the thing" wherein, if not "to catch the conscience of the king," at least to draw the interest of students generally towards the Debating Society, the committee arranged for a series of dramatic readings to take place during the Long Vacation. In all, some thirteen plays were read, and the Reading Circles qua Reading Circles can now justly be pronounced to have been a distinct success; but as regards the secondary object with which they were arranged, that is, of increasing interest in the work of the Debating Society, the time is yet too soon to speak.

Of the thirteen plays read, six were by Bernard Shaw, two by Oscar Wilde, and one play each was contributed by Galsworthy, Bennett, Ibsen, Goldsmith, and—William Shakspere. The Committee would have gladly included more plays by this Mr. Shakspere, but, unhappily, its chairman was a simple soul, whose spirit took no joy in the reckless massacring of blank verse, and after the reading of "Twelfth Night" poetic drama was shunned.

The Society began its session this year with a public debate—"That only by the success of the Labour movement can organised society continue to exist." Mr. Edward Tregear was kind enough to lead the debate. He was seconded by Mr. John Robertson, M.P. for Otaki. The motion was opposed on behalf of the Society by Messrs. Watson and Sievwright. Mr. Tregear, as is well known, is one of the accredited, and certainly one of the most respected, leaders of Labour in New Zealand. But on this occasion, we confess we were not a little disappointed by Mr. Tregear's opening speech. With a great opportunity to enlist the sympathy of a large body of interested students, in the objective of the Labour body, Mr. Tregear sadly neglected his opportunities by indulging in many irrelevancies, and in not page 51 confining himself to an exposition of those principles for which organised Labour stands. We don't in the least agree with him that a man is unfitted to possess and administer large estate to-day, because his great-great grandmother was a mistress of Charles II. But if Mr. Tregear was disappointing, Mr. Watm, in opening, was heart-breaking. We thought better of thee, G. G. Though he had really no argument to reply to, Mr. Watson did not drive that fact home to the audience. Mr. Watson is, we understand, an Honours student in Economics, and he stated at an early stage of his address that he proposed to pulverise any argument that could be advanced for Socialism by showing its economic fallacies. He forgot to do so. We were also sorry to note the absence from Mr. Watson's address of that "sweet reasonableness" that had characterised Mr. Tregear's speech. Mr. Robertson made a very capable and effective reply to Mr. Watson's arguments. Mr. Sievwright, in seconding Mr. Watson, dwelt upon the influence that Socialism would have upon the morals of the community. The debate was a highly successful one, from the point of view of the audience. It is clear that the Society is moving in the right direction in arranging these debates.

The first "regular" meeting of the Society was held on 25th April, when Mr. H.E. Evans, seconded by Mr. W. F. Hogg, moved "That the Massey Government has merited the confidence of the people of New Zealand." Mr. Leary, seconded by Mr. Ewart, opposed. The debate was well attended, and very successful. The judge (Rev. Mr. Herries) placed the first five speakers as follows:— 1st, Mr. Evans; 2nd, Mr. Moss; 3rd. Mr. Sievwright; 4th, Mr. Leary; 5th. Mr. McNiven.

At the second meeting, on 9th May, Mr. Cornish, seconded by Mr. Cunningham, moved: "That the deportation of the Labour leaders in the recent South African strike was justified." Messrs. Byrne and Sievwright opposed. The meeting was wretchedly attended. Mr. D. S. Smith placed the following:—Messrs. Cunningham, Watson, Sievwright, and Schmidt (equal), Byrne, and Rogers.

We take this opportunity of congratulating Mr. Sievwright upon winning the Union Prize for 1913. Probably no previous winner has ever put in more arduous and determined work. Mr. Sievwright's success proved that genius is "the capacity for taking infinite pains." We have also to congratulate Mr. Borer, who was awarded the New Speaker's, Prize.

Perhaps it would not be out of place here to put in a plea on behalf of the Debating Society. The Society is one that page 52 should appeal to all students. It is the one Society at the College that provides a common ground upon which all may meet for discussion of topics of the day. By means of the Plunket Medal Contest, and public debates, it brings the student into contact with the public. By means of reading circles it constitutes a bond between students during the vacations. At present the Society is wretchedly supported. Just come along and give it a hand.

V.U.C.W.D.S.

During the first term this Society remained quiescent. The annual general meeting was held at the commencement of the first term, and was fairly representative. Owing to the shortness of the term, and to the stress of Capping preparations, no further meetings were held. What might have been audience for a debate, was generally found at Dorcas meetings on the top floor.

The Society began its ordinary meetings by a very successful evening on June 12th. The programme was one of impromptu speeches. Each speaker was allowed three minutes. Miss Watson, President of the Society, was judge. Nine members spoke, Miss Edwards being awarded first place.

We would take this opportunity of reminding all women students that this Society is going to be very much in existence this year. It should play a very active part in the life of the College. It is the Society in which women students of this College can best cultivate the formation of individual opinion, and forceful, eloquent expression of such.

A very attractive syllabus has been arranged for this year, but is intended in no wise to detract from attention to the syllabus of the main Society. One of the aims of our branch is to fit women speakers to come forward and speak in debates held on Saturday night.

The Plunket Medal Competition, 1913.

The Plunket Medal Competition for Oratory was held in the Concert Chamber of the Town Hall on Saturday, 4th October, 1913, at 8 p.m.

page 53

The judges this year were the Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph Ward, Messrs. C. B. Morison, K.C., and C. E. Statham, M.P.

The competitors spoke as follows:—

Mr. F. E. McKenzie, B.A., on "The Duke of Marlborough." Mr. McKenzie was a speaker unaccustomed to platform oratory, and it is not surprising to note that he was exceedingly unhappy in the matter of gesture, vocal delivery, and stage craft generally. He opened in strenuous tones, and with some gestures strongly reminiscent of the bayonet exorcises. Except in the matter of gesture, his speech greatly improved as he proceeded. Mr. McKenzie did not seem to realise that a speaker may impress an audience by restraint, dignity, a sense of something held in reserve, even more than he can by the adoption of the "big bow-wow" style. We can't, for the life of us, understand why Mr. McKenzie should apply to the Duke of Marlborough, Shelley's fine lines on Keats.

In clear contrast with Mr. McKenzie, Miss M. L. Nicholls spoke on "Joan of Arc" with a fine delicacy, pathos and restraint. Her enunciation and pronunciation were excellent; her gestures, few but most apt and happy, and her stage presence as appealing as the wicked hour of midnight. We are unwilling to criticize Miss Nicholls's speech at all adversely, but we do wonder that Miss Nicholls did not attempt to analyse the character of Joan of Arc. We shrewdly suspect that she did not want to alarm the muddleheads who still flourish in our midst.

Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell, in his speech on "Joseph Chamberlain," opened quietly but confidently. He was, in fact, a thought too confident, and became at times almost dictatorial. His use of the "pause" was very effective, and he shared with Miss Nicholls the honour of being the most cultured speaker of the evening. His speech was, in our opinion, a decided improvement on his previous ones. He was forceful and free throughout, and his gestures, though too few, were admirable. We must suppose, in charity, that the judges had good reasons for not placing Mr. Treadwell a very close second to Mis Nicholls, but frankly confess we are unable to perceive one.

Mr. Meldrum spoke on "Dean Swift." In point of matter this was one of the best speeches of the evening, but in point of manner it was execrable. Mr. Meldrum gave a very fair and impartial estimate of Swift's character and works. His voice, unhappily, was unequal to the demands made upon it, and his reckless use of the upper register soon reduced it to a condition page 54 of huskiness, that became more and more irritating as his speech proceeded. His gestures were spasmodic, jerky, and mechanical as the action of a railway engine. His speech was largely arranged in the form of a series of climaxes, which tended to become monotonous, and brought him at times dangerously near to bathos.

Mr. A. B. Sievwright spoke on 'William Pitt, the Great Commoner." Mr. Sievwright and Mr. McKenzie had many faults in common. No restraint, no half lights, misuse of the voice, and a gross extravagance of gesture. But while Mr. McKenzie's gestures reminded one of the bayonet exercises, Mr. Sievwright's gesticulations made one think he had been studying the action of the sails of a windmill. Mr. Sievwright's matter did not impress us, and his pronunciation was wicked. We didn't in the least like wuld and wurrld (world), orrl (all). retaliated, hez (has), inarrt (inert), corrud (cord), brot, gloreeous, etc, etc.

It was quite a pleasant change to hear Mr. McConnell's light tenor after the booming basses. Mr. McConnell spoke on "Florence Nightingale." He had the Irishman's usual appeal and natural eloquence and ease on the platform, and touches of naivety throughout his speech were not unwelcome. The chief defect in the speech was a certain lack of force and life.

Mr. O. Borer had chosen as his subject "Lord Lister." We fear that Mr. Borer will never achieve fame as a public speaker. He lacks the first requisite. He has not the faintest, remotest, least suspicion of a sense of humour. We quite sympathise with Mr. Borer's wish to shed light upon the little known life of Lord Lister, but why he should have given us the harrowing details of Lord Lister's laboratory experiments, we don't know. It wasn't kind, and it very nearly caused Professor Picken to suffer from apoplexy. Mr. Borer's gestures were incongruous and grotesque, and at one stage nearly endangered the life of people in the front row.

Mr. Rogers, the last speaker, treated "The Life of Gladstone." His gestures were stilted, he does not know what modulation is, and his pronunciation left much to be desired, e.g., "essit" (asset), "edggercated." His speech generally was colourless and unconvincing—a perfectly orthodox piece of recitation.

The judges, after consultation, placed Miss Nicholls, first; Mr. Sievwright, second; Mr. McConnell, third; and Mr. Treadwell, fourth. We quite agree with the award as to the first and third places.