Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Spike or Victoria University College Review June 1925

The Debates

The Debates.

There is a dictum of Mr. C. F. G. Masterman's that the most difficult gathering in the world to address is a meeting of the Oxford Union Debating Society, and the British House of Commons is the easiest. One is much more likely to agree with Mr. Masterman if one has first listened to a Woodruff or a Mollis or a MacDonald in debate, and attempted to imagine oneself on the platform before an audience of such men, with their interjections to while away the time until they were permitted to arise one after another and play battledore and shuttlecock with one's carefully rehearsed periods, making the weightiest arguments rebound, like boomerangs, with the greatest force. Certain it is that long experience of speaking in such company gives birth to an indefinable air of ease and "at homeness," by which our three Oxford visitors were chiefly distinguished from the Victoria College orators with whom they tried conclusions. It would be more or less easy at this stage to launch out into a comparative study of Oxford and Victoria methods of debating, and, climbing into the realms of metaphor, to write knowingly of lofty Spanish galleons flaunting green and gold banners besieged and overcome by the swift and more easily manoeuvred vessels of the English, but our subject is the debates themselves, so to the task.

The first contest of the two was staged in the Concert Chamber of the Town Hall on March 28th. The teams were divided, two Oxford men and one Victoria College man moving: "That this House does not believe that the advent to power of the British Labour Party will materially improve National or International conditions," while one Victoria College speaker, assisted by the remaining Oxford man and another Victoria College speaker, opposed the adoption of any such belief. Mr. G. G. G. Watson occupied the chair.

Expectations ran high and visions of a second Gladstone come to debate filled the popular mind when Mr. M. C. Hollis rose to open the case for the affirmative. The visions then faded. Mr. Hollis, a tall, thin young man, adopted as a platform attitude the "one step forward, one step backward, one forward," and so on; he had one other gesture, a quick, emphatic sweep of the hand, and his manner was at times hesitant; but a moderately good speaking voice, manipulated without any sense of strain, and a slow, deliberate pronunciation of his words made for an effective manner. His chief argument was that Labour had nothing new to contribute to the solution of either National or International problems. In 1914, indeed, the Party was divided over the issue of war. The loan to our Russian "enemies" was severely criticised by Mr. Hollis, and he closed by reiterating the theme of his address: "What is this especial contribution?"

page 28

Mr. Davidson took the platform with Bertrand Russell gripped between his teeth. Supporting his case with appropriate quotations, he then traversed the history of the human race, Bernard-Shaw-like, and showed how the capitalistic system had, by robbing the worker of the ownership of his tools, degraded him to the level of a cog in the industrial machine until he had lost all power of self-determination. Socialisation of everything worth while was the remedy, and this the Labour Party proposed to apply. Brief periods of relief from the strain of watching Mr. Davidson's solemn and serious face was obtained by stealing glances at a certain well-known cleric, who occupied a seat not far behind us, and whose countenance exhibited every sign of pleasurable satisfaction.

Mr. Campbell then arose from amid a pile of British Hansards and came forward as advocatus diaboli to castigate Ramsay MacDonald and associates. Mr. Campbell's appearance on this side of the platform was, in one respect, the sensation of the evening; but it would perhaps be only fair to him to state (we have it on excellent authority) that his attitude to the selectors was not unlike that of the well-known Mr. Micawber: "Gentlemen, do with me as you will! I am a straw upon the surface of the deep, and am tossed in all directions by the elephants—I beg your pardon; I should have said elements." The British Labour Party's acknowledged allegiance to "continuity of policy" was made the main subject of attack; but the climax came when the speaker declared that "the more representative Parliaments had become, the duller and more useless had they grown." The face of the well-known cleric was disfigured by an ugly frown. Our personal sympathies were with the cleric, and we should like to have had a fat, old country squire from the "Rotten Borough" days to place beside the speaker as an exhibit. Having "feelingly told us what shadows we are and what shadows we pursue," Mr. Campbell retired amid applause to a further perusal of Hansard.

In words which have since become famous, Mr. Martin-Smith sought to raise the minds of his hearers above the level of the "petty details" enumerated by Mr. Campbell. The only force that could effect an improvement in the world's affairs was human reason tempered by human charity. The Labour Party was animated by an idealism which it would distil into practice were it given time and a fair opportunity. The well-known cleric beamed. Mr. Martin-Smith waxed enthusiastic, and as his voice grew in vigour, so his colour rose, and collar and tie mounted upward in sympathy.

Mr. J. D. Woodruff, the senior member of the Oxford team, followed. There is something about his manner and appearance that connects him with an old Conservative University; he reminds one of quiet, spreading lawns (which have not been cut for some time) and of mellowed stone buildings. His voice is low and pleasant, his manner quiet, and he has an accent which is delightful to listen to. His argument was that all a wise statesman can do is to tinker; human nature stood in the way of any such sweeping reforms as the Labour Party proposed to make. Mr. Woodruff's humorous retorts have made history, and we shall be content to record his reply to Mr. Martin-Smith's claim that time and a fair trial would substantiate Labour's ideals, "I would give them a proper trial first and time after- page 29 wards." Mr. Woodruff achieved instant popularity, and he may justly say, with the hook-nosed fellow of Rome, "I came, saw and overcame."

Mr. M. J. MacDonald, a close relatve of the gentleman whose doings were the principal topic of the evening, is an excellent platform speaker. He showed a grasp of the subject that might almost have been inherent—but this is possibly explained by the fact that, to use his own phrase, he has been obliged to put up with the Ramsay MacDonald Government for twenty-three years. To the extreme delight of our well-known cleric, he rebutted many of the arguments previously marshalled against Labour, and rather startled some of his listeners by declaring that the industrial policy of his party was one of confiscation. He immediately mitigated all alarm, however, when he explained that this was simply another way of pronouncing the word "taxation."

Mr. Hollis replied briefly and summed up generally, and the meeting gradually dispersed.

The Second Debate took place in the large Town Hall on April 8th, before an audience of over two thousand. The subject was Prohibition, and the teams were again divided. The Victoria College team had changed its personnel entirely. As the eager crowd jostled its way into the Hall and sat in one another's booked seats, a body of undergraduates in the centre of the building dispensed musical cheer. These individuals were well prepared to receive each speaker as he came forward, and rendered an appropriate anthem in discordent keys and totally different tunes, always managing at the close of each item, however, to strike a semblance of unity and coherence in the refrain. Their interjections punctuated all the speeches, and were exceedingly clever; but they were lost to the majority of the audience in the galleries, who did not wish to hear interjections, even if they might have done so.

Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell presided, and having made several introductory observations, called upon Mr. McCormick to open the debate. The undergraduates performed, and Mr. McCormick then proceeded: his was a clear, logical speech. There were two questions to be decided—first, was there a right to prohibit the liquor traffic? and secondly, if such a right existed, was it expedient to exercise it? In spite of a vigorous denial from a portion of the audience, the speaker went on to show that both these issues were to be decided in the affirmative, and that the answers put together spelt Prohibition.

Mr. Hollis was greeted with applause on rising to speak, and was deeply touched by the demonstrations of affection from the audience. He told us that what caused the harm was not drink, but bad drink. In fact, good drink was responsible for more happiness than anything else. He treated the subject intentionally in a light style. Mr. McCormick had instanced traffic regulations as a curtailment of liberty. Because a man drove on the wrong side of the road and caused damage thereby, should we abolish the sides of the road ?

Mr. MacDonald then arose, and commenced in true Oxford style with a humorous reference to the previous speaker. He was soon in the midst of an emotional appeal on the ground of the social waste caused by drink, and as he warmed to the task, page 30 an indigenous Scotch accent triumphed over the Oxford note. He told us in no uncertain language that drink had been responsible all through time for aggravating and accumulating social evils. His denunciation was overwhelmingly fierce; but we can assure our readers, on the authority of Mr. Woodruff, that these extravagances of speech are the only extravagances that Mr. MacDonald allows himself. He has, however, caught several tricks of the orators' trade and, making himself heard without much effort, was perhaps the most effective speaker of the evening.

The most conspicuous thing about Mr. Baume was the absence of his customary self-possession, and it was perhaps this that led him into a misquotation of Mr. MacDonald to which he clung throughout his speech. He lost nothing in effect by pitching his voice considerably lower than usual, and on the whole made his points well. The Temperance Movement met with Mr. Baume's approval; but Temperance had become prostitute to what is now Prohibition, and the call for reform had changed into a cry for abolition. The speaker plainly took himself seriously, and because his arguments told, was regarded seriously by the ardent Prohibitionists with whom the Hall was crowded.

Mr. Rollings next made his way across the platform to his opponents' side, and deposited a sheaf of notes and quotations before the Chairman. His manner was at the commencement decidedly parsonical, and one or two attempts at humour seemed strangely out of their environment. After each sally against the foe he delved into his notes for further inspiration, and books and newspaper clippings suffered heavy requisition from time to time. Had he quoted less and been less dependent on his notes, he might have been more effective. Fifteen minutes, however, made an improvement in his manner, and the close of his speech was much better than the opening.

Mr. Woodruff wound up the case for the Anti-Prohibitionists. It was unfortunate that he failed to make himself heard in all parts of the Hall, but this was more the building's fault than Mr. Woodruff's: the farmyard barn is still the recognised standard for Colonial architecture. The extreme serious-mindedness with which he was listened to had its effect on him, and his humour was less pointed than on the previous occasion. He should strive to remember, too, that ever so much lightning does not make daylight. His reply to the argument that more money was being placed with Savings Banks in America since Prohibition was that the wretched people had now nothing-worth spending their money on.

A brief reply by Mr. McCormick closed the debate, and the Chairman put the motion to the meeting. The volume of noise on each side was almost equal; but a show of hands gave an overwhelming majority for the Dry, who departed happily homewards, while most of the Wets adjourned to a nearby restaurant.