The Club has pursued a somewhat chequered career since its last notes appeared, but as these words are written discussion still proceeds actively. For a month or more last term it was absolutely impossible to get any speaker to start any sort of argument whatsoever, a regrettable absence of dissension which nearly reduced a harassed secretary to tears. This term, however, a fresh batch of world—problems have presented themselves for solution and are being solved accordingly.

On July 9th, Mr. Steele laid down the fundamentals of the Colour Question, which he dealt with mainly from an enlightened Christian standpoint, as embodied in a recent book of J. H. Oldham's, as opposed to the Western dogmatism of McDougall and Lothrop Stoddart. Emigration, said Mr. Steele, was no way to deal with over-population, and instanced the problems arising therefrom in Africa, particularly Kenya, Again, there was no superiority or inferiority of "race" involved—the page 56 crux of the question were the differences of "strains" in the races of the world. The issue was not an economic one, statements that it was were merely bluff, specious excuses put forward by ignorant prejudice. The future, declared Mr. Steele, lay in the elevated potentialities of Christian missions, whose work he instanced in India, China and America. Most of the following speakers were somewhat sceptical as to the ultimate value of Christian missions, or indeed as to any solution of the problem being possible at all. The differences of social systems were made much of, together with the innate barriers between races, and the extreme improbability of the New Zealand Government benevolently throwing open God's Own Country to the unobstructed immigration of the heathen. On the other side was brought forward the argument of the peaceful settling together of Maori and Pakeha and their mutual amicability.

On September 10 Mr. Takayuki Namae, an extremely benevolent professor from Tokio, gave an address on the Social and Religious outlook for Japan. He was not, he explained, an ordinary professor, burdened with a profundity of odd knowledge, and bursting with the desire to impart it to unwilling victims, but a Government social worker whose labours took him all over the country (and incidentally the world) lecturing to the people and gathering hints wherewith to make Japan great. He gave a lucid outline of the problems confronting Japan—growing over-population, a low standard of life, smallness of earnings and dearness of food. Agrarian strife (over 50% of the people being farmers, but only 14% of the land being level), the influx of the new post-war ideas from Europe, education, the very satisfactory relations between parents and children (relieving the Government entirely of the onerous obligations of old-age pensions and homes for the aged needy, and hence, one assumes, for a large part of the benevolent work of a Social Service Club), the possibility of growing poverty for the country as a whole, and its present religious state—a revival of Buddhism, together with a very small and somewhat somnolent Christianity. A glowing tribute was also paid to the friendliness of New Zealand in general and of Professor Hunter in particular, which was very satisfactory to all concerned. Several questions were asked, mainly on the religious and moral development of the country, and as to how it had been affected by the Christian faith. Christianity, said Mr. Namae, had possibly affected mortality advantageously to some extent, and he called himself a Christian. It was, however, extremely hard for educated young men and women to believe in the Trinity, and he. himself, had lost his faith in that singular projection of the religious consciousness.

On September 17th Mr. E. H. Dowsett outlined the fundamentals of the Quaker faith, or rather, as he remarked, the way of life of the Society of Friends. The Quakers really formed a creedless Church,, and, he showed, by illuminating quotations from various authoritative writers, were not exclusively devoted to the production of breakfast foods and conscientious objectors. Their central conviction was a refusal to accept a State Ecclesiastical authority and a preference for a way of life founded on a mythical reliance on an Inner Light. Resulting from this at the present day were various practical experiments in an enlightened sociality, which might be summed up in the phrase "Following conscience in a social way." In spite of this, in Mr. Dowsett's opinion, Quakerism, as a distinct sect, was to-day a dying force, as its practical spirit more and more suffused the other Christian bodies. It was not in essence Evangelical.

A long and interesting discussion followed. Mr. C. G. R. James wanted to know exactly what was meant by the Inner Light, about which there seemed to him to be a lot of mere talk and ambiguity. Mr. Fortune re-marked that there seemed to be some very fine things in Quakerism, and especially in its refusal to have the Bible written by anyone so reputable as the Creator. With regard to mysticism, it seemed extremely unlikely that anyone should have a direct acquaintance with God; and, frankly, he didn't believe it. It was on a par with Conan Doyle's fairies, in whom, on a first reading of that author's arguments, Mr. Fortune was staggered for half an hour into believing (truly a staggering admission!) Mr. For-tune concluded with an account of McDougall's theory of the conscience, a serious statement that he never thought about religion, and a remark that the things peculiar to Quakerism were very peculiar indeed. Both Mr. Campbell and Dr. Sutherland wished to know how far the doctrine of non-resistance went in practice, and how far in this respect the New Testament was to be taken literally and accorded with the Inner Light; in answer to which Mr. Dowsett repeated his answer to Military Service Boards dur page 57 ing the war—that it was impossible to answer hypothetical questions; but, that some answer could be given from past individual instances of the history, e.g., of Pennsylvania—positive goodwill was the surest defence. Mr. Steele defended the memory of Calvin from aspersions cast upon it by unbelievers; Mr. Wilson remarked on the similarity between some of the ideas of Quakerism and Mr. Wells' Invisible King, and the need for some such faith at the present time; while the rest of the argument devolved into a wrangle between several controversialists on the really fundamental nature of evolution.

The last discussion of the year, on the Outlook for Religion, as seen by the penetrating eye of Dr. Sutherland, will have been held by the time this "Spike" appears.

One of the most important steps the Club has taken was the decision by the Committee (subsequently approved by the Club at large) to send a letter to the Royal Commission on University Education, pointing out the need for freedom of thought and speech in the University, This document we append, together with the answer received, in the confident hope that it will stand out in the history of the world, together with Magna Charta, the Communist manifesto, and the Constitution of the U.S.S.R., as one of the chief milestones in the moral progress of mankind. Gazing with the eye of faith, we certainly see its effect in more than one place in the excellent report of the Commission.

Victoria University College,

30th July, 1925.

Although we do not wish to offer formal evidence to the Commission, we, the members of the Victoria University College Free Discussions Club, do feel strongly that a subject should be brought before the Commission, which so far seems to have been ignored—a subject that we nevertheless feel is of the most supreme importance for any educational body, and completely so for a University—that is, the subject of academic freedom.

It is impossible to look round the world to-day and not realise that freedom of this type is everywhere suffering grave encroachments. Not only in Germany before the war, but in Great Britain during and even after the war, and for a long time past, and to an increasingly disastrous extent in the U.S.A., we have seen freedom of teaching and of study subject to the dictation of outside interests, whether political, economic, or religious. Not only abroad, but in New Zealand itself, there have not been unknown attempts to stifle opinion and even discussion which appeared to run counter to tenets generally held. This University College especially has suffered, not only from such attempts (happily largely unsuccessful) by outside bodies and the Press, but from official interference of a serious type. From what we know of conditions in New Zealand we do not think that these attempts have ceased—rather, owing to the general trend of thought in the world to-day, do we regard them as merely the forerunners of others, more prolonged and serious, in the future. Of all the attributes of a University, freedom, it seems to us, is of the most vital importance. If in any sense the University is to lead the community in thought or ideals, it is imperative that within its confines (as indeed without) there should be the utmost possible measure of liberty—liberty of association, of discussion, of teaching, of study. The only limit to this liberty that we can regard as valid is that of academic discipline. We are proud to think that from the beginning of history men and women in a fellowship of learning have found freedom when it has been otherwise denied to them; we should regard it as a calamity, if in a young country such as this that freedom should be allowed to perish. We do not ask for a foolish license (although we are convinced that any attempt to delimit the bounds of liberty and license can only end in disaster)—we do ask for freedom of the whole academic community from dictation from outside as to what shall be studied and how it shall be studied; we do ask, within the academic community, for freedom of the teacher to teach what seems to him true; we do ask for the freedom of students to discuss in clubs and societies or otherwise whatever subjects in any way appeal to them. The general principle (to quote Principal Ernest Barker, of King's College, London) is "Freedom, uncontrolled by any assumption of responsibility by the University . . . . My page 58 qualification of that principle is two-fold. In the first place, the freedom of the professor is subject to the discipline of the profession, which commands him to seek the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. ... In the second place, the freedom of the professor, while it is not subject to the control of the institution to which he belongs, must at any rate be qualified by the duties inherent in his membership of that institution. If it gives him freedom, he must not give it obloquy in return." To students as well as to professors, these words we think apply equally; with the proviso that, unhappily, to be young is, under some circumstances, inevitably to incur obloquy. As students we plead both for the freedom of our teachers and for our own. Nothing, we feel convinced, will ever make up to a University itself, or to the larger community of which it is a part, for the loss by any means of that intellectual integrity, that complete liberty of the spirit which, as it is the most precious part of our inheritance, is the most hardly won—as it is the reward and crown of all knowledge, is its very basis and first condition.

We ask the Commission, therefore, whatever may be the outcome of its inquiries into technical matters of organisation and administration, in its report to emphasise the vital importance in the University of—

For the Victoria University College Free Discussions Club.

I have, on behalf of the Commission, to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 30th inst. The statement submitted will be carefully considered by the Commissioners, and incorporated in the printed evidence. The Commission appreciates and values the views put forward.