After crude back benching and pointless interjections the first "serious" debate of the year struggled unconsciously through a maze of tedious irrevelancy to its conclusion—supper. The motion "That no opponent of International War can consistently support a Revolution" was supported by Miss Shortall and Tahiwi, and opposed by Scotney and Scott. The result was a win for the affirmative by 45 votes to 41.

Miss Shortall contended that opponents of international war fell into two classes (significant glances at her opponents—Messrs. Scotney and Scott). The first class consisted of those to whom any kind of violence was abhorrent. These evidently would support neither international war nor revolution. Included in the second class were those who, although they deplored force, held that its use was essential in the modern world. These people could consistently advocate revolution but could not consistently oppose international war.