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.

Bonk Burbles.

Opening for the negative. Bonk Scotney said he did not whish to divide Miss Shortall and Tahiwi into two classes, as they would look better unified. With characteristic intensity he attacked trusts, nationalism and his hecklers. Elaborating his argument, he gave an account of how capitalist countries must inevitably come into conflict when attempting to dispose of their surplus production. In proof of this Scotney said he would "follow the admirable outline of a gentleman" (loud cheers) and proceeded to quote at length from Mr. Hawtry. In countering sustained uproar, prompted by unmannerly partisanship Scotney suggested to one outstanding offender that he make a "noise like a hoop and bowl out." But, alas! the advice was not taken and he had to finish his speech to the accompaniment of stink bombs and unofficial bell ringing.

Ken and Kingi Collide.

In seconding the motion, Kingi Tahiwi, in his usual mellifluous tones, denied the possibility of a bloodless revolution and, urged on by his inevitable right hand, offered as the only alternative an international co-operation guided by the benign influences of the League of Nations Ken Scott's argument was on the futility of modern capitalism. Mentioning the dumping of Japanese wireless sets, he said that under a national economic system the Prime Minister would go down and gratefully receive the sets in person. "Dump him, too," flashed back a listener (loud and prolonged applause), Pointing to the senselessness of modern trade relations, Scott said that nations, so inefficient in such matters, could not be expected to show intelligence in the avoidance of war.

From Among the Rabble.

Ten speakers from the floor gave their views, but like the opening speakers, drifted into irrevelant channels. Pointed reference to the unruly element was made by one speaker, who opened with "Ladies and gentlemen and the section in the rear." Not content with asking himself four questions, McGhie drowned himself in a "sea of impenetrable verbiage." With personal recollections of Trentham and Porirua, McElwain gave an admirable survey of modern sociological theory. Watson then made an ardent appeal for membership for the F.S.U. Unruly uproar drowned most of Kelly's speech, but we did hear him say he was a Christian. Vacating the chair, Max Brown said that a good bullock-driver never repeated himself and was awarded the prize by the reverend judge. In summing up, Scotney said "the fundamental crux of the situation boiled down to this: That revolution was the only solution."

"Toujours la Politesse."

The Rev. Brian Kilroy, in giving his judgment, apologised for his unfamiliarity with the highbrow atmosphere of 'Varsity debates—a remark politely made in spite of the lowbrow atmosphere. The placing of the first three speakers was in in this order—Brown, McGhie, and Scotney.