Many of the audience were thankful that the debate on psychology and the treatment of crime was nothing more than a curtain-raiser. Candidly, if it had been the main attraction the audience, as well as the criminals, would have been in a fit state for the caring hands of the psychologist.

Mr. Griffiths opened for the affirmative. He argued on the general line that psychology, when applied to the treatment of criminals, tended to reform them and restore them as "useful and sane units" in society. He did not seem to make full use of the abundant factual and statistical material available.

An examination of the psychology section of the library would have strengthened his case considerably.

A Bandage of Verbiage.

Mr. McGhie wrapped himself in a bandage of verbiage and talked about the "vague, nebulous incomprehensibilities" which the affirmative let pass as psychologist. He stoutly defended existing legal machinery and methods, which were the product of many years of experience.

Hubbard knew more about psychology than the previous speakers, and drew attention to the important relation between crime and feeblemindedness.

Dick Wild told a touching story of a poor, illiterate lad of 18 who was tempted to steal a gold watch: of how the psychologists repressed his repressions and confiscated his complexes. This tale brought hardened members of the Haeremai Club to tears.

The best speaker from the floor was Mr. Brown. He said McGhie liked lettuce and that the legal profession was simply "the ancient and romantic art of keeping criminals at large."

Judge Disappointed.

Mr. W. P. Rollings was not impressed with the debate. He did not think the speeches were well prepared, and he considered diction and stance were generally bad. In short, it was not up to the standard of University debates. The speakers were placed as follows: Brown, Wild, McGhie, McElwain, and Miss Hursthouse.