THE DEBATING SOCIETY Of the two changes we made last term in the conduct of proceedings, the imposition of a time-limit on speeches has proved successful, as may be deduced from the number of speakers from the floor, which has noticeably increased. The new seating arrangement, however, has not been as successful as had been expected, and when the stage of Big Hall had been divested of its theatrical trappings, and we were able to return there for our meetings, we reverted at the same time to the old arrangement. Four meetings have been held this term. We began the second half of the twentieth century on a dismal note, when R. J. Townshend rose to propose that "This House feels that the next fifty years will be even more miserable than the last". From an economic point of view, he considered that the world food situation was becoming more serious, with populations increasing and resources being slowly exhausted, while, on the political side, the nations of the world were marshalling their strength in a new armaments race for a war which was unavoidable and which would prove disastrous for Britain. Mr. Piers then rose to dispose the gloom from the House. He said we could not be sure what the future held in store for us. It was entirely a matter of opinion. He thought the future would be no worse than the years we had already experienced. War was not impossible, but the scientific weapons which we had acquired would not be used. Moreover, our economic and social conditions would improve. M. E. Kershaw, seconding the proposition, also considered the future from an economic point of view. We were dependent upon the United States for aid, and there was a serious danger of inflation. P. Jenkins, in a maiden speech, thought that improvement was concurrent with progress, and was therefore inevitable. He illustrated his point with examples of medical and scientific benefits. The debate on being thrown open to the House proved to be a rather one-sided discussion on the respective merits of an optimistic and pessimistic view of life, the Proposition being accused of pessimism and despair. The prevailing opinion was that the future would be what we made it. The motion was lost by 34 votes to 2. The second meeting fell on the day after the results of the General Election had been declared. Consequently, J. C. Griffiths, with a handful of ardent supporters behind him, faced the crowded opposition benches to propose that "This House regrets that the General Election did not result in a clear-cut majority for Labour", and bravely appealed to the House to preserve an open mind during the debate. Considering that the real issue lay between nationalisation and free enterprise, he denied that nationalisation was inefficient, and defended 22
•
'
