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

its expenditure on the grounds that it was part of a long-term policy. He suggested that the Conservatives wanted to see a certain number of unemployed, and he referred to the fairness of the Income Tax.

J. B. Mortimer, opposing, refuted the suggestion that the Conservatives wanted unemployment. No party wanted it. He declared that under private enterprise it would have been impossible for the industries taken over by the Government to run at a loss. He then referred to the incompetence of the Labour leaders, who were, in his opinion, not qualified to govern the country.

R. J. Townshend, seconding the proposition, pointed out that it was necessary for the State to finance certain national concerns, such as the railways. He suggested that it was a fallacy that America would prefer to co-operate with a Conservative rather than a Socialist government.

M. I. H. Unwin, speaking second for the opposition, traced the roots of Socialism, and showed that Karl Marx had based his doctrine on the false assumptions that Socialism was the only alternative to laissez-faire liberalism, and that Capitalism was necessarily evil.

The speakers from the floor were Cobham, Hunt, Berg, Hamilton, Hodgson, Robinson, Quarmby, Gibson, Mr. Crews and Calvert.

The motion was lost by 6 votes to 57.

The motion for the third meeting was in a lighter vein, D. J. Wilson proposing that "This House deplores the tyranny of convention". Convention tended to make us slaves, and in its service we were blinded to the true nature of things. It also clamped down upon originality and character, and was the cause of much of the drabness of the present day.

Mr. Le Tocq, opening the case for the opposition, said that there were three great props of our lives, religion, the law, and convention. Convention was an essential support of the other two, and together they regulated every part of our daily lives, and it was certainly not a tyrant, but rather our servant.

D. L. Hourigan, in a maiden speech, considered the question from the point of view of manners and dress, showing how convention was often impracticable.

D. A. Haxby, also in his maiden speech, declared that convention was sensible, useful and necessary, and made for the smooth running of our lives.

Among the main points from the floor of the House was that while convention was the natural product of civilisation, it often prevented us from thinking for ourselves, and was behind the times.

The motion was carried by 18 votes to 10.

The final meeting was perhaps the best of the term. The motion was that "This House would welcome the restoration to the Courts of