Debating Society [Report]

King Edward’s School Chronicle, Birmingham

N. S. vol. 26, no. 185 (February 1911), pp. 5-9. Unsigned.

[p. 5]

A meeting of this Society was held on November 18 th to discuss the motion that “A System of
Arbitration would be in every way preferable to War.”

The debate was, in spite of its interest, rather languid; and owing to lapse of time no detailed
report is forthcoming.

The principal arguments produced seems to have been: on the Affirmative “the feasability
[sic] of a permanent Court of Arbiters;” on the Negative “the total impractability [sic] of such a
Court;” or on the Affrimative “the ghastliness and destructives of War;” on the Negative “the
necessity for War and its productiveness.”

F. DEVIS (Aff.) referred to the “Dogger Banl,” while W. H. EHRHARDT (also Aff.) asserted
that the cause of War was the Daily Mail, and the secret of its abolition the successive hanging of its
Editors. R. S. PAYTON (Neg.) is credited with some remarks on “Mugwumps and Slaughter.”

The speakers in order were:- (Affirmative), V. Trought, W. H. Payton. R. Q. Gilson, F. Devis,

W. H. Ehrhardt; (Negative), J. R. R. Tolkien, F. T. Faulconbridge, G. A. Sheldon, G. L. Holdsworth
(with some “maiden” remarks on blood-filled trenches).

Affirmative, 5; Negative, 12.

On Friday, December 2nd, the eve of the General Election, the Society again assembled in
high spirits to discuss the motion that “We are Degenerating.”

J. R. R. TOLKIEN, who opened, based all his argument upon intellectual degradation, and
inveighed against the artificiality and unwholesomeness of Our outlook. After appearing to proclaim
himself a hedonist, he produced what proved to be the most unfortunately conspicuous part of the
debate. This was his “Theory of Bumps.” Men progresses in bumps, bumping low, but never bumping
as low as they bumped before.

This unhappy bump provided a theme for all the succeeding speakers on either side.

F. DEVIS (Neg.) had a few moments’ virulent revel at the expense of the Hon. Opener, in
which the “Bump” was most useful. He then drew some pictures of olden bestiality contrasted with
modern high-thinking, and opposed the skimpiness of ancient armour to the generous proportions of
the modern man.

[p. 6]

T. K. BRANSLEY (Aff.) was not going to let the olden days have the best of it in bestiality.
Drunkards, loafers and wastrels marches before us, and to complete the feeling of Our degradation the
Election interest was introduced into Our august Society.

S. BARROWCLOUGH (who prefaced his remarks with an irrelevant appeal for seriousness!)
did not believe in Our degeneration because of the Scouts (Boy nd Girl). He employed the bump.

G. L. HOLDSWORTH followed on the Affirmative. It is not recorded whether he made use

of the bump.
 V. TROUGHT then added a speech to the Negative, beginning and ending in an affectionate
and epistolary manner. (The bump?)

G. A. SHELDON (Aff.) and R. S. PAYTON (Nef.) it is almost certain employed the bump,
while C. W. PARKER definitely throwing decorum to the winds made public declaration of his
political animosities. (Neg.?)

Mr A. E. MEASURES then exposed the hedonism of the Hon. Opener, and exploded the
fallacy of the bump, while C. L. WISEMAN did what was expected of him, by giving the bump a
final pat of recognition, and asking it whether it was bound for the floor or the ceiling.

The HON. OPENER thereupon adjusted his theory of bumps to one of contusions. He
remained defiant in a lost cause. He knew the House had a delightful custom of invariably voting
Negative. It did. (Affirmative, 10; Negative, 16.)

On December 16th the Society assembled to hear the Old Boys discuss the motion that “The
Evils of the Press have up to now exceeded its Benefits.”

In spite of the fact that this is one of the most important and interesting events of the Session,
the members who were present to enjoy the excellent speaking on either side were exceptionally few
in number.

Mr W. L. VINCE in opening reminded the HOUSE of the rule of etiquette which obtained
from time immemorial, enjoining that each speaker by way of preface should call the Secretary a
“slimy reptile.” He had once been called to order for referring to the Hon. Opener on the Negative as a
gentleman. He would not again err in this direction. After outlining the arguments he did not intend to
employ, he accused the Press of usurping functions that did not belong to it. Not content with
supplying the facts by means of which we might form judgments, it also supplied criticisms,
deductions, and cheap maxims. The morning [p. 7] paper devastated our breakfast table. We forgot
our bacon while reading – not the leaders – but the mass of general news, all coloured to a definite
political tone. We must admit we were influenced by the Press. What was the Press, and who ran it?
After exposing the entire viciousness of journalists as a class in a most condemnatory anecdote, the
Hon. Gentleman denied his intention of in any way attacking them. He knew several of that class in
the House – worthy fellows, but socially and intellectually his inferiors. He warned the House against
impending indignation.

Mr D. L. FINNEMORE, against whom this warning had been directed, began by agreeing
with everything the Hon. Opener had said, but the Hon. Opener, he said, had not made out sufficient
case to induce the House to vote Affirmative. (What Hon. Opener ever has?) He had proved only the
existence of bad, not the preponderance. The motion was indefensible. It was equivalent to stating that
we should be better, had there never been a Press, in which case we should be cut off from everything
like the big game hunter in the wilds of Africa, who on his return finding a second General Election in
progress and King George newly on the throne, exclaimed in amazement, “How that little Welshman
has got on.” The daily papers were not however the sole representatives of the Press, which included
rightly any popular publications. We were a Democracy. A Democracy depended for its existence on
an active Press to educate the public in every direction, Journalists too did not guide public opinion so
much as they were guided themselves by that indefinable public atmosphere which influences even
genius. Truckling to popular taste was not inevitably evil in result. Shakespeare did so. When men
called for bloodshed he gave them Hamlet, when for foolery, King Lear.

Mr A. B. HARROWER demanded a consideration of the motion from the point of view of a

world Press. This was divided into the Press censored and the Press free. The former living under
compulsion was useless in producing a healthy effect. The latter with its revolting licence was active
in producing an unhealthy one.

Mr R. B. NAISH then flaunted himself before the House as a Liberal (AND a Democrat). No!
not of the Liberal Party, but a Chestertonian. He believed in “Ultimate Advancement.” This was best
to be furthered by a free Press, which worked for the “survival of the fittest opinions.” The papers
were the advocates, and each man the judge. Rather let each side exaggerate than understate. The
Hon. Gentleman then became suddenly ambiguous. Let us observe, said he, how we allow different
religious systems to proceed side by side in order ultimately to arrive at (glorious consummation) the
elimination of all religious truth. This was quite enough for Mr W. G. BOOTH, who poured his
whole-hearted scorn and invective upon the Negative. His case was proved. We had got down to the
real issue at last. The papers aided Democracy – that was quite enough – the papers must go. Let us
regret them. Packing was their chief use, except perhaps as a medium of advertisement for wives and
jobs. For the rest the papers (at that time) appeared to be [p. 8] solely occupied with purposeless or
ingenious arithmetical calculations proving that the Nationalists ruled Scotland, or Wales America.
He forgot which.

Mr T. W. HUTTON then finished off the Negative in an eloquent speech, whose effect upon
the House it is impossible adequately to record. Newspapers were to be regarded as two-gold in
function. They were newspapers first and leaders of public opinion second. This last function had
been grossly exaggerated. Incontestably we form our own opinions, and then select a paper to match.
Nor did papers corrupt the morals of any but those who went to them to look for evil. As organs of
publicity however it was impossible to over estimate their importance, both now and in their past.
They wage and have waged a constant battle against innumerable abuses, scandals, and miscarriages
of justice. When things went wrong it was only right it should be known. He showed the papers’
important effect on political honesty. This alone was suffiocient reason for voting on the Negative.

The HON. OPENER then replied, and in one rousing sentence fixed with scorn the
unfortunate ambiguity of the second speaker on the Negative. He called on the HOUSE to rally round
one cry at least, that in any case “all religious truth should not be eliminated.”

The House nevertheless voted 3 on the Affirmative and 16 on the Negative.

On January 27th a puzzled House fresh from the Christmas revels came together to hear the
discussion on the motion that “This House considers that Holidays are in no way beneficial, and
demands their Abolition.”

R. Q. GILSON, who opened, asked what were the foundations of our deep-=rooted preference
for holidays. Our pleasure in them was gained merely by contrast with the opposing pain – work. This
regarding of work as pain and holiday as pleasure was as morbid as opium smoking. The alternation
of undue effort and excessive relaxation was utterly injurious. What re holidays used for? – sleep,
food, flimsy novels. Our present system of learning is like the tide – each wave having to cover nearly
all the lost ground of the former in order to lap just a little bit farther up the shore.

T. K. BARNSLEY was then giving a delicate description of the diet of various members
when he was called to order. After much subtle argument, he delighted the House before sitting down
by likening the desire to work our brains without rest to attempting to set the Koh-i-noor in a jelly.

[p. 9]

S. BARROWCLOUGH then followed, and declaimed against the previous speaker. He

objected to his foody topics and his foody initials.
 K. W. GRANT returned to the motion, and declared that holidays – especially at Christmas –
were good for trade.

J. R. R. TOLKIEN took the reference to “Koh-i-noors in jelly” as a personal insult, since he

was in the habit of wearing a yellow pencil in his mouth.

V. TROUGHT then viewed the motion from three standpoints, and was followed by F.
SCOPES in an attack on the economics of a previous speaker. He defined holidays from “Murray.” R.
S. PAYTON said term time for play and holidays for work, but after C. W. H. PARKER had voiced
his sentiments, C. L. WISEMAN discussed the propagation of the race – which seemed to mean
himself, and harrowed the House on the subject of morning rising. After W. H. EHRHARDT had
sung a dirge, and G. A. SHELDON had also spoken, the HON. OPENER replied, and the House
divided. The votes were; on the Affirmative 6, on the Negative 13.