ANTI-BRITISH SPIRIT

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 123, 25 May 1923, Page 8

ANTI-BRITISH SPIRIT

COLLEGE DEBATES

REPLY FROM THE WELFARE

LEAGUE.

TO THE EDITOB.

Sir,-—There appears in your issue of the 22nd inst., a long letter headed "Welfare League criticism. Reply from the University," and signed by Mr. P. J. G-. Smith. We cannot believe that the matter is a reply from the University and it does not appear as coming officially from the University Debating Society. Where it emanates from, however, is of no importance as the matter must be judged on its merit.

A good deal of it is taken up with a superficial fling at the league, which only interests us as matter of amusement. If the writer is anxious to acquire merit as a wit he should try and get beyond the "League of Notions" form of inanity with which the letter closes. What impresses us is the diffidence shown towards facing the direct issue, which we raised, that there exists in pur midst an element which aims at belittling the British Empire and insidiously subverting the confidence of our people in it. When we assert that such anti-British spirit has found its way_ into the Victoria College Debating Society our action is due to reports we have had from independent persons who have been present at some of the debates. , It is stated to us that statements are made, and approval shown, of sentiments which were by no means friendly to- Britain, or the Empire, of which we form part. Now this matter being made piiblio it is open to denial or, if that cannot be given, an explanation. It is no reply to infer that the Welfare League lacks sprightliness; or that its idea is that the Empire is simply a subject for laudation ; or that it thinks of New Zealand as "a mere appange of Empire." If the two latter inferences were correct, instead of being the hallucination of a. heated imagination, such would still fail to be a reply to the questions raised. Nobody has ever objected to students, or other citizens, "taking stock of Imperial relations in order to ascertain the most satisfactory basis for the peace and goodwill of the future." Wlfat is objected to is that some individuals who enjoy all the benefits of British, citizenship take stock of international relations and direct their efforts of propaganda towards subverting the Union of Nations we call the Empire. That there' is widespread organisation existing within the British Empire for the purpose of carrying on this destructive work, is known to those who are real students of the sociology of to-day. It is not necessary to be possessed of any ideas of a "hooded terror" to know the dangers that, confront our Empire from within. A little time ago we read the evidence given by Mr. J. H. Thomas, M.P. (Labourite) before an Court of Law wherein he stated deliberately that at the time of the coal strike lie knew the country was on the verge of being plunged into a physical revolution, and that plans to that end had been decided upon. Such matters as these and tliewhole process of what the Australians call "white anting" the structure of the Empire, is not a'mere abstract proposition for literary debate. The students of Victoria College, as well as all other citizens, must remember that 17,000 of New Zealand's sons gave their lives to defend what we are enjoying to-day. If out of conceit, or laziness, or mental and moral insanity we neglect to conserve and defend what has been committed to us, those who come after will not discuss the matter academically but will brand us as dastards, for we will have earned the title.

Our critic complains that we mention "our country" and "Empire" as if they were one. Are they not one, although yet many? The Empire may be, as H. G. Wells calls it, a "clumsy, collection of strange accidents," but it is ours, and we are it. When the students get away from that vital fact they may stand upon an altitude of all knowingness which makes the Empire look very insignificant indeed, but when raised to that great height it may be well for them to remember that but for the Empire they and their University would probably have no more existence than a dream that has passed and been forgotten. How easy it is for the literary genius and the academic mind to sum up the failure of this great world experiment we call the British Empire, and oh; how futile. The pioneer and the settler, the craftsman, the builder, the sailor, and the poor despised soldier —they know nothing, they only do things, and the result have in a world-wide combination of nations such as our Empire. It may be a poor result, but we have seen nothing better to date, not even in debate or on paper. By all means let us improve—welcome every student who can help, but in God's name let us avoid the meanest of all conceits possible, that of belittling or condemning our own, just because we want to appear advanced, whatever that means.

Our critic is wrong, we would not have their debates suppressed, let the tide of speech flow on. We only ask that distinction be made between meetings for debate and meetings for propaganda. His dissertation on how to frame a motion for debate is what we could call the deadly abstract, besides it is so long and after all life is but a brief span. The commonsense rule of debate is that a motion for discussion shall be of an affirmative character. What is meant by the words "the particular is considered in tha light of the general" we do not know, but in research such is not the method of inductive reasoning upon which modern science is based. We have seen motions, for debate which drew inferences as well as making affirmations, the affirmations might be right and the inferences all wrong. That is not a good way to frame a motion. From a number of motions for, debate submitted at the University Society, it appeared to us that these were generally framed so as to place the upholder of any established order of to-day—it might be the Empire—in the position of defendant. This conveys the general idea that those -taking such side have always to be ready with excuse. We have been informed that in a recent debate when the innocence or guilt of Germany in connection with the war was considered, one student who took the side of Britain practically apologised for having to maintain what was evidently the unpopular side. If our information is correct this constitutes an interesting sidelight on the mentality of an element present at these meetings. The plain issue is whether the Empire should be made a subject of attack, and all who choose to protest be treated as old fogeys living in the past and opponents of every progressive idea conceivable. That sort of intellectual impudence should be recognised for what it is. The supporters of British unity have nothing to excuse—it is those who indulge in insidious attacks: upon such unity°who have much to excuse, explain, and apologise for.—We are, etc., N.Z. WELFARE LEAGUE.