EMPIRE DEBATE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19761, 12 April 1926, Page 14

EMPIRE DEBATE.

“MY COUNTRY, RIGHT OR WRONG.” BRITISH SPEAKERS TAKE PART. Burns Hall was unusually well filled on Saturday night when the second debate under the auspices of the Otago Lmveisity Students’ Association took place. The par. ticipants were representatives of the Empire Debating team vhich is now touring the Dominion and representatives from the Otago University and the University Club. The subject chosen was: ’lhat the fl9 u . s ® Affirms the Sentiment, My Country, Right or Wrong.” The speakers were: Affirmative. —Messrs H. L Barrowclough (Otago) A. H. E. Molson (Oxford Univer. sity) and A. J. C. Campbell (Otago University Debating Club). , , , , Negative.—Messrs T. P. Macdon d (Edinburgh), D. Taylor (Law Faculty Debating Club), and Paul Reed (London). The Hon. C. E. Statham presided, the subject was not one which lent itself t °, a display of wit as was the case with the first debate in which the same Brit J team took part on Thursday night, nevertheless there were flashes of humour, which appreciated by the audience. Applause ■was frequent, the audience bem™ quick to realise when a point had been scored. During the debate there were orcasional interruptions from young men who occupied seats at the back of the hall. hes ® interruptions, however, were good-natured sallies, and were accepted by the speakers in the best of spirits. The Chairman said there was no occasion for him to welcome the visitors from overseas. That had already been done, and he was of opinion that welcomes to v'sitors were very much overdone. He said there was no occasion to ask for a fair bearing for the speakers —a Dunedin audience always prepared to give that. The open ing speakers and the last speakers on the negative side would be allowed 15 minutes each in which to state their case, and tiie others would he allowed 10 minutes each, the leader on the affirmative side would be allowed 10 minutes for reply. At the conclusion there would be no judging and no vote would be taken. Mr H. E. Barrowclough opened for the affirmative, and was warmly greeted. He said that when he was approached with regard to taking part in the debate, and the subject was mentioned he stipu •lated that he should be al, »' vcd ,. ° f. k on the affirmative side, He did so because that was a principle which he had alwavs stood for. As a matter of fact it had been a puzzle to him that any one could be found to espouse the negative. In this connection he wished to make it clear that he was quite sincere and hearted in his espousal of the cause. He wished to show what precisely sentiment of that very elliptical expression “My Country Tight or Wrong. Perhaps some of those silver-tongued pratore from abroad would put it in a different way.—(“Hear, hear,” and laughter.) He waa told that the expression was first used by an American naval officer named Decatur after . ,wh°m a war vessel which recently visited our port had been named. The expression came into use in New Zealand when the Turkish crisis arose, and the words wore first used by Mr T. M- Wilford. who was then Leader of the Opposition. A cr ms had arisen over Turkish affairs and the New Zealand Government was considering the question as to what attitude it would adopt. Great Britain had taken New Zealand and the other dominions into her confidence. and she wished particularly to know whether New Zealand would support her. The matter was discussed m the New Zealand Parliament, and Mr Milford Used those words. He could not say that he was always prepared to support Mr M Ilford in everything he did. but he wa» prepared to back him up in that He (tfie speaker), was too much of an Ishishman to agree with everything a man said—(Laughter). He wished it clearly to be understood that once a decision, after careful consideration, had been reached by a Government on a question of international policy he as an individual, was prepared to stand by it. “Once that decision has been reached,” said the speaker, 'it is then no affair of mine—my country, right or wrong.” He contended that they had to accept the policy of those to whom they looked as leaders. Unless they did that a country could not stand. He knew that he should be called non-moral, and perhaps immoral for the sentiments he had expressed. but that did not concern him. bo long as a country sent men to represent it in the councils of the Empire, and they did it properly, then that country must be prepared to stand bv the decisions reached. He would say: M’hat are yon and 1 that we should stand up and whether our country is right or wrong? Mr Macdonald commenced by thanking the audience for the kindly way in which they had been received. It had been a particular pleasure to one like hi mselt. who came from the Edinburgh of the North to pay a visit to the Edinburgh of the South. He understood thev had a M ater ot Leith in this city of the South.—(Laughter). Tn Scotland they had a Water of Leith, too The names of the streets here were similar t<r these in his native city. Coining to the subject of the debate he did not think his opponent was very complimentary to them when he said. neither you nor I know anythin"'.”—(Laughter and applause). He (the speaker), could not sav that because ho knew he was addressing the most intelligent audience in New Zealand.— (Laughter and applause.) He could understand the adoption of the sentiment my country, right or wrong, if a brutal attack had been made on that country, but not otherwise. The relationship between the individual and the State was a problem which had attracted all the great minds of the past, and it was attracting the crest minds of to-dsy.“~(Lsujxbtor.) It had alwavs been held that a guiding principlo should be to gain the full sum of human happiness, but if an individual was going to support the principle of -Mv country, right or wrong,” he was not adhering to that guiding principle. the tendency of to-day had been for men and women to realise that there was somethinc greater than the State to which theiv belonged, and if individuals supported a policy on which their leaders had wrongly determined they were not doing what was right. His opponent had said that the policy of the leaders might be determined bv the wishes of the State. The man returned fo Parliament might have been given a mandate to netbut once a Government was formed the individuals had no further control. Especially so was that the case when it was realised how much the press was controlled by the Government which happened to be in office. He realised that the old Greek idea was to support your country whether it was right or wrong, but conditions had changed since then. If one’s country was right the individuals were justified in supporting it, but not otherwise. It was sometimes difficult for an individual to understand which was his country. Tie might have been born in Germany of Italian parents and emigrated to the United States and was on a temporary visit to New Zealand. —(Laughter.) They might encounter the same difficulties as the Scotchman encountered who ■was born ir London, so as to save his train fare south.—(Laughter.) It was. he said a very fine thing to support your country whetl 'you knew that your country was supporting a righteous cause, bat not otherwise. There were people who talked glibly of patriotism, but there wee many definitions of patriotism which were not flattering to his opponents. Dr Johnson had described it as the last refuge of a sco-m----dreL His opponent had suggested that he

might call him non-moral or immoral. He, however, had no hesitation in flinging in his teeth the word s of Dr Johnson. He wished his hearers to remember that the majority was not always right. This was demonstrated at the time of the union between England and Scotland, nevertheless, great benefits had resulted from that union It had been of advantage to Scotchmen, and the advantage to the English was that they had been better governed than they had been prior to the union.—(Loud laughter and applause.) Mr Molson said they could not allow every individual to judge for himself whether he was right or wrong. There was always a minority, and that minority must submit to the majority. A man might be found - who held very pronounced views on a subject, end who conscientiously believed that he was right, but it was probable that he could not find a majority to share his views. There wag a certain woman, and the previous speaker reminded him of her—(loud laughter)—-who said that for a long time she had realised that there were only two people who had the right to be saved, and those two people were the minister and herself, and lately she had had grave doubts about the minister —(Laughter.) It was not part of a soldier’s duty to consider the politics of a war. If a man were to have the right to say his country was wrong, it would surely be his duty to sally forth and put bombs under railway bridges and gasworks for example, and he, the speaker would even go further and say that he should set out and assist in enlisting an irregular body of troops. He believed that if a man were loyal to himself and loyal to those he worked with and those around him he could not be disloyal to any man.—(Applause.) Mr Taylor ; aid it was a peculiar thing that the words which formed the subject of the debate should have originated in America. Probably America was wrong in Georgian times. A flamboyant and flagwaving policy was not patriotism. Their opponents would have them believe that a country must blindly accept the policy of the Government and follow it into a war which might lead to its extermination. In order - to achieve the result aimed at a united front was necessary. It was only by presenting a united front that the League of Nations could prevent war. It was only by maintaining a united front that the break-up of the British Empire would be prevented. Once a country nad embarked on a war it was for those in that country to see the trouble through to the end. —(Applause.) Mr Reed said that it was necessary to look beyond one’s own country. We should train ourselves to think internationally. This could not be done by adhering to the sentiment, “My country, right or wrong.” They might as well say: “My family, right or wrong.” The sentiments, however, had some good points; it was not all bad. Mr Barrowclough, in reply, said that he wished to make it clear that it was the duty of the individual to follow his country once a decision had been reached on a question of policy. He for one would be prepared to fight for it to the last ditch if necessary, but he reserved to himself, the right to say at the conclusion to those responsible for the trouble: “Give , us . ( a " account of your stewardship,’ and if it were shown that the leaders werg wrong they should be punished if necessary, _ by death, and he for one would not hesitate to inflict the punishment himself ' In the matter of international crisis there was frequently not time to investigate, and the individual had to be guided by the leaders. He considered that the British Empire was the most righteous of natrons. He was astonished at the epithets which • had been hurled at him because of his upholding patriotism. Dr Johnson might have said that to be a patriot was to be a scoundrel. If so, then his earnest wish was that he might live and die a scoundrel.—(Loud applause.) , , Mr T. K. Sidey, M.P.. proposed a hearty vote of thanks to the speakers, .and this was carried by acclamation. Mr Macdonald returned thanks, and stated that thev wo"ld never forget the kindness of tke Dunodin people during stay in this city He said that after visiting the other three „ centres they would leave for Australia, and wo"'d sail from Fremantle for Home about the beginning of June. ■ , •At the request of the chairman the National Anthem was then sung.