SHAW AND CHESTERTON.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20282, 15 December 1927, Page 8

SHAW AND CHESTERTON.

A POPULAR DEBATE. THE CHURCH CONTROVERSY. “ PRIMATE’S HEARTFELT APPEAL FOR AMBIGUITY.” (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, November 2. Many weeks before the event all the tickets' for Mr Bernard Shaw’s and Mr G. K. Chesterton’s debate on the (juestion, ’* Do We Agree? ’’ w e sold, this was only natural, for it is seldom that two such giants of the literary world may be heard on the same platform within the same hour. The speeches were broadcast, and it was more than likely that the army of listeners-in was much larger than is usual on the night of an ordinary programme. It often happens that a much-heralded event does not come up to expectations. Probably hero worshippers expect too much, and although b.th speakers were amusing they did not provide that feast of wisdom which many of their audience expected. The doors of the Kingsway Hall were closed at 8 o'clock sharp, and Mr Shaw proceeded to state whore he agreed with his rival. “Mr Chesterton,’’ he said, “ telle and prints the most monstrous lies. He takes the ordinary incidents of suburban life, and turns them into murders and other grotesque things iu a preposterous way. I do much the same thing: I promulgate lies in the shape of plays. The point is that we go about doing these things, and are tolerated, and even admired. In late years I have been almost reverenced.” A DISTURBANCE. A clamour of angry voices, stamping feet, singing and shrill shouts suddenly arose in the corridor outside the hall, and someone asked Mr Shaw to sit down and wait. “ I can’t,” he said. “ I’m before the microphone. I fancy the trouble arises from the fact that the management has had to refuse to take money from people who wanted tickets and could not get them.” ‘‘ No, they have tickets,” said a stage whisper. “ Oh! Dear me,” said Mr Shaw, sitting down. Doors were then opened and several hundred people crowded in brandishing red and white tickets and shouting, “ Wait a minute, Mr Shaw. They’ve had our money.” “ This must be tremendous fun for the people listening-in," remarked Mr Shaw. “ They have not paid anything, and are getting the row into the bargain. But I can’t wait. If I don’t go ■ n talking, everybody else does.” THE CHURCH CONTROVERSY, Mr Shaw then said : “ You have at this moment a very pretty controversy going on in the Church of England between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Birmingham. I hope you.have read the admirable letter of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Everybody is pleased with that letter. It has the enormous virtue of being entirely good-humoured and of trying to make peace to avoid mischief, a popular English virtue, and its popularity is, I think, to the credit of the English race. “It also has the quality of being entirely anti-intellectual— (laughter) —and the letter has a heartfelt appeal for ambiguity. You can imagine the Archbishop of Canterbury, if he were to continue the controversy, saying to the Bishop of Birmingham, ‘ Now, my dear boy, let me recommend you to read that wonderful work, “ The Pilgrim’s Progess ”; read the history of the hero, Christian, no doubt a very splendid fellow, and, from a literary point of view, the only hero of romantic fiction who ever even remotely resembled a Christian man.’ He would say, ‘He is always fighting. He is out of one trouble into, another. He is leading a terrible life.’ MR FACING-BOTH-WAYS. “ What you have to do is to study his life in contrast with another character In 1 Pilgrim’s Progress,’ whom Mr Bunyan calls ‘ Mr Fadng-Both-Ways/ * Mr Fac-ing-Both-Ways' has no history. Happy is the country that has no history, and ‘Mr Facing-Both-Ways' does nothing in the ‘ Pilgrim’s Progress.’ Mr Bunyan does not even mention the historical feat he performed—that he drafted the 27th Article of the Church of England. There being some very troublesome people for Queen Elizabeth to deal with, Catholics and Puritans, on the question of Transubstantiate. ‘Mr Facing-Both-Ways' drafted for Elizabeth an Article containing two paragraphs. The first paragraph confirmed the doctrine of Transubstantiate, and the second paragraph confirmed it was an idle superstition. And Queen Elizabeth said ‘ You must be satisfied, and if you are not I’ll send you all to prison.’ In this controversy of the Archbishop with the Bishop you will find that what is moving the Bishop of Birmingham is a strong dislike of not knowing what it is he believes, and on the other side a certain distinctive feeling that it s just as well not to know.” —(Laughter.) Mr Shaw asked Mr Chesterton if it was right that if he had 2s as his share of the world’s wealth, and another man had 2s 6d he should say to that person, “I will kill you unless you make it equal.” “The answer is in the negative,” declared Mr Chesterton, continuing the debate. “I don’t agree with it, nor does Mr Shaw. He does not think any more than I do that all the people in this hall should kill each other and search each other’s pockets to see if there is two shillings in them.” GREW IN BEAUTY SIDE BY SIDE. Mr Chesterton's subsequent remarks left the audience in no doubt as to the answer to the question “ Do We Agree?” but aa he and Mr Shaw challenged and counterchallenged in a prolonged debate, the delight of their hearers increased, and there were roars of laughter when Mr Chesterton slyly observed that he and Mr Shaw grew in beauty side by side. “ If. he said, “ Mr Shaw lives for 300 years—-and I never knew a man more likely to do it I say if he lives 300 years I think he would agree with me. It may that Mr Shaw’s immortal power of talking nonsense would survive even after 300 years. Mr Shaw, not to be outdone, said he could not say that he thought Mr Chesterton had succeeded in forcing a difference of opinion on him. His concluding remark was; “ I may be a democrat, but I am not a snob—though intellectually I am a snob, but I think you will admit I have grounds for that.” —(Laughter.)