21 October

A four-term year would be an improvement

Mr Williams began with a number of very questionable assertions the substance of which appeared to him to be axiomatic. He suggested that one of the four proposed terms be spent on A-level courses and thought the advantages of the system too great to be ignored. Mr M Barry was quick to point out that Mr Williams had himself ignored the advantages he had referred to, and said that he was satisfied with the three terms as they were. He admitted there could be a few improvements, e.g. a mid-term break at the end of October. The fourterm year had one great flaw: the holidays would be too short to enable anyone to earn any money. Mr Scott (J F) had an original approach. Four terms would suit sports and games far better and we should undoubtedly get more Gold Medals in the Olympics. Mr Hughes thought that four terms a year would be too many: much time would be lost and boarding school fees would be increased. He knew of a case where it had been tried, and abandoned. In the later stages of Question Time the Speaker became involved with the Opposition and the motion was unanimously defeated.

4 November

Majority verdicts do not serve the cause of justice as well as unanimous ones

Sir Hugh Davies gave a brief history of the British Jury. There had to be twelve, as with the tribes of Israel and the Apostles: in Saxon Mathematics 12 was everything. Human beings are incapable of justice and the only way to cut injustice to the minimum is to have majority verdicts. Mr Lowe, for the Opposition, went to great trouble to explain the subtle differences between majority and unanimous verdicts and met with a fair measure of success. The crime rate would be reduced by the new system because fewer criminals would 'get off': it was much easier to bring pressure to bear on only one juror, and so secure an acquital, than to intimidate several. Mr Moore, Conservative, could see no reason for changing a system that had functioned well for hundreds of years. He remained unimpressed by Mr Lowe's argument that majority verdicts made it more difficult for juries to be got at. The whole thing was a thinly disguised plot on the part of Labour, to save time and money and he thought that that other well-known Conservative, Blackstone, would agree with him. Mr Baggott, without being specific, thought there wasn't much difference between a jury of 10 and a jury of 12. Innocent people were convicted under the old system: remember Hanratty, he said. There was a vast majority of abstentions and the motion was carried by 17-3.

18 November

Communism will do to the West what Attila did to Rome

Mr O'Connor defined carefully what he meant by The West and Communism and concluded that they were diametrically opposed. He described, in detail, life in a totalitarian state and gave personal details of Attila's life to show that he was clearly a Roman Communist sprung from an Eastern civilization. Mr McLoughlin set about putting Attila into perspective and stripping

him of all his romantic associations. His was only one of many barbarian assaults on the Empire; which was at that time decadent and more than ready for someone like Attila to put it right. Rome failed because it failed to adapt itself to a changing world and the West would succumb to Communism for the same reason. Mr Feeny, seconding, thought that Attila did nothing to Rome but did a lot for Rome. He continued in this vein for some time with singular disregard for historical accuracy and concluded with the thought that Marx and Attila had much in common; they were both short, slit-eyed and hairy. Finishing for the Opposition, Mr Allen thought that there was no parity between the Rome-Attila confrontation and that of the West and Communism. America was West, and stronger than the Communists. History could not repeat itself in this instance. Later, Mr McCrystal asked why Mr Feeny had said that the West was doing as Rome did with nuclear weapons, since no classical authors had ever mentioned such weapons: Mr Feeny: 'They were secret weapons'. Sir Hugh deeply resented Mr Allen's suggestion that Britain would follow America: it would be the other way round, of course. With 20-odd abstentions the motion was defeated by 20-11.

27 January 1969

Public Schools have served their purpose

Mr Dunn dealt inimitably with the history and achievement of the Public Schools and thought that they only served to perpetuate outmoded class-distinction. The government had sensibly decided that they should not be closed but should make 50% of their places available to LEA nominees. Other suggestions included more women on the Staff and more freedom generally. Mr McCrystal thought that ability showed in the long run either way. All the top chaps in the RAF were ex-Cranwell and Public School and he could become a Wing Commander at 31. And in any case this was not the time to impose an intolerable burden on the taxpayer such as would result from abolition of Public Schools. Mr Byrne (PO) peered short-sightedly at his notes and after some deliberation said 'Public...': after further consultation of the text he was able to continue, 'Schools'. He thought that the State School had inherent advantages that the Public Schools lacked, and produced a different type. They did not turn out the remnants of a decadent age.

Mr McGowan-Scanlon went into technicalities of teacher. pupil ratios. lie thought that boys could develop better in Debating Societies and Photographic Clubs. He knew of State Schools where all the pupils went down a class each year instead of up; there was tittle more to be said and Comprehensives were beneath contempt. He then foxed all the members by reminding them that the current Prime Minister was a Grammar School product. Sir Hugh Davies felt it incumbent upon himself to point out to us that in a recent experiment at Malborough 50 LEA nominees had been admitted and all left within two years protesting that the discipline was just too much. Motion defeated by 6-4: 42 abstentions.

25