The Liberal Club: Under the presidency of Professor Levi, on Friday evening, a debate took place between students of the University College and the Theological College and members of the Liberal Club, the subject being: “What form of government is best suited to Great Britain — the monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy?” Messrs. W. Pinsent and E. W. Evans, representing the University College, upheld monarchy. Mr. Pinsent, who first spoke, contended that under aristocracy it was impossible to find those exceptionally clever men who would be able to estimate the wants of the people. If aristocracy was the best form of government it would persist in other countries, but it was substituted by representative government. The objection to democracy was that the masses were indifferent and uninformed about politics. Monarchy was a stable system, embracing what was best in the two other systems. Under a hereditary monarch, no class prejudice was inflamed, and the monarch was more than a figurehead for the personal interest was an unifying factor and its greatest strength. Mr. E. W. Evans argued that the inherent defect of democracy was inability to express its views, and it would be more difficult to do so as civilization became more complex. Mr. Arthur Hughes, of the Theological College, in advocating the aristocratic form of government, described it as composed of a body of the best-qualified men from every class of the community. Plato, of the ancient philosophers, and Mr. H. G. Wells, of modern thinkers, were in favour of aristocracy. Mr. Badham, also of the Theological College, humorously and eloquently supported his colleague’s views. Mr. S. V. Galloway, on behalf of the Club, championed democracy. Ideal monarchy and aristocracy, he said, did not exist. The lesson of history was that government by monarchy or aristocracy was far from the ideal. It was the democracy that had fought all along for political freedom and progress. When the people were given power, they invariably used it well and majorities generally ruled up to the right. Democracy was alive and capable of development, while absolutism, however good it might be, was dead. Mr. D. G. Griffiths, in seconding democracy, contended that the agitation for federal home rule, or a federation of representative governments proved that the people were desirous of further extension of democratic principles. An open debate followed, in which part was taken by Messrs. John Evans (solicitor), J. W. Brown, N. H. Thomas, M.A., Arthur Edmunds, B Taylor Lloyd, LI. G. Williams, and Mr. Barlass, who maintained the debate at a high level. The three openers replied and were confined to three minutes each, Mr. Pinsent’s reply being distinguished for its terseness and clear exposition of his arguments. The eloquence of the theological students however, carried the audience, with the result, that the division was in favour of aristocracy. A vote of thanks was passed to the six debaters.
Transcribed in whole or part from scanned originals: Presented with or without modified text and punctuation. For absolute accuracy refer to the original newspapers. Source: The British Newspaper Archive.
Referenced
GRO0072 Tiverton: Arthur Pinsent: 1888 – 1978