ON TRAINING IN CITIZENSHIP. 371 
‘The method of procedure was as follows: Two half-hour periods were 
assigned each week for a general meeting of the Forms. At the first of 
these a report was presented by each Form, and any time left over was set 
aside for asking questions. At the second the questions previously asked 
were answered. A chairman of the assembly was elected, and a secretary 
for the recording of questions. Each Form appointed weekly a secretary to 
draw up the report, and an orator to deliver it. Every Form had its own 
newspaper, and, as far as was practicable, as wide a selection as possible 
was made. As the Daily Herald was known to flourish in the Remove, 
the Daily Mail was imported as a salutary antidote. Home Affairs soon 
found that it was necessary to appoint Sub-Committees, and their report always 
took the form of a collection of minor reports. 
‘It was the intention that reports should deal, as far as possible, entirely 
with fact, and not with interpretation of fact. This has naturally proved 
a difficulty, but the difficulty itself has tended to show the point previously 
mentioned, that the first requisite for the would-be historian is that he 
should be able to sift out the truth from conflicting evidence. At first the 
reports failed, either from the incapacity of the Form secretary, who was often 
inclined to hand in undigested newspaper cuttings, but more often from the 
inaudibility of the orator. After certain elementary rules of procedure had 
been adopted, such. as that anyone who could not hear might get up and 
interrupt the reader, more interest was aroused, and the standard of oratory 
improved. There was usually a great deal of difference in the quality of 
reports, some Forms being consistently concise and exhaustive, while others 
often caused inattention or disagreement. Another rule of procedure which 
was adopted was that the chairman asked at the end of each report whether 
anyone could supply any omissions. On one occasion the Colonies aroused 
antagonism by presenting what the Army delights in calling a Nil Report. 
The assembly was highly incensed, but when asked by the representative of 
the Colonies to supply omissions they were unable to do so, wherefore it was 
reasonably contended that the report was not unsatisfactory. This apparently 
justifiable claim, however, was strongly repudiated, and the situation was 
saved by a member of the VIth, who remembered having seen something about 
a strike in Winnipeg (the progress of which, incidentally, had been recorded 
weekly by the representative of the Colonies). It was decided, somewhat 
arbitrarily, that the Nil Reports would not be required in future. 
“At the end of the reading of the reports there was invariably a hurricane 
of questions. ‘‘I should like to ask America, &c.,’’ became the stereotyped 
formula, and, needless to say, America (if the Form were awake at the time) 
promptly retaliated by a counter-question. As a rule, notice was taken for 
answering questions, but as knowledge increased it was found desirable that 
some questions, points of geography, for instance, should be answered on the 
spot. It naturally proved difficult at times to find the necessary evidence 
for ‘answering some questions, but for a representative to plead that ‘‘ evidence 
had not yet come to hand”’ was allowed, provided that he undertook to keep 
his eyes upon the matter and to report later if possible. The formula ‘“‘ I will 
answer that question next time ’”’ fortunately became less frequent with the 
increase of confidence and experience, but it is still too common a subterfuge 
for the unprepared. 
“Though the experiment is still in its early stages, and capable of further 
development, it has been abundantly proved already that interest in inter- 
national politics does not require much stimulating. Interesting debates between 
actual or potential national opponents have been frequent, and one has felt 
at times over how slight a point one nation is liable to declare war upon 
another. It is noticeable that the majority has gone very strongly over to 
the left. The Government of our own country has come in for far more 
criticism than support. It has been difficult sometimes to adjust the balance 
of opinion, especially, for instance, in the matter of our policy in Russia. 
The Russian delegates have shown a marked tendency to support Bolshevism, 
but a report presented which ‘was likely to sway the assembly over too un- 
critically to the side of Revolution always evoked a demand from the more 
balanced listeners for a contrary report from the other side. And if the 
second report did not succeed so well in appealing to the emotions of the 
