QUAD Magazine: Why Free Speech Matters

13 March 2023 - Charlie Mackintosh, Ex-President, Hilary 2023, New College, argues why free speech matters. This piece first appeared in the University of Oxford’s alumni magazine QUAD

https://www.alumni.ox.ac.uk/article/why-free-speech-matters

9 February 2023: The Oxford Union voted to fight for King & Country, 90 years to the day since the 1933 'Oxford Oath' 

This was the first time, since the original debate, that the Oxford Union revisited the ‘King and country’ motion whilst a king sits on the British throne. The Hon. Michael Beloff KC and The Hon. Jeremy Beloff were tellers for the evening in tribute to their father Max Beloff who was a teller in the 1933 debate.

The 1933 ‘King and Country’ debate

On the evening of 9 February 1933, Oxford Union members assembled for their regular Thursday night debate to consider the motion ‘That this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country’. The fact the motion was carried, by 275 votes to 153, caused outrage amongst some members of the establishment, ignited a media storm and captured international attention. More than any other event, it is perhaps the events of that night and its aftermath that ensured the Oxford Union Society’s place in history and its hold on public consciousness.

The Debate Motion

The motion was initially suggested by the Librarian, David Graham, and as was custom, officially selected by the President, Frank Hardie. As well as three student speakers – Kenelm Digby (St John’s), Keith Steel Maitland (Balliol) and David Graham (Balliol) - Hardie invited two guests to give paper speeches. The well-known philosopher and Union member, C.E.M. Joad, was invited to speak for the motion, and former Union president, Quintin Hogg, to speak against. The debate itself was unremarkable. Joad’s eloquence in presenting an absolute pacifist position was widely credited for swaying the result. Only the student papers and Oxford Mail sent reporters.

The Aftermath

The controversy surrounding the debate began on 11 February with a letter on the centre-page of the Daily Telegraph entitled, ‘Disloyalty at Oxford: gesture towards the Reds’. It purported to be by a Union member ‘Sixty-four’, later revealed as Telegraph writer J.B. Firth. A flurry of similar press stories and published letters from readers followed. One group of older non-resident Oxford Union members, led by Lord Stanley Of Alderley and Randolph Churchill, son of Winston, proposed to remove, or ‘expunge’, the records of the debate from the Society’s minute book.

On 16 February, at the debate following the ‘King and Country’ motion, a group of 20-30 intruders marched into the hall and tore the record of the debate from the minute book. The intruders were variously described as undergraduates, members of the University boat club or members of Oswald Mosley’s fascist party. A couple of weeks later, on 2 March, a packed House divided on the motion to expunge the records of the ‘King and Country’ debate. The motion was defeated by a decisive 750 votes to 138.

This second vote was in fact a referendum on free speech; resident Oxford members resented the intrusion of others in their affairs. The President was also credited for swaying the result with his speech making clear that this was not a rerun of the previous motion, but a ‘childish and absurd’ attempt to alter the record.

Significance

The timing of the motion largely explains the level of attention it attracted. During a period of rising international tensions, the speakers at the debate focussed on pacificism and the best way to prevent the outbreak of a future war. National press coverage, however, transformed the public terms of the debate into something quite different.

The supporters of the motion were criticised as decadent or communist inspired youth, expressing disloyalty to the King. It is true that the Union’s junior officers and committee members were largely liberal and left-leaning, reflective of a wider intellectual shift during this period. The Communist party, however, played no part in the debate. The students were serious and earnest in their convictions. The monarchy was moreover barely mentioned. The ‘King and country’ part of the motion was interpreted by most students as short-hand for a jingoistic and imperialist call to war.

“[I]n Germany, in Russia, in Italy, in Japan, the idea of a decadent, degenerate Britain took deep root and swayed many calculations” - Winston Churchill, in ‘The Second World War’.

Older Union and University members feared the result would be taken as representative of the position of the Union, the University and indeed the country as a whole. Once University unions across the country began passing similar motions, a panic about the values of the nation’s youth set in, especially over how this would be seen internationally, in the Soviet Union, Italy, Japan and Germany. A claim that the ‘King and Country’ result convinced the dictators that Britain would not resist aggressive expansionism has though been largely discredited.

Timeline

9 February 1933              ‘King and Country’ motion carried by a majority of 122 votes

15 February 1933            Notice posted that a motion to expunge the records of the ‘King and Country’ debate from the records would be proposed during the Society’s meeting on 2 March

16 February 1933            During the evening debate, a group of 20-30 intruders marched into the hall and tore the minutes of the ‘King and Country’ debate from the minute book.

2 March 1933                   The motion ‘That the Secretary be directed to expunge from the records of the Society the Motion which was carried on Thursday, 9^th February’ was defeated by 750 votes to 138 votes.

The ‘King and Country’ scoreboard

The motion that the House would not fight for ‘Queen and Country’, often omitting the ‘in any circumstances’ clause, has been debated on various occasions in the past with the following results:

9 February 1933              Motion carried by 275 For, 133 Against

20 May 1965                    Motion defeated with 466 For, 493 Against

22 May 1981                    Motion defeated with 135 For, 138 Against

9 February 1983              Motion defeated with 187 For, 416 Against

7 February 2008              Result unrecorded

7 February 2013              Motion defeated with 109 For, 191 Against

9 February 2023              Motion defeated with 88 For, 212 Against