University of Virginia Library

THE DEBATING SOCIETY.

The following is not strictly a “Georgia Scene;”
but as Georgians were the chief actors in it, it may perhaps
be introduced, with propriety, in these sketches.

About three and twenty years ago, at the celebrated
school in W—n, was formed a Debating Society,
composed of young gentlemen between the ages of seventeen
and twenty-two. Of the number were two, who,
rather from an uncommon volubility, than from any superior
gifts or acquirements, which they possessed over
their associates, were by common consent, placed at the
head of the fraternity.—At least this was true of one of
them: the other certainly had higher claims to his distinction.
He was a man of the highest order of intellect,
who, though he has since been known throughout
the Union, as one of the ablest speakers in the country,
seems to me to have added but little to his powers in
debate, since he passed his twenty-second year. The
name of the first, was Longworth; and McDermot was
the name of the last. They were congenial spirits,
warm friends, and classmates, at the time of which I am
speaking.

It was a rule of the Society, that every member should
speak upon the subjects chosen for discussion, or pay a
fine; and as all the members valued the little stock of
change, with which they were furnished, more than they
did their reputation for oratory; not a fine had been imposed
for a breach of this rule, from the organization of
the society to this time.

The subjects for discussion, were proposed by the
members, and selected by the President, whose prerogative
it was also to arrange the speakers on either side, at
his pleasure; though in selecting the subjects, he was
influenced not a little, by the members who gave their
opinions freely of those which were offered.

It was just as the time was approaching, when most of
the members were to leave the society, some for college,
and some for the busy scenes of life, that McDermot
went to share his classmate's bed for a night. In the

course of the evening's conversation, the society came
upon the tapis. “Mac,” said Longworth, “would'nt
we have rare sport, if we could impose a subject upon
the society, which has no sense in it, and hear the members
speak upon it?”

“Zounds,” said McDermot, “it would be the finest
fun in the world. Let's try it at all events—we can
lose nothing by the experiment.”

A sheet of foolscap was immediately divided between
them, and they industriously commenced the difficult
task of framing sentences, which should possess the form
of a debateable question, without a particle of the substance.—After
an hour's toil, they at length exhibited
the fruits of their labor, and after some reflection, and
much laughing, they selected, from about thirty subjects
proposed, the following, as most likely to be received by
the society:

Longworth was to propose it to the society, and McDermot
was to advocate its adoption.—As they had
every reason to suppose, from the practice of the past,
that they would be placed at the head of the list of disputants,
and on opposite sides, it was agreed between them,
in case the experiment should succeed, that they would
write off, and interchange their speeches, in order that
each might quote literally from the other, and thus seem
at least, to understand each other.

The day at length came for the triumph or defeat of
the project; and several accidental circumstances conspired
to crown it with success. The society had entirely
exhausted their subjects; the discussion of the day
had been protracted to an unusual length, and the horns
of the several boarding-houses began to sound, just as it

ended. It was at this auspicious moment, that Longworth
rose, and proposed his subject. It was caught at
with rapture by McDermot, as being decidedly the best,
that had ever been submitted; and he wondered that
none of the members had ever thought of it before.

It was no sooner proposed, than several members exclaimed,
that they did not understand it; and demanded
an explanation from the mover. Longworth replied,
that there was no time then for explanations, but that
either himself or Mr. McDermot would explain it, at
any other time.

Upon the credit of the maker and endorser, the subject
was accepted; and under pretence of economising
time, (but really to avoid a repitition of the question,)
Longworth kindly offered to record it, for the Secretary.
This labor ended, he announced that he was prepared
for the arrangement of the disputants.

“Put yourself,” said the President, “on the affirmative,
and Mr. McDermot on the negative.”

“The subject,” said Longworth, “cannot well be
resolved into an affirmative and negative. It consists
more properly, of two conflicting affirmatives: I have
therefore drawn out the heads, under which the speakers
are to be arranged thus:

Internal Suggestions. Bias of Jurisprudence.

Then put yourself Internal Suggestions—Mr. McDermot
the other side, Mr. Craig on your side—Mr.
Pentigall the other side,” and so on.

Mc Dermot and Longworth now determined that they
would not be seen by any other member of the society
during the succeeding week, except at times when explanations
could not be asked, or when they were too
busy to give them. Consequently, the week passed
away, without any explanations; and the members were
summoned to dispose of the important subject, with

no other lights upon it than those which they could collect
from its terms. When they assembled, there was
manifest alarm on the countenances of all but two of
them.

The Society was opened in due form, and Mr. Longworth
was called on to open the debate. He rose and
proceeded as follows:

“Mr. President—The subject selected for this day's
discussion, is one of vast importance, pervading the profound
depths of psychology, and embracing within its
comprehensive range, all that is interesting in morals,
government, law and politics. But, sir, I shall not follow
it through all its interesting and diversified ramifications;
but endeavor to deduce from it those great and
fundamental principles, which have direct bearing, upon
the antagonist positions of the disputants; confining myself
more immediately to its psycological influence,
when exerted, especially upon the votes of faction:
for here is the point upon which the question mainly
turns. In the next place, I shall consider the effects of
those “suggestions” emphatically termed “internal”
when applied to the same subject. And in the third
place, I shall compare these effects, with “the bias of
jurisprudence,” considered as the only resort in times of
popular excitement—for these are supposed to exist by
the very terms of the question.

“The first head of this arrangement, and indeed the
whole subject of dispute, has already been disposed of
by this society. We have discussed the question, “are
there any innate maxims?” and with that subject and
this, there is such an intimate affinity, that it is impossible
to disunite them, without prostrating the vital energies
of both, and introducing the wildest disorder and
confusion, where, by the very nature of things, there
exists the most harmonious coincidences, and the most

happy and euphonic congenialities. Here then might I
rest, Mr. President, upon the decision of this society,
with perfect confidence. But, sir, I am not forced to
rely upon the inseparable affinities of the two questions,
for success in this dispute, obvious as they must be to
every reflecting mind. All history, ancient and modern,
furnish examples corroborative of the views which I
have taken of this deeply interesting subject.—By what
means did the renowned poets, philosophers, orators and
statesmen of antiquity, gain their immortality? Whence
did Milton, Shakspeare, Newton, Locke, Watts, Paley,
Burke, Chatham, Pitt. Fox, and a host of others whom
I might name, pluck their never-fading laurels! I answer
boldly, and without the fear of contradiction, that,
though they all reached the temple of fame by different
routes, they all passed through the broad vista of “internal
suggestions.” The same may be said of Jefferson,
Madison, and many other distinguished personages
of our own country.

“I challenge the gentlemen on the other side to produce
examples like these in support of their cause.”

Mr. Longworth pressed these profound and logical
views to a length to which our limits will not permit us to
follow him, and which the reader's patience would hardly
bear, if they would. Perhaps, however, he will bear
with us, while we give the conclusion of Mr. Longworth's
remarks: as it was here, that he put forth all
his strength:

“Mr. President—Let the bias of jurisprudence predominate,
and how is it possible, (considering it merely
as extending to those impulses which may with propriety
be termed a bias,) how is it possible, for a government
to exist, whose object is the public good! The marble-hearted
marauder might seize the throne of civil authority,
and hurl into thraldom the votaries of rational

liberty. Virtue, justice and all the nobler principles of
human nature, would wither away under the pestilential
breath of political faction, and an unnerved constitution,
be left to the sport of demagogue and parasite.—Crash
after crash, would be heard in quick succession, as the
strong pillars of the republic give way, and Despotism
would shout in hellish triumph amidst the crumbling
ruins—Anarchy would wave her bloody sceptre over the
devoted land, and the blood-hounds of civil war, would
lap the crimson gore of our most worthy citizens. The
shrieks of women, and the screams of children, would
be drowned amidst the clash of swords, and the cannon's
peal: and Liberty, mantling her face from the horrid
scene, would spread her golden-tinted pinions, and wing
her flight to some far distant land, never again to re-visit
our peaceful shores. In vain should we then sigh for
the beatific reign of those “suggestions” which I am
proud to acknowledge as peculiarly and exclusively
`internal.' ”

Mr. McDermot rose promptly at the call of the President,
and proceeded as follows:

“Mr. President—If I listened unmoved to the very
labored appeal to the passions, which has just been made,
it was not because I am insensible to the powers of eloquence;
but because I happen to be blessed with the
small measure of sense, which is necessary, to distinguish
true eloquence from the wild ravings of an unbridled
imagination. Grave and solemn appeals, when
ill-timed and misplaced, are apt to excite ridicule; hence
it was, that I detected myself more than once, in open
laughter, during the most pathetic parts of Mr. Longworth's
argument, if so it can be called.[1] In the midst
of “crashing pillars,” “crumbling ruins,” “shouting

despotism,” “screaming women,” and “flying Liberty,”
the question was perpetually recurring to me, “what has
all this to do with the subject of dispute?” I will not
follow the example of that gentleman—It shall be my
endeavor to clear away the mist which he has thrown
around the subject, and to place it before the society, in
a clear, intelligible point of view: for I must say, that
though his speech “bears strong marks of the pen,”
(sarcastically,) it has but few marks of sober reflection.
Some of it, I confess, is very intelligible and very
plausable; but most of it, I boldly assert, no man living
can comprehend. I mention this, for the edification of
that gentleman—(who is usually clear and forcible,)
to teach him, that he is most successful when he labors
least.

“Mr. President: The gentleman, in opening the debate,
stated that the question was one of vast importance;
pervading the profound depths of psychology, and embracing,
within its ample range, the whole circle of arts
and sciences. And really, sir, he has verified his statement;
for he has extended it over the whole moral and
physical world. But, Mr. President, I take leave to
differ from the gentleman, at the very threshhold of his
remarks. The subject is one which is confined within
very narrow limits. It extends no further than to the
elective franchise, and is not even commensurate with
this important privilege; for it stops short at the vote of
faction. In this point of light, the subject comes within
the grasp of the most common intellect; it is plain, simple,
natural and intelligible. Thus viewing it, Mr. President,
where does the gentleman find in it, or in all nature
besides, the original of the dismal picture which he has
presented to the society? It loses all its interest, and
becomes supremely ridiculous. Having thus, Mr. President,
divested the subject of all obscurity—having reduced

it to those few elements, with which we are all familiar;
I proceed to make a few deductions from the premises,
which seem to me inevitable, and decisive of the question.
I lay it down as a self-evident proposition, that
faction in all its forms, is hideous; and I maintain, with
equal confidence, that it never has been, nor ever will
be, restrained by those suggestions, which the gentleman
“emphatically terms internal.” No, sir, nothing short
of the bias, and the very strong bias too, of jurisprudence,
or the potent energies of the sword, can restrain it.
But, sir, I shall here, perhaps, be asked, whether there
is not a very wide difference between a turbulent, lawless
faction, and the vote of faction? Most unquestionably
there is; and to this distinction I shall presently advert,
and demonstrably prove that it is a distinction, which
makes altogether in our favor.”

Thus did Mr. McDermot continue to dissect and expose
his adversary's argument, in the most clear, conclusive
and masterly manner, at considerable length.
But we cannot deal more favorably by him, than we
have dealt by Mr. Longworth. We must, therefore,
dismiss him, after we shall have given the reader his
concluding remarks. They were as follows:

“Let us now suppose Mr. Longworth's principles
brought to the test of experiment. Let us suppose his
language addressed to all mankind—`We close the temples
of justice as useless; we burn our codes of laws as
worthless; and we substitute in their places, the more
valuable restraints of internal suggestions. Thieves,
invade not your neighbor's property: if you do, you will
be arraigned before the august tribunal of conscience.
Robbers, stay your lawless hand; or you will be visited
with the tremendous penalties of psychology. Murderers,
spare the blood of your fellow creatures; you will
be exposed to the excrutiating tortures of inate maxims—

when it shall be discovered that there are any. Mr.
President, could there be a broader license to crime than
this? Could a better plan be devised for dissolving the
bands of civil society? It requires not the gift of prophecy,
to foresee the consequences, of these novel and
monstrous principles. The strong would tyrannize over
the weak; the poor would plunder the rich; the servant
would rise above the master; the drones of society
would fatten upon the hard earnings of the industrious—
Indeed, sir, industry would soon desert the land; for it
would have neither reward nor encouragement. Commerce
would cease; the arts and sciences would languish;
all the sacred relations would be dissolved, and
scenes of havoc, dissolution and death ensue, such as
never before visited the world, and such as never will
visit it, until mankind learn to repose their destinies upon
“those suggestions, emphatically termed internal.”—
From all these evils there is a secure retreat behind the
brazen wall of the `bias of jurisprudence.' ”

The gentleman who was next called on to engage in
the debate, was John Craig; a gentleman of good hard
sense, but who was utterly incompetent to say a word
upon a subject which he did not understand. He proceeded
thus:

“Mr. President—When this subject was proposed, I
candidly confessed I did not understand it, and I was
informed by Mr. Longworth and Mr. McDermot, that
either of them would explain it, at any leisure moment.
But, sir, they seem to have taken very good care, from
that time to this, to have no leisure moment. I have
inquired of both of them, repeatedly for an explanation;
but they were always too busy to talk about it. Well,
sir, as it was proposed by Mr. Longworth, I thought he
would certainly explain it in his speech; but I understood
no more of his speech than I did of the subject.

Well, sir, I thought I should certainly learn something
from Mr. McDermot; especially as he promised at the
commencement of his speech to clear away the mist that
Mr. Longworth had thrown about the subject, and to
place it in a clear, intelligible point of light. But, sir,
the only difference between his speech and Mr. Longworth's,
is, that it was not quite as flighty as Mr.
Longworth's. I could n't understand head nor tail of
it. At one time they seemed to argue the question, as
if it were this: “Is it better to have law or no law?”
At another, as though it was, “should faction be governed
by law, or be left to their own consciences?”
But most of the time they argued it, as if it were, just
what it seems to be—a sentence without sense or meaning.
But, sir, I suppose its obscurity is owing to my
dullness of apprehension—for they appeared to argue it
with great earnestness and feeling, as if they understood
it.

“I shall put my interpretation upon it, Mr. President,
and argue it accordingly.

“ `Whether at public elections'—that is, for members
of Congress, members of the Legislature, &c.
`SHOULD THE VOTES of faction'—I don't know what `faction'
has got to do with it; and therefore I shall throw
it out. `Should the votes predominate, by internal
suggestions or the bias'—I don't know what the article
is put in here for. It seems to me, it seems to be, be
BIASED by `jurisprudence' or law—In short, Mr. President,
I understand the question to be, should a man vote
as he pleases, or should the law say how he should
vote?”

Here Mr. Longworth rose and observed, that though
Mr. Craig was on his side, he felt it due to their adversaries,
to state, that this was not a true exposition of the
subject. This exposition settled the question at once on

his side; for nobody would, for a moment, contend, that
the law should declare how men should vote. Unless
it be confined to the vote of faction and the bias of
jurisprudence, it was no subject at all. To all this Mr.
McDermot signified his unqualified approbation; and
seemed pleased with the candor of his opponent.

“Well,” said Mr. Craig, “I thought it was impossible
that any one should propose such a question as that to the
society; but will Mr. Longworth tell us, if it does not
mean that, what does it mean? for I don't see what great
change is made in it by his explanation.”

Mr. Longworth replied, that if the remarks which he
had just made, and his argument, had not fully explained
the subject to Mr. Craig, he feared it would be out of
his power to explain it.

“Then,” said Mr. Craig, “I'll pay my fine, for I don't
understand a word of it.”

The next one summoned to the debate was Mr. Pentigall.
Mr. Pentigall was one of those who would
never acknowledge his ignorance of any thing, which
any person else understood; and that Longworth and
McDermot were both masters of the subject, was clear,
both from their fluency and seriousness. He therefore
determined to understand it, at all hazards.—Consequently
he rose at the President's command, with considerable
self-confidence. I regret, however, that it is
impossible to commit Mr. Pentigall's manner to paper,
without which, his remarks loss nearly all their interest.
He was a tall, handsome man; a little theatric in his
manner, rapid in his delivery, and singular in his pronunciation.
He gave to the e and i, of our language,
the sound of u—at least his peculiar intonations of voice,
seemed to give them that sound; and his rapidity or
utterance seemed to change the termination, “tion” into
“ah.” With all his peculiarities, however, he was a

fine fellow. If he was ambitious, he was not invidious,
and he possessed an amicable disposition. He proceeded
as follows:

“Mr. President—This internal suggestion which has
been so eloquently discussed by Mr. Longworth, and the
bias of jurisprudence which has been so ably advocated
by Mr. McDermot—hem!—Mr. President, in order to
fix the line of demarkation between—ah—the internal
suggestion and the bias of jurisprudence—Mr. President,
I think, sir, that—ah—the subject must be confined to
the vote of faction, and the bias of jurisprudence.”—

Here Mr. Pentigall clapt his right hand to his forehead,
as though he had that moment heard some
overpowering news; and after maintaining this position
for about the space of ten seconds, he slowly withdrew
his hand, gave his head a slight inclination to the right,
raised his eyes to the President as if just awakening
from a trance, and with a voice of the most hopeless
despair, concluded with “I dont understand the subject,
Muster Prusidunt.”

The rest of the members on both sides submitted to
be fined rather than attempt the knotty subject; but by
common consent, the penal rule was dispensed with.
Nothing now remained to close the exercises, but the
decision of the Chair.

The President, John Nuble, was a young man, not
unlike Craig in his turn of mind; though he possessed
an intellect a little more sprightly than Craig's.—His
decision was short.

“Gentlemen,” said he, “I do not understand the subject.
This,” continued he (pulling out his knife, and
pointing to the silvered or cross side of it) “is `Internal
Suggestions.' And this” (pointing to the other, or pile
side) “is `Bias of Jurisprudence':” so saying, he threw
up his knife, and upon its fall, determined that `Internal

Suggestions' had got it; and ordered the decision to be
registered accordingly.

It is worthy of note, that in their zeal to accomplish
their purpose, Longworth and McDermot forgot to destroy
the lists of subjects, from which they had selected
the one so often mentioned; and one of these lists containing
the subject discussed, with a number more like it,
was picked up by Mr. Craig, who made a public exhibition
of it, threatening to arraign the conspirators before
the society, for a contempt. But, as the parting hour
was at hand, he overlooked it with the rest of the brotherhood,
and often laughed heartily at the trick.

HALL.