EMPTY CHAIRS.

We have long since learned that no case lies against the undergraduate because he does not attend Union lectures. True he sometimes allows the prestige of the name of the lecture or the lack of it, to influence him more than it should in proportion to the subject matter. And as it is very difficult to secure "famous" men for every lecture and as this qualification is after all, relatively one of degree, the subject matter of the lecture is the only consistent basis of appeal for attendance.

To appeal to many students out of the large body of men with such varied interest a subject must be pretty broad and fairly significant. No topic however great its interest to the few men to whom it has a special appeal will draw largely if it is a highly specialized field of application. As a result Senator Hollis spoke to seventy-five men and a hundred empty chairs; and Admiral Chadwick spoke to a similar audience. That is injustice to the men perhaps. At least it is forcibly calling their attention to a state of affairs that seems worse than it is because of the size of the room and the number of empty chairs. Granted that famous men are scarce, may the subject chosen be made broader? And, when an expert does give a talk on a highly specialized topic it would be infinitely more courteous to him to confront him with a crowded Trophy Room or to utilize the Writing Room where the audience could sit irregularly about the speaker or even "lounge" about the room and avoid the feeling of formal emptiness prevalent in a half-filled Living Room. The meeting would be less frigid, more lively, more pleasant for the speaker and beneficial for the audience for the absence of the empty chairs.