De Gustibus . . .

"Salient", he said, is an "Organ of Student Opinion", and it should be free to publish student opinion. He had received an "Important Message" and intended to give it the consideration which a message from such an important person demanded. In this, it was pointed out that the Executive had already protested, and had said that the article was at the most "in bad taste". Of course, as he emphasised, questions of taste were always debatable—always a matter of opinion. Moreover, the Executive was prepared to pay the fine if all else failed. But should we lie down and submit to this? A precedent of this kind was, dangerous.

"I have been trying for years," he said, "to draft a motion which would please everyone." (Prolonged applause.) And this one, he felt, should just about do the trick.

He went on to [unclear: criticise] the argument in the "important message": "Salient" was using the "Corporate name" of the College and must be so responsible. In fact, "Salient" didn't pretend to represent the opinion of the College, but only to give an opportunity for individual students to say what they thought. This argument used against Cappicade or Extrav. would have led to sorry opposition years ago. As for the "standards of decency", there was, no question of it being indecent; and if it was another doubt on the taste of the article, then he repeated that the taste was very much a matter of opinion.