Dear "Spike,"—So P.J.S. finds it necessary in your last number to pour out his troubled soul in two long and embittered articles concerning the recent Extravaganza—pouring out the vials of his wrath especially on one "Professor Trezise." I wonder why.

Is not P.J.S. he who was the author or at least part author of an Extravaganza entitled "The Last Trump"? And did not "The Last Trump," after many vicissitudes, fail to be produced? And did not the aforesaid "Professor Trezise" give it as his opinion that it was impossible to produce "The Last Trump "—an Extravaganza which, presumably, was full of "College originality, College intellect," "literary merit," etc., for was not P.J.S. part author? I think so.

Well, then, let us examine the tale. In the first place, the title of one article—viz., "The Trezise Benefit"—can hardly be justified. The title surely means either (1) (as it has been taken by many to mean) that the object of the production was to put money into Trezise's pocket—that the "please the public party" were friends of Mr. Trezise, and desired to put some business in his way; or (2) that the result was that only Mr. Trezise derived any pecuniary benefit from "Pep."

If the first be the meaning intended, then I can only assure your readers and P.J.S. that no such object ever entered the minds of the "mercenary party" (let us call them that for short). Grossly mistaken though they may have been, they acted in what they considered to be the best interests of the College, and with no eye to the interests of Mr. Trezise. If (2) be the meaning, then it might surprise and disappoint P.J.S. to learn that the profits accruing from "Pep" were very much greater than even the apparently princely fee received by Mr. Trezise. While on this subject, might I refer to the first few lines of this article, where P.J.S. mentions the "financial results" of "Pep" in a way which obviously conveys the impression that such results were disastrous. Yet he goes on to say that "these (the financial results) have not yet been disclosed." Oh, no! They were not disclosed and could not be disclosed at that stage because they were not known. But perhaps P.J.S. is gifted (?) with second sight, or perhaps the "wish was father to the thought."

The real reasons why a "paid professional producer" was engaged this year may interest your readers. In the first place, no one at the College has any brief for Mr. Trezise. Even the "mercenary party" have stated time and again that it would infinitely prefer a College producer. What, then, was the position? Mr. Evans, who had so successfully produced the Extravaganza for some years past, was unable to act. This year, when those who were so violently opposed to Mr. Trezise's introduction were asked to name a College producer, the only name really seriously mentioned was P.J.S. It may have been treasonable, but the "mercenary party" considered that P.J.S. was not in the least capable of producing an Extravaganza—nor, I believe, was he at all anxious to produce it. However, his name was persistently mentioned and, I believe, was the only name seriously mentioned as a College producer. A certain page 29 section of the students, no doubt, would have been willing to risk allowing him to produce, but as he had had no experience whatever in that line the "mercenary party" felt that the risk was too great. There was a possibility of a greater financial disaster than even P.J.S. hoped was the result of "Pep."

P.J.S. refers to "the easy money produced by the compulsory levy." There seems to be an idea abroad that as a result of the compulsory levy money simply rolls into the coffers of the Association, more than sufficing for their every possible need. Might I point out that had it not been for the profits of "Pep" practically the whole of the compulsory levy would this year have been Swallowed up in current expenses of the various Clubs and the Association.

We have for years past been living a hand-to-mouth existence—hardly ever a penny to spare for even very necessary purposes. Is it not time that the students endeavoured to set aside some money every year and create at least a small reserve?

To mention one thing, the Gymnasium has for years past been badly in need of a coat of paint and various repairs, merely to preserve it against the weather. On several occasions quotations have been obtained for this very necessary work, and on every occasion the Executive has been compelled through lack of funds to postpone it. There is also the question of common rooms. What is the position at the College to-day? Ninety per cent, of the men never come near the College until five minutes before their lectures start, and they are away again five minutes after their lectures end. The place is not a University: it is a night school.

If we can induce the men to spend a little of their time, apart from lectures, at the College; if we can induce them to mix with one another, to talk of University affairs, and to take an interest in University problems, we will have made a start in turning the College into a University instead of a night school.

How are we to do this? P.J.S.'s idea seems to be that if we murmur "sapientia magis" in their ears a sufficient number of times we will achieve our purpose. The "mercenary party's" idea is that we must do it in a somewhat less direct fashion. If we can get. the men to spend more of their time at the College and to work for the College instead of looking on it as a necessary evil on the road to a degree, they will insensibly become imbued with the real spirit and meaning of a University. A common room made a little bit attractive instead of bare rooms with bare tables and chairs seems one feasible means of inducing the men to spend some of their time at the College, and meet the other students; but even to make a common room attractive needs money. Stephen Leacock, in one of his books, says that if he had the building of a University the first thing he would do would be to build a smoking room where the men could meet and argue. Allowing for the exaggeration, this is precisely what the "mercenary party" is contending for. All the talk in the world of "sapientia magis" will not have the slightest effect on a single student.

In saying this, I am not for one moment sneering at the College motto—" Wisdom is more to be desired than gold." Unfortunately, however, in this imperfect world a certain amount of that "demoralising trash" is necessary even in a University. P.J.S. accuses us of desiring to jettison College traditions. Not at all. It is true the College traditions have been largely lost, so far as the majority of page 30 the students are concerned, and that, by the operation of forces outside the control of any section of the students. The large increase in the numbers of students—the war—have been some of the contributing causes.

"It is difficult," says P.J.S., "for a new body of students unacquainted with the past of V.U.C. to realise the character and worth of College traditions." True, it is difficult. A new spirit has to be created amongst the students, and P.J.S. has propounded no feasible method of producing that spirit. The "mercenary party" look on money not as an end in itself, but as a means to very desirable ends—ends with which, I think, even P.J.S. will not quarrel.

Probably the greatest question of all is that of residential hostels, the subject of P.J.S.'s somewhat sneering allusion. Some people hold the opinion—the "we-want-money" party amongst them—that without adequate residential hostels we will never have a real University. As a matter of fact, that opinion is so widely held that it is not necessary to enlarge on it. Again, however, a substantial amount of "gold" is necessary. If the students make a little money now and again it might bring the residential hostel and the real University a step nearer.

A few other misstatements of P.J.S. call for some short comment. "An outside dancing master "was not" given complete control of the Extravaganza, its production and its policy." The Extravaganza was not "surrendered to the dictation of a paid professional producer." P.J.S. seems to quarrel with the "we-want-money" party because there was no Capping procession to advertise the Extravaganza this year, but he certainly knows that the party was no more responsible for that than he was himself. It was no doubt good business for him to imply that the fault was theirs.

By the way, "Spike," far be it from me to cast even a shadow of a doubt on the "logic" of your scribe, but perhaps you can explain the following sample: "They (the mercenary party forgot . . . that each Extravaganza advertises the one that comes after it. . . . The result was that 'Luv' owed its success not to its own merits but to the expectations raised by its predecessor. . . . Even had 'Luv' succeeded by its own merit, the success of a similar show twelve long months afterwards was not a reasonable anticipation."—The Trezise Benefit, p. 41.

God bless you, "Spike.—I am, etc.,