It Came to the Ears.

Owing to the fact that I am ill, I am considerably handicapped in writing this letter. Its main justification is, of necessity, founded on the testimony of others. However I feel that I can rely on the honesty of three people who were present at the Annual General Meeting and who have informed me of McGhie's remarks at that meeting.

In an endeavour to explain the outgoing Executive's conduct in regard to Mr. Phillips, I understand that McGhie, at the commencement of his speech, stated: "It had come to the ears of the Executive that Mr. Phillips wanted to write a full length Extravaganza."

Now Mr. Phillips, quite rightly, has washed his hands of the whole disgraceful affair and would not consider replying to the Secretary's blatant misinterpretation. I know that you, Sir, will appreciate Mr. Phillips' position—a position into which he has been forced owing to the last Executive's undignified injustice and petty meanness. I feel, therefore, that someone should see that McGhie's remark is refuted. It is too important to be ignored. Does it not insinuate that Mr Phillips was "a pedlar" carrying a three-act revue about town, which he was hoping the beneficent Executive would buy?

This is, of course, absolutely untrue, and the Secretary should know that it is. As a matter of fact, a local amateur society had approached Mr. Phillips at this time, inviting him to write a three-act comedy which would have been produced by the society on completion.

From July onwards last year it was the Executive, or its members, both officially and unofficially, who from time to time approached Mr. Phillips asking him to write a three-act revue. Mr. Phillips told Mr. Burns that, for private reasons, he would be unable to make a decision till the end of August, and Mr. Burns was satisfied with this tentative arrangement. In August Mr. Phillips finally agreed to accept the Executive's request to write the whole revue.

The question of the £15/15/- I shall leave out. It is patent that Mr. Phillips had to deal with a body whose sole interest was money—not, as he thought, with a number of friends who were keen to give our traditional celebrations an added effect by enlisting, and paying for, the services of one who was not a member of the Students' Association.

Is it not obvious that the Executive were determined to "make money"? Who could they wish for to further their ends better than Mr. Phillips. It is clear to me that they were determined to have a snappy show, a show written, produced and headed by the man whose name and fame would draw the biggest crowd. The Executive approached Mr. Phillips, re-approached him, and have now reproached him. "It had come to the cars of the Executive." I challenge McGhie to substantiate his statement.

And lastly, I would like to ask those members of the Executive who wished to honour their obligations to Mr. Phillips, why they did not speak at the Annual General Meeting to refute McGhie's misleading remark, which a large audience must have accepted under the circumstances as authoritative and truthful, or does membership of the Executive mean abandonment of the principles of right and justice?

J. Nesbitt Sellers.

Building Fund.

At the Annual General Meeting I asked for an explanation from the chairman, Mr. Nankervis, as to why the Building Committee had not met oace during its term of office. No explanation was forthcoming. Instead, Mr. Nankervis avoided my question by reviewing several vague schemes which have been suggested from time to time and which were already common knowledge. To make my position quite clear, I again asked the chairman to answer the question—namely, why the committee had not met. Again he merely hedged. It was not until Mr. Nankervis had been given full opportunity of presenting a satisfactory reply that I moved the motion of censure on the Building Committee. There was no discussion on the motion. After it had been carried with but a few dissentients and, incidentally, after a motion that the meeting pass on to the next business had been carried. Mr. Plank rose up in defence of the Building Committee.

He also, spoke chiefly of the suggestion made for obtaining a new building, which topic was outside the scope of my question. Mr. Plank excused the committee on the grounds that as the students had done nothing to further the campaign the committee could not have been expected to act. The absurdity of this opinion is obvious. Surely the function of the committee is to formulate a plan of action and give a lead to the body of students, just as the Executive is expected to act in the general affairs of the Association.

However, there is one point in Mr. Plank's speech that deserves consideration. He declared that the motion was an unfair and unwise reflection on those members of the committee who were not present students, and that it would result in their refusing to offer their services in the future.

It is unfortunate that Mr. Plank did not speak on the motion as this misunderstanding would then have been avoided. It is well known that the responsibility of calling a committee meeting rests with the students' representatives, and the spirit in which the motion was moved and supported amounted to a censure on these individuals. In passing the motion I think the meeting realised that their own representatives were to blame.

However, if it is thought desirable, I am prepared to move the rescission of the motion at a Special General Meeting but as the majority of students appear dissatisfied with the conduct of the Building Committee. I consider that a more definite motion should be passed. Accordingly it is suggested that disapproval of the slackness shown by the students' representatives be expressed and that it be a recommendation to the Executive to hold a thorough enquiry into the question of the Building Committee.

J. B. Aimers.

Oxford.

As Seen by a Wikitorian.

George Joseph writes to P.J.S. from Brasenose College, Oxford, as follows:—

"Since I have been here, my view-point on most things that matter has materially changed. It's curious—the broadening effect of travel. I have come to the conclusion that N. Zedders are insular-minded egotists, but lovable just the same, English people have a broad-minded good nature and tolerance for every-thing they can understand and an aggressive distaste for most things they can't understand such as Epstein and Internationalism.

"Oxford is a wonderful place. It is the peak of cosmos. There is an intangible 'je ne sais quoi'—pardon the cliche—which seeps into one no matter how blase one may think oneself. I enjoy every moment of my Oxford days. I succeeded in obtaining a Boxing Blue last term, and this makes things much brighter. Sport is a fetish here, and Blues are worshipped and asked everywhere. Here in Oxford one meets the finest type of Englishman, and I don't think there is a finer man. I've also represented my college in hockey, athletics, and coxed an eight, so altogether I'm getting a taste of everything. I'm doing D.Phil. in Law under Sir Wm. Holdsworth. The work is fascinating.

"Turning to the literary side of things, I have no complaint to make. . . . I completed a novel last Vac., and am just now anxiously awaiting my agent's report thereon. I'm also engaged on an historical play in collaboration with an Oxford Don, and this promises to be rather a successful venture. We've already succeeded in getting a prominent actor interested. Anyway, look out for the novel—'Destiny Road.'

"Just now Oxford is en fete. It is Eights Week—the week of the University year, when all the Colleges fight for the Head of the River. I am coxing one of the college eights and so far we are doing quite well. People just pour into Oxford, and one can hardly move in the streets.

"This University is the centre of extreme thought. Theres' a club for every type of mental kink, and the Union has debates on some remarkable subjects. The political view is, without a doubt, Socialism, young idealists groping with stubby, immature fingers—rather pathetic sometimes—almost an opiate for the growing fear of mediocrity."