Retrograde ... or Merely Retrospective?

I was an interested observer at the Debate held on Friday, the 23rd July, the subject of which was. "Is Weir House of any Beneficial Influence to V.U.C." I went with trepidation. I departed with regret and a sickening apprehension as to what would be the standard of mentality and the weight of Weir House opinion if such puerile exhibitionism as displayed on this occasion were allowed to rampage unabated in that "first-class boarding-house."

Hardly was I ensconced in my seat and wailing for the debate to commence, when my equilibrium was overthrown as, with the stentorian blast of the tuneless bagpipes as a foretaste of things to come. Weir House (or at least that majority by which it is judged) burst through the door—Weir House bedecked with weird hats and fatuous expressions. They had come—that band of fancied irrepressibles—to show the College that they were a beneficial influence. Loudly asserting their lack of refinement, they came in a gust of adulation to defend their glorious God of Vanity—their Offended God. Were they to accept without demur a slight upon their fair name; to allow any aspersion upon their virgin characters to re-main unchallenged? Never! And still they came.

Throughout the debate the unruliness. pleasing solely to their own mute senses, continued. As with any undisciplined mob, they displayed only intolerance towards those opposing them and exaggerated deference towards those who pandered to their conceit.

With the above words I do not wish to aggravate further the smarting pup, but merely to appeal to those members of Weir who desire to retrieve the waning esteem in which they are held by the rest of the University. Those who have left the House still recall the days when such a display would have been severely checked. The time now appears to be ripe for the more matured residents to strive to preserve that judicious balance of frivolity and dignity which has been a feature of Weir House in the past, and will be, I sincerely hope, in the future.

[Note.—This letter was referred to the Weir House Committee who saw no necessity to reply.—Editor.]