No. 17

Complaints were made to me of 2nd elections’ fagging T.B.B. which was considered contrary to rules. I looked up the T.B. Ledger and could find no rule which gave them such power, so asked Pryce & Sharpe to put notices ‘up Grant’s’ of & ‘Homeboarders’ to the effect that no TB need fag for a 2nd election. The QSS monitors fired up at this and summoning a monitors’ meeting began to rag, Coller & Lowemaking themselves especially obnoxious. The meeting was adjourned until 8.40 on Friday morning, when we brought-up our respective ledgers. Franckefound in the QS Ledger that there was a rule to the effect that under-elections could over 16 and in the VIth or Shell could fag T.B.B. and consequently Coller wished to put up a notice on School doors that the monitors had found this rule or else for us to retract our former notices. We then asked for time to consider our decisions. At the break I sent to Coller the following account of our opinions.

  1. We did not consider ourselves bound to uphold a rule found in the QS ledger alone, & unsupported by documentary evidence signed by Scott himself.
  2. Can monitors make a new rule of discipline or only enforce existing rules?
  3. Would a new rule or motion be valid if caused by a majority consisting of all QSS.? We therefore see two courses open to the QSS if they do not cede the point.
  4. To put up a notice of the existing rules, as they alleged, found in their ledger. In this case the TBB monitors would have up their first-notices of the monitorial system would be brought to a deadlock.
  5. To call another monitors’ meeting and move as a new rule the one found the one found in the QSS ledger. If this rule were carried the TB. Monitors declare they would resist anytanningfor a break of it.

Coller was very put out at this result and not withstanding our threats put up a notice of the right of 2nd elections to fag TBB. This he did averring to a note to Prycethat my prolonged opposition caused all this bother and daring to assert that noTB monitors existed because Rutherford had not published our names up School and therefore we could not hold out against a tanning. But he seemed to forget that without at least one TB monitor’s consent no TB could be tanned; and therefore if none existed, us TB could be tanned and Coller himself had broken the rules of discipline in causing two fellows to be tanned last week. Rutherford saw the notice and at once decided that no one should fag unless a monitor or head of a House. This decision however he soon reversed and things reversing just the same as before.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *