▁paid ▁clients , ▁even ▁against ▁the ▁opposition ▁of ▁the ▁minister s ▁of ▁the ▁day . ▁Sir ▁Anthony ▁Wagner ▁writes ▁that ▁" The ▁officers ▁of ▁these ▁depart ments , ▁no ▁doubt , ▁in ▁the ▁over conf ident ▁way ▁of ▁their ▁generation , ▁este emed ▁the ▁College ▁an ▁an ach ron istic ▁and ▁anom alous ▁institution ▁over due ▁for ▁reform ▁or ▁abol ition ." ▁The ▁memor and um ▁ended ▁by ▁saying ▁that ▁" the ▁College ▁of ▁Ar ms ▁is ▁a ▁small ▁and ▁highly ▁organ ised ▁lux ury ▁trade , ▁dependent ▁for ▁its ▁living ▁on ▁supp lying ▁the ▁demand ▁for ▁a ▁fancy ▁article ▁among ▁the ▁well ▁to ▁do : ▁and ▁like ▁many ▁such ▁tr ades ▁it ▁has ▁in ▁very ▁many ▁cases ▁to ▁create ▁the ▁demand ▁before ▁it ▁can ▁supply ▁it ." ▁ ▁When ▁the ▁committee ▁made ▁their ▁report ▁in ▁June ▁ 1 9 2 8 ▁they ▁suggested ▁several ▁re forms ▁to ▁tack le ▁the ▁main ▁issues ▁which ▁had ▁brought ▁the ▁College ▁into ▁so ▁much ▁conflict ▁with ▁the ▁Home ▁Office . ▁First ly ▁they ▁concluded ▁that ▁the ▁fe es ▁systems ▁were ▁ade qu ate ▁and ▁no ▁change ▁was ▁necessary ▁in ▁that ▁regard . ▁They ▁just ified ▁this ▁by ▁stating ▁that ▁" pla cing ▁all ▁or ▁even ▁a ▁few ▁of ▁the ▁Offic ers ▁on ▁a ▁fixed ▁sal ary ▁out we igh ▁any ▁advantages ▁which ▁might ▁be ▁expected ▁to ▁result ▁from ▁the ▁change ." ▁Second ly ▁they ▁concluded ▁that ▁from ▁now ▁on ▁the ▁College ▁was ▁to ▁be ▁entirely ▁sub ordin ated ▁to ▁the ▁Home ▁Office , ▁and ▁that ▁a