PROCEEDINGS AT GENERAL MEETINGS. 21 



vray with this motion. The unfortunate proposer of the motion had one daughter 

 and two grandsons of a horse named Gladstone, Init they lacked size and were 

 not well put together. But to come to more serioiis matters, the supporters of 

 this movement were of opinion that it would tend to increase the usefulness of 

 the Society and its importance. They believed that it would be for the advan- 

 tage of the members of the Society, that it would enlarge the Shows, improve them 

 in many respects, and bring them within a more reasonable distance of the great bulk 

 of the exhibitors. He did not deny that it might benefit exhibitors as a class, but he 

 would ask the meeting who was to take up a matter of this kind except those who 

 were to benefit by it .' He did not think that on that ground their opinion ought to be 

 scouted. He suj)posed that the southern papers would not have spoken out so strongly 

 in the matter if it had been proposed to drop out Aberdeen instead of Kelso ; and they 

 would not have found the heather on fire if the decision had been to give up the Show 

 at Dumfries instead of Inverness. Why his friends should have spoken so strongly 

 against him as to stopping the show at Inverness he did not know, because his feeling 

 was very much the other way. One of those who opposed him had also condemned 

 Kelso, which he said with its 4000 inhabitants was worthy of consideration for nothing 

 but an old abbey. What he and his supporters said was that it was for the best inte- 

 rests of the members of the Society in different parts of the country that the matter 

 should be thoroughly investigated. He did not base his objection on any particular 

 place ; but he wanted them to take up the general question and investigate it. The 

 subject was a very wide and important one, and the present arrangements were entered 

 into at a distant period, when the circumstances were not altogether the same as now. 

 He therefore thought he might reasonably ask them to reconsider the whole subject 

 again. He only asked for inquiry in the meantime, and he held that objection on the 

 part of any one was an admission that the cause which he advocated was one that 

 would not bear investigation. The wonderful number of proposals they had had within 

 a few weeks fully warranted him in saying that there was a considerable amount of 

 dissatisfaction in the Society, and a desire that the matter should be attended ta 

 They had had proposals to cut out both Inverness and Kelso, and some suggested that 

 there should be no Shows except at Perth, Edinburgh, Stirling, and Glasgow. There was a 

 very large section of the members who did not consider it expedient to exclude Inverness 

 or Kelso from the list, but were in favour of going more frequently to Edinburgh and 

 Glasgow, and the other places in the intermediate years. He thought that if a com- 

 mittee were appointed fairly and fully to consider the subject, and report to a future 

 meeting, they would be in a better position to come to a i orrect finding on the subject 

 than at present. His motion was simply that inquiry should be made, and pending 

 the report of the conmiittee, he thought they should delay deciding as to where the 

 Show of 1880 should be held. One very grave objection to going to Kelso in 1880 was 

 that the Royal Society were to hold their Show at Carlisle the same year. It seemed to 

 him that it would not be advantageous that the two Societies should have their Shows 

 within a few weeks of each other. The Royal Show being a novelty, it would no doubt 

 draw a great number, and people would not be able to get two holidays. The result, he be- 

 lieved, would be a serious loss of gate-money to this Society. As to the necessity of going 

 to outlying districts to give an impetus to agriculture and to get new members, he did not 

 think that such arguments were relevant, but they could come very properly before the 

 committee, if they appointed one. He concluded, by again proposing his motion. 



Mr John Hendbie of Larbert seconded the motion. 



Lord PoLWARTH said he regretted that it had fallen to him to speak on this question, 

 and he might be permitted to say that the gentleman who proposed the motion re- 

 ferred to motives which had been imputed to him and other parties, and had read 

 statements in [editorial remarks in local papers, for which he did not think any 

 member of the Society was in any way responsible. For his own part, and speaking 

 on behalf of his brother Directors, and on behalf of the Society generally, he was 

 quite sure that all of them believed that Mr Martin had acted on motives which were 

 honourable and upright, and with a view to the best interests of the Society, according 

 to his way of thinking. But speaking on behalf of the Kelso district atthe present 

 time, he thought it would be a very great misfortune were the Show not to be held 

 there. Mr Martin had made some remarks disparaging to that town and the Border 

 districts which were scarcely worthy of notice. Kelso was certainly a very large centre 

 of an important district, and on that ground he thought that the holding of the Show 

 there should not be dropped. The past Shows held at Kelso had not proved such 

 failures as to warrant any change. He believed that the Shows there had been 

 eminently successful, and he had seen a statement not long ago sho^ving that the re- 

 ceipts at Kelso were not very far behind those at some large towns. The Shows at 

 Kelso happened to give an opportunity not only to people in the vicinity to visit it, 

 but also to people from the northern parts of England. He hoped that the general 

 meeting would approve of the resolution of the Directors that the Show should be con- 

 tinued at Kelso. It was proposed by Mr Martin to appoint a committee to consider, 



