38 PROCEEDINGS AT GENERAL MEETINGS. 



district was establishing fresh stations. Had the Society some fifteen years ago pro- 

 posed some action of the Icind, there would have been some good reason for it, and 

 some prospect of its doing good to the farmers, as well as being some credit to the 

 Society ; but to take action in the way proposed would only be to have a disturbing 

 effect. It could not be said that a Society such as this could compete in point of 

 efficiency, far less in point of economy, with these local associations. The one great 

 object they had in view by the analyses was to prevent imposition and protect the 

 farmers, and .surely that could be better done by those who knew the sellers and 

 buyers than by a central body in Edinburgh. The Royal Society of England had for 

 many years oli'ered considerable encouragement to its members at reduced rates ; but 

 even with their eminent chemist, Dr Voelcker, he would ask, how did the amoi;nt of 

 work done by that Society compare with the work that was being done by the associa- 

 tions in Scotland? There were not more than 400 samples of manures, including lime- 

 stone, and 200 samples of feeding stuffs— 600 in all — analysed in England, against_700 

 now being analysed annually by the local associations in Scotland. Such a comparison 

 could not but show the futility of the Highland and Agricultural Society undertaking 

 such work. Then, in regard to economy, the one analysis obtained from these local 

 associations protected a gi-eat many different farmers, and he believed that by the 

 expenditure of half a croAvn through these associations as much good could be done as 

 by a pound through the Society. If the Society wished to assist in the good work of 

 checking adulteration, that could be done much more efficiently by sub.sidising, not the 

 chemist, but the analytical associations throughout the country. If each analysis cost 

 half a crown, that would be less than £100 for the 700 analyses, and that would 

 liave a very material influence in cheapening the cost of analyses to farmers m 

 general throughout Scotland. He thought that the results should be pul)lished in the 

 Society's " Transactions " every year, and this would have a deterrent effect on adultera- 

 tors. He conoiuded liy moving that the motion of Mr Hope, carrietl at the meeting at 

 Perth, be referred back to the directors for further consideration. 



Mr Hugh Llndsat, Meadowflatt, seconded the motion. He said that he had been 

 connected with one of the local associations for some time, and he was convinced that 

 the analyses coidd be supplied by these associations at a much cheaper rate than the 

 Highland Society could possibly do. If the proposal were carried out, it woulcl inter- 

 fere with their chemist's legitimate business. He was appointed to carry out scientific 

 investigations, and this, he thought, was quite suflicient work for him to do. If he 

 was not sufticiently paid at present, then let his salary be increased. 



Mr Falconer King, Edinburgh, said he did not think the Society had money to 

 throw away wpon the system that was now proposed, and by which they would be 

 spending money quite gratuitously. He thought it would be better to augment the 

 chenust's salary. At present he was most miserably paid for the work that he did. 

 He thought he" should stick to the scientific investigations which could be done by the 

 Highland and Agricultural Society, and by such a man as Dr Aitken, who he believed 

 was well-qualified for the work. If the proposed plan were adopted they would be 

 thrown back on the system they had imder Dr Anderson, which gave much dissatis- 

 faction. They were just on the precipice, and another steji would bring them to where 

 they were before. The chemist would have no time to make scientific investigations at 

 .all if he were to be engaged in these analyses. The chemist's time would be taken up 

 with making analyses which farmers could get for half a crown, and valuable work 

 would be thrown into the background. He supported Mr Dudgeon's motion. 



Mr N. W. P. Hope, Leith, who had just entered the room, asked if his motion, 

 which was agreed to at Pei-th, could be dealt with in the way that he understood had 

 been proposed !■ 



The Secretary said that the directors were bound to report everything to the 

 general meeting. It was remitted to the directors to carry out Mr Hope's motion, 

 and it was their duty to report what had been done. 



Mr Hope said that it was not within their power to discuss the motion, but only 

 what the directors in committee recommended. 



The noble Chairman said he did not approve of motions being passed and then 

 rescinded, but it was entirely within Mr Dudgeon's power to propose the motion 

 which he had made. He did not like to give his own opinion from the chair, but he 

 confessed that he entirely agreed with Mr Scott Dudgeon's motion. The committee 

 and directors were bound by the decision of the Society, and on that they had druvm. 

 up their report. Tliat being the case, it was within the power of a member to make 

 a motion on the subject. 



Mr David Cro.ss, Glasgow, said that there was no remit to the directors on the 

 subject that he could see. 



Mr Scott Dudgeon said that the committee had drawn up a report on the subject 

 trying to carry out Mr Hope's motion. They were going to charge 10s., while they 

 knew that analyses did not cost members of "the association more than 3s. or 4s. 

 Mr Cro.ss held that it was not in order to make the motion Mr Dudgeon had proposed. 



