36 REPORT—1896. 
Mr. W. T. Hindmarsh said that while the Berwickshire Naturalists’ 
Club had a large area for its field of work, extending not only over 
Berwickshire, but over Northumberland, outside Newcastle there was no 
large town or University within its boundaries. The district was sparsely 
populated, and there was no other Naturalists’ Club in it with which they 
could unite. 
Mr. J. H. Merivale thought, from some remarks of the last speaker, 
that he did not quite realise that federation did not imply the slightest 
loss of independence on the part of any local society joining a union. 
The great advantage was that the transactions of all the local societies 
were to be found in one publication. ,He was certain that if the Natural 
History Societies throughout the kingdom would unite as the societies 
composing the Federated Mining Engineers had done, the result would 
be excellent. 
Professor T. Johnson mentioned that in Ireland they had a good: 
example of a Union, It comprised four clubs, one in Dublin, another in 
Belfast, a third in Cork, and a fourth in Limerick, which combined to 
form the Irish Field Club Union. A yearly meeting was held in various 
parts of the country, and they had a publication which was common 
property—the ‘ Irish Naturalist.’ There was a poll-tax of twopence from 
each member to defray the expenses of the Union, and there was a com- 
mittee formed of the president and secretaries of the four societies. They 
had an arrangement by which a specialist belonging to one club could 
have his expenses paid if he lectured to another club. They were also 
forming a directory, so that students coming to Ireland would shortly be 
able to learn who was working at any given subject and where he might 
be found. They made a point of sending their specimens to museums. 
In addition, they had short courses of lectures to arouse the interest of 
amateurs, with occasional excursions. The Union had been originated by 
Mr. Praeger, secretary of the Dublin Club. 
In answer to a question from the Chairman, Professor Johnson added 
that the fees received from persons attending the lectures were put into a 
common fund and used for excursion purposes, the lecturer himself re- 
ceiving nothing from the course. 
Mr. Eli Sowerbutts thought that while in some respects federation 
must commend itself to all, there were some questions of great delicacy 
involved in it which made him hesitate to come to any decision at that 
meeting. He felt sure that a society would not submit to'be controlled 
by another society as regards the publication of its papers. There were 
also many other matters needing careful discussion before any decision 
could be safely arrived at. 
Much discussion then arose as to the possibility of arranging for a 
meeting for the further consideration of Mr. Abbott’s paper before the 
second meeting of the Conference. In this the Chairman, Sir Douglas 
Galton, Professor Johnson, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Watts, Mr. Tate, and others 
took part. At length the following motion was proposed by Mr. Abbott, 
seconded by the Rev. E. P. Knubley, and carried unanimously :— 
‘That Mr. Montagu Browne, Professor Johnson, the Rev. E. P. 
Knubley, Mr. Hindmarsh, Mr. W. W. Watts, and Mr. Abbott be nomi- 
nated to form a sub-committee (with power to add to their number) to 
consider this question, and report to the Conference of Delegates of 
Corresponding Societies.’ 
Mr. W. Watts inquired whether anything was being done to preserve 
