397 
in London than at Rome. The International Agricultural 
Institute at Rome will certainly do great work, but when one 
has carefully studied the epidemics which are inclined to spring 
up in the tropics, and when you consider that this country 
has such an important area of tropical dependencies, I am 
rather afraid of committing myself to have to refer all these 
matters to Rome to wait until an international committee has 
handled them and agreed to them, and then, I suppose, sent 
them back to us to be administered and worked upon. If we 
can still keep to ourselves the right, so to speak, of taking 
matters in hand when we want to, then I am quite ready to 
have one central organization, but I cannot help feeling that 
I would rather have the organization that has to do the work 
in London than in Italy, and to have to come back to us after 
the matter has been discussed there. 
Sir Sypney Otivier: Might I perhaps make an inter- 
polation on Mr. Hamel Smith’s point? No Government or 
association in any way sacrifices its autonomy by supporting 
this resolution; it only gets the benefit of the collaboration 
of other minds in the advancement of the interests of agricul- 
ture. The Government of the United States, the Government 
of England, or any foreign Government is not in the slightest 
degree hampered in its independent action in dealing with its 
own pest or pests by the action of the institute at Rome. The 
institute at Rome only furnishes a common clearing-house for 
such agreement as can be arrived at; and any decision of any 
Government is referred to the institute at Rome before being 
ratified. It is simply a common ground for the collection and 
diffusion of information, so that it does not appear to me that 
Mr. Hamel Smith’s fears—and I have had a great deal of 
practical experience—are at all relevant to the position as it 
really exists. 
Mr. R. N. Lyne (Director of Agriculture, Ceylon): I should 
like to say, as belonging to the Government of one tropical 
colony, that I should have liked to have seen a copy of these 
resolutions before being asked to vote on them, because, 
although one may not vote in favour of any particular 
resolution, nevertheless the fact of one being present at the 
meeting might be interpreted as being equivalent to support- 
ing them, when the fact really is that one has not had an 
opportunity of fully considering what official responsibilities 
and obligations are concerned. 
At the request of M. Boris de Fedtschenko (Russia), the 
President read again the terms of the resolution. 
Professor P. Carmopy (Director of Agriculture, Trinidad): 
I would have liked to have had this resolution of Sir James 
Wilson to read over before the meeting commenced, and 
