Quarterly Report of the Chemical Committee, Becemher 1891. 819 
sample vras not taken by Mr. Finn," I am to inform you that a letter 
received from that gentleman explicitly says that the sample forwai-ded to 
Dr. Voelcker was taken out of the middle of a cake by himself. 
From the three analyses quoted by you, it appears very probable that 
the cake varied considerably in quality throughout the bulk ; and hence the 
analyses would difter also. But it is to be noted that each of the two 
samples drawn by Mr. Finn and Messrs. Wakeley respectively from the 
delivery sent to Mr. Finn showed an excess of sand which should not exist 
in a pure linseed-cake. 
Yours faithfully, 
Erjtest Clabke, Secretm-y. 
Messrs. R. & J. Hewetson. 
The letter from Mr. Finn referred to in tlie foregoing was as 
under : — 
Westwood Court, Faversham : October 31, 1891. 
Deae Sie, — The linseed-cake which I sent to you was taken out of the 
middle of a cake by myself, and when Messrs. "SVakeley heard I had 
received a bad report one of the firm called on me and took a piece from 
another cake exactly in the same manner ; I could no* say if it was from the 
same lot as yours, but it would certainly be cake that I had from them as 
Dean's Calcutta seed cake. It was sent to another analyst, who returned a 
better report. 
Yours faithful] V, 
G. W. Fiyx. 
J. Augustus Voelcker, Esq. 
I believe Mr. Bernard Dyer had the second piece. 
On receipt of the Secretary's letter of November 6, Messrs, 
Hewetson wrote : — 
1, Catherine Court, London, E.C. : November 21, 1891. 
Gexilejiex, — On receipt of your letter of Xovember 6, we wrote to 3Ir. 
Wakeley as to bis assertion that the first sample was not taken by Mr. Finn, 
but by liis man, and we now have his reply. 
The facts are as under : — 
Ml-. Finn told me, when he first spoke to me about it, that his man 
took the cake, and when I wrote to him reminding him of what he said at 
that time, and that it was contrary to what he since wrote me in answer to 
my query whether he or Ms man took the cake, he said he could not swear 
whether he or his man took the cake, so he asked his yardmen, who said 
that Mr. Finn took it." 
Our complaint is that the account given in the Journal is quite mislead- 
ing, as the best analysis — that of Bernard Dyer — is left out altogether, and 
the sample in this case was taken in the presence of Mr. Wakeley and Mr. 
Finn, and sent by Mr. Finn to Mr. Dyer. 
Also the report says : " They sent Mr. Finn the copy of an analysis of 
what theij said was the same cake as supplied to him," thereby casting some 
doubt as to its beuig the same cake. 
We trust the Committee will see that some explanation is due, as it is 
most unjust to tlie Dean Linseed Oil Co.'s cake — ichick i's well known to he 
the Jinest American cake that !•« made — that such a report should go forth 
uncontradicted. 
We remain, Gentlemen, yours obediently, 
IiOBEET & JXO. HeWETSOX. 
The Chemical Committee, Royal Agricultural Society. 
3 H 2 
