PROCEEDINGS OF THE PERTHSHIRE SOCIETY OF NATURAL SCIENCE. 
9 
of Natural Science, and its efforts to raise and complete a 
Natural History Museum. Now, I can only say that 
had the writer of the article confined himself to the first 
object, we should have had no cause to take any 
notice of his effusion. So far as the Council of this 
Society is concerned, he is welcome to puff and ad¬ 
vertise his friends’ scheme to his heart’s contenthe 
may exalt their horn and blow their trumpet as long and 
as loudly as he feels inclined. Probably he felt that 
there was need to say something for a Society which 
seems so little able to say anything for itself. But in his 
laudable desire to make as much of the Literary and 
Antiquarian Society as he could, he has been betrayed 
into certain inaccuracies and misrepresentations which, 
considering the publicity they have acquired at the 
hands of those who act for that Society, can hardly 
be allowed to pass unchallenged. The strenuous exer¬ 
tions made some time ago to bring about common action 
between the Literary and Antiquarian Society on the 
one hand, and the Perthshire Society of Natural Science 
on the other, must be in the recollection of every member 
of this Society, and can hardly have been forgotten by the 
general public. These exertions, as we all know, came to 
nought,—the two Societies could not agree,—a result 
which we have always regretted, but for which our Society 
cannot take any blame. Our final proposal to the Literary 
and Antiquarian Society, I may remind you, was that the 
two Societies should agree to build one common Museum, 
—the ground-flat and principal portion of which, contain¬ 
ing a “ General Collection,” should be under the exclusive 
charge of the Literary and Antiquarian Society; while we 
were content to have the galleries assigned to us, for the 
purposes of a “Local Collection” illustrative of the 
Natural History of Perthshire. This was the main pro¬ 
position, and,the others were equally favourable to the 
Literary and Antiquarian Society. No concession on our 
part, however, would please our friends. Nothing less 
would satisfy them than that we should perform the 
“ happy despatch” upon ourselves as a Society, and there¬ 
after acquire the privilege of becoming paying members of 
the Literary and Antiquarian Society. And this is what 
the anonymous writer in his article terms dealing 
“ fairly, generously, and kindly” with us ! Now, we natu¬ 
rally had no desire to sink our individuality, and perform 
that “happy despatch” so kindly desiderated by our friends, 
and we did not think that the honour of becoming mem¬ 
bers of the Literary and Antiquarian Society was so 
overwhelming as to be a sufficient recompense and 
compensation for thus ceasing to exist. In addition 
to these “ fair, generous, and kindly” conditions suggested 
by the Literary and Antiquarian Society, as the price we 
should have to pay for its co - operation, there was 
another to which we took decided objection,—and that was 
the proposal that we should forego ®ur scheme of building 
a new Museum in Tay Street, and assist them to increase 
their Museum accommodation by extending their present 
buildings in George Street. To this we objected, and gave 
many cogent reasons for so doing. Nevertheless, to show 
that we were by no means obstinate in the course which 
we saw fit to take, but were anxious, at almost any hazard, 
to bring about the co-operation of the two Societies, we 
readily agreed that the rival schemes should be submitted 
to the public, and were willing to abide' by their decision. 
To this the Literary and Antiquarian Society also agreed; 
and subsequently a public meeting, consisting of repre¬ 
sentatives from every section of the community, was con¬ 
vened in the Guild-Hall, under the presidency of the 
Lord-Provost. Now, at this meeting it was unanimously 
agreed that there was clamant need for greater Museum 
accommodation in Perth, audit was remitted to a Committee 
to consider and report upon the rival schemes. The re¬ 
sult you all know : the Committee reported decidedly in 
favour of the scheme which this Society advocated, and 
which Sir Thomas Moncreiffe was the first to propose. 
I think we might well complain that the Literary 
and Antiquarian Society, after having sought judg¬ 
ment from the public and had that judgment given, 
should not have thought fit to abide by the decision, and 
co-operate with us. Not only has it not done so, but the 
action it has taken is such that it would almost appear 
as if it had been designed to thwart us in our endeavour 
to realize the scheme which our fellow-citizens have 
already approved. The writer, to whose article I 
have referred, states that “ very considerable confusion 
seems to exist in the public mind with regard to the two 
Museum schemes now before them.” But the public has 
not so short a memory as he seems to think. It is per¬ 
fectly well-known that the new building in Tay Street 
is the realization of the scheme suggested by Sir 
Thomas Moncreiffe, advocated- by our Society, and ap¬ 
proved of by the public. And it is equally well-known 
that the proposal to increase the Museum accommo¬ 
dation of the Literary and Antiquarian Society, 
by extending the ugly and awkward building 
known as Marshall’s Monument, has been empha¬ 
tically condemned by the public, and is even disapproved 
of by many members of the Literary and Antiquarian 
Society itself. We have, therefore, as we think, good 
cause to complain of the action taken by that Society— 
an action which I am certain it will soon regret, if it 
