The subject again arose at the 34th quarterly meeting, held on 1st September, when Paisley Provident was again forward with a motion: “That if a branch be required after Barrhead had left the Federation, it be established at Paisley or Johnstone, and that the present branch in Glasgow be not retaken.” To this it was moved by Mr Gardiner, Cathcart, and seconded by Mr M‘Murran, Glasgow Eastern, as an amendment, “That this question lie over for six months.” After a long discussion the Paisley motion was withdrawn, on condition that the amendment limit the period of lying over to three months, and that, meantime, a special committee, constituted from the delegates present and from the committee, be appointed to investigate the matter and report to the next quarterly meeting. This was agreed to, and Messrs M‘Murran, O’May, Aitchison, Brown, and Slater were appointed the special committee. In less than three months’ time the committee sent out their report to the societies. The report contained details of three plans which the sub-committee had considered. The first of these, that of a branch bakery in Paisley, they considered could not be worked except at a slight loss. With regard to the second one, that of a branch at Johnstone, they considered that the loss would be slightly greater; while, with the branch at Johnstone, the trade would be more difficult to work. The third proposal which had been considered was that of increasing the number of ovens in the present premises, and in the report they stated they were not prepared to recommend any one of the schemes in the meantime, but recommended, instead, that the branch in Paisley Road be taken for another year. The reason they gave for this recommendation was that they considered that an inquiry should be made into the advisability of introducing machinery into the bakehouse, as the whole of their premises would be vacant in eighteen months and could be utilised; if the result of the inquiry was satisfactory, steps should then be taken to have it introduced. This report was accepted by the delegates at the quarterly meeting, and so a subject which had been a fruitful source of controversy at the general meetings of the Federation for nearly two years disappeared. It was again raised at a quarterly meeting some years later, when the question of removing altogether from St James Street was being discussed, but was summarily disposed of by the delegates. BARRHEAD, JOHNSTONE, AND PAISLEY PROVIDENT WITHDRAW.