A BRANCH IN GLASGOW.
Whatever might be the result of the withdrawal of Barrhead Society, however, if and when it did take place, there was no doubt but that the capacity of the bakery premises were overtaxed at the moment. The committee had been compelled to refuse offers of trade because of inability to supply the societies, and on discovering that a small bakery, situated in Paisley Road adjacent to their central premises, was to let, they came to the decision to appeal to the members for power to rent it for a year while awaiting developments. A circular was drafted and sent out to the societies, in which were explained the committee’s reasons for not proceeding with the branch bakery, and also the reasons why they considered it advisable that the small bakery in Paisley Road should be rented. The contents of this circular fanned the ire of the Paisley and Johnstone societies, whose delegates turned out in great force to the quarterly meeting, held on 3rd March 1877.
The circular was submitted by Mr Slater, secretary of the Federation, and gave rise to a lengthy discussion. It does not seem to have occurred to anyone that the Paisley and Johnstone societies might follow the example of Barrhead and withdraw, and the idea was largely entertained by the delegates that if a branch was established in that locality, it would relieve the congestion in the Central Bakery for a long time to come. Finally, after a very long discussion, Mr Inglis, Paisley Provident, moved “That the circular lie on the table, and that the committee take their instructions as to how they should meet the extra demand from the resolutions agreed to on the matter at previous meetings.” Mr Paton, Paisley Provident, seconded. Mr Steel, Avonbank, moved, and Mr Stark, Barrhead, seconded, “That the committee be empowered to rent premises temporarily in the vicinity of the present bakehouse.” The vote resulted in the amendment of Mr Steel being carried by 39 votes to 34 for the motion of Mr Inglis. The question was not yet settled, however. Immediately the result of the vote was declared, Mr O’May, Paisley Provident, rose and moved: “That this question be again brought up at the quarterly general meeting six months hence.” It should have been apparent to the delegates that this was a blocking motion and might prevent the committee from doing anything, but it was evidently not so regarded, or else the delegates could not make up their minds on the subject, for it was agreed to without comment. The committee did not allow the motion for reopening the question in six months to hinder them from going on with the new branch, for immediately the meeting was over they gave instructions to the sub-committee to secure temporary premises in the vicinity.