At once Paisley Provident delegates were on the alert, and Messrs Lauchland and Cumming of that society moved as an amendment: “That this meeting adheres to the resolution agreed to at special meeting on 29th April, in reference to the planting of a branch in Paisley or Johnstone.” The discussion was long and animated, but again the glamour of a branch was on the delegates, and the Paisley amendment was agreed to by 41 votes to 30 for Barrhead motion.
BARRHEAD DECIDES TO WITHDRAW.
This decision at once made its influence felt in Barrhead, and at the monthly meeting of that society which took place on 12th September notice was given of a resolution to the effect that “This Society hold a special meeting on 8th November to consider a motion ‘that this Society withdraw and cease to be a member of the U.C.B.S.’” At this special meeting the resolution to withdraw was agreed to by a very large majority, and on 4th December it was agreed that the Bakery committee be informed officially of the decision to withdraw, and that the letter state that the society would continue to purchase bread until their own bakery was ready. It is probable that this letter was a result of what had taken place at the Bakery quarterly meeting on the preceding Saturday, when the chairman had been questioned about the withdrawal of the society, and had stated that nothing official had yet been received from Barrhead Society with reference to their withdrawal. He was also questioned as to whether any steps had been taken with regard to establishing a branch bakery, and stated that no action had been taken regarding the branch. The subject then dropped.
DISSATISFACTION IN PAISLEY AND JOHNSTONE.
It is easy to understand that the Paisley and Johnstone societies were not satisfied with the delays which were taking place in placing a branch somewhere in their neighbourhood. They had succeeded in carrying their point in 1873, but the financial position of the Federation had prevented anything from being done. Then in April of 1876 they had secured a majority of votes—true, it was only a majority of three—in favour of their proposals, and in September this decision had been confirmed by a much larger majority. Yet, in view of the strenuous opposition of Barrhead Society and the repeated threats of withdrawal made by that society, they must have recognised that it would not do to hurry matters, for with almost 600 dozen loaves taken away from the weekly output of the Federation, the premises would be ample; and, in view of that contingency, the committee of the Bakery were justified in pursuing a cautious policy. Notwithstanding the chairman’s disclaimer of any “official” knowledge of Barrhead Society’s intentions, it was generally known throughout the Federation that they had decided to start baking for themselves, and it was doubtless this knowledge which was responsible for the statement by the chairman that “no action had been taken” to establish a branch being allowed to pass as quietly as it did.
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.
THE END OF THE PROPOSAL.
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.