6 



1st. Having regard to the terms of the said Charter and 

 to the fact that the question " that the proposed alter- 

 ations in the Bye-laws should he put to the Meeting 

 seriatim " had been duly moved and seconded, was it 

 necessary that the proposed alterations in the Bye- 

 laws should be put to the Meeting seriatim ? or was it 

 legal to put them (as they were put) en masse ? 



2nd. Is the repeal of Sections 1, 2, and 3, or is the alter- 

 ation of Section 7 of Chapter XII. of the Bye-laws 

 in contravention of the Society's Charter or other- 

 wise invalid ? 



3rd. In the event of such alterations in Chapter XII. being 

 invalid, are the other alterations in the Bye-laws which 

 were proposed at the Meeting of the 15th January 

 valid and binding without further vote of the Society ? 



4th. Under all the circumstances above mentioned are the 

 alterations in the Bye-laws purported to have been 

 made at the Meeting of the IStli of January last valid 

 and binding upon the Society? 



The following is a Co])y of Lord Hatherleys Award. 



I AM of opinion that the Council alone can originate a Bye-law 

 or Bye-laws, and that it is competent to that body to offer the 

 Bye-laws at any time agreed to by them, either as a body of new 

 Law or as separate Laws. By presenting them and having them 

 read as one body of Law, I think they sufficiently indicated their 

 intent that it should be accepted or rejected as such, and that the 

 President was therefore right in so offering them for confirmation. 

 I do not think that any Motion by one of the Fellows, though 

 seconded, for varying this arrangement by putting the several 

 heads of the altered Law instead of laying the whole at once 

 before the Greneral Meeting, was one which the President was 

 bound to put ; for had it been carried, he would not have been 

 justified in complying with the proposal. The Council might 

 direct the Bye-laws to be hung up and read as separate laws ; but 



