430 



NA TURE 



[February 1 1, 1909 



each fellow, with a view to elicit a definite state- 

 ment of his opinion as to the expediency of 

 acquiescing in the prayer of the memorial. 



We had occasion at the time to animadvert on the 

 manner in which certain members of the council, 

 and in particular the executive officers of the society, 

 allowed their declared hostility to the admission of 

 women to the fellowship to get the better of their judg- 

 ment and sense of fair play, and we commented on 

 the significance of the protest on the part of a large 

 majority of the past presidents, which was sent to 

 every fellow of the society — a protest which lost 

 nothing of its force by the studied moderation of its 

 expression of indignation. 



The result of this referendum was that, by a large 

 majority' — 1094 for and 642 against — the fellows 

 expressed their opinion that the desire of the 

 memorialists should be acceded to, and that duly 

 qualified women should be admitted to the full rights 

 and privileges of fellowship. 



After having put the society to the expense and 

 trouble of a referendum on an issue which was 

 definitely stated with all the reasons for and against 

 which could be urged, it might have been assumed 

 that the council, as a representative body and in its 

 fiduciary capacity, would have given heed to the 

 e.xpression of opinion which it had deliberately 

 invited. Certain members of the council were, how- 

 ever, determined that nothing of the kind should be 

 done. No matter what the size of the majority in 

 favour of the admission of women might be, t^ 

 contumacious and recalcitrant element in the minority 

 — a cabal of London chemists, in fact, in no proper 

 sense representative of the general feeling of the 

 society — set themselves to thwart the wishes of the 

 majority of the fellows. The whole business of the 

 nferendum was thereupon deliberately reduced to a 

 fiasco. It was expedient, however, to temporise. The 

 size and character of the majority was too significant 

 and weighty for it to be treated with too great an 

 appearance of contempt, and accordinglv it was 

 decided to offer such women as the council should 

 think fit the privilege of attending the society's 

 meetings, of consulting the society's library, and of 

 purchasing the society's publications at cost price, but 

 10 deny them the fellowship. 



This, of course, was not carrying out the mandate 

 which the council had received. It was, indeed, in 

 flagrant and contumacious opposition to it. It was 

 necessary, therefore, to make some show of justifi- 

 cation for such a course, and the result was one of 

 the most remarkable productions in the way of 

 excuse, evasion, partial statement and special pleading 

 which a perverted and not over-scrupulous ingenuitv 

 could put together. This apologia is published in 

 No. 349 of the society's Proceedings, and \v\\l serve 

 to make that issue historical. By wav of preamble 

 it recites, with a chastened sobriety, the results of 

 the voting, and then proceeds to state what was 

 perfectly well known to the council before they insti- 

 tuted the referendum, and should have been" stated 

 to the fellows on that occasion by those who raised 

 objections to the admission of women, that, having 

 regard to the state of the law affecting women at 

 the time of the granting of the Charter, there might 

 be legal difficulties in its interpretation, and that these 

 difficulties — if they really existed — might not be 

 overcome unless practically the whole of the society 

 was unanimous in praying for a supplementary or 

 .Minended Charter. It does not state, however, what 

 is the fact, that, whatever may be the difliculty as 

 regards married women, counsel advised that^ in 

 the event of the society deciding to admit women, it 

 should make the necessary alteration in its bye-laws. 

 This advice clearly shows that, in the opinion of 

 NO. 2050, VOL. 79] 



counsel, the society might certainly admit unmarried 

 women to the fellowship without serious risk to its 

 action being legally challenged, if it were minded to 

 do so, at the trifling cost of amending its bye-laws. 



The fact is, there is not a single word in the 

 Charter which either explicitly or implicitly ex- 

 cludes women. It has been held, indeed, by legal 

 authority that by the very wording of the Charter 

 it was clearly contemplated that women might 

 possibly become fellows. Nor is there anything in 

 the nature, functions, or objects of the society as 

 defined by its founders which would preclude the 

 admission of women. These facts were brought to 

 the knowledge of the council on the authority of an 

 eminent lawyer, whose written opinion was laid 

 before them. But no hint of a possible conflict 

 of legal opinion is given in the apologia which was 

 put forward on behalf of the council, and only that 

 particular one is referred to, and only so much of 

 it is quoted as serves the purpose of him who 

 drafted the argument. The net result of this conflict 

 of legal opinion on the mind of the council was that 

 it was a case of tot homines, tot sententiae. 



It is obvious that the whole of the apologia put 

 forward on behalf of the council is simply a dis- 

 ingenuous plea of 7wn possiimus. 



Every fair-minded person is now convinced that if 

 the society is determined to admit duly qualified 

 women to its fellowship it can do so without 

 troubling itself about its Charter, and with no risk 

 of an injunction against it so long as such women 

 fulfil the objects of the society and are prepared to 

 coiroly with its laws. In fact, what it has already 

 done in regard to the election of Madame Curie 

 as an honorary member it can do in regard to any 

 British-born woman as an ordinary fellow. 



But now comes the Nemesis. The council having 

 professed their great anxiety concerning the legal 

 difficulties they have conjured up, and which, like 

 so many lions in the path, they say confront them, 

 proceed to disregard the Charter and propose to 

 act in a wholly irregular and unconstitutional way. 

 They enact a resolution, indistinguishable, as has 

 been said, in form and substance from a bye-law, 

 and create a special class called " Subscribers," in 

 no sense differing from that of the associates 

 mentioned in the Charter, except that it is restricted 

 to women, who are not admitted by the ballot of 

 the fellows as are the associates. The difficulty 

 of the council is obvious. Although the women 

 so admitted are, in effect, associates, to call them 

 so would be to give away the whole case. Hence 

 the institution of the new grade. This makes con- 

 fusion worse confounded. Whilst professing to have 

 regard to the Charter, the council deliberately 

 ignores or sets aside its provisions. No such reso- 

 lution can take effect until it is sanctioned as a 

 bye-law by a general meeting. 



The fact is the council, under the direction of 

 unwise advisers, have bungled in this business from 

 start to finish. The only prudent step they have 

 taken was to elicit the general feeling of the fellows. 

 Having obtained it, they should have acted loyally 

 and in good faith, and have sought to give effect to 

 it. As it is, they have been led by devious and 

 crooked ways from the straight path, with the 

 customary result. The position now is as irregular 

 as it is inequitable, and as illogical as it is unjust. 

 Their plain duty is to retrace their steps and end 

 an unseemly episode by doing what common sense, 

 reason and justice demand. 



In the meantime, the women concerned have, with 

 a wiser instinct than that which has actuated the 

 council, declined to accept the invitation to take up 

 a position which, in view of its irregularity, would 



