114 
SITTINGS OF THE COUNCIL. 
Sitting of January 19, 1849. 
(Special Meeting.) 
Present,—The President, the Secretary, Messrs. W. C. 
Spooner (Southampton), Percivall, Jas. Turner, Robin¬ 
son, Godwin, Pritchard, Ernes, Wilkinson, Silvester, 
Henderson, Arthur Cherry, Cherry, sen., W. Good¬ 
win, and SPOONER (Professor). 
The minutes being read and confirmed, and the notice convening 
the meeting having been read, 
The President stated, that he had received a note requesting a 
meeting with Professors Spooner and Simonds, and that he, to¬ 
gether with the Secretary and Treasurer had met those gentle¬ 
men; that certain discussions had taken place on the by-laws; 
that, in consequence, the Secretary had taken down the heads of 
the propositions submitted by those gentlemen (the Professors), 
which the Secretary would lay before the Council. 
The Secretary then read these propositions : they were to the 
effect, that the apprenticeship clause should be given up—that the 
term of attendance at the schools should be three years—that the 
fees on the admission of members should be reduced—that those 
who held foreign diplomas should be eligible to present themselves 
for examination after one year’s study at the schools. 
Mr. Ernes thought that there was irregularity in these pro¬ 
ceedings ; that a meeting of so much importance should not have 
taken place without the concurrence of the Council; and that the 
propositions could not be entertained unless they were brought 
before the Council in a proper form. 
The President explained. He considered that he was not 
acting out of order in granting the meeting ; that no pledge had 
been given by those w r ho had acted with him, or by himself, to 
support or carry through these propositions. 
Mr. Ernes still thought that the proceeding w T as irregular : he 
considered that a Committee should be appointed to examine into 
and report on the by-laws. 
Mr. Arthur Cherry agreed with Mr. Ernes as to the appoint¬ 
ment of a Committee ; but he must bring before the Council the 
fact, that the notice of motion upon which they were summoned 
that evening was not only irregular, but illegal. The notice stated, 
for “ the revision of the by-laws .” Now, that did not require 
three months’ suspension; but it was requisite that the proposed 
alteration, amendment, or proposed new rule or order should 
be suspended for three months : this latter had not been done, 
therefore the Council could not entertain the question. He referred 
to and read the clause in the Charter specifically directing such 
matters. 
