To Sir Frederic Leighton, P.R.A.
February 1, 1880.
I am very glad indeed to have the statement of your views which you have given me on the women question. Everything is now clear, side matters are disposed of, and only a single point remains on which we have to join issue. On my part I hold that our laws are in a definite and unequivocal form. That their foundation is in the "Instrument" and that every addition to, or modification, or annulment of the provisions in that document has been made in the manner prescribed, viz. by "resolutions" passed by the General Assembly and afterwards sanctioned by the Sovereign. These acts of legislation are all drawn up in a special way (as to size and pattern), to receive the sign manual of the Sovereign; and the tablets arranged in the order of their dates constitute our Statute-Book. I hold that no law can be changed or privilege taken away except by a subsequent act of legislation done in the prescribed manner.
On your part you hold that laws can be changed and privileges taken away by a "custom consecrated by Royal sanction." Thus the issue raised is very clear and distinct indeed.
I will point out that the question as to women sitting on Council was only on one occasion, and then only incidentally, before the Academy. Until the Tresham case arose the ballot had been used in forming the Council, and consequently no question of rights could appear while that process remained unchallenged. But whether we are discussing a single act of adjudication, or such a succession of acts as may be called a "custom," is really immaterial, because the sole question before us is this—can any act or acts other than those of legislation override and supplant the enactments of our law?
If it could be established that our laws must give way to the class of acts you point to, it would then be the first duty of the Academy to have our records minutely searched to ascertain what other laws have been supplanted by administrative actions sanctioned by the Sovereign; and the historical method so much discountenanced at our last Assembly would in truth rise into paramount importance. Many cases would most probably be found. We have one in suspense before us at this moment—the case of the engravers.
The laws of the Academy distinctly provide (but not more distinctly than that without discrimination "members" shall sit on Council) that a vacancy in the case of R.A. engravers shall not be filled up until the assent of the General Assembly has been taken by vote. Since the making of that law only two vacancies have occurred. They were both filled up without a preliminary permission, and the Sovereign sanctioned the election. On your contention, therefore, the custom consecrated by these sanctions must override the law itself, and nothing at this time stands between Barlow and the Queen's signature to his Diploma.
The Constitutional question you have raised is certainly one of the highest importance, and I shall watch its development with great interest. It is a matter of little moment what the view of an ordinary member like myself may be, but not so with the President, and I offer no apology for endeavouring to throw light upon the subject.
H.T.W.
[68] See [Chapter III].