Project:SAL/elections
Elections to the Society of Antiquaries of London follow a distinctive procedure, the details of which evolved between the 1870s and the 1950s. This page is intended as live resource to capture details of that process and its evolution
1893
At the Anniversary meeting on 24 April 1893 the President of the Society of Antiquaries of London, Augustus Wollaston Franks, addressed the issue of balloting for the election of fellows. The "Proceedings" record thus:
The next point on which 1 should wish to make a few remarks is on our present system of ballots for the election of Fellows, to which I alluded on the 22nd June last, but from a financial aspect.
When I joined the Society in 1853, what I may call System No. 1 for the election of Fellows was in operation. By it the certificate of a candidate was read at a meeting, which was the only notice given, and when it had been suspended for two meetings, as required by the Statutes, the ballot took place, "provided" that there was a President or Vice-President in the chair, as required by the Charter, an event less frequent at that time than recently. There were rarely more than one or two ballots in the evening, as the ballots were scattered all through the sessions, and there was no limit to our numbers. The ballot-box was carried round while the papers were being read, and at some pause the result was declared. The objections to this system were mainly the uncertainty whether a ballot would take place, owing to the possible absence of the necessary chairman, and the inconvenience of elections taking place in the presence of strangers. There was also a feeling that tho number of our meetings for papers were somewhat too large, and that it would be well to substitute for some of them ballot nights, which would serve as conversaziones.
This led in 1862 to the substitution of System No. 2, by which the evenings for ballots were diminished to three (excepting for candidates elected under the provisions of the Statutes, Chapter I., Sections iv. and v.), on which no papers were to be read, but objects of interest might be exhibited, and no strangers were admitted. J Some of the Fellows seemed to appreciate the opportunity thus afforded to them to converse with their friends, and discuss matters of common interest. I ought perhaps to add that an alteration in the ballots was partly rendered necessary from a limit being then fixed for the number of Fellows, at that time six hundred, since increased in 1885 to seven hundred, the present number.
In 1891 a certain number of candidates were rejected, which produced some dissatisfaction, and the President and Council thought it desirable to propose a change in the Statutes, which was carried December 3, 1891, but no ballots were held under it tillJanuary 21, 1892. This I will call System No. 3, as though it was treated as a reversion to System No. 1 it was not really so, as under the latter the Council had nothing to do with fixing the dates of the elections, and no notice was given beyond the first reading of the certificate. It would, however, have been difficult to revert to that system entirely, owing to the limit to our number, and the necessity there would have been to clear off all the candidates on our walls before it could have been re-adopted.
In the first half of 1892 there were eight ballots, at which forty-eight candidates were balloted for, of whom eleven were rejected; one more than in 1891. Owing to the impending changes in the subscriptions no ballots were held during the remainder of that year. In the present year we have had up to the present time seven ballots, with forty-two candidates, of whom fifteen have been rejected.
On turning to the ballots for the two previous years we find in 1890 forty-five candidates, of whom thirteen were rejected, and in 1891 the same number with ten rejections. I subjoin a tabular statement of the elections for the last ten years.
It does not therefore seem to me that the change of system has produced much alteration as to the number of rejections, while it is certainly attended by considerable inconveniences, viz. the increase of meetings at which the President or a Vice- President must be in the chair, the undesirable presence of strangers at the elections, and the injury to the papers, which have to be somewhat hurried through. Moreover, the ballot has to be completed as speedily as possible, so that it is closed as soon as those in the room have voted. Under the previous system the ballots were open for three- quarters of an hour, and the exact time was fixed for the closing, which is now uncertain.
Though I myself never saw the necessity of the change, which I think I understood at the time was to be a matter of experiment, I should not have made these remarks had not many, of our Fellows expressed to me their desire to see the ballots restored to System No. 2, with any improvements which experience may have suggested. I should also add that I am only expressing my own opinion, and that it will be for the Council you are electing this day to give effect to my suggestion if they should see fit to do so, especially as no change can be now made as far us the ballots for this year are concerned. My only desire is that the course to be pursued should be the one most conducive to the welfare of our Society, and the one most agreeable to our Fellows, or at any rate to a very large majority of them.
While on this subject I hope you will forgive my making a few remarks on black-balling. It is the undoubted right of Fellows to express their opinion of a candidate as they think fit, and it is their duty to see that candidates not worthy of the honour should be excluded. But as a matter of good feeling this power of veto should not be exercised capriciously, nor on what I may call a dog-in-the-manger principle. It must be remembered that while science pays well its votaries, and geography is popular, our pursuits are rarely of a remunerative character, and that we must largely look to amateurs. Good archaeologists, not a very numerous body, have the first claim upon us, but collectors and patrons of art, men of rank, country gentlemen, and clergymen of good position may be very useful to us. When they are members of our body we can claim their assistance for our exhibitions, and for information as to discoveries on their estates or in their neighbourhoods. For the interests of archaeology our Society should be a large one, and we shall thus obtain the necessary funds for our publica tions. It has always seemed to me that in the case of the rejection of a candidate who has claims to be a Fellow as an archaeologist or otherwise, the best mode of action would be to obtain his leave to propose him again, and that his friends should do what they can to support his election, and not confine their energies to merely signing his certificate. This course has been pursued in several cases that I could mention, and with success. If other candidates who have no special claims should be rejected "tant pis pour eux".
