Second Marquis of Northampton to Faraday   25 May 1845

My dear Sir

The question of a new Charter is before the Council of the R.S.¹ but at this moment is waiting for discussion, & for information as to the pecuniary cost of it. If we finally have one, the main object will be to have a more convenient time than the month of November for our anniversary². There will of course be an opportunity of other improvements which it is advisable not to neglect. I therefore wish the advice of some of the more distinguished members of the society, in addition to that of the council & write to ask you to favour me with any suggestions that may occur to you. It seems to me advisable to make our rule of electing more strict, & I should think it would be better that one Fourth should be sufficient to exclude a candidate, than one Third as at present. Still I think it right to be more liberal than in many other societies, which this would still be.

There is a question on which I should like your advice, but it would not be connected with the new charter - I mean, is it advisable to adopt in some degree, and if so, under what restrictions, discussion on Papers read as in many other scientific societies? I am inclined to think it would be advisable, giving however to the president absolute discretion at once to cut it short or to state simply that he did not consider a paper adapted to discussion at all³.

Would it be advisable to make any change in the Payments of the Fellows, either admission, annual or Composition Payments? I think the Composition over high, being at Fifteen years purchase, while most other societies make it Ten. Besides that the R.S. generally takes in it's members at a more advanced age than other societies[.]

Would it be better to make the admn Payments Five Pounds? - & the Composition Fifty? - instead of Four & Sixty. Of course this question could only apply to new members.

Yours very truly | Northampton

5 Lowndes St | May 25, 1845

I forgot one very important point. The question whether the Presidency should be unlimited in it's duration - I think not. It should not be necessarily short, yet in truth a President has much to learn which Time alone can teach him before he can be able at all to perform his duties well. I mean, as to persons, for I am not alluding to science. But it is not well that he should go on when superannuated, not knowing his own incapacity, & his friends from delicacy not telling him. Moreover a certain degree of change is itself good "New Brooms &c"[.] My idea would be limit it to Ten years - with annual reelection of course.

Endorsed by Faraday: To M. Faraday