Correspondence and papers. 1922.
Local branches were set up in June 1923 but only one branch was established, the Local Branch for Edinburgh and the Lothians. The Executive Committee recommended the payment of a per capita subsidy for the 14 members of the Edinburgh and Lothian Branch. This branch was dissolved in 1933 and their final report was presented and accepted by Council (see Report of the Council, 1933 and Council minutes, 21 Mar. 1933, f. 218). In 1933, the same year, the Scottish Anthropological Society was formed (see Council minutes, 25 Apr. 1933, f. 220). See also Report of the Council, 1922 and 1923 and Council minutes, 11 Dec. 1934, f. 254 for a reference to the Institute of Anthropology, Edinburgh; see also A18/8/142b, 314a, 782z, 795b, 807e-f; 9/19, 32a (12 Dec. 1922, 27 June 1923, 18 Nov. 1925, 8 Sep. 1926, 25 Nov. 1927 and 29 Feb. 1928)
Abbreviations
ENF Edwin Nichol Fallaize, Hon. Secretary, 1920-31
RWW Richard Wood Williamson (1856-1932), Hon. Treasurer, 1912-20
1 Kimber Bull, Howland, Clappé & Co., solicitors to ENF, 13 Apr. 1922 – deals with points raised by ENF including the correct assumption that local branches comes within the scope of the Memo and by-laws and some modifications which will give the RAI some measure of protection; returning draft rules showing the alterations suggested (/2 below) (tp.); see Executive Committee minutes, 7 and 21 Feb., 7 Mar., 2 and 23 May 1922, ff. 110-12, 115, 126 and Council minutes, 28 Feb., 14 Mar., 27 June and 24 Oct. 1922, ff. 430-1, ff. 2, 5
2 Draft rules with the solicitors’ alterations and Riders A-D. 4 leaves (tpc., annotations)
3 ENF to Kimber Bull [etc.], 24 Apr. [?23 Apr.] – acknowledges letter of 13 Apr. which will be submitted to Council (see Council minutes, 9 May 1922); their suggested amendments ‘would not attain the object I had in view’ that local branches should not elect local officers and committees without the consent of the central body; asks for their opinion (tpc.)
4 Kimber Bull [etc.] to ENF, 24 Apr. – acknowledges letter of previous day; on the definition of terms and the functioning of local branches (tp.)
5 RWW to ENF, 26 Apr. – has anxieties on RAI responsibility for obligations incurred by the branches based upon questions of (1) agency, and (2) identity; elaborates these points. 4 pp. (autogr.)
6 Ibid., 8 May – unlikely he will be able to attend Council tomorrow; has had no opportunity of discussing the importance he gives to making local organisations ‘actual branches of the Institute’; expands on previous letter; cites the organizations of the Law Society where provincial law societies are separate societies, and the London Society is not responsible for any engagements entered into by them; most anxious to discuss this with him and Council; asks for letter to be read out in his absence (autogr.)
