The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-29 00:00:00

ART-UNIONS BILL.

The further discussion of the report on this Bill was re-
sumed, on the motion of Mr. WYSE.

Mr. GOULBURN opposed the Bill, on the ground that it
would sanction gambling amongst one class of society,
whilst there were laws in existence which pre
vented a precisely similar mode of gambling in a
lower and consequently a less opulent class, and that if
this system of gambling was legalised by the passing of the
there would be nothing to prevent it extending to
other branches of art and manufacture, and renew-
ing the spirit of gambling in other matters, which
the House had felt it its duty to put down by law.
Mr. MILES supported the Bill, and considered that if
they rejected it, that numbers of artists, who by the praise-
worthy system of art- unions were now supporting themselves
and their families, would suffer all the evils of penury. He
could not, therefore, anticipate any evil from the passing of
the measure, but the reverse, as it would foster and increase
the taste of the people for the fine arts.
Sir R. PEEL generally concurred with the views of his
Right Hon. Friend the Member for the University of Ox-
ford, and, although the Government, he believed, intended to
support the Bill, he was willing to remain silent on
this measure. He believed that it would be
an exception from a right principle, and, like
all exceptions, they would reap practical inconvenience from
it. But would it be of benefit to art? Even if it were, he
doubted if it would be right to encourage gambling by giving
such a power, and so create a precedent from which, as he
had said, they would experience practical inconvenience. But
he considered that these art-unions encouraged and fostered a
spirit of gambling, instead, as had been stated, of
a desire to promote the fine arts, because persons in various
towns throughout the country, who were not actuated by a
love of art, but for gambling, for the 300/. or 400/. prizes
established those art-unions, and considered themselves
patrons of the fine arts. He questioned much, there-
fore, whether the fine arts were encouraged by the es-
tablishment of art-unions—in fact, they rather increased the
taste for cheap and inferior productions in the place of
others, which deserved the denomination of fine art.

Mr.-WYSE denied that art-unions encouraged gambling,
as they were established for the individual benefit of the
members and for the encouragement of the higher branches
of the fine arts, and the distribution of pictures among the
great body of the people, who, unlike the Right Hon.
Baronet (Sir R. Peel), were unable to possess valuable and
consequently high-priced pictures. Besides, such exhibi-
tions performed their part in refining and educating
the people, and could not, he contended, come
under the definition of gambling. He was at a
loss to understand why so much objection should be
made to art-unions, when building and other societies were
allowed to exist, against which the term might be applied
with greater truth.
Sir R. INGLIS explained that he considered that pictures
merely delighted the people, and bore but little part in their
moral culture. He repeated that art-unions encouraged
gambling, because money was raised and prizes distributed
by lottery, which was an immoral mode of raising money.
Did the Hon. Gentleman remember the case of the Spital-
fields' loom-weavers, and the result of their lottery? He
was glad to find himself agreeing with his Right. Hon.
Friend the Member for Tamworth, as to whose attachment
to the fine arts there was but one concurrent opinion on
that side of the House, even before his recent
endeavour to alleviate the sufferings of one gifted pro-
fessor of the fine arts became known. He agreed
with his Right Honourable Friend, that that Bill would
not encourage the fine arts. He objected to the prin-
ciple, for even if it would have the effect of procuring
the productions of Raphael and Michael Angelo, he,
for one, would not sanction such by the means proposed by
the present Bill. But he did not think that it would even
have that effect, but, on the contrary, encourage a bad style
of the fine arts. On these grounds he should oppose the Bill.
Sir WALTER JAMES said that he considered that it
would be unwise to press the Bill in its present form, and
therefore he should give it his opposition.
Mr. MART said he thought it would encourage the fine
arts if a law, similar to the law of Belgium on this subject,
were introduced into this country. In Belgium lotteries
were discouraged, but were permitted with respect to
the fine arts.—(Hear, hear.) The case stated by the
gentlemen on the opposite side was not made out.
They had not even given an instance of the evils they appre-
hended from the passing of this Bill. For these considera-
tions, he trusted the House would adopt the Bill,
Sir GEORGE GREY said he thought there was a
double necessity for this Bill. In the first place, it would
show whether these art-unions came within the provisions of
the lottery laws, and to subject them to such wholesome re-
strictions as would prevent, effectually, gambling as it was
called.--(Hear, hear.) The Committee formed to inquire
into these art-unions found that some of the evils com-
plained of did exist, but at the same time that
they were not inherent to these institutions.
They then offered such suggestions as they considered
would have the effect of repressing these evils. He was of
opinion that the Bill would be of advantage, and he would
give it his support.— (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HENLEY opposed the Bill.
Lord HARRY VANE said he would give the Bill his
support.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said he must call the attention of the
House to one fact before dividing on this subject. It would
be highly unjust to several persons who had got their bread
under these institutions if they were suddenly to be deprived
of them.—(Cries of "Divide.") Upon that ground alone, if
upon no other, he would give the Bill his support.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion ... 50
Against it
Majority
Tne House then went into Committee on the Bill, and the
clauses were agreed to.
PRISONS (IRELAND) BILL.
. .

On the motion for the third reading of this Bill,
Mr. F. FRENCH made a few observations.
Mr. PIGOTT explained that the object of the Bill was not
to effect any alteration of the nature apprehended by the
Hon. Gentleman, or lead to the increase of expense which he
seemed to suppose.
The Bill was then read a third time.
THE GRAND JURY CESS BOARDS (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was read a third time.
MANDAMUS (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was also read a third time.