The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-23 00:00:00

CORN-LAWS.

Lord MONTEAGLE presented several petitions from
Bridport, Portsmouth, the Isle of Wight, and other places, in
favour of the Government measure.
ART- UNIONS.

The Duke of CAMBaIDGE presented a petition from the
members of the Art-Union of London, praying for the legalisa-
tion of art-unions.

Lord IVIONTEAGLE wished to call the attention of her
Majesty's Government to this petition, which was the first of
a series that would be presented on the subject, representing
the feelings of not only the artists of the country, but the
great body of those who were interested in the fine arts. The
Committee of the House of Commons, appointed in 1t35, had
made inquiries which showed that art-unions had been attended
with the most beneizial consequences wherever carried out.
The amount of capital which had been devoted to the pnr-
pasea of art by the art-unions exceeded all the votes which
Parliament had ever given for that purpose. They had done
mere for the promotion of art than the Legislature ever had
done. They had applied their encouragement to every branch
of art,—they had given prizes, as Government had done, fur
the best designs,—they gave prizes also for the best
productions in stone and marble. They had extended,
too, their association over the greater portion of the earth,
and a letter had been received that very day from China, giv-
ing an accoant of the establishment of a branch of the art.
union in that empire. It was scarcely to be believed that, in
defiance of all the experience which they had had on this sub-
ject, any doubt should exist as to the desirableness of le-
galising art-unions. A Committee had been appointed
by Parliament, who had laboured sedulously for
two sessions, and they reported in the most unqualified
manner that these associations should be legalised. It
appeared that the art-unions were as anxious as
any other society to prevent abuse, and they prayed their Lord-
ships to give their sanction to a Bill authorising the Crown to
grant a charter, subject to such conditions as might be pro-
posed. That was the utmost extent of their request, and when
their Lordships considered that they had released parties from
•debts contracted at race-courses and gambling-houses; and
when they considered that they had in the course of last year
interposed to protect a great body/of the people—those con-
nected with the newspaper press—the artists of this country
were not asking their Lordships too much to afford them a
similar protection.
Lord BROUGHAM said he was exceedingly rejoiced that
this subject had been brought forward as it had by the illus-
trious Duke who had introduced it, and the Noble Lord who
had supported it. His own opinion in favour of those soci-
eties was very strong, and therefore he would give this petition
his humble but warm support. And let him say that there
never was a greater delusion than that which people laboured
under who opposed art-unions on the ground that they came
under the class of lotteries. Other trades contended that they
would have as good a right as art-unions to have their lotteries;
but he denied that trades required such aid; but pictures and
articles of taste did require some such encouragement as art-
unions afforded, and therefore he would cordially support the
prayer of this petition.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition, nu-
merously signed by persons of great eminence in their profes-
sion as artists—among the names attached to the petition he
saw those of Eastlake, Ross, Barry, Westmacott, and others—
praying their Lordships to adopt some measure for placing Art-
Unions on a more permanent footing.
Lord BROUGHAM would ask, in connexion with the name
of Barry, who, it appears, had signed the petition of the
Noble Marquis, whether there was any hope, if there was hope
at all remaining, when the report of the commission on the
new Houses of Parliament would be laid upon their Lord-
ships' table.
Vi'count CANNING was informed by one of the gentlemen
forming one of the commission, that the inquiry had been of a
more complicated nature than was expected. The report
would therefore take some time before it was completed.
Lord CAMPBELL thought this inquiry must surely be
carried on in the Court of Chancery. He thought it would
not be of so protracted and serious a nature as this case of
Barry v. Reid.
The Marquis of NORTHAMPTON and Lord MONTEAGLE pre-
sented petitions in favour of Art Unions.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. . .

The Duke of WELLINGTON, after presenting a petition
from the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester, in favour of
the Corn Bill, stated that he should on Thursday next move
that the House do adjourn for the Whitsuntide holidays to the
Thursday following.
CORN BILL.
The Earl of BANDON presented petitions from places in
Ireland against the Corn Bill. The Noble Earl said that he
could not support the prayer of the petition as he did not par-
ticipate in the alarm that was felt by some persons with re-
spect to the Corn Bill.
CASE OF MR. GEORGE MITCHELL.
Lord BROUGHAM rose to call the attention of the House
to one of the most cruel cases of hardship that had ever come
under his notice. He had to present the petition of Mr. Geo.
Mitchell, formerly a clerk of the House, from which situation
he had been dismissed. The petitioner stated, that in the year
1845,fr0m an accident that he had met with, his face and head
had been greatly injured, and his sight permanently
impaired. Several years ago he had been attacked with
epilepsy, by which he had lost the use of his right side. He
was also afflicted with ulcerous swellings in his legs. In fact,
it appeared that he was subjected to every malady that could
afflict the human frame. Through his maladies his attend-
ance on his duties were necessarily irregular, and he had suf-
fered exceedingly in the loss of his situation at the age of
thirty-six. The petition, which was dated the Strand union
workhouse, prayed that their Lordships would extend their
benevolence to him, and grant him such assistance as it was
in the power of the House to bestow.
The Earl of DEVON said it was an unpleasant task to in-
terpose at any time between individuals and the benevolence of
the House ; still he was bound to say that the petitioner was
placed under the chief clerk of the House, but his conduct had
been such as made it the absolute duty of? the latter to remove
him from the office he held. More than this he (Lord Devon)
would not say.—(Hear, hear. )
Lord BROUGHAM said the Noble Lord had totally mis-
understood him. The petitioner did not complain of having
been removed, he merely asked their Lordships to extend their
charity to him.
LORDS lIARDINGE AND GOUGH'S ANNUITY