The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-04-23 00:00:00

ART-UNIONS SUPPRESSED.

The Art-Union lotteries, after having been tolerated and for eight years, have been brought to a termi-
nation by an interdict from the Attorney-General to the
Art-Union of London. The following is a copy of the
notice sent to the secretaries :

" Treasury, April 12, 1344.
" Sirs,—l am commanded by the Lords Commissioners
of her Majesty's Treasury to acquaint you, that an tinsti-
tution, called the Art-Union of London, having fo,'"
object the chance distribution of prizes of works or ands'
has been brought under the notice of their lordshieto to
that they are advised that it is illegal; and
a'Ph
a same
acquaint you, that the further continuance of be
o_.
will render all parties engaged in it liable to prosecution.
" I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
" W. IL REYNOLDS.
" To G. Godwin and Lewis Pocock, Esqrs,
4, Trafalgar-square, Charing-cross."
The committee immediately met. arid a memorial WO
addressed to Sir R. Peel, setting forth the nature of the
association. The memorial was accompanied by a letter
from the honorary secretaries, asking for an interview,
Sir G. Clerk, on the part of Sir R. Peel, having appointed
to receive the cominittee;`Mr. Godwin and Mr. PocOck,
with several members of the committee, attended at
Downing-street.
Mr. G. Godwin, on the part of the committee, stated
that the Art-Union of London, since its establishment in
1837, had distributed aboutX36.ooo, independently of the
present year's receipts, in the purchase and preparation of
works of arts. The association had correspondents not
merely throughout the United Kingdom, but in our In-
dian possessions, Nova Scotia, Hobart Town, Mexico,
and New York. The society had now been in operation
for eight years, increasing in usefulness, and the com-
mittee were confirmed in their views of its legality
by numerous facts. Her lt,lsjesty the Queen Wag
patron of more than one such association, and big
Royal Highness Prince Albert had very recently ex-
pressed to the Committee of the Art-Union of Lon-
don, through 111 r. Eastlake, his approbation of its objects-
Among the vice-presidents of the Irish Art-Union were
several of the judges. The committee now found them-
selves with £14,000 in their hands, a large increase over;
the subscription of any former year, on the very eve 01
the distribution. All the elaborate arrangements conse-
quent on the largeness of the body acted for had been
made ; artists had filled the exhibitions about to be opened,
and great distress and embarrassment would be the result
of their not being able to complete their present s:diernes-
In addition to the Art-Union of London, there were a vast
number of similar institutions throughout the countrY,
upon whom the fiat of the law officers would operate simi-
larly. They prayed, therefore, earnestly that they should
at least be protected in completing their existing engage-
ments.

Sir G. Clerk said that the attention of the Treasury
having been directed to the subject, they had submitted a
case to the Attorney and Solicitor-General, and, in their
opinion, the whole of the associations referred to were il-
legal, and it was thought due to the committee to give them
early intimation of the fact. Sir R. Peel could not interfere
in the matter—all he could do was to inform them of the
law. He was himself a subscriber, as were many °there
connected with the Government ; still fos the Treasury to
give any sanction for further proceedings is quite out of
the question. The most prudent course he thought,
‘cnvooo
uturldde
bbteoe a
st
tocheparottsaitepneoeendeet t hhaeentamh
eesreuttsi
hnpeg, e
nLdgeigvi isnlagtnthree proceedingswsubscribersould untilpr o .t
tect that and similar societies.
The deputation then withdrew.
The committee have thought it iesirahle to postpone
the general meeting; at the same time they assure the
subscribers that their interests will not be allowed to
suffer.