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
encouraged 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 It 1844-
" am commanded by the Lords Commissioners
of her Majesty's Treasury to acquaint you, that an insti-
tution, called the Art-Union of London, having for its
object the chance distribution of prizes of works of art:
has been brought under the notice of their lordships,d
that they are advised that it is illegal; and I em also
acquaint you, that the further continuance of the same
will render all parties engaged in it liable to prosecution.
" I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
W. R. REYNOLDS.
" To G. Godwin and Lewis Pocock, Esqrs.,
4, Trafalgar-square, Charing-cross.'
The committee immediately met, and a memorial was
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 committee, 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 establiThment in
1837, had distributed about X 36.000, independently of the
present year's receipts, in the purchase and preparation of
works of arts. The assoriatiur had correspondents not '
merely throughout the enited Kingdoffi, 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 11/b.jesty the Queen vine
patron of more than one such association, and his
Royal Highness Prince Albert had very recently ex-
pressed to the Committee of the Art-Union of Lon-
don, through Mr. Eastlake, his approbation of its ()Watt
several of the judges. The committee now found then'
Among the vice-presidents of the Irish Art-Union were
several
with £14,000 in their hands, a large increase
over
f
the subscription of any former year, on the very eve - o
the distribution. All the elaborate arrangements conse-
quent on the largeness of the body acted for had beer
made; artists had filled the exhibitions about to be openeet
and great distress and embarrassment would be the result
of their not being able to complete their present schemes.
In addition to the Art-Union of London, there were avast
t
number of similar in, tutions throughout the countrYt
upon whom the fiat of the law officers would operate
larly. They prayed, therefore, earnestly that they shan't'
at least be protected in completing their existing engage"
ment s.

Sir a 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 as,otiations referred to were il-
legal, and it was thought due to the committee to give the
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.otherS
connected with the Government ; still for the Treasury t°,
give any sanction for further proceedings is quite out 01
the question. The most prudent course he thought,
would be to postpone the meeting. giving the sub,eribers
notice to that effect, and suspend proceedings until it
could be ascertained whether the Legislature would pro-
tect that and similar societies.

The deputation then withdrew.
The committee have thought it iesirable to postpone
the general meeting; t.t the same time they assure the
subscribers that their interests will not be allowed t°
suffer.