HC Deb 07 August 1844 vol 76 c1895
Mr. Wyse

moved the further consideration of the Lords' reasons for rejecting the Amendments of the Commons in the Art Unions Bill.

Mr. T. Duncombe

said, the object of his right hon. Friend was to insist on these Amendments being retained. The Lords were not satisfied that the parties originating these fine arts distributions had acted like the Art Unions, in ignorance of the law. But they had followed in the footsteps of the Art Unions, and when among the shareholders and patrons were such men as the Duke of Cambridge and Lord Denman, how could they imagine that they were breaking the law? The House, he understood, was to meet to-morrow, and, if necessary, he should have no objection to a postponement of the question.

Mr. Wakley

said, till the Art Unions were stopped by the Government, no one was aware that they were illegal; and it was on the faith of their being legal that the parties alluded to by his hon. Colleague had commenced their proceedings. He was perfectly willing to leave the matter in the hands of the Government, confident that full protection would be given to all parties.

Sir J. Graham

said, as this was a question of indemnity for the past, he thought both parties ought to have an equal benefit from it, as they had both acted in ignorance of the law, at the same time it would be for the Government to consider whether the use of lotteries, either by companies or individuals, should be tolerated in future. As far as he could promise it, the Members of the Government in the other House would support the view of the hon. Member for Waterford.

The Commons accordingly disagreed to the Amendments proposed by the Lords, and insisted on the Amendments to which the Lords have disagreed.

Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be offered to the Lords at a conference for disagreeing to the Amendments proposed by their Lordships to the Amendments proposed by this House, and for insisting on the Amendments to which the Lords have disagreed.