HC Deb 15 May 1860 vol 158 cc1293-8
LORD HADDO

said, he rose to move the following Resolution: — That the Exhibition in Schools of Art of Females wholly unclothed ought not to receive the sanction of a Public Grant of Money to the Schools in which such practice is adopted. Last year he presented a petition signed by upwards of 500 clergymen, including the canon residentiary of St. Paul's, complaining of this practice as tending to vice and immorality. He mentioned that fact to justify him in bringing forward a question relating to so disagreeable and distasteful a subject. He thought it was time for the House to apply a remedy to what he considered was a great evil. He believed it was not generally known, indeed he himself was astonished to hear that, in the Royal Academy and in many of the schools of art supported by grants of Parliament, a mode of study had been adopted of a disgraceful and dissolute character. If such a practice had been followed in a lower class of life, he was sure that the most summary means would be taken to put a stop to it, and to punish the offenders for their indecencies. It was, in his opinion, impossible for young men to visit those schools of art, where nude figures were presented, without being led into acts of great debauchery. He understood it was a positive fact that mothers frequently brought their daughters to those places, and actually bargained with the managers of art schools for the exposure and degradation of their children. And what was the advantage gained? He had heard it said that as artists must have living models to study from, it was better they should study them in public institutions, where proper regulations could be made; but if that were so, why not permit gambling-houses and houses of ill fame to be established? It was said that the study of art could not be carried on without the particular practice to which he invited attention, but he did not believe the statement. He had the authority of Mr. Westmacott, the professor of sculpture in the Royal Academy, for saying that the study of the naked female form was not only unnecessary, but injurious to art. In the best ages of art the nude living figure was never required. It was only the prurient vitiated taste of modern times that encouraged that practice. But even if the practice were of use in an artistic point of view, that benefit could not outweigh the outrage it inflicted upon public decency and public morals. Upon those grounds he thought that no public grants should be given to schools that adopted the practice. There were about twelve schools of art in England connected with the Government grants, and in four of them nude figures were studied. When he brought forward his Motion last year he understood that something would be done by the Government to remedy the evil, but as he had been disappointed in that expectation he felt called upon to renew his Motion this year. The noble Lord concluded by moving his Resolution.

MR. SPOONER

seconded the Motion.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, he rose to give a brief reply to the noble Lord. For himself, he had no special knowledge of the subject—he meant no knowledge of the practice of the department to which this question related. He was therefore unable to say what instructions had been given upon the subject, but he apprehended it had never been the practice of Government to interfere with the details of the regulations of any school. The noble Lord said that the practice was confined to four schools, but the return on which that statement was based was eighteen months old, and how the matter stood at present he could not say. But, certainly, he could not believe that the study of art had any corrupting influences, nor that it excited prurient thoughts in the minds of the students attending schools of art. He believed that all the ancient masters whose works all admired, and who were recognized as the classical models in all departments of art, had cultivated their knowledge by a study of the human figure, male and female. It was possible, however, that a more refined feeling of delicacy in the present day might render such a practice impossible. If that were so, it was desirable that such Resolutions as that of the noble Lord should be encouraged by the House; but, in the mean time, he did not think it was at all desirable the House should proceed at present to any vote on the subject.

MR. ADDERLEY

said, he wished to make a few observations upon this subject, as he had been for a time connected with the department of the Government to which the Resolution of the noble Lord referred. He felt bound, in the first place, to observe that the noble Lord had made an inaccurate statement as to the real facts of the case. The noble Lord had said there were four schools of art out of the twelve that received public grants in which naked women were employed in the studios as models. That was not the fact. The only school of art, aided by Government, that introduced naked women into the life-school was that of Manchester. The noble Lord had referred to the Royal Academy. Now, the Royal Academy received no grant from that House, and, therefore, even if the practice spoken of was adopted, the Motion was inapplicable as far as that institution was concerned. He really thought, when the noble Lord spoke of studios in which the naked figure was studied as places of as vicious a character as gambling houses and brothels, it was a gross misrepresentation on the part of the noble Lord. It was quite evident that the noble Lord's opinion upon this matter was founded upon a false appreciation of the whole subject. The noble Lord had observed, that in the best days of ancient art study from the life was not practised. Now, he (Mr. Adderley) could not tell where the noble Lord had obtained his facts. He should not be exceeding the limits of truth if he said that the portraiture of the human form could not be accurately given without the study of the naked figure as a model. The first lessons of an artist in human portraiture were a study of the skeleton, then came the body clothed with its flesh and muscles, and last of all the living model. If the noble Lord thought that a study of the draped figures in these days of bustles and crinolines was the highest study of art in order to arrive at a true portraiture of the human figure, Madame Tussaud must be nearest to the noble Lord's beau ideal of a great artist. It seemed to him that the noble Lord had altogether misunderstood the nature and object of the study in question, and he would appeal to the noble Lord's own habits to show the fallacy of the ideas he had put forward on this subject. Did he not visit galleries in which were pictures and statues of the naked human form? Had he not seen and admired in common with every other person the magnificent statue of Venus di Medici? Nay, did he not think it was worth going a thousand miles to see it? How, then, were we to get such statues if the noble Lord's notions upon this subject were to be carried out? Were they to fall from Heaven? The noble Lord professed to appreciate the results of the study of art, but would throw obstacles in the way of the only processes by which these results could he achieved. He appealed to the noble Lord that it would be of no avail for him to propound in that House year after year the crude notion that the use of a thing was to be condemned because of the possible abuse of it. If the noble Lord knew of any instance in a public school of art, assisted by public money, in which the study of living models had been pursued for purposes of indecency, let him bring it forward. A few years ago it was reported that in the Hibernian Academy in Dublin the life school had been somewhat irregularly conducted; that young men in large numbers had been permitted to be present when nude women were sitting as models, and that a larger number attended than could properly be there for purposes of the highest art study. He understood that last year the Vote of money for that school was discontinued, and he hoped that the Vote was not to reappear without a guarantee that only students of the highest order are admitted to the life-school. If this study were so regulated, it would be nonsense to talk of the indecency of such a practice; for the higher class of students absolutely needed opportunities for studying the living model. Besides, there was not a studio in London where the living model was not studied; and were the public schools of art to be deprived of the study which is found indispensable by all — places of all others where indecency was least possible, seeing that they were subject to stringent regulations, and constantly under the public eye?

MR. SPOONER

said, he was much surprised and grieved to hear the view taken upon this subject by the right hon. Gentleman and those who had cheered him. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentleman might treat this subject as a matter of laughter, but the people outside were not disposed to treat it in such a spirit. He had that day received a petition, signed by the rural dean and many of the clergymen of Birmingham and other places, deprecating in the strongest terms this pernicious practice, and praying that such indecent scenes as took place in these schools of art might no longer be countenanced by grants of public money. It was said that no practical evils resulted from the practice; but he put it to the House whether it was possible for ten or a dozen students, day after day, to be accustomed to the sight of naked women without harm to their morals? He contended that the inevitable tendency I of such a practice was to deprave the character. Could it be possible for a woman to present herself, perfectly naked, for the purpose of having her likeness drawn, without great moral degradation to her feelings and character? The practice, besides, was contrary to the holy Word of God. They were told that it was necessary for the purpose of encouraging the study of art. He would not condescend to argue that question; he was content to accept the testimony of Mr. Westmacott that the study of the naked living model was not essential to the successful pursuit of art. He (Mr. Spooner) was convinced the practice tended to corrupt the youthful mind, and to engender feelings and desires which broke into positive sin; it ought, therefore, not to be encouraged by grants of public money. It was no argument against interference on the subject to say with his right hon. Friend that the practice obtained largely in private studios. Every man was responsible for his own actions. Surely no man could say it was a light thing to see mothers bartering the honour or virtue of their own daughters for a miserable sum of money which the Government enabled those schools of art to offer them. A grave responsibility would rest upon the Government and that House if they countenanced such an abominable system. Let them, for Heaven's sake, keep the nation free from this sin, at all events, by withdrawing the aid of the public purse from institutions that encouraged such immoral I practices. They were told last year that the public money was not given for this purpose; but it was mere nonsense to talk in that way, when it was notorious that a portion of the money so given was applied to the payment of women who consented to expose themselves in a nude manner to the gaze of men. The feeling of the people against this system was increasing every day, and it would not be long before their voices would find their echo in that House. [Laughter.] Instead of treating this matter as one of laughter, he thought that hon. Members ought rather to be ashamed of making themselves parties to such a disgraceful system.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

I think the House will scarcely deem it desirable to adopt the Motion of the noble Lord. It is one of those endeavours to interfere inquisitorially by legislation, or by Parliamentary sanction, in matters which are really not proper subjects for interference of this kind. In the first place, it is impossible to carry into effect the view of the noble Lord. If the noble Lord means anything—if his theory ought to be reduced to practice, his Motion ought to go further than it does. He ought to bring in a Bill to make it penal for any person, anywhere, to study the female form. The very Motion he has made would at once lead us into a difficulty, because he proposes to resolve that no public money should be granted to any school of art in which the female form, wholly unclothed, is studied. I should like the noble Lord to be more precise in his future notices on this subject, and to mention to what extent he wishes us to go; to say what is the minimum of clothing which consists with his notions of propriety:— because there is a minimum as well as a maximum in such matters, and without in the latter case insisting on crinolines and the voluminous dresses to which reference has been made, it is quite clear that you might go to different parts of the world, to some of the southern climes—the regions of Africa, for example—where you would find patterns of clothing, which, although they might not subject the models precisely to the anathema of the noble Lord, would still undoubtedly be objectionable in his eyes, on account of the large portion of the human form which they discover. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Motion, and leave this important question of morality to the decision of the persons most concerned. I understand that there are few, if any, of the institutions to which he refers to which objection can now be taken. With reference to the Irish institution mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) I am informed that it is now under the control of the Privy Council, and so regulated that no recurrence of the objectionable circumstances he referred to can take place.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Exhibition in Schools of Art of Females wholly unclothed ought not to receive a sanction of a Public Grant of Money to the Schools in which such practice is adopted.

The House divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 147: Majority 115.