ART EXHIBITIONS AND THE SHOPS ACT. (Hansard, 14 May 1912)

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH
My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether societies of artists, holding annual exhibitions at which works of art may be purchased by the public, are required under the last section of the Second Schedule to the Shops Act, 1912, to apply to the local authority for a certificate that they are entitled to exemption. I put this Question on behalf of the Imperial Artists League, which represents a considerable number of the societies that hold exhibitions of pictures and art in London. It is not clear whether it was intended that these societies should be subject to the Shops Act. Their position seems to be an ambiguous one. If they are required to apply to the local authority for a certificate that they are entitled to exemption, there seems to be considerable difficulty in their position.
1024 At the end of the first paragraph of Section 6 of the Shops Act appears a provision that the local authority must be satisfied, if there are any objections to their Order, that the occupiers of at least two-thirds in number of the shops affected by the Order approve the Order, and they may then make the Order. Then in Section 9, the section which deals with provisions as to trading elsewhere than in shops, it is provided that it shall not be lawful in any locality to carry on in any place not being a shop, retail trade or business of any class at any time when it would be unlawful in that locality to keep a shop open for the purpose of retail trade and business of that sort. It July be that these exhibitions are treated in the same class as dealers' premises, which are shops under the Act. I venture to put this Question in the hope that His Majesty's Government will consider whether such exhibitions, if the Shops Act applies to them, could not be placed in a separate class, and whether special regulations might not be made for picture exhibitions which are open for a limited period and do not carry on a continuous business.

§ THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS)
My Lords, the noble Earl's Question involves an interpretation of the Shops Act, 1912. The point which he raises is really a point of law, and it is not within the province of a Minister or a Department to interpret an Act of Parliament. That is a matter for a Court of Law, and until such a case as that suggested has been decided it is not possible for me or anybody else to give the noble Earl a definite statement one way or the other on the point he has raised. But if the noble Earl asks me for my personal opinion, it would be in the affirmative. I think the real point is whether picture exhibitions such as he has in mind come under the definition of retail trade. Any exhibition in which pictures are sold whereby the society which exhibits the pictures derives some advantage, either by commission or otherwise, seems to me to come within the definition of retail trade. If so, it falls under Section 4 and is liable to the half-holiday closing order, and this provision can only be modified by the local authority, who are given power in the last sentence of the Second Schedule to certify that such retail trade is subsidiary or ancillary only to the main business of the exhibition 1025 or show. I do not understand how Section 6 or Section 9 applies to this case. Section 6 has reference to early closing; it has nothing to do, so far as I can see, with the question before us, which really comes under Section 4. Section 9, again, is not germane to the subject.
But on the general question as to whether these exhibitions suffer hardship from falling under the provisions of Section 4, I would like to point out to the noble Earl that there is really very little difference between a society which exhibits pictures for sale and derives profit from the sale of those pictures and a Bond-street dealer who exhibits artists' pictures for sale and receives commission. It seems to us that the two cases are really analogous, and if the dealer is to come under the provisions of the Act a society which is really fulfilling similar functions should fall under the same provision. I suggest that it is not a great hardship for a society which is a bona fide exhibitor of pictures to make application to the local authority, who I imagine in almost every case would be only too glad to exempt exhibitions from the provisions to which the noble Earl takes exception. However, that is only my personal opinion. I suggest to 1026 him that it is a case for a Court of Law to determine.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH
I wish to thank the noble Lord for the answer he has given me. The only point that I would emphasise is this. If the exhibitions of these societies were classed together and if no difference was made between them and the premises of picture and art dealers, they might be outvoted—that is to say, two-thirds of this particular class might be in favour of closing on Saturday afternoon, which might be the very afternoon when, from the point of view of the public, it would lie a great hardship that these exhibitions should be closed. I quite understand that if I was asking a question on what is really a point of law the noble Lord could not answer it. But could not these particular societies be placed in a different class and their case judged separately? I make that suggestion in the hope that the noble Lord will kindly consider it.

§ LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS
I will consider it.