The Vagrancy Act 1838 (1 & 2 Vict. c. 38) was an Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom. It amended the Vagrancy Act 1824 to provide that any person discharged from custody pending an appeal against a conviction under that Act who did not then reappear to prosecute the appeal could be recommitted. It also provided that the penalty established by that Act for exposing indecent prints in a street or highway would extend to those who exposed the same material in any part of a shop or house.[2]
| Act of Parliament | |
 | |
| Long title | An Act to amend an Act for punishing idle and disorderly Persons and Rogues and Vagabonds. |
|---|---|
| Citation | 1 & 2 Vict. c. 38 |
| Territorial extent | Great Britain |
| Dates | |
| Royal assent | 27 July 1838 |
| Other legislation | |
| Amends | Vagrancy Act 1824 |
| Amended by | |
Status: Repealed | |
This latter part of the Act was to prove significant in a number of prosecutions of artists for allegedly exhibiting obscene works of art, even when those exhibitions took place in a private space such as an art gallery. One of the most notorious successful prosecutions of an artist under the act was in 1929, when thirteen paintings by D. H. Lawrence at the Warren Gallery, London, were seized by the police. A ban was placed on the paintings being shown in England, which is technically still in force, but they were shown again in London in December 2003.[3]
The last artist to be successfully prosecuted under the 1838 Act was Stass Paraskos in 1966, following a police raid on an exhibition of Paraskos's work at Leeds College of Art. Again a ban was placed on showing the offending paintings and drawings in England, which is also still legally valid. However one of the paintings was shown at Leeds City Art Gallery in 1993,[4] and again at Scarborough Art Gallery in 2000, and several others are now owned by the Tate Gallery, London.[5] In 1969 a total of 35 people were prosecuted under section 2 of the Act and section 4 of the 1824 Act for acts of public display of obscene images in shop windows and exhibitionism.
Although aspects of the Act had been repealed in a piecemeal fashion by subsequent legislation, the full Act was formally repealed in 1981 by the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981 (c. 42), partly due to the lack of clarity in distinguishing between indecency and obscenity. [6] For example the advertising of contraceptives was considered obscene from 1857, but fell under the ambit of the new act of 1981.
References
edit- ^ The citation of this Act by this short title was authorised by the Short Titles Act 1896, section 1 and the first schedule. Due to the repeal of those provisions it is now authorised by section 19(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978.
- ^ The British Almanac of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, for the year 1839. The Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, London, 1839.
- ^ Demetriou, Danielle (4 December 2003). "Obscene art of D. H. Lawrence goes on show after 70-year ban". The Independent.
- ^ Perrie, Robbin (24 November 1993). "Banned Painting Goes on Display". The Yorkshire Evening Post.
- ^ Benedict Read; David Thistlewood, eds. (1993). Herbert Read: A British Vision of World Art. London: Lund Humphries. p. 18.
- ^ Indecent Displays Control Act
Bibliography
edit- Alison, A. (1840). The Principles of Population Growth and Development. Vol. 2 vols. Edinburgh.
- Elliot, J. H. (1 September 1868). "The Increase of Material Prosperity and of Moral Agents Compared with the State of Crime and Pauperism'". Journal of the Statistical Society. xxxi: 209.
- Engels, Friedrich (1892). Conditions of the Working People in England in 1844. London.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - Stephen, J. F. (1883). History of the Criminal Law of England. Vol. 3 vols.