Threatening too many shoplifters and servants with the gallows was potentially
damaging to their local standing and generally not in their best interests.
Getting their lost goods returned for a fee perhaps remained a more attractive
option. It was certainly the view of a group of men in London who argued in
favour of the bill to make shoplifting a capital offence in 1699 that the offence
was prevalent because shopkeepers preferred to compound with thieves than to
prosecute them.^98
This was true not only of shoplifting and servants’ theft but increasingly also
of pocket-picking, an old capital offence that took on a new character in an age
in which increasing numbers of valuable documents were being carried by mer-
chants and financiers in London. Some pockets were also picked by offenders
whose prosecution might prove embarrassing to the victim—by prostitutes, for
example. In addition, a large number of the more-skilled pickpockets were
young boys who, even if convicted, would not be seriously punished since they
were unlikely to be hanged, certainly not in large numbers. In any case, they
were almost certainly acting under the direction of older offenders.^99 Brokers
who could arrange the return of stolen goods were no doubt particularly valued
by men who lost a pocket book containing bills or business papers to a thief
whom it might not be prudent or satisfying to prosecute.
The services of a middle-man may also have become more attractive for
thieves because of the efforts being made by the authorities in this period to dis-
courage receiving. There are strong suggestions in the examinations of suspects
by London magistrates in the reigns of William and Anne that receivers were
being targeted as instigators of crime. In case after case, accused thieves—and
especially shoplifters and pilfering servants—were routinely induced to name
their receivers.^100 And at the same time attempts were made to strengthen the
law in ways that would make the conviction of receivers more certain and their
punishment more serious. Until this period receiving was no more than a mis-
demeanour at common law. It was only in 1691 that parliament made receivers
accessories to felony, and hence punishable as a felon if the principal was con-
victed.^101 Further efforts were made in parliament early in Anne’s reign to en-
sure their effective punishment. A statute of 1702 established that, even in cases
in which the principal escaped punishment by being admitted to clergy or par-
doned, a receiver was to be regarded as an accessory; and in 1706 it was further
enacted that, even when the thief could not be taken, a receiver of stolen goods
could be convicted for a misdemeanour.^102 Whether they were put into effect or
250 Detection and Prosecution
(^98) The Great Grievance of Traders and Shopkeepers, by the Notorious Practice of Stealing the Goods out of their Shops
and Warehouses, by Persons commonly called Shoplifters; Humbly represented to the Consideration of the Honourable
House of Commons(c. 1699 ). See Ch. 7. The recorder of London had complained as early as 1663 about
shopkeepers’ willingness to compound with thieves (SP 29 / 97 / 188 ).
(^99) This was to be revealed most clearly by the investigation of the corrupt under-marshal of the City,
Charles Hitchen, for whom see below, pp. 252 – 6.
(^100) See Ch. 7. (^1013) & 4 Wm and Mary, c. 9 ( 1691 ).
(^1021) Anne, stat. 2 , c. 9 ( 1702 ), s. 2 ; 5 Anne, c. 31 ( 1706 ), ss. 5 – 6. The 1702 statute was aimed not only at