minor thefts made up a considerable proportion of the cases to be dealt with at
both the quarter sessions and the assizes, the judges in the London courts in the
late seventeenth century had few such offences on their calendars. Whereas in
Surrey courts about half the larceny cases involved goods of under five shillings
in value, at the Old Bailey the equivalent level of City cases between 1663 and
1713 was about 5 per cent, and even thefts of up to ten shillings in value
amounted in that period to no more than 13 per cent (Table 1. 3 ). Over the
seventeenth century and into the eighteenth, the London magistrates severely
limited the number of minor property offences taken before the juries at the Old
Bailey. The effect was not only the virtual elimination of petty larceny as a
charge in the London courts but also a considerable raising of the threshold
level of simple larceny cases brought to trial.
Apart from the influence of the value of the theft, there is evidence that some
of those sent to the Bridewell in the late seventeenth century had returned the
goods they had stolen—a circumstance that perhaps persuaded the magistrate
that the charge could be less than larceny. Such a consideration seemed to be at
work often enough, at any event, for a group of London shopkeepers, com-
plaining about the weakness of the law in 1699 , to say that magistrates too often
imposed such sentences ‘if the Facts be not notorious, and the Goods secured’—
that is, when the theft was minor and the shopkeeper got his goods back.^80
These men were perhaps complaining as much about their fellow shopkeepers
as the magistrates, since it is likely that prosecutors had some hand in the deci-
sion to send an accused to the house of correction. There is certainly evidence
of that. Some victims of thefts may have urged such a course on the magistrate
out of concern for the expense and bother of a full-blown trial at the Old
Bailey.^81 Others may have thought it the right form of punishment for the crime
Introduction: The Crime Problem 31(^80) The Great Grievance of Traders and Shopkeepers, by the Notorious Practice of Stealing their Goods out of their Shops
and Warehouses, by Persons commonly called Shoplifters; Humbly represented to the Consideration of the Honourable
House of Commons(n.d.) For the dating of this ‘case’, see ch. 7 , n. 34.
(^81) Shoemaker points out that a prosecution that resulted in a commitment to the house of correction
Table1.3.Values of goods stolen in City of London
property offences tried at the Old Bailey in1663‒1713
Number %
Less than 5 s. 82 4.6
5. 1 d.– 10 s. 148 8.3
10. 1 d.– 40 s. 483 27.2
40. 1 d.– 100 s. 345 19.4
More than £ 5 719 40.5
Total 1,777 100.0
Source: Sample