Summary conviction and the development of the penal law

Law and History Review

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 173-189

  Landau, Norma ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 56549106613     PISSN: 07382480     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0738248000000080     Document Type: Review

References (69)

1. See, however, Thomas Sweeney, "The Extension and Practice of Summary Jurisdiction in England c. 1790-1860" (Ph. D. thesis, Cambridge University, 1985).
2. John Rule, The Labouring Classes in Early Industrial England, 1750-1850 (London: Longman, 1986), 107-19
3. Peter Linebaugh, The London Hanged (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992)
4. Edward P. Thompson, Whigs and Hunters (New York: Pantheon, 1975), 207.
5. John M. Beattie, "Scales of Justice: Defense Counsel and the English Criminal Trial in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries," Law and History Review 9 (1991): 221-67
6. idem, Policing and Punishment in London, 1660-1750: Urban Crime and the Limits of Terror (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), chaps. 6-9
7. John H. Langbein, The Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003)
8. Allyson N. May, The Bar and the Old Bailey; 1750-1850 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003).
9. Bruce P. Smith, "The Presumption of Guilt and the English Law of Theft, 1750-1850," 138.
10. Peter D'Sena, "Perquisites and Casual Labour on the London Wharfside in the Eighteenth Century," London Journal 14 (1989): 145 n. 47
11. 15 Charles II c. 2. The varieties of wood products specified in the act extend beyond those instanced above to wood such as gates and furze.
12. 3 William and Mary c. 19
13. 4 William and Mary c. 23.
14. 1 Anne St. 2 c. 18.
15. John Styles, "Embezzlement, Industry and the Law in England," in Maxine Berg, Pat Hudson, and Michael Sonenscher, Manufacture in Town and Country before the Factory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 195. According to Styles, the later statutes which did authorize conviction for possession of these goods probably were "necessary only because of the increasingly scrupulous legal climate of the later eighteenth century. "
16. Christopher W. Brooks, Pettyfoggers and Vipers of the Commonwealth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 190-91.
17. Smith, "Presumption," 143-15, and n. 42.
18. Richard Burn, The Justice of the Peace (London: A. Strahan, 1814), 3:224, s. v. "Larceny (what is). "
19. 1 Henry VII c. 7.
20. Burn, The Justice of the Peace, 3rd ed. (In the Savoy: Henry Lintot 1756), 311-12, s. v. "Game I. Of Deer. "
21. See also Peter Munsche, Gentlemen and Poachers: The English Game Laws, 1671-1831 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 4-7.
22. Burn, Justice (1814), 3:242, s. v. "Larceny (of what thing). "
23. Marjorie K. McIntosh, "Social Change and Manorial Leet Courts," in John Guy, ed. , Law and Social Change (London: Royal Historical Society, 1984), 76-77
24. idem, Controlling Misbehavior in England, 1370-1600 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 84-88.
25. D. R. Hainsworth, Stewards, Lords and People (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 205-6.
26. 4 George II c. 32
27. 29 George II c. 30.
28. 21 George III c. 68.
29. See, for example, 1 Anne St. 2 c. 22.
30. For embezzlement, see Jerome Hall, Theft, Law and Society, 2nd ed. (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1952), 35-40.
31. George P. Fletcher, "The Metamorphosis of Larceny," Harvard Law Review 89 (1976): 519, and more generally, 469-520.
32. Styles, "Embezzlement," 188 n. 51
33. and Craig Becker, "Property in the Workplace: Labor, Capital, and Crime in the Eighteenth-Century British Woolen and Worsted Industry," Virginia Law Review 69 (1983): 1497-1500.
34. Becker, "Property," 1492-93.
35. For asportation see Sarah Anne Barbour-Mercer, "Prosecution and Process: Crime and the Law in Late Seventeenth-Century Yorkshire" (D. Phil. thesis, University of York, 1988), 190-91.
36. Styles, "Embezzlement," 191-92, 197-98.
37. Adrian Randall, "Peculiar Perquisities and Pernicious Practices: Embezzlement in the West of England Woollen Industry, c. 1750-1840," International Review of Social History 35 (1990): 193-219.
38. Hall, Theft, Law and Society, chap. 1.
39. 3 and 4 William and Mary c. 9.
40. 1 Anne c. 9, amended by 5 Anne c. 31 allowing prosecution as for a misdemeanor if the thief could not be taken.
41. Burn, Justice (London, 1756), 1, s. v. "Accessary," stating that there are no accessaries after the fact in petty larceny and trespass unless the statute defining the offense declares otherwise.
42. Smith, "Presumption": Thomas Murray, 149
43. Henry Samuels, 151
44. and possibly John William Adams, 151.
45. This statement is based on examination of the 101 trials retrieved by an Advanced Keyword Search for silk AND receiving AND (ounces or pound%) on May 31, 2004, on Old Bailey online, http:/www. oldbaileyonline. org/. That search did retrieve some trials for receiving silk from the offspring or servant of an out-worker, takings which the law did recognize as larceny and the silk therefore as "stolen goods. "
46. 22 George II c. 27 s. 2
47. 17 George III c. 56.
48. Smith, "Presumption," 170
49. 158 and n. 78
50. and see also 159.
51. Patrick Colquhoun, A Treatise on the Commerce and Police of the River Thames (Montclair, New Jersey: Patterson Smith, 1969 reprint of London: Joseph Mawman, 1800 ed. ), 43.
52. Norma Landau, "The Trading Justice's Trade," in N. Landau, ed. , Law, Crime and Society, 1660-1830 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 65-66.
53. Public Record Office (hereafter P. R. O. ), HO 42/20, f. 94, Staples to J. King, April 16, 1792.
54. L. M. A. , MSJ/CC/3.
55. Smith, "Presumption," 158 and n. 78.
56. Linebaugh, The London Hanged, 416-17, 422-23
57. D'Sena, "Perquisites," 133, 134
58. And see Sweeney, "Summary Jurisdiction," 179-80.
59. East, Pleas of the Crown, 2:588, s. v. "Larceny and Robbery (of what Things). "
60. For an initial examination of the subject, see Tim Shakesheff, "Wood and Crop Theft in Rural Herefordshire, 1800-1860," Rural History 13 (2002): 1-17.
61. There are no convictions for takings of wood in the register for November 1793 to February 1794.
62. P. R. O. , T38/675-679, 691. (The accounts for the Whitechapel Office - T38/678 - lack those for April through June, 1821. ) I wish to thank Michael Collinge and Ruth Paley for directing me to these accounts. There are no fines under the Bumboat Act in these accounts. It is possible that the Thames Police Office's monopoly of Thames business was more complete on the Middlesex than the Surrey side of the River. The accounts of the stipendiary office in Southwark, Surrey - Union Hall Police Office, T38/690 - for the first three months of 1821 include one conviction made under the Bumboat Act and one made under the Stealing of Lead, etc. , Act.
63. Ruth Paley, "The Middlesex Justices Act of 1792: Its Origins and Effects" (Ph. D. Thesis, University of Reading, 1983), 346-47.
64. Colquhoun, Treatise on the . . . Police of the River Thames, 279.
65. For the stipendiaries' fines, see n. 51 above. For the Thames Police Office, see P. R. O. , HO 59/1/36a.
66. Smith, "Presumption," 166.
67. L. M. A. , PS/TH/C01/001, William Kinnard, John Longley, and Thomas Richbell to the Home Office, Mar. 5, 1821, emphasis as in the original. I want to thank Louise Falcini for sending me her transcript of this letter.
68. Sir Leon Radzinowicz, A History of English Criminal Law and Its Administration (London: Stevens and Sons, 1956), 2:391-94.
69. 2 and 3 Victoria c. 71 s. 24.