or SIMPLE LARCENY, is "the felonious taking and carrying away of the personal goods of another." This offence certainly commenced then, whenever it was, that the bounds of property, or laws of meum and tuum, were established. How far such an offence can exist in a state of nature, where all things are held to be common, is a question that may be solved with very little difficulty. The disturbance of any individual in the occupation of what he has seized to his present use, seems to be the only offence of this kind incident to such a state. But, unquestionably, in social communities, when property is established, any violation of that property is subject to be punished by the laws of society; though how far that punishment should extend is matter of considerable doubt.

By the Jewish law it was only punished with a pecuniary fine, and satisfaction to the party injured; and in the civil law, till some very late constitutions, we never find the punishment capital. The laws of Draco at Athens punished it with death; but his laws were said to be written with blood; and Solon afterwards changed the penalty to a pecuniary mullet. And so the Attic law in general continued; except that once, in a time of dearth, it was made capital to break into a garden and steal figs: but this law, and the informers against the offence, grew so odious, that from them all malicious informers were styled fycophants; a name which we have much perverted from its original meaning. From these examples, as well as the reason of the thing, many learned and scrupulous men have questioned the propriety, if not lawfulness, of inflicting capital punishment for simple theft. And certainly the natural punishment for injuries to property seems to be the loss of the offender's own property; which ought to be universally the case, were all men's fortunes equal. But as those who have no property themselves are generally the most ready to attack the property of others, it has been found necessary, instead of a pecuniary, to substitute a corporal punishment; yet how far this corporal punishment ought to extend, is what has occasioned the doubt. Sir Thomas More and the Marquis Becaria, at the distance of more than two centuries, have very sensibly propounded that kind of corporal punishment which approaches the nearest to a pecuniary satisfaction, viz. a temporary imprisonment, with an obligation to labour, first for the party robbed, and afterwards for the public, in works of the most salutary kind; in order to oblige the offender to repair, by his industry and diligence, the depredations he had committed upon private property and public order. But, notwithstanding all the remonstrances of speculative politicians and moralists, the punishment of theft still continues throughout the greatest part of Europe to be capital: and Puffendorf, together with Sir Matthew Hale, are of opinion that this must always be referred to the prudence of the legislature; who are to judge, by them, when crimes are become so enormous as to require such sanguinary restrictions. Yet both these writers agree, that such punishment should be cautiously inflicted, and never without the utmost necessity.

The Anglo-Saxon laws nominally punished theft with death, if above the value of twopence; but the criminal was permitted to redeem his life by a pecuniary ransom; as, among their ancestors the Germans, by a stated number of cattle. But in the 9th year of Henry I. this power of redemption was taken away, and all persons guilty of larceny above the value of twopence were directed to be hanged; which law continues in force to this day. For though the inferior species of theft, or petit larceny, is only punished by whipping at common law, or (by stat. 4 Geo. I. c. 11.) may be extended to transportation for seven years, as is also expressly directed in the case of the Plate-glas Company; yet the punishment of grand larceny, or the stealing above the value of twopence (which sum was the standard in the time of King Athelstan, 800 years ago), is at common law regularly death; which, considering the great intermediate alteration in the price or denomination of money, is undoubtedly a very rigorous constitution; and made Sir Henry Spelman (above a century since, when money was at twice its present rate) complain, that while every thing else was risen in its nominal value, and become dearer, the life of man had continually grown cheaper. It is true, that the mercy of juries will often make them strain a point, and bring in larceny to be under the value of twopence, when it is really of much greater value: but this, though evidently justifiable and proper when it only reduces the present nominal value of money to the ancient standard, is otherwise a kind of pious perjury, and does not at all excuse our common law in this respect from the imputation of levity,