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 confutations, 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 mulct. And to 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 sycophants; 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 Beccaria, at the distance of more than two centuries, have very sensibly proposed 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 devious 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, say they, 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 twelvepence: 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 twelvepence 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 fiat. 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 twelvepence (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 twelvepence, 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 ferocity, verity, but rather strongly confesses the charge. It is likewise true, that by the merciful extensions of the benefit of clergy by our modern statute-law, a person who commits a simple larceny to the value of thirteen pence or thirteen hundred pounds, though guilty of a capital offence, shall be excused the pains of death; but this is only for the first offence. And in many cases of simple larceny the benefit of clergy is taken away by statute: as from horse-stealing in the principals and accessories both before and after the fact; theft by great and notorious thieves in Northumberland and Cumberland; taking woollen cloth from off the tenters, or linens, fulrians, calicose, or cotton goods, from the place of manufacture (which extends, in the last case, to aiders, affisters, procurers, buyers, and receivers); feloniously driving away, or otherwise stealing one or more sheep or other cattle specified in the acts, or killing them with intent to steal the whole or any part of the carcass, or aiding or assisting therein; thefts on navigable rivers above the value of forty shillings, or being present, aiding and assisting thereto; plundering vessels, in distress, or that have suffered shipwreck; stealing letters sent by the post; and also stealing deer, hares, and conies, under the peculiar circumstances mentioned in the Waltham black act. Which additional severity is owing to the great malice and mischief of the theft in some of these instances; and others, to the difficulties men would otherwise lie under to preserve those goods, which are so easily carried off. Upon which last principle the Roman law punished mere severer than other thieves the Abigai or stealers of cattle, and the Balnearii or such as stole the clothes of persons who were washing in the public baths; both which constitutions seem to be borrowed from the laws of Athens. And so, too, the ancient Goths punished with unrelenting severity thefts of cattle, or of corn that was reaped and left in the field: such kind of property (which no human industry can sufficiently guard) being esteemed under the peculiar custody of heaven.

THEFT-Bote (from the Saxon theof, i.e. fur, and bate, compensatio), is the receiving of a man's goods again from a thief, after stolen, or other amends not to prosecute the felon, and to the intent the thief may escape; which is an offence punishable with fine and imprisonment, &c.