Scotland in the nineteenth century

2. Crime and punishment

Section 2.12: Stolen goods

The returns were arranged by county and then by district with a total for all unsolved crimes. Most of the crimes committed were for small amounts and of the 6,254 cases the total supposed value of the property stolen was only £9,734.

"appointed to consider the Stolen Goods Bill [H.L.]."

Scottish evidence:

Sir James Taylor Ingham, Chief Metropolitan Police Magistrate (pp. 3-17) stated that the police could search houses of pawnbrokers at any time of the day or night in Glasgow.

C.E. Howard Vincent, Director of Criminal Investigations (pp. 17-30) said that a great number of local acts already provided for the objects contemplated in the Stolen Goods Bill. This was particularly the case in Scotland, where many cities and boroughs had adopted the General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862.

[page 51]

W. Alexander Brown, Procurator Fiscal of the lower ward of Lanarkshire (pp. 31-39), thought that the local acts in Scotland gave the police sufficient power. The General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862 rendered the proposed Act unnecessary in Scotland; all the powers already existed with the exception of powers of search. In Glasgow, the police had the power to search but they did not exercise it because they were afraid of action for damages.

John Ashbridge Tefler, pawnbroker in London (pp. 136-156) reported that he had heard from a Glasgow pawnbroker that the restrictions there were too severe. Others were content because they could rely on the police to discover entries in their books which might relate to stolen property and this relieved them of responsibility. Pawnbrokers in Scotland were of a lower class than those in England. He said "if I go north of the Tweed I am afraid to say I am a pawnbroker... In England I can say that I am a pawnbroker without being subject to the same kind of ignominious feeling which the middle class in Scotland exercise towards the trade" (para. 1399). He thought this mainly arose through the mistrust shown by the Glasgow police regulation of pawnbrokers.

Richard Attenborough, pawnbroker in London (pp. 191-200), said that valuable property was often sent to England from Scotland to be pawned. He had had applications from the police in Glasgow concerning property worth over £50. He thought this occurred because those who made the pledges would not have their names exposed to the police in England. He said that "the pawnbrokers in Scotland are as respectable in their own characters as we are in England... It is the trade that is different" (para. 1807).