User:Franberg5/sandbox

Notes from bibliography for improvement on Fence (criminal) article: work in progress
see my User:Franberg5/sandbox2 for the article in progress.

Receiving in MOLL FLANDERS


 * Occasion and desperation makes her fall into crime. She keeps being a thief not only for money, but also for a sense of power and freedom over society, notwithstanding the implied risks.
 * “There would be no thieves without receivers”: her Governess (who helped her at first, when Moll had to get rid of her son), now a pawnbroker, becomes her reference to recycle stolen goods and also Moll’s first master of theft. The governess does the same with other criminals, and often suggests them to work in groups (but always through further go-between, such as the case of Moll disguised as man and paired with a young man).
 * The governess smelts metals when possible, or carefully and masterfully sells the goods without getting caught (see 1720, extension to Transportation Act which that made receiving and go-between felony of the same kind as the related theft), making profit for both herself and her protected.
 * As seen in other cases, receiving activity could be managed by women, in particular while being covered by non-illegal activities such as pawnbroking. Illegal activities were often merged with legal activities, and the social status of women helped them surfing the social thread and make the most out of their activities (cf. the real case of Elizabeth Fisher, who handled receiving while working in her husband’s alehouse).
 * In the case of fire, the Governess is also the instigator.
 * Eventually, the Governess turns into go-between to former owners, such as in the case of the drunken gentleman, granting an even better than usual profit through cunning and bargain.
 * The governess, pawnbroker, receiver, go-between, is also a woman who protects prostitutes (again, the case of the drunken gentleman with Moll) and tries to find honest jobs for her protected (sewing for Moll, which, however, never turns into a true profession to her). Obviously, she offers alibis for her protected (such as the case of Moll, when she is disguised as a man).
 * At a point Moll also works as a spy against other receivers (see again the 1720 extension to Transportation Act).

POLICING AND PUNISHMENT IN LONDON 1660-1750 J.M.Beattie

RECEIVERS: •	CHARLES HITCHEN: •
 * 39: old saying: no receivers => no thieves
 * •	39: Shoplifting Act: partly against receivers: house robbery above 40 shillings becomes capital crime + promise of pardon t servants who fully confess. Particularly aimed against Fencing.
 * •	250: shoplifters' victims preferred to compound rather than prosecute.
 * •	251: for criminals, returning goods for a fee was safer than normal fencing.
 * •	251: Anthony Dunn, 1707, "pretended Thiefe-Taker": he organised returns for a fee.
 * •	256: Transportation Act, 1718, made a felony of returning goods for a fee.
 * •	319: fear that receivers might turn in solicitors to support offenders in trials, giving them alibis.
 * •	319: receivers perceived as a fundamental part of London criminality.
 * •	319: defence witnesses under oath, to strengthen individuation and prosecution of potential receivers.
 * •	379: 1720, extension to rules of Transportation Act: The penalty for go-between was to be the same as the related offence. Also, the reward for convicting thieves was raised to a potential amount of 140 pounds: All these were to discourage Fencing and returning of goods for a fee, and to redirect thief-takers activity exclusively to thief-taking.
 * 253: officer of the city: he purchased with the help of his wife’s money (Elizabeth) the place of under-marshal for 700 pounds in 1712. Authority in thief-taking and receiving through his office.
 * •	252.255: Pamphlet, 1718, against his then rival Wild, practices he knew first-hand.
 * •	254: large web of thieves and pickpockets.
 * •	255: H. was more dedicated to receiving than thief-taking.
 * •	255: suspension from marshal in 1713, Wild took his place in his office and as a thief-taker.

JONATHAN WILD: •	WOMEN, CRIME AND THE COURTS IN EARLY MODERN ENGLAND / EDITED BY JENNY KERMODE AND GARTHINE WALKER CHAPEL HILL ; LONDON : THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS, 1994.
 * 232: fencing as a central activity for thief-takers. Charles Hitchen.
 * •	241: W. as the best known thief-taker, but not the only one.
 * •	255: W. used press to improve his web of returning goods.
 * •	255: W. went on prosecuting thieves also as a way to intimidate them to hand over the goods to him, to control them. => Interaction between the two sides of thief-taking was what made W. so powerful.
 * •	380: W. started his career under Hitchen, as a receiver, but soon extended his business to prosecution.
 * •	381: Receiving was the best way to infiltrate into a web of criminality, enhancing thief-taking capabilities (see above point).
 * •	381: Excessively bold fencing was W.'s undoing (1725): his execution became a good deterrent against large scale receiving.
 * •	389: Government involved in trials: W.'s trial was managed by Paxton on Secretary Townshend's orders.

CHESHIRE •
 * 9: different patterns of stolen goods for men and women.
 * •	85: women working mostly with other women (pairs).
 * •	92: women, especially wives, played a main role, although a shadow role (see Elizabeth Hitchen above), in businesses. Fisher’s alehouse was involved in receiving at hands of Fisher’s wife, Elizabeth.
 * •	93: social position of women made them in the ideal place to be involved in various ways, in thefts and receiving.