The sort of robbery I have alluded to is committed either at night or in the dusk of the evening or at the dinner-hour, when the inmates are all in one part of the house. There is also that very frequent and too often successful plan of stealing coats, &c. from a hall, when some stranger calls with a fictitious message that causes the servant to leave him alone for a moment, during which he hurries off with everything within reach that is worth stealing. To prevent such an occurrence plainly the best thing is never to allow a stranger to wait inside one’s door.
A professional burglar’s tools comprise skeleton-keys, silent matches, a dark lantern, a wax taper, a palette-knife used for opening windows by pushing the fastening back; a small crowbar, generally made in two pieces to screw together, and with one end forked; a centre-bit, and a carpet-bag. If the object of attack is a safe, then to these must be added chisels and steel wedges of different sizes, an ‘alderman,’ or large crowbar, a ‘Jack-in-the-box,’ some aqua fortis, and sometimes gunpowder for blowing open locks. Besides providing himself with tools, the burglar will often wear a ‘reversible,’ or a coat which can be worn inside out, each side being a different colour, so that if he happened to be noticed he will turn his coat in some quiet corner and become another man to all outward appearances.
The writer of an able article in the Cornhill Magazine of January 1863 gives as a list of the various ways in which houses are regularly broken into, the following: ‘Jumping a crib,’ which is entrance by a window; ‘breaking a crib,’ forcing a back door; ‘grating a crib,’ through cellar gratings; ‘garreting a crib,’ through the roof. Entrance in this last way, the writer states, is sometimes cleverly effected (from the leads of an empty house adjacent) by means of an umbrella. First, a few slates are removed, then a small hole is made, and through this aperture a strong springless umbrella is thrust and shaken open. Again the thieves go to work upon the hole in the roof, which they widen rapidly and with perfect confidence, since the débris falls noiselessly into the umbrella hanging beneath. When in the house the thieves’ only care is to move silently and to show little or no light. When the plunder is secured and the confederates signal that the way is clear, the burden is divided, and they at once separate, though perhaps going to the same place. Cabs are occasionally employed by the thieves; and though the drivers are not exactly in league, yet they must know pretty well by whom they are being hired. The plunder is disposed of immediately to ‘receivers,’ who always drive a good bargain, and if there is any plate or gold at once put it into the melting-pot. These receivers are the curse of large towns, where alone they are to be found. It is entirely owing to them that the majority of robberies are committed, for if thieves had to run a second risk in disposing of the goods after stealing them, they would not continue a dishonest life with the chances of success they now have. The police are generally well aware of the men who thus assist the thieves, but the difficulty of getting evidence against them is extreme, although occasionally a rascal is caught and severely punished owing to information being received from some informer. There are no less than eighty-seven houses in London known to be those of receivers of stolen goods.
In February 1858 there were in Manchester alone ninety-four returned transports, and out of the whole of that number there were not more than six in employment or who had any known means of livelihood. In view of this statement can it be wondered at that in the eleven years from 1857 to 1867 there were no less than seventeen successful robberies effected in that city alone, involving a loss of property amounting to £25,788, chiefly in cash and jewellery? This loss would have been largely augmented had it not been for the vigilance of the Manchester police, who could not, however, possibly frustrate every attempt made by dishonest men let loose upon society in large numbers by a system which is open to very serious objections. The Habitual Criminals Act proves that the country has at length recognised the fact that the ticket-of-leave system has been grossly abused by convicted persons, and that to protect life and property effectually it is necessary to give the police more power of supervision over suspected characters. For the benefit of those not acquainted with this Act, I may state that its most important provision is to give a Judge power to include in the sentence of a person, who has been previously convicted, a certain term of police supervision, to take effect after release from prison; and during this term the person may be called upon at any time to prove that he or she is gaining an honest livelihood—the burden of the proof resting with the suspected person, instead of the police being required to prove dishonesty.
A man who commits a great robbery is not one who up to that moment was honest and industrious; it is most probable that he has been an associate of thieves, and has been apprenticed to it, so to speak, as to a trade; hence the advantage of the new system by which he can be watched and if necessary captured on suspicion. The London police have now on their register 117,000 names of habitual criminals, and the list is said to be increasing at the rate of 30,000 a year.
A few somewhat imperfect statistics may be given. In London, during the years 1862 to 1867 inclusive, there were eight successful burglaries, in which £14,845 worth of valuables was stolen; in other large towns of the kingdom, such as Glasgow, Sheffield, &c., there were thirteen burglaries, with a loss of £11,375; and if our Colonies were to be taken into account, at Hong Kong alone there was a robbery (referred to more fully on page 59), in 1865, of £50,000 from a bank.
Omitting this last, however, it will be seen that in eleven years no less than £52,000 of property was stolen by burglars in Great Britain. It is true a great deal of this was recovered—sometimes in remarkable ways, an instance of which was the finding of some gold watches in the Thames, stolen from Mr. Walker’s, Cornhill; one of the watches having attracted the attention of a river policeman. But, on the other hand, there were numbers of successful attempts where no booty was found; a large number of unsuccessful attempts; and many of both kinds which never appeared in the newspapers at all.
The total would indeed make a formidable list, and yet there is hardly a case in which proper care combined with the use of the best safeguards would not have prevented all loss.