The Necessary Evil of the Eighteenth-Century English Thief-Taker
Wally McElwain
Abstract
Historical accounts have traditionally characterized English thief-takers as quasi criminals contracted by the English government and private individuals to solve a wide variety of crimes. This representation has been justified by numerous eighteenth-century accounts that expressed widespread distrust of thief-takers’ connections with the London underworld. Despite occupying one of the most polarizing and controversial places in English history, thief-takers provided valuable services to both the London authorities and victims of criminal activity. As the
Industrial Revolution spurred the English economy to unprecedented heights, Parliament was hard-pressed to combat rising crime rates in rapidly expanding urban centers. Traditional constables and watchmen could no longer keep the English streets safe without considerable increases in funding and manpower to create a modern police force.
Old Bailey court records indicate that thief-takers strengthened the English criminal justice system by apprehending criminals, returning stolen property, and serving as prosecutors.
However, lucrative monetary rewards and minimal oversight inevitably led to corruption, which often turned public opinion against thief-takers. The shortcomings of this system should not be ignored or dismissed but rather combined with the historical realities of eighteenth-century
England. Increasing crime rates necessitated strengthening the criminal justice system, and thief- takers constituted a viable option for many victims. Although not a perfect solution, thief-takers should not be overlooked as playing an important and legitimate role in the modernization of
English policing.
2 The Necessary Evil of the Eighteenth-Century English Thief-Taker
On May 24, 1725 the most notorious and controversial thief-taker in English history lost his life to the hangman’s noose at Tyburn.1 Citizens, jurors, magistrates, and priests had thought
Jonathan Wild’s execution to be a foregone conclusion; however, the “Thief-taker General” thrived for a dozen years in the early eighteenth-century. During his reign he amassed a small fortune from private fees for mediating the return of stolen goods and state rewards for prosecuting criminals. After his arrest Wild felt so confident that the jury would not convict him that he did not bother to bring character witnesses to the trial, although he claimed to have many friends of good character in Wolverhampton. The Ordinary of Newgate reported that Wild
“could not be made to believe he should suffer Death at last for what he had publickly done unpunish'd so long.”2 The notorious thief-taker maintained that he had provided a legitimate service to the English government by recovering valuables for Dukes, Earls, and Lords. Wild also claimed to have “apprehended the greatest and most pernicious Robbers and Plunderers the
Nation ever was molested by.”3
Despite his illusions of government immunity, the jury sentenced Wild to death on the charge of criminal receiving, an accessory to felony. Wild then desperately claimed mental illness caused by two skull fractures that he suffered during his past apprehensions of violent robbers. After this ploy failed, Wild tried to commit suicide by drinking poisonous laudanum4,
1 Located in the county of Middlesex, the small village of Tyburn became infamous for its gallows that the courts designated as the primary location for the execution of London criminals. Criminals commonly spoke of “Tyburn” as a euphemism for capital punishment. The last executions at Tyburn took place in the late eighteenth century. Hangings were thereafter carried out in several different locations, including within Newgate Prison. 2 “Ordinary of Newgate’s Account,” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, May 24, 1725, from Old Bailey Proceedings Online, accessed April 7, 2010, http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=OA17250524&div=OA17250524#highlight. 3 Ibid. 4 Laudanum, also know as Tincture of Opium, was a conglomeration of numerous strands of opium. As it regularly contained at least ten percent morphine and a high dose of codeine, laudanum was one of the most
3 which also failed to achieve the desired results. Wild fittingly lost his life at the same place as the numerous criminals that he had apprehended, but one question still lingered after his execution.
Did thief-takers fulfill a legitimate niche in the English system of private prosecution, or did thief-takers merely represent an evolved strand of organized crime?
In order to answer the question about what role, if any, thief-takers played in the development of a modern police force in England, the historical context of the time period must be properly understood. In the eighteenth century, England existed as a nation transitioning from a traditional household handicraft economy into a commercialized and industrialized power.
English merchants exponentially increased their wealth and power under the policy of mercantilism, which exploited the resources of the English colonies for the use of the mother country. As English international trade flourished, the manufacturing of textiles likewise developed into a powerful industry. Increasing industrialization directly correlated with the growth of urban populations in England; for example, London’s population grew from 120,000 in 1550 to close to half a million at the end of the seventeenth century, and it continued to rapidly increase throughout the eighteenth century.5 London’s growth as a financial and manufacturing center concentrated wealth and power in an urban environment, resulting in social and criminal problems that strained the existing criminal justice framework.
The rapid growth and concentration of wealth produced a near hysteria about the prevalence of crime in London. The exaggeration of crime in cities by contemporary populations has been a pervasive theme throughout history, but the perception of London criminality likely
potent and addictive drugs available in the eighteenth-century. Doctors prescribed laudanum to treat a hodgepodge of ailments, ranging from diarrhea to pain. Modern medical practitioners rarely prescribe laudanum, and if they do, it’s usually dispensed in very small droplet bottles or pre-filled syringes. Due to its wide availability before the twentieth century, accidental and intentional suicides were relatively common. 5 J.M. Beattie, Policing and Punishment in London 1660-1750: Urban Crime and the Limits of the Terror (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 6-7.
4 did have a basis in more than the rich seeking to guard their newfound wealth. The authorities in charge of solving London’s crime problem essentially consisted of constables, city marshals, beadles, and the night watch. Constables comprised the main body of the official police, and the responsibilities of this elected office generally included peacekeeping, crowd control, and curbing immorality. The constables had the power to serve warrants, break into houses, and arrest suspected criminals; on the other hand, the constables did very little surveillance or detection of crime since they were not expected to patrol the streets during the daylight.6
The important responsibility of patrolling fell to the salaried city marshal, which specifically focused on suppressing vagrancy and vice in the streets. Although the marshals came closer to constituting a patrolling police force, their propensity for corruption and small numbers diminished their role as an effective authoritative body. The beadle was an elected and salaried position responsible for full-time policing and supervising the night watch. Supervision of the night watch amounted to the most valued role that the beadles performed in policing. The night watch originally had been charged with imposing a moral and social curfew on the city’s residents; however, the invention of street lighting changed the function of watchmen into a policing night patrol. Similar to the other policing bodies, the night watch also failed in crime prevention due to weakness in the flaws within the watch’s legal and financial foundation.7 The available forms of police in eighteenth-century England primarily functioned as peacekeepers and moral police, which did not explicitly pertain to the detection, apprehension, and prosecution of criminals.
Due to the inability of London’s existing police infrastructure to apprehend and prosecute criminals, responsibility for criminal detection and prosecution were dumped upon the private
6 Ibid., 120-30; 158-60; 163-6. 7 Ibid., 188.
5 sector. Victims served as private prosecutors, forcing them to spend their own time and money to prosecute. In property offenses, the victim first had to decide whether or not to attempt to apprehend the thief. If they chose to do so, the overwhelming number of apprehensions caught the thief red-handed or witnesses placed the accused at the scene of the crime. Peter King’s study on the private prosecution of property crimes found that 26.4% of successful detection methods caught the thief in the act and 13.4% placed the criminal in the area.8 King also found that the offended party often sought informal methods of settling the dispute to avoid expensive court costs. Victims generally desired the return of their property, monetary compensation, laborious service, a public apology, or physical punishment. The reliance on private energy and money resulted in a lack of criminal prosecutions, which Parliament attempted to correct by offering substantial rewards for the prosecution of property offenses. The relegation of prosecution to the private sector, desire for informal mediation, and the availability of monetary rewards created a favorable environment in which thief-takers could operate.
Analyzing such an ambiguous practice as thief-taking necessitates the combination of a wide-range of sources. Each piece of secondary literature differs in its approach, perspective, and attitude toward thief-takers, which inherently leads them to different conclusions; however, the secondary literature does serve the important purpose of framing the various theories about thief- taking in such a way that it allows for new theories to enter the academic debate. Just as, or more, importantly than the secondary literature are the primary sources available that pertain to the topic. The Old Bailey Session Papers constitute an excellent primary source for modern observers to learn about crime and punishment in early modern England, in which thief-takers played a definitive role. The Papers allow modern scholars to: discover the public perception of
8 Peter King, Crime, Justice, and Discretion in England: 1740-1820 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 21.
6 the practice, define what constituted a true thief-taker, and draw conclusions about the importance of the occupation’s role in the development of a modern police force in England.
Although the Old Bailey Session Papers serve as an invaluable source of information, they also have minor inconsistencies that must be kept in mind while conducting an analysis. The original publications of the Proceedings concentrated predominantly on the more sensational cases, but they eventually developed into an almost comprehensive account of the trials held at the Old Bailey. In 1710, the Proceedings changed from third-person to first-person accounts. The year 1712 saw the introduction of some verbatim testimony into the publication. In addition, shorthand note-takers began to attend the trials for more testimony in 1720, which allowed for more details to be published.
The publications also commonly omitted certain aspects of the criminal trial, including the: jury deliberations, sentencing speech of the accused, judges’ summaries, lawyers’ legal argument, witness testimony with repeat information, and the legal justification of the defense.
Both the prosecution and the defense suffered from these omissions, but the defense generally suffered the majority of omissions. This created a slight bias in favor of the prosecution by making their cases seem artificially stronger. Other minor problems with using the Session
Papers as an academic source arise from the publishers ignoring legal proceedings to combine information obtained from different steps in the trial. In addition, the Proceedings do not contain the full record of pardons, delayed sentences, and execution since they were published before the punishment was carried out. Fortunately, none of these problems are so large that it comes close to questioning the legitimacy of the source.
The Proceedings reference thief-takers in hundreds of cases, therefore, the scope of this paper had to be narrowed. Instead of viewing the thief-taker’s role in the prosecution of every
7 crime, this study concentrates only on the theft and violent theft cases. Besides being felonies and the largest category of offenses, property offenses hold a significant place in the history of
English crime and punishment. Citizens increasingly demanded the right to protection of property as England underwent a process of Industrialization that transitioned the nation into a commercial powerhouse; thus, theft became increasingly criminalized as citizens, especially shopkeepers, wanted to guard their wealth.
In addition, the number of cases was further narrowed from those that occurred from
1700 to 1760. By 1700, thief-takers had become well-established participants in the courtroom.
The year 1760 serves as an effective ending date for this study since it allows ten years for Henry and John Fielding’s reforms to take effect. The reforms created an official position for thief- takers in the government that provides the clearest example of how thief-takers represented a transitional step in the development of English police and prosecution. This narrowed field contains fourteen cases of theft and nine cases of violent theft in which thief-takers played a pivotal role.
The state of eighteenth-century England, as described above, stood in the middle of a transitory economic period that allowed some enterprising individuals to amass great wealth; in addition, London’s urbanization unprecedentedly brought hundreds of thousands of socially and economically diverse people into close contact, resulting in the increase of urban crime. The existing police bodies could not effectively handle all of their new responsibilities; in particular, the victims of property offenses generally had to take personal responsibility for the detection, apprehension, and prosecution of thieves. As a direct result, the practice of thief-taking moved from the margins of society into the mainstream in order to fill the void left in the prosecution and detection of crimes. Although clearly motivated by the economic opportunity to collect fees
8 and rewards, thief-takers served an indispensable position as the missing link between the existing inadequate policing and the creation of a modern police force. Despite the undeniable and inevitable corruption of a practice rooted in human monetary greed, thief-takers: returned valuable property to victims, apprehended dangerous criminals, helped flustered magistrates control the crime rate, and ultimately served as the basis for reforms in policing; thus, some thief-takers may have been hardened criminals on the individual level, but the general practice of thief-taking contributed to the centralization of criminal justice and ultimately the creation of a modern police force.
The secondary literature generally steers clear from explicitly praising thief-takers as having a beneficial societal purpose. Nevertheless, numerous historians acknowledge the niche thief-takers filled in private detection and prosecution, but they fall short in their acceptance of thief-takers as a legitimate policing authority. Several modern scholars view thief-takers as a transitory force, but they differ in the degree they hold thief-takers as a legitimate policing authority. In Policing and Punishment in London, John Beattie provides the best comprehensive overview of the practice. He fairly assesses the thief-takers connections with legal authority without brushing over the corruption within the practice. Generally speaking, he asserts that thief-taking constituted a useful but distasteful private service that the public police could not offer during the early eighteenth century, which influenced later police reform movements.9
Beattie identifies a variety of ways in which thief-takers got involved in the controversial practice. The first possible entrance into the world of thief-taking was through the criminal world.10 He identifies Anthony Dunn, Anthony St. Leger, and John Whitwoot as examples of thief-takers that had deep ties to the criminal world. The trio had only become thief-takers in
9 Beattie, Policing and Punishment, 417. 10 Ibid., 240.
9 order to escape Tyburn, and these former burglars and highwaymen preyed on the coiners and clippers. Despite facing rumors of corruption- as did other “legitimate” police bodies during the period- Dunn and St. Leger were officially hired by the warden of the Mint, Isaac Newton, to prosecute coiners and clippers. Other men turned thief-taker to cleanse their neighborhood by prosecuting moral crimes. Bodenham Rewse and James Jenkins both fought vice by prosecuting prostitutes, female pickpockets, and owners of bawdy houses; however, the pair later turned to prosecuting the more profitable coiners and clippers, and Rewse joined Dunn and St Leger as an employed thief-taker of the Treasury. A further example of how thief-takers came into existence would be as actively prosecuting constables. For example, the Bread Street constable James
Cooper became famous for prosecuting and profiting from coiners, clippers, and reform society targets.
After the decline of coining and clipping in the early eighteenth century, thief-takers began to target highway robbers and burglars for royal rewards.11 Thief-takers worked as an intermediary between victims and thieves that benefitted the victim who regained their stolen property and the thief-taker who received a fee. After receiving became an accessory to felony in
1691, receivers became more likely to cooperate with thief-takers, which increased business.
Beattie identifies a third shift in the transformation of thief-taking that began after the introduction of a one hundred and forty pound reward for an arrest that led to the conviction of a violent property crime in 1720. The large sum was likely intended to persuade thief-takers to apprehend and prosecute offenders themselves, instead of merely serving as mediators in property offenses. The financial incentive clearly induced thief-takers to take up prosecutions as evidenced by their claim to the majority of the reward shares. Although the increased reward
11 Ibid., 247.
10 functioned as an effective incentive, the public outcry against blood-money prosecutions resulted in the termination of the supplementary hundred pound in 1744. The validity of this claim of corruption can not be easily proven to be either factual or untrue, but thief-takers undoubtedly entrapped young criminals and perjured testimony to claim the large rewards. The perception of corrupt prosecutions fueled anti-thief-taker sentiment to such an extent that the accused often defended themselves by portraying the prosecutor as a thief-taker.12 Beattie concludes his comprehensive analysis of thief-taking by asserting that thief-takers represented a combination of public and private efforts to curb crime, thus, proving thief-takers’ influence on the reform movement begun by Henry and Sir John Fielding.
In direct contrast to Beattie’s acknowledgment of thief-taking’s beneficial aspects in police reform, John McMullan characterizes thief-takers as sharing more in common with criminals than police. McMullan wrote two of the few pieces of secondary literature exclusively about thief-takers. He repeatedly describes thief-taking as a profit-oriented business venture that only cared about profiting for financial gain; in addition, he argues that thief-takers profited from crime in a variety of ways, which included: confiscating the stolen money and goods of their prisoners, accepting hush money, perjuring evidence, blackmailing innocent people, and operating extortion rackets.13McMullan claims that the thief-takers domination over the administration of criminal justice severely restricted the public benefit of their services.
Furthermore, McMullan implicates the administration of justice in corrupting the legal system by manipulating prosecutions. He also views the thief-takers inability to develop a central administration as a failure since the practice could not respond to public needs. Decentralization, thus, limited thief-taking to co-existing with existing police institutions instead of reforming
12 Ibid., 416. 13 John L. McMullan, "The Political Economy of Thief-taking," Crime, Law, & Social Change 23 (1995): 134, accessed April 4, 2010, http://pao.chadwyck.com.
11 them. Thief-takers practically impacted English legal history by exponentially enhancing the power of the prosecutors to manipulate the law for their own benefit.14
Similar to McMullan, the thief-taker references in the writing of Peter Linebaugh depict the practice as an essentially blood-for-profit private enterprise. Linebaugh viciously attacks thief-taking by severely rebuking Jonathan Wild’s supposedly criminal actions. He believes Wild propagated the “complex and parasitic system of training thieves and impeaching thieves, of receiving goods and returning lost property.”15 Linebaugh contends that thief-takers not only did not function as police, but they also encouraged men and women to commit crimes with trickery and deception to collect prosecution rewards. This theme of thief-taker entrapment has a common place in the argument against thief-taking as a legitimate police force. One of
Linebaugh’s favorite historical figures, Jack Sheppard, also had nothing kind to say about the practice. Sheppard claimed that thief-takers “hanged by proxy, while we do it fairly in person.”16
This quote further supports the argument that implicates thief-takers as criminals by defining their actions as equally worthy of the noose as thieves. Linebaugh’s noticeable bias on behalf of the poor criminal over oppressive authority clearly impacted his position in the historical debate; however, he does give an accurate account of a perception that had widespread support in the eighteenth century and remains prevalent in modern scholarship.
No title seems more fitting for Jonathan Wild than that of Thief-Taker General, the title of Gerald Howson’s renowned book. Wild exemplified the very definition of a thief-taker, especially the position’s more controversial aspects. Wild accomplished tremendous feats in the suppression of organized crime in London during the early eighteenth century; however, he also
14 Ibid.,139. 15 Peter Linebaugh, The London Hanged: Crime and Civil Society in the Eighteenth-Century (New York: Verso, 2006), 27. 16 Ibid., 33.
12 symbolized the most corrupt aspects of thief-taking, like running a small retail shop for receiving stolen goods. Howson researched how Wild could simultaneously be “the first modern
‘gangster’, a precursor of Al Capone” and the “first modern policeman, foreshadowing
Vidocq.”17 The Thief-Taker General’s author does not seek to come to a definitive solution to the query, but he does illustrate both of Wild’s seemingly contradictory lives.
Wild broke every large London gang by 1723, disbanding Spiggott’s, Hawkins’, Shaw’s, and Carrick’s gangs. The motivation behind the prosecutions likely was the financial gain of state rewards. The gangs targeted the extremely wealthy, like Lord Bruce and Lord Burlington for example. These wealthy gentlemen solicited Wild’s aid by offering him extensive financial compensation that at times exceeded a hundred pounds.18 The notorious thief-taker succeeded in decimating London’s organized crime syndicate by dismantling the gangs one member at a time.
Wild would receive information that implicated a member in a crime; then, he would either prosecute the criminal for a reward or make a plea bargain that exchanged freedom for testimony against a more notorious gang member. Although money remained Wild’s motive, he still essentially eliminated all of the city’s organized crime, a laudable accomplishment.
Wild has been portrayed in modern times as one of the originators of criminal receiving, thus, creating the Thief-Taker General’s perception of being a corrupt criminal. Wild set up the
“Lost Property Office” in a backroom of the Blue Boar, a tavern owned by Mrs. Seagoe for the express purpose of criminal receiving.19 Historian Ronald Paul Hill went so far as to say that
Wild was the “father” of criminal receiving and the Office functioned as the safe house. Wild operated a small retail shop for the sole purpose of buying and selling stolen goods that thieves
17 Gerald Howson, Thief-Taker General: Jonathan Wild and the Emergence of Crime and Corruption as a Way of Life in Eighteenth-Century England (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Inc., 1970), 7. 18 Ibid.,173. 19 Ibid., 75.
13 delivered to him. The genius of the operation consisted of Wild’s dual public perception- thieves viewed him as a fellow thief turning a profit and victims thought him a gentleman that graciously found their stolen property.20 Wild’s receiving network that seemingly benefitted all parties involved ironically resulted in his apprehension and execution. Wild was victimized by a recently passed clause in the Transportation Act of 1720 that promised a reward of forty pounds for the conviction and prosecution of anybody that worked as a mediator between victims and thieves. Mediating had become a felony in the first Transportation Act, but this added a financial incentive for prosecuting thief-takers.
McMullan also provides an analysis of the Fielding brothers’ reforms of the private prosecution done by thief-takers. Fielding recruited a group of thief-takers that he believed to be superior to the common variety, and he gave them explicit instructions about what streets to protect, what crimes to prosecute, and what their powers did and did not entail.21 Despite these instructions, the thief-takers still predominantly relied on state rewards for prosecution as income. Fielding achieved a high level of success in his exploitation of the breakthrough in communication and transportation technology, which he utilized to disseminate his crime information pamphlets. McMullan argues that the surveillance network created by these reforms was not the official state policy, but it was actually the result of a dependence on “markets in the selling and trading of information created by the spread of commercial printing, aided and abetted by private rewards and the commercial compromise of the state, and on a vigorous mobilized citizenry.”22 McMullan contends that the reliance on public information and reward
20 Ronald Paul Hill, "Criminal Receiving: The "Fence" as Marketer," Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 11, no. 2 (1992): 127, accessed April 4, 2010, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30000280. 21 John L. McMullan, "The New Improved Monied Police: Reform, Crime Control, and the Commodification of Policing in London," British Journal of Criminology 36, no. 1 (1996): 94, accessed April 4, 2010, http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=43EBA2A5787CD40C9F6E.. 22 Ibid., 100.
14 driven prosecution by thief-takers negated much of the reforms’ positive impact. Furthermore, the article argues that the relationship between the official thief-takers and the privatized version had the same flaw of decentralized privatization that inevitably led to corruption.23 McMullan asserts that the Fielding reforms had some benefits, like the creation a centralized crime information network; however, he believes that the reforms remained mired in the thief-taking model of entrepreneurial prosecution.
Some of John and Henry Fielding’s contemporaries rebuked the brothers’ attempts to standardize the practice of thief-taking. William Robert Irwin analyzes John Scott’s, an eighteenth-century bookseller, critique of the Fielding brothers in a pamphlet titled Jonathan
Wild’s Advice to His Successors. Scott specifically attacks John Fielding by pretending to be the voice of Jonathan Wild congratulating Fielding for reviving the corrupt practice of thief-taking.
Irwin’s interpretation of the pamphlet centers on the ironic theme of John Fielding being the natural heir to Jonathan Wild; the pamphlet accused Fielding of pretending to use thief-takers in the name of the law in the same manner as Wild. Irwin argues that the pamphlet capitalized on the false public perception of thief-taking as inherently corrupt, and he characterizes Henry
Fielding’s Bow Street Runners as “an honest and incorruptible company of citizens, interested only in suppressing crime.”24 Irwin believed that the thief-takers of Bow Street worked as diligently and honestly as a modern police force.
Other writers, like F.M. Dodsworth, challenged whether the criminal justice infrastructure actually could be defined as “police”, which raises the further question of whether the Fielding brother’s reforms created an actual police force. According to Dodsworth, eighteenth-century contemporaries certainly thought of their criminal justice system as police,
23 Ibid.,102. 24 William Robert Irwin, "An Attack on John Fielding," Modern Language Notes 56 no. 7 (1941): 524, accessed April 11, 2010, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2911410.
15 just an ineffective one. Englishmen used the term “police” to define their wide-range of separate policing officers, which ranged from the quarter and petty sessions of the peace all the way to the individual surveyors of the highway.25 In eighteenth-century England, the discussion about the police force concerned itself with the moral reform of the police and their suppression of vice; thus, police served the purpose of restraining societal temptation and corruption.26 An understanding of the theoretical meaning of police in the eighteenth century allows historians to analyze public perceptions and the goals of police reform movements. The public was likely particularly sensitive to the charges of corruption amongst thief-takers due to their mind’s connection of authority with morality. The desire to eliminate the association of corrupt behavior from thief-takers can be illustrated in the reforms of Henry and John Fieldings when they claimed that they employed the “real thief-takers.”
The twenty-three cases of theft and violent theft tried at the Old Bailey from 1700 to
1760 challenges these modern interpretations of thief-taking. The court cases certainly support some aspects of the wide-range of modern theories, as previously described, about the practice; however, the evidence also refutes substantial portions of the recent academic discourse on the subject. The Session Papers reveal that thief-taking existed as a practice that defied a formal definition. Although an extremely decentralized practice, thief-takers did play an extremely legitimate role in the detection and apprehension of crime. The decentralization may have even increased thief-takers effectiveness by granting them more flexibility. Further support for thief- takers as a legitimate, albeit a controversial and occasionally corrupt, piece of the English legal apparatus exists in the juries’ decisions in cases that involved thief-takers. Juries apparently
25 F.M. Dodsworth,"The Idea of Police in Eighteenth-Century England: Discipline, Reformation, Superintendence, c. 1780 –1800," Journal of the History of Ideas 69 no. 4 (2008): 589, accessed April 4, 2010, http://muse.jhu.edu/content/z3950/journals/journal_of_the_history_of_ideas/v069/69.4.dodsworth.html. 26 Ibid., 603-4.
16 trusted thief-takers’ testimony enough to sentence defendants to death based largely upon it. All of these themes that arise out of the primary research lead to the conclusion that thief-takers- despite occasional corruption- were just as, or more, important to the English criminal justice system as any of the “official” positions.
A wide variety of thief-takers appear in the Session Papers for this sample; the term refers to variations in the practice that range all the way from a private thief-taker organization to civic-minded individuals acting as thief-taker to apprehend a criminal. In a 1745 case, Long
Charles apprehended William Taylor and charged him with stealing the handkerchief of Anthony
Hamilton, a black servant of Admiral Anson. A juryman questioned Long Charles if he was a thief-taker, and he responded, “if they fall in my way I take them sometimes. I saw the Prisoner take this handkerchief out of Mr. Hamilton's pocket, and go to put it into his own.” 27 Taylor claimed in his defense that another thief-taker, McDaniel, actually stole the handkerchief and now pushed it upon him to receive the state reward. McDaniel then gave testimony that he had patrolled the streets with four or five men with the intent of apprehending criminals. He further stated that this unofficial organization had been apprehending and prosecuting criminals for two or three years, and a credible character witness verified McDaniel’s good character. The jury deemed the testimony of two thief-takers as enough evidence to sentence Taylor to death. The importance of this case lies with its description of a legally credible group of thief-takers that apprehended and prosecuted criminals for financial gain.
In contrast to this unofficial group of thief-takers, some private citizens turned temporary thief-taker when they witnessed a crime. Elizabeth Cole, after having her silk purse stolen,
27 “Trial of William Taylor,” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, January 16, 1745, from Old Bailey Proceedings Online, http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17450116-19&div=t17450116- 19&terms=william|taylor#highlight (accessed April 4, 2010).
17 requested the services of a thief-taker to detect and apprehend the culprit so that she could regain her property.28 Cole asked a local man named Mr. Hart to find a suitable thief-taker, but the man did not have a thief-taker acquaintance; nevertheless, he brought the victim to the house of Mr.
Murrel to discuss their next step. After hearing Cole’s description of the criminals, Mr. Murrel declared, “there was no Occasion for a Thief-Taker, he would be Thief-Taker himself; for he would send for them to his House, whither he was sure they would come, and then have a
Constable and secure them.” According to his deposition, Mr. Murrell connected Cole’s description with the arrival of two strangers- Thomas and Ann Thompson- in the town; thus, he agreed to help in their apprehension. Similarly, Edward Sutton acted as thief-taker upon information that William Chamberlain had assaulted and robbed Richard Hull on the Highway.29
Sutton successfully apprehended Chamberlain, but he suffered a gunshot wound through the arm.
Both Ann Thompson and William Chamberlain died at Tyburn.
Another example of a different thief-taker archetype in the Session Papers was that of an individual with extensive knowledge of the criminal underworld. This type of thief-taker turned a profit by selling invaluable information to private prosecutors. An example of a thief-taker with extensive underworld information exists in a 1741 case of a double highway robbery. William
Warner and John Newman supposedly robbed and assaulted William Blackburn and then Charles
Shippey on the highway.30 After the robbery, Blackburn sought the help of the local thief-taker
Charles Remington. The thief-taker listened to Blackburn’s description of his assailants, and he
28 “Trial of Ann Thompson,” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, July 17, 1720, from Old Bailey Proceedings Online, http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17200712-10&div=t17200712- 10&terms=ann|thompson#highlight (accessed April 11, 2010). 29 “Trial of William Chamberlain,” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, February 21, 1733, from Old Bailey Proceedings Online, http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17330221-44&div=t17330221- 44&terms=Chamberlain#highlight (accessed April 5, 2010). 30 “Trial of William Warner and John Newman,” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, December 4, 1741, from Old Bailey Proceedings Online, http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17411204-4&div=t17411204- 4&terms=warner|and|newman#highlight (accessed April 7, 2010).
18 then advised them to go to the Gatehouse. Remington knew that two men had been recently apprehended that matched Blackburn’s description. His information undoubtedly came from a contact in the criminal world; regardless of the source, he provided the information that led to the two men’s apprehension, and they were each found guilty of capital offenses.
The last type of thief-taker in the Session Papers consisted of a known thief-taker that had enough legitimacy to work alongside constables in a near official capacity. Two violent theft cases exemplify the fusion of private and public energies in the English criminal justice system.
In one case, John Wright stole Archibald Gregoire’s silver watch at gunpoint on the highway.31
The victim went to the renowned thief-taker John Berry to seek his help in confronting Wright.
Berry advised Gregoire to bring the crime to the attention of the Constable in the Old Bailey, Mr.
Atkins. After procuring the constable’s help in the matter, Berry went to Wright’s house, asked him to have a drink with him, and then the constable served the warrant. The jury acquitted
Wright- a decision that likely had more to do with Wright’s good character witnesses and the prosecutor’s key eyewitness’ failure to identify him.
In the other court case, James Smith accused George Sutton and Robert Campbell of stealing his hanger and watch and threatening him with physical violence.32 William Waker received a warrant from Justice de Viel to arrest the two defendants, and he successfully apprehended the two men with the stolen goods on their body. During the trial, Sutton and
Campbell both emphatically asserted that Waker was one the most corrupt thief-takers in
England. Despite these claims, they each received a death sentence. In this fascinating and
31 “Trial of John Wright,” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, June 30, 1734, from Old Bailey Proceedings Online, http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17340630-27&div=t17340630- 27&terms=john|wright#highlight (accessed April 7, 2010). 32 “Trial of George Sutton and Robert Campbell,” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, December 8, 1736, from Old Bailey Proceedings Online, http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17361208-27&div=t17361208- 27&terms=george|sutton|and|robert|campbell#highlight (accessed April 4, 2010).
19 controversial case, the most interesting detail might be Waker’s relationship with the administration of criminal justice. Only constables had the power to serve arrest warrants; therefore, Waker either was a constable that moonlighted as a thief-taker for supplementary income, or he enjoyed a unique and perhaps unprecedented relationship with Justice de Viel. A thief-taker that served arrest warrants would solidify the relationship between thief-takers and the
English criminal justice system; however, Waker was more than likely a constable, which still illustrates some form of connection between the formal criminal justice system and thief-takers
The practice of thief-taking had a wide-range of permutations during the eighteenth century. In only twenty-three cases, four different forms of thief-taking exist in the trial records.
The different thief-taking archetypes all shared an apparent legitimacy in the eyes of court since juries consistently convicted defendants based on the evidence provided by thief-takers. This decentralization allowed for greater flexibility, resulting in not only the strengthening of the practice but also of the English criminal justice administration. McDaniel and Long Charles’ thief-taking company undoubtedly apprehended tens, if not hundreds, of criminals during a two or three year span. Although they prosecuted for financial gain, the fact remains that they still prosecuted. They clearly did not exude corruption since the jury sentenced a man to death based on their testimony. Despite their criminal ties, the information provided by some thief-takers proved to be vital for private prosecutors. Additionally, some thief-takers were not thief-takers at all but rather civic-minded individuals. These men could temporarily take up the status of temporary thief-taker to ensure that justice was served. Other thief-takers physically aided constables by assisting in a suspect’s apprehension. After establishing the occupation’s diversity, the next step in the analysis of thief-takers role in this sample will focus on how they physically contributed to the detection and apprehension of criminals.
20 An inherent aspect of thief-taking is the desire for financial gain, and money has the ultimate power of corrupting human souls; however, almost every other policing body in London also faced charges of corruption within their ranks. The existence of occasional corruption should not negate the work that thief-takers did in detecting and apprehending criminals.
Plentiful evidence exists in the Proceedings that illustrates thief-takers role in bringing criminals to justice. A superb example exists in the work done by thief-taker Unwin in the apprehension of
Jacob Cordosa, who was charged with robbing the house of Benjamin Sadler.33 Unwin responded to an advertisement that Captain John Jell printed on behalf of Sadler, and he apprehended Cordosa after a month’s worth of detective work. In addition, Unwin also searched
Cordosa’s house and found the picklock used to break into the house. The thief-taker brought the suspect to Sadler for a private fee, and Sadler successfully prosecuted Cordosa. Unwin had undoubtedly been motivated by the monetary reward, but he still provided a necessary service to
Sadler, who more than likely could not have apprehended Cordosa without the aid of a thief- taker.
Other examples of thief-takers detecting and apprehending suspects can be seen in a case in which Susanna Read was charged with stealing numerous household items from Henry
Robinson’s home. Robinson quickly contacted a local thief-taker, William Thomas, once he returned home and discovered the robbery. Thomas found the suspect in Smith’s tavern with a bundle of goods. When asked if he was certain if the goods in question belonged to Robinson,
Thomas confidently responded, “These are the things, I know several of them, and this is the
33 “Trial of Jacob Cordosa,” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, December 8, 1742, from Old Bailey Proceedings Online, http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17421208-38&div=t17421208- 38&terms=jacob|cordosa#highlight (accessed April 8, 2010).
21 cloak she had upon her back, I have seen it many a time upon Robinson's wife's back.” 34
Thomas had: sufficient knowledge to identify Robinson’s goods, familiarity with the local haunts of thieves, and the ability to respond quickly. A constable likely may not have had any of these advantages, which would have greatly diminished the chances of apprehending the suspect.
William Goldburne also completed an extensive amount of detective work to apprehend
John Bothaw for stealing twenty-one pounds of Mace from William Hayter.35 Goldburne observed a suspicious character sneak down a dark gateway by Galley-Key with a box. He decided to turn temporary thief-taker after he heard the owner question a customs officer about a missing box, and he subsequently witnessed a woman carrying the same box fifteen minutes later. The acting thief-taker confronted Bothaw, but he denied the charge. Despite the suspect’s denial, Goldburne persisted in his investigation. The thief-taker discovered where the likely receiver lived and waited outside the house for two or three hours. At the first opportunity, he searched the house for the box, which he found in her bedroom under a rug on the bed.
Goldburne did an admirable amount of detective work for a crime that he was not directly involved, and his extra effort led to the apprehension and conviction of an admitted thief.
Thief-takers helped to fulfill a serious flaw in the English criminal justice system- the detection, apprehension, and prosecution of criminals. Constables, beadles, marshals, and watchmen largely concentrated on peacekeeping and enforcing morality. In the absence of an adequate public policing body, self-interested private initiative provided an answer. Although state and private rewards caused excesses that led at times to full-blown corruption, financial
34 “Trial of Susanna Read,” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, April 4, 1744, from Old Bailey Proceedings Online, http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17440404-10&div=t17440404- 10&terms=susanna|read#highlight (accessed April 4, 2010). 35 “Trial of John Bothaw,” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, September 12, 1744, from Old Bailey Proceedings Online, http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17440912-16&div=t17440912- 16&terms=john|bothaw#highlight (accessed April 11, 2010).
22 incentives presented a practical solution. Thief-takers risked their safety and staked their public reputation to prosecute criminals. They filled a role that modern police would later incorporate into their official duties. As evidenced in many of the cases in the sample, thief-takers detected the perpetrator of a crime and assisted in the suspect’s apprehension. Contemporary detractors of thief-taker merely renounced their corruption without providing an alternative. Without their initiative, hundreds of crimes would have gone unpunished in England during the first half of the eighteenth century.
As briefly mentioned in the previously cited trial records, the accused commonly defended themselves by characterizing the thief-takers as the very pinnacle of corruption. The defendants’ accusation varied from entrapment to conspiracy. They hoped to capitalize on the contemporary fear of corruption in law enforcement. Some thief-takers unquestionably engaged in such shady practices, but these individuals should not be generalized as a standard definition of thief-takers. Enough crime certainly existed in London to provide thief-takers with a comfortable living without resorting to such practices. An assessment of thief-takers common perception can be achieved by analyzing how the jury responded to the defense of thief-taker conspiracy.
The case of Julius Dunt- accused of assaulting and robbing a postman, John Doo, on the
Highway- illustrates the jury’s acceptance of thief-takers as legitimate characters in the courtroom. In his defense, Dunt claimed “this is trumped up by the Thief-Taker for the Sake of the Reward; they made me so disguised in Liquor, that I could not tell what I did.” 36 Regardless of this excuse, Dunt received a death sentence. Similarly, during the thief-taker John Berry’s testimony in a case of violent theft, a man in the bail dock cried out that he was a roguish thief-
36 “Trial of Julius Dunt.” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, December 7, 1743, from Old Bailey Proceedings Online, http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17431207-16&div=t17431207- 16&terms=julius|dunt#highlight (accessed April 6, 2010).
23 taker.37 Berry had single-handedly apprehended the two women defendants, Margaret
Greenaway and Ann Rush, making him a key witness in the case. The accusations of corruption apparently fell on deaf ears- the two women were both found guilty of capital offenses.
Cordelia Taylor and Lot Cavenagh accused the prosecutor and thief-taker of engaging in a conspiratorial plot to entrap and execute the pair of them. They both faced the charge of robbing William Taylor of his clothes on the highway, constituting a violent theft. Cordelia
Taylor accused William Taylor of being jealous of her relationship with Cavenagh, which supposedly led him to devise a plot to set him up. Cordelia reported that William Taylor claimed,
“Lot Cavenagh was a Fellow of so bad a Character, that if he was taken up for any Thing he would certainly be hanged. Did not you lay a Plot against him? Gascoign was to be Thief-taker, and you were to be Prosecutor, and I was to swear a Robbery against Lot Cavenagh.” 38 She describes Taylor as entrapping Cavenagh by giving him a coat and then prosecuting him for stealing said coat. Taylor supposedly thought that the plan would work, because Cavenagh had a bad character. Cordelia would later expound on the role of the thief-taker Gascoign by accusing him of treating the execution of innocent defendants as the same as killing a trophy stag to claim a reward. This conspiracy plot also did not persuade the jury, who found the pair guilty.
Another case that implicated a thief-taker in a sensational conspiracy occurred in a case that has previously been described, that of George Sutton and Robert Campbell. The defendants claimed that the arresting thief-taker, Francis Waker, set them up with the stolen goods.
Furthermore, they accused Waker of perjuring all of his testimony. In addition, Campbell
37 “Trial of Margaret Greenaway and Ann Rush,” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, May 30, 1745, from Old Bailey Proceedings Online, http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17450530-20&div=t17450530- 20&terms=greenaway|and|rush#highlight (accessed April 7, 2010). 38 “Trial of Lot Cavenagh and Cordelia Taylor,” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, December 8, 1742, from Old Bailey Proceedings Online, http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17421208-37&div=t17421208- 37&terms=cavenagh|and|taylor#highlight (accessed April 9, 2010).
24 claimed that Waker once stopped him in the street, cut him in the face seven or eight times, and then took him to the Justice to be charged with assault.39 Despite these stories, the jury convicted them both. Clearly, accusing the thief-taker of reward-fueled corruption did not save the lives of defendants facing charges of property offenses. The six acquittals in the sample all involved a thief-taker on some level, but none of those defendants based their defense off the thief-takers corruption; they were acquitted for various other reason. The evidence, although an admittedly small sample size, suggests that thief-takers had some legitimacy as authority figures in the courtroom.
As proven by the numerous convictions and death sentences in these cases, the jurors did not invalidate the evidence or testimony of a thief-taker solely due to his occupation. The percentage of the total number of guilty defendants (guilty plus partially guilty verdicts) in the sample correlates with the conviction rate of all property offenses in the eighteenth century.
From 1690-1713, property offenses were found guilty at a rate of 40.5% and partially convicted at 27.9% (total of 68.4%).40 Similarly, from 1714-1750, the conviction rate for property offenses stood at 18.7% and partially convicted 45.9% of defendants (total of 64.6%).41 The total conviction rate for the twenty-three cases involving thief-takers comes in at 71.4% for theft offenses and 77.8% for violent theft.42 If the jurors had qualms about the purported corruption of thief-takers, it appears not to have factored into their verdicts.
The slight increase in the samples’ conviction rates likely results from the limited number of cases. Even if a ten percent “penalty” is subtracted from the samples’ percentage, the two are
39 “Trial of George Sutton and Robert Campbell,” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, December 8, 1736, from Old Bailey Proceedings Online, http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17361208-27&div=t17361208- 27&terms=george|sutton|and|robert|campbell#highlight (accessed April 4, 2010). 40 Beattie, Policing and Punishment, 340. 41Ibid., 436. 42 See Table 1 in the Appendix for the sample’s full statistics.
25 still nearly equivalent. Regardless of the sample size, if thief-takers were actually considered by contemporaries to be incredibly reprehensible and disreputable, the conviction rates would have greatly decreased. Besides blaming the small sample size, the only other argument for the juries’ equivalent conviction rate of cases involving thief-takers would be that the thief-takers knew how to manipulate the juries. The ramifications of taking this stance would be the characterization of the entire trial by jury system as a farce, which does not appear to be at all palatable.
The argument for thief-takers as a legitimate part of eighteenth-century English law enforcement does not deny the prevalence of corruption amongst thief-takers. Two of the cases in the sample implicate thief-takers in the practice of extortion. In one of the cases, an unnamed thief-taker learned that Susannah Coultis and Margaret Hottlestone had stolen William Kirby’s watch. After learning about the situation, he attempted to extort money from Kirby unless he prosecuted the women.43 The thief-taker threatened to tell his wife that he had an affair with the two prostitutes that stole his watch. Another example implicitly shows thief-takers role in extortionist practices. Thomas Hargrove faced the charge of stealing three Guineas from a shop, and he accused the Constable of offering him his freedom for ten Guineas.44 The extortion would have been apparently facilitated by a thief-taker, an aspect of the accusation that nobody refuted.
This suggests that thief-takers sometimes engaged in such extortionist mediation. Although thief- takers had definitive ties to corruption, all policing entities faced such accusations in eighteenth- century England. The charges certainly did not only prove true in the case of thief-takers-
43 “Trial of Susannah Coultis and Margaret Hottlestone,” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, August 30, 1721, from Old Bailey Proceedings Online, http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17210830- 47&div=t17210830-47&terms=Hottlestone#highlight (accessed April 5, 2010). 44 “Trial of Thomas Hargrove and Mathew Martin,” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, April 20, 1727, from Old Bailey Proceedings Online, http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17370420-41&div=t17370420- 41&terms=hargrove|and|martin#highlight (accessed April 5, 2010).
26 individual constables, beadles, marshals, and watchmen all certainly engaged in some form of corruption. Corruption and “blood-money” of individual thief-takers should not implicate the entire practice and negate the benefits they provided society.
The reforms that Henry Fielding began in the middle of the eighteenth century attempted to provide a solution to the crime problem. Violent crime on the highways particularly worried
Henry Fielding, forcing him to act. In addition to the centralization and distribution of information about crime, he created a policing body responsible for apprehending criminals. The men that he employed in this practice strongly resembled thief-takers. In fact, many of the Bow
Street Runners had previously practiced thief-taking, although most had simultaneously been employed as constables. Henry Fielding faced heavy criticism for his employment of such characters, and following his death, his blind brother John sought to clear Henry’s association with such figures. One of the pamphlets that John published to disassociate the Bow Street operation with common thief-takers was titled “A plan for preventing robberies within twenty miles of London: an Account of the Rise and Establishment of the Real Thief-Takers (italics mine).”
The pamphlet differentiated common thief-takers from John Fieldings’ “real thief- takers.” He hoped that these men would stop the highway robberies that had grown into one of the biggest problems facing the administration of criminal justice in the middle of the eighteenth century. John Fielding claimed that the vast majority of these robberies occurred within twenty miles of London. More astonishing still, he estimated that only one out of a hundred was apprehended.45 The “real thief-takers” charged with the responsibility of suppressing highway
45 Sir John Fielding, “A plan for preventing robberies within twenty miles of London: an account of the rise and establishment of the real thief-takers,” London: A. Millar, 1755, The Making of the Modern World: The Goldsmiths’-Kress Library of Economic Literature. http://find.galegroup.com/mome/infomark.do?&contentSet=MOMEArticles&type=multipage&tabID=T001&
27 robberies were supposedly incorruptible. John Fielding stipulated that his brother only hired men that owned property and former constables. Furthermore, he contended that any of the “real thief-takers” would be fired if they committed an injustice.46
John Fielding’s loyalty to his brother is admirable, but the practical differences between real and common thief-takers were minimal. The “real thief-takers” supposedly stopped organized crime; however, no thief-taker broke more gangs than Jonathan Wild, who certainly did not fit the Fieldings’ model of an ideal thief-taker. In addition, the Fieldings’ thief-takers went on daring missions, but regular thief-takers risked their lives daily in the prosecution of criminals. In addition to drawing the ire of other criminals, thief-takers also faced a generally hostile public that perceived them all to be inherently corrupt. The pamphlet further blamed the supposed corruption of McDaniel’s gang of thief-takers on public and private rewards. Although the “real thief-takers” received a small base salary, they still made the majority of their income from criminal prosecutions. The similarities between the official and unofficial thief-takers suggest that the “real thief-takers” were a derivation of the private sort. The practice of thief- taking significantly impacted the Fieldings’ reforms, which would later contribute to the creation of English first modern police force in the Metropolitan Police Act of 1829.
Thief-takers lived in an evolving world that created the opportunity for entrepreneurial men to gain substantial wealth. The existing “police” infrastructure did not have the capacity to effectively apprehend criminals, which forced the prosecution into the private sector. Victims of property offenses had to independently apprehend and prosecute thieves. Thief-takers gladly accepted the private fees offered by victims and public monetary rewards from the English state in exchange for the apprehension and detection of property offenders. Thief-taking’s prodId=MOME&docId=U101006508&source=gale&userGroupName=tulane&version=1.0&docLevel=FASCIM ILE (accessed April 11, 2010). 46 Ibid.
28 decentralization allowed for greater flexibility in the legitimate work that many undertook. The public generally perceived the practice to be innately corrupt, but juries accepted the validity of their testimony enough to return guilty verdicts at a steady rate. Although contending that thief- takers directly led to the development of modern police would be a gross exaggeration, they certainly played an important role that has been drastically understated in English criminal history.
29 Appendix
Table 1: Number of People Convicted of Property Offences by Evidence Given From a Thief- Taker, 1700-1760
Crime Not Guilty Guilty Guilty, At Guilty of a Least One Lesser Charge Defendant Theft 4 6 2 2 Percent 28.6% 42.9% 14.3% 14.3% Violent Theft 2 7 Percent 22.2% 77.8%
***The “Total Guilty” category was calculated by adding the “Guilty”, “Guilty, At Least One Defendant,” and “Guilty of a Lesser Charge” categories together.
30 Bibliography
Secondary Sources
Beattie, J.M. Policing and Punishment in London 1660-1750: Urban Crime and the Limits of the Terror. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Dodsworth, F.M. "The Idea of Police in Eighteenth-Century England: Discipline, Reformation, Superintendence, c. 1780 –1800." Journal of the History of Ideas 69 no. 4 (2008): 583- 604. Accessed April 4, 2010. http://muse.jhu.edu/content/z3950/journals/journal_of_the_history_of_ideas/v069/69.4.d odsworth.html.
Hill, Ronald Paul. "Criminal Receiving: The "Fence" as Marketer." Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 11 no. 2 (1992): 126-134. Accessed April 4, 2010. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30000280.
Howson, Gerald. Thief-Taker General: Jonathan Wild and the Emergence of Crime and Corruption as a Way of Life in Eighteenth-Century England. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Inc., 1970.
Irwin, William Robert. "An Attack on John Fielding." Modern Language Notes 56 no. 7 (1941): 523-525. Accessed April 11, 2010. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2911410.
King, Peter. Crime, Justice, and Discretion in England: 1740-1820. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Linebaugh, Peter. The London Hanged: Crime and Civil Society in the Eighteenth-Century. New York: Verso, 2006.
McMullan, John L.. "The New Improved Monied Police: Reform, Crime Control, and the Commodification of Policing in London." British Journal of Criminology 36, no. 1 (1996): 85-108. Accessed April 4, 2010. http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=43EBA2A5787CD40C9F6E. McMullan, John L.. "The Political Economy of Thief-taking." Crime, Law, & Social Change 23 (1995): 121-146. Accessed April 4, 2010. http://pao.chadwyck.com.
31
Primary Sources
Fielding, John, Sir, “A plan for preventing robberies within twenty miles of London: an account of the rise and establishment of the real thief-takers.” London: A. Millar, 1755. From The Making of the Modern World: The Goldsmiths’-Kress Library of Economic Literature. http://find.galegroup.com/mome/infomark.do?&contentSet=MOMEArticles&type=multi page&tabID=T001&prodId=MOME&docId=U101006508&source=gale&userGroupNa me=tulane&version=1.0&docLevel=FASCIMILE (accessed April 11, 2010). “Ordinary of Newgate’s Account.” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, May 24, 1725. From Old Bailey Proceedings Online. http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=OA17250524&div=OA17250524#highlig ht (accessed April 7, 2010).
“Trial of Ann Thompson.” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, July 17, 1720. From Old Bailey Proceedings Online. http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17200712- 10&div=t17200712-10&terms=ann|thompson#highlight (accessed April 11, 2010).
“Trial of George Sutton and Robert Campbell.” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, December 8, 1736. From Old Bailey Proceedings Online. http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17361208-27&div=t17361208- 27&terms=george|sutton|and|robert|campbell#highlight (accessed April 4, 2010).
“Trial of Jacob Cordosa.” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, December 8, 1742. From Old Bailey Proceedings Online. http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17421208- 38&div=t17421208-38&terms=jacob|cordosa#highlight (accessed April 8, 2010).
“Trial of John Bothaw.” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, September 12, 1744. From Old Bailey Proceedings Online. http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17440912- 16&div=t17440912-16&terms=john|bothaw#highlight (accessed April 11, 2010).
“Trial of John Wright.” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, June 30, 1734. From Old Bailey Proceedings Online. http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17340630- 27&div=t17340630-27&terms=john|wright#highlight (accessed April 7, 2010).
“Trial of Julius Dunt.” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, December 7, 1743. From Old Bailey Proceedings Online. http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17431207- 16&div=t17431207-16&terms=julius|dunt#highlight (accessed April 6, 2010).
“Trial of Lot Cavenagh and Cordelia Taylor.” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, December 8, 1742. From Old Bailey Proceedings Online. http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17421208-37&div=t17421208- 37&terms=cavenagh|and|taylor#highlight (accessed April 9, 2010).
32 “Trial of Margaret Greenaway and Ann Rush.” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, May 30, 1745. From Old Bailey Proceedings Online. http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17450530-20&div=t17450530- 20&terms=greenaway|and|rush#highlight (accessed April 7, 2010).
“Trial of Susanna Read.” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, April 4, 1744. From Old Bailey Proceedings Online. http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17440404- 10&div=t17440404-10&terms=susanna|read#highlight (accessed April 4, 2010).
“Trial of Susannah Coultis and Margaret Hottlestone.” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, August 30, 1721. From Old Bailey Proceedings Online. http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17210830-47&div=t17210830- 47&terms=Hottlestone#highlight (accessed April 5, 2010).
“Trial of Thomas Hargrove and Mathew Martin.” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, April 20, 1727. From Old Bailey Proceedings Online. http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17370420-41&div=t17370420- 41&terms=hargrove|and|martin#highlight (accessed April 5, 2010).
“Trial of William Chamberlain.” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, February 21, 1733. From Old Bailey Proceedings Online. http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17330221- 44&div=t17330221-44&terms=Chamberlain#highlight (accessed April 5, 2010).
“Trial of William Taylor.” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, January 16, 1745. From Old Bailey Proceedings Online. http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17450116- 19&div=t17450116-19&terms=william|taylor#highlight (accessed April 4, 2010).
“Trial of William Warner and John Newman.” Old Bailey Proceedings: London, December 4, 1741. From Old Bailey Proceedings Online. http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17411204-4&div=t17411204- 4&terms=warner|and|newman#highlight (accessed April 7, 2010).
33