into the Prison of Newgate into the Roome of this Deponent accompanied by [Du]n S.
Ledger Rouse Jenkins with severall others formerly Convicts but now knowne by the
name ofThiefe [takers in a] most rude and barbarous manner secured the person of this
Deponent rifled his pocketts trunke and boxes.... [They left, only to return an hour
later, when the sheriffs] drawing their Swords rushed into the Roome of this Deponent
and with frightful menacing words Comanded the rude Men they brought with them to
search this Deponents pocketts Trunk and Boxes as formerly they had done Ordered
the Gaoler to bring Irons for him and pointing their Swords at his breast Comanded him
to sitt down...^76
After which they took away two hundred guineas and a bag of silver. What is of
particular interest is that the sheriffs chose to take Dunn, St Leger, Rewse, and
Jenkins on this raid. They also took two constables, Ralph Harbottle and
Matthew Hanson, who stood guard over the door to prevent other prisoners
coming into the room while the search was in progress. There were no other wit-
nesses to the defendants’ claim that they were threatened and treated roughly
and menacingly by the four thief-takers. But it seems entirely likely to be true.
They were brutal men—certainly Dunn and St Leger had violent pasts—and
were employed for that reason by the London magistrates, the recorder, and the
sheriffs. They detected, enforced, and prosecuted. They were not employed by
the City, but used by the City. They worked for themselves, and, it seems likely,
took advantage of the numerous opportunities that came their way to line their
pockets corruptly. But they were tolerated because they were useful: private in-
terest and public necessity produced an amalgam that matched the possible
forms that such policing forces could take and suited the resources available.
The story of the sheriffs’ raid on these prisoners in Newgate touches on an-
other theme that constantly recurs in depositions and examinations concerning
searches and arrests, and that is evident in recognizances and witness lists on in-
dictments: that is the indispensable role played in the operations of these thief-
takers by constables—indispensable because the constable had the authority to
enter a house and carry out a search, to arrest suspects and take them before a
magistrate for examination, to guard a door. They provided a guarantee that an
arrest made after such a search could not be challenged as unlawful. In a typical
case, Dunn and St Leger reported in one of the many informations they gave to
Salathiel Lovell, the recorder, that
they haveing apprehended one Mary James for suspition of Clipping, the said Mary
James did then declare to these Informants that shee had the same morning sold a par-
cell of Clippings to one Edward Tunkes who lived in Grub Street neere moore fields,
where upon these Informants with a Constable, on the next morning following, went
and searched the said Tunkes house...
They found shears, a parcell of recently clipped coins, and a melting pot:
244 Detection and Prosecution
(^76) King v. Davies and Carter and King v. Greene (PRO: Records of the Court of King’s Bench (KB)
2 / 1 Part I ( 7 Will. III): (affidavit of David Davies, 1 February 1696 ). Text illegible in places.