to a private house where she offered to lye with him and told him she would show him
the Postures and would faine have felt in his breeches asking him many lewd and
obscene Questions telling him there was convenience enough in that house and she
would have him feele whether she was man or woman.^80
Cooper regularly gave depositions before magistrates in the middle years of
the 1690 s,^81 and as regularly appeared as a witness at the sessions of the peace
and the Old Bailey—in at least fifteen cases in 1694 – 5 alone.^82 He was clearly
known to magistrates as a man who could be trusted to execute a warrant, carry
out searches, investigate a suspect, and make arrests. He was sent by a City magis-
trate in 1696 to bring a witness from Suffolk to testify in a clipping case, and in
connection with the same charge, he and Anthony Dunn were ordered to
search a house in London for clippings and tools.^83 On at least one occasion
Cooper and Jenkins were bound over to prosecute two men for attempted
rape—presumably having been engaged to find and arrest them.^84 Cooper’s
prosecuting activity was also well-enough known to the public that he was as-
saulted and verbally abused, and he and Jenkins were both threatened with vio-
lence and called ‘by the name of informers’.^85
Cooper was the most active City constable in the 1690 s, or so the court
records would suggest. But there was a core of other constables—at least seven
or eight^86 —who were much more engaged in searches, arrests, and prosecu-
tions than the image of the elderly, infirm, and reluctant constabulary would
suggest. As we have seen, active constables were not typical of the men who
served their year in the office. But the engagement of some in the business of
criminal prosecution—many of them deputies—does emphasize the potential
power of the officeof constable, and its importance to the system of judicial ad-
ministration. It makes clear how crucial the authority of the constables was to the
work of the magistrates and to the functioning of the courts, how indispensable
246 Detection and Prosecution
(^80) Bridewell Court Book, 1694 – 5 , p. 322. He also knew and raided the bawdy houses in his ward
(Bridewell Court Book, 1694 – 5 , pp. 343 , 380 ; CLRO: Charge Book, 1692 – 5 , fo. 188 ).
(^81) CLRO: London Sess. Papers, October 1694 , April 1695 , June 1695 , July 1695 , April 1696 ( 2 ).
(^82) Cooper was bound over in recognizances to give evidence for the prosecution (alone and with
others) in the following gaol delivery sessions at the Old Bailey and sessions of the peace at the Guildhall:
SM 65 , August 1694 , Gaol Delivery, recog. 7 ; SM 65 , December 1694 , Sessions of the Peace, recog. 37 ;
SM 65 , January 1695 , Sessions of the Peace, recog. 31 ; SF 407 , January 1695 , Old Bailey, SF 407 —two
indictments; SM 65 , April 1695 , Sessions of the Peace, recog. 40 ; SM 65 , May 1695 , Sessions of the Peace,
recog. 25 ; SM 66 , July 1695 , Gaol Delivery, recogs. 4 , 13 , 19 , 28 ; SM 66 , August 1695 , Sessions of the
Peace, recog. 3 ; SM 66 , August 1695 , Gaol Delivery, recogs. 8 , 9. I have not searched the recognizances
and indictments for the names of prosecutors and witnesses beyond December 1695.
(^83) CLRO: London Sess. Papers, April 1696 ; and see London Sess. Papers, June 1695 ; and LMA:
MJ/SP/ 1696 /Feb./ 23.
(^84) CLRO: Charge Book, 1692 – 5 , fo. 148 ; SM 65 , May 1694 , recog. 32.
(^85) CLRO: SF 401 , April 1694 , Sessions of the Peace, recog. 93 ; SM 65 , August 1694 , Sessions of the
peace, recogs. 1 , 7 ; SM 65 , December 1494 , Sessions of the Peace, recog. 37. In February, 1694 , Cooper
had charged two other men with assaulting him in the execution of his office (LMCB, 1692 – 5 , fo. 137 ).
(^86) They included Thomas Udall, John Hook, John Runwell, Thomas Oatman, Thomas Oakley,
Christopher Priddeth [Pritty], andJohn Daw [Dawes].