men look to have been deliberately active, to have sought engagement in the
business of the office, or at least not to have shunned it.
Hardly surprisingly, given the number of targets available, constables from
the largest and most crime-prone wards brought more suspects before the lord
mayor than others: seven of the busiest men over the four years we have exam-
ined acted in Farringdon Without; four others lived in Aldersgate; and three
each in Cripplegate Without and Farringdon Within. Edward Hartley, who was
the constable appearing twenty-four times in the charge book in 1730 (and who
brought in many more suspects even than that figure might suggest), and John
Cathery, named in the charge book on nineteen occasions, were both constables
of the ward of Farringdon Without. But there were active men in many wards,
including a dozen in the smaller wards at the centre of the City who appeared in
the lord mayor’s Charge Book more often than the bulk of their fellows. Such
men were at the least willing, possibly more than that, to engage in the business
of the office. They were virtually all deputy constables who served in the office
for more than one year.
As we will see, such active constables can be found at some periods co-
operating with thief-takers to make arrests and to give evidence against offend-
ers whose conviction might bring a share of reward money. That was particu-
larly the case in the 1690 s, when a large number of coining and clipping offences
provided thief-takers and their constable allies with relatively easy pickings.
There is less evidence of that in the 1730 s, but some of the active constables were
among those who received reward money, particularly for the conviction of
street robbers—sharing in the 100 pound reward available under the king’s
proclamation after 1720 as well as the forty pound parliamentary reward. In
1730 John Cathery earned 35 pounds of the proclamation reward for his part in
the arrest and conviction of Richard Smith, and £ 5 each for what was clearly a
more minor role in the taking of two other street robbers.^113
Such men were still very much a minority among the constables, most of
whom almost certainly continued to look to serve out their year as quietly as
possible. None the less, the changes in recruitment may have introduced some
men into the constabulary who engaged more actively in the business of the
office and who came to regard it as a way of putting together a living. At the very
least, constables who had been hired to do the work were more likely than the
tradesmen and shopkeepers they replaced to respond to financial inducements
if the City had the resources to offer payments for extra work—for work that
might expand the range of the constables’ customary duties. One can see that
working in a small way with respect to street policing, particularly the control of
vagrants and beggars and others who helped to cause congestion. As we have
seen, the aldermen frequently complained about the constables’ failure to exert
themselves to clear the streets.^114 A lord mayor put his finger on the problem, but
Constables and Other Officers 153(^113) For rewards, see below, pp. 230 ff., 376 ff. (^114) See text above at nn. 32‒8.