David J. Cox
Stalcup (2013: 235) states confidently that âthe historical development of law enforcement cooperation has been ably documented âŚâ. It is certainly true that an increasing amount of academic research into international police cooperation has been carried out in recent years: see, for example, Deflemâs work (2000, 2002), that of Gerspacher (2008) and Durmaz (2005). However, all of the above begin with a discussion of the state of play from the mid-nineteenth century onwards, paying little if any attention to the situation in the preceding century. There are a few honourable exceptions to this oversight: see, for example, Barrie (2016), Dodsworth (2008) and Emsley (2013). As discussed in the Introduction to this book, much of the above research also concentrates on the political aspects of transnational policing; for example, Gerspacher (2008: 175) states that:
Prior to World War II, non-state international enemies of the state were of a political nature. As a result, the state sovereignty and the nationalistic mindset of the police structure did not leave much room for concern about crime within othersâ borders.
Similarly, Deflem (2000: 48) has an interesting discussion about the presence of foreign police officers known to be attending the Great Exhibition of 1851 for the purpose of monitoring suspected political activists, again intimating that transnational policing developed largely out of a fear of post-1848 revolution, anti-state radicalism and activism, and by inference, suggesting that this was a new phenomenon.
This chapter argues that the history of transnational policing and cooperation with predominantly (though not exclusively) European law enforcement agencies can be traced back further than the mid-nineteenth century; indeed, to a time before the creation in 1829 of what is often erroneously still credited to be the first professional police force in Britain, the Metropolitan Police â see Dinsmor (2000) and Beattie (2013). It shows that a considerable degree of a prototypical transnational policing was conducted by senior detective personnel based at the Bow Street Public Office in Westminster, London (the term âPublic Officeâ was used interchangeably and synonymously with that of âPolice Officeâ). This building housed both a stipendiary magistratesâ court and a centre for a hierarchical system of policing and law enforcement from 1749 until 1839.
The Bow Street policing system
In the winter of 1749, Henry Fielding created the law enforcement body that would later become known to posterity as the Bow Street âRunnersâ. This handful of men was the start of a complex system of policing developed at Bow Street from the mid-eighteenth century onwards by Henry and his half-brother Sir John Fielding (both Westminster magistrates) â see Beattie (2013) for a detailed discussion of the creation of the Bow Street policing system and its operation within the metropolis of London.
Over the past decade, the Bow Street policing system has been shown by both Beattie (2013) and Cox (2012) to be much more than an inept dead end that was inevitably destined to be supplanted by Peelâs âNew Policeâ so beloved of traditional and Whiggish police historians. Beattieâs (2013) and Coxâs (2012) detailed and complementary research has demonstrated that the most senior members of the hierarchical structure (which included foot patrols with a regular beat, as well as horse patrols designed to deter highway robbers) were the Western worldâs first professional detective force, predating the creation of the Metropolitan Detective Department by several decades and also that of the Glasgow Police in 1821. Beattie looked at the metropolitan work of the Bow Street Office from 1749 to 1839, while Coxâs research concentrated on the Principal Officersâ provincial activities from 1792 onwards; for the development of the Glasgow Detective Police, see Dinsmor (2000), Dinsmor and Urquhart (2001) and Dinsmor and Goldsmith (2005), and for the development of Scottish policing in general, see Barrie (2001, 2008). The senior officers became experienced and efficient plain-clothed detectives, often utilising recognisably modern police techniques including forensics in order to capture suspects. An example of their forensic skills can be found in a murder case of 1812, in which two Principal Officers from Bow Street were deployed to catch the killer of a wealthy gentleman farmer from near Stourbridge in Worcestershire. As part of their investigation, they managed to match the lead bullet extracted from the victim to a bullet mould known to have been hidden near the scene of the crime by the perpetrator, thereby proving that the bullet had been made by that particular individual â for further details of this case, see Cox (2016).
However, it is less commonly realised that the Principal Officers of Bow Street (widely though erroneously better known as âRunnersâ; the senior Bow Street officers regarded the term âRunnerâ as derogatory, and never referred to themselves as such, always preferring to call themselves either Senior or Principal Officers) on numerous occasions also carried out detailed and time-consuming criminal investigations beyond Britainâs shore in conjunction with their continental counterparts. This chapter will argue that these investigations are the historical antecedents of all subsequent modern transnational policing between Britain and continental Europe. Using several detailed case studies, it will demonstrate that the Principal Officers of the Bow Street police system, which developed from an embryonic force of a handful of men originally selected by Henry Fielding and his half-brother John in the mid-eighteenth century, had numerous dealings both direct and indirect with European law enforcement agencies and cooperated with their continental equivalents in an era preceding the creation of Interpol, the Cross Channel Intelligence Conference (CCIC) and EU mechanisms such as Europol and the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). These early forays into international cooperation between policing agencies show that transnational policing in Britain and Europe began with these seasoned and experienced men.
Transnational policing cooperation of Bow Street Public Office in the early nineteenth century
Although it is very likely that some Bow Street personnel crossed the Channel prior to 1780 in pursuit of absconding felons, the apparent destruction of many of the officeâs records during the Gordon Riots of that year make such supposition difficult to confirm (Haywood and Seed, 2012: 189). John Townsend, one of the longest serving Principal Officers, recalled in his evidence to an 1816 committee of MPs investigating the state of policing in London that âI went to Dunkirk, in the year 1786, to fetch over four [suspects] that were hanged. I went for Mr Taylor, a Hamburgh [sic] merchantâ (Select Committee Report 1816: 203), and this appears to be the earliest extant evidence for such travel. Previous research by Cox (2012: 197â201) has identified several dozen reported instances in which Bow Street personnel travelled abroad in order to fulfil their duties, but it is unfortunately impossible to establish a definitive account of the number of such journeys. To contemporaries, it was clearly fairly common knowledge that the officers undertook such work; John Wade, journalist and reformer stated in his 1829 account of the state of the police in the metropolis (Wade, 1829: 39) that, with regard to the Bow Street Office:
This office has not any defined district [âŚ] its duties are of a more extensive and diversified character than those of the foregoing establishments, and its officers are frequently dispatched into the country, to Scotland and Ireland, and even to the Continent, for the apprehension of offenders.
Wade further states that officers were also deployed to America, but no corroborating evidence of this has been found thus far (Wade, 1829: 57).
Particular Principal Officers often seem to have been chosen (or volunteered) to work abroad because of their life experiences or specialised knowledge. At least two Principal Officers (Samuel Hercules Taunton and George Thomas Joseph Ruthven) are reported to have been familiar with both the French language and society, and it is these two officers, along with another long-serving officer, John Vickery, who appear to have been most active abroad. For a brief biography of Ruthven (whose family connections with Bow Street Office were deep), see Cox (2010) and Bevan (2006: 33â5), and for the only known autobiographical writing of Taunton, see Anon (1852: 483â7). The Principal Officers, although often recruited from fairly humble origins, were often men of considerable culture and intellect, happy to move in all social circles. Ruthvenâs obituary remarked that:
Ruthvenâs travels were not confined to England alone, but to France, Germany, Austria, Belgium etc., in search of forgers on the various governments, and confidential clerks to the English Banks, who had absconded with large sums of money. America was also traversed in various parts by him two or three times, and always with success, ever returning with his man. [âŚ] from several of the Continental States he enjoyed a small annuity for his success in tracing offenders against their interests in many transactions.
(The Era, 31 March 1844)
It was reported (Manchester Guardian, 24 May 1822) that Ruthven could both speak French and was familiar with âGallic waysâ, and his exploits abroad were well-known enough to be referred to in one of the first English detective novels, Delaware or the Ruined Family (James, 1833). In this three-volume publication, Ruthven is one of two Bow Street officers (the other being a fictional representation by the name of Cousins) who assist the hero in clearing his name after a prolonged chase on the Continent.
Another officer who spent a considerable amount of his professional time on the Continent was John Vickery. Bow Streetâs earliest biographer, Fitzgerald, stated of Vickery (one of the most well-known Principal Officers) that he took part in the recovery on the Continent of over ÂŁ20,000 of jewellery following a daring robbery at Rundell and Bridge (one of the most famous and highly regarded jewellers in London):
He started in company with one of the firm [of jewellers], and traced the delinquents through France, Holland, Frankfort, and eventually succeeded in recovering ÂŁ20,000 worth of the stolen property. The firm made him a very liberal present.
(Fitzgerald, 1888: vol. 1, 112)
Vickery clearly spent many months on this case, as the original robbery took place on 17 June 1817, and The Times reported somewhat later that:
We have already spoken of a considerable robbery, perpetrated on the 17th June last, at the house of Rundell and Bridge [by two men], one of whom passed himself off for a merchant of Geneva [âŚ] and the other for his interpreter. The latter is now arrested. [âŚ] The reward of 6,000 francs has already been paid for the arrest of the accomplice at Aix-la-Chapelle, and the same will be paid to him who shall recover the stolen property.
(The Times, 29 October 1817)
Little is recorded in this particular instance of any cooperation that Vickery may have received from the French authorities in this matter; but as it was known that the chief suspect had obtained a passport for France in the name of Simon Bloum, it is likely that Vickery interacted with his French counterparts in order to trace him and his unnamed accomplice to Aix-la-Chapelle. Unfortunately, there is often limited surviving evidence of the practical steps taken by Bow Street Office and its personnel in order to liaise with and gain the cooperation of foreign authorities. In many of the recorded cases, such evidence is limited to a brief newspaper report which just states the bare facts of the pursuit without going into much detail about the activities of the Bow Street officers and their interaction with their continental counterparts.
Fortunately, however, in several of the cases in which Bow Street Principal Officers travelled to the Continent in pursuit of wrongdoers, there is much more information available with regard to how they operated and liaised with foreign law enforcement personnel, and these sources provide the basis for much of the rest of this chapter.
Bow Street Public Office â first among equals?
Bow Street, although one of a number of Public or Police Offices created throughout the capital in the eighteenth century, was undoubtedly regarded as primus inter pares, having been created almost half a century before the other offices, which were set up along similar lines following the Middlesex Justices Act 1792 (the other offices being Great Marlborough Street, Hatton Garden, Lambeth, Queenâs Square, Union Hall, Westminster and Worship Street). Sparrow (1990: 363) states that this process provided for:
the creation of a government-controlled police force, with its own stipendiary magistrates; an entirely new concept in Britain. Seven police offices, extra to the existing Bow Street, were set up all over London, but outside the City, which had its own separate police force. A fixed number of three salaried magistrates were appointed to each police office. This new principle of stipendiary magistrates was hotly debated, as they were to be appointed or dismissed by the king on the sole recommendation of the lord chancellor. [âŚ] This clause gave the lord chancellor a peculiar and powerful role in the budding secret service which was founded on these new magistrates. Secret correspondence between the police offices, the Alien Office and the ministries passed through the lord chancellorâs office to avoid public discussion.
For further details of the Alien Office and surveillance, see Dinweddy (1992, esp. Chapter 8) and Emsley (1979). Bow Street Public Office was, therefore, directly responsible to and ultimately controlled by the Home Department (later known as the Home Office). This close alignment of the police and the State is important when discussing the status and role of Bow Street in the history of transnational policing. It was directly financed by the Treasury from 1753 onwards, and Chief Magistrates were also directly appointed by the government. Dodsworth (2008: 589â90) remarks that in 1799 Patrick Colquhoun (a Scottish merchant with a particular interest in policing reform, who in 1798 co-created the Thames River Police):
even referred to the Duke of Portland, Secretary of State for the Home Department, as âhis Majestyâs Minister for the Police Departmentâ, aligning âpoliceâ with the general administration of the state.
The Alien Office referred to above was created following the passing of the Aliens Act 1793 (33 Geo 3 c 4), which aimed to monitor immigration from Revolutionary France into England (the British Government being very concerned about the possibility of spies and political agitators) and was responsible for the registration of foreigners who had been allowed to enter the country. The Alien O...
