Is it okay if I just answer the first question today? I'll come back tomorrow to do the others, but it's late here.

1810-1820 is a really interesting period when looking at English courts and English policing. It was during this period that defence lawyers became far more common, but just before Peel's rise and his massive changes to court, policing and investigative procedures. The Scottish procedures were very different to the systems in place in England and Wales, for this post I will focus on the English policies.

If you were a victim of a crime, largely you had to carry the case to court yourself, from beginning to end. Ensuring the criminal was arrested was in itself largely a private enterprise, depending where you were, you would have to identify the offender yourself, or while the crime was occurring, you would need to apprehend the criminal or make enough noise to ensure someone nearby would capture them, and deliver them to the nearest Justice of the Peace. If this was impossible, by 1800s, you could also employ a thief-taker, as the government had started paying those who caught criminals (only for certain crimes, such as highway robbery). Thief-takers themselves were often criminals- involved in blackmail, dealing in stolen goods and even falsely naming and capturing innocents- but even if they weren't, they would, to be able to do their job, be deeply involved in the criminal underworld. If the criminal could not be captured immediately, a thief taker was probably your best hope, but they did have to be paid. If you wanted to recover your stolen goods, you would also make a deal with a thief taker, to negotiate their return, for a fee of course.

Of course, many people didn't have the money, the time or the ability to find a thief-taker, and had to shrug off the crime. If they happened to recognise the criminal in the future, they could apprehend him or her then, and with the help of passersby, deliver the person to the Justice of the Peace. In a teeming city, people would have to just move on, although there was one case I remember, in the early 1800s, where a man had his prize watch stolen, only to see the thief come into the bar he was working at a year or so later. The thief was arrested, tried and hanged.

Every parish had to have one or two constables, but they were untrained and it was part time, along with their other job. They did not investigate crimes, although they would assist in catching criminals in the act or shortly after. They were largely inefficient, especially as they did not work across parishes, and were easily bribed and bought off, inspiring little trust or respect.

If you were in London or a big city, you were in luck, sometimes. First, there was a night watch system in place in London, and some other cities and towns, but nightwatchmen were not investigative forces, rather they'd stop crimes as they occurred, or those escaping after having committed a crime. That wasn't your only option, thankfully, because those in cities had a new option opening up to them, a free law enforcement system who's duty was largely to apprehend criminals after crimes had been reported by victims, not just in the moment. During the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth, rotation offices were being established. These were small buildings and offices staffed by officers and runners, open during certain times of day, and victims of a crime could report the crimes there, the most famous being the Bow Street office. The descriptions of the criminals would be transferred to constables, who would then be able to hopefully find and arrest those responsible, and often a magistrate would question the same person in the rotation office as well. If you weren't near a rotation office- bearing in mind that there were less than thirty- then a thief taker was probably your best option, so yes, you would have to pay.

Between the arrest and the trial, your purse could have a brief respite. The prisoner would be kept without any charge to you, the magistrate would question the suspect, assess available evidence and decide whether it should go to court, and the charges would be drawn up by clerks, who would also talk to the victims.

Prosecutors were common in the court system between 1810-1820, their rise in popularity having been quite dramatic in the previous century (in contrast, there were comparatively few defence lawyers). There were no public prosecutors - unless the offence was against the Crown or in very few, very select and high profile cases, where a prosecutor may be paid for by the government- although by the 1800s, prosecutors, in successful cases, had their expenses reimbursed, which reduced the cost of hired a prosecutor significantly, although a cost still existed. Prosecutors were mainly higher by the wealthy or middling, although charitable organisations sometimes did hire prosecutors for cases related to their cause, or other community organisations could band together to raise the money, for example, within a small immigrant community, although this would be rare and only for certain cases. The majority of criminal cases where the victim was poor therefore had to be settled out of court, or without a prosecutor. There was also prosecution insurance, held by a small minority of people, usually middle class, where they could pay in money monthly or annually, and if they ever needed to prosecute, the insurance would pay out.

To take someone to court for a criminal offence, therefore, you would have to pay for the arrest- most of the time- and for the prosecution. The handling in between was the responsibility of the justices, and therefore was not a private matter. As well as this, in some ways, judges acted as prosecutors, they cross examined the defendant and any witnesses, and as said above, there was a presumption of guilt, and little access to defence lawyers for the defendant.