The tables and maps that follow provide backing for my main arguments about perceptions of crime, prosecution strategies, the ‘public’ nature of committal processes and follow-up prosecutions, and geographies of offending and/or arrest. There is a lot of information: 35,399 cases shedding light on prosecution strategies and Bridewell's caseload after 1604 (resulting prosecution profiles and timelines can be read in tandem with Archer's findings for the Elizabethan court), 50,277 times when suspects were depicted in labels, 39,516 cases when we know who brought someone to Bridewell's court, 1,106 Bridewell inmates who were ordered to cross the ocean to begin life all over again, and 820 more who also went overseas but this time to fight wars.

For better or for worse tables tend to represent the past, however messy it might have been, in neat columns of bare statistics collected and put into order by scholars using today's terms, tools, and techniques. This can create problems, needless to say, but at its level best quantification reveals patterns that can make the past seem suddenly more understandable. The advantages and disadvantages of numerical measurements have been mulled over for a long time now. But I don't want to spend time going through this little library of work at the moment, although I do think it is helpful to point out problems in the counting and categorization from which my tables and maps have taken shape.