¹ Bailey, Victor, “The Fabrication of Deviance: ‘Dangerous Classes’ and ‘Criminal Classes’ in Victorian England,” in Protest and Survival: Essays for E. P. Thompson, ed. Rule, John and Malcolmson, Robert (London, 1993), 232–35, 239–42Google Scholar.

² Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York, 1979), 275Google Scholar, originally published as Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison (Paris, 1975)Google Scholar. Foucault's work was anticipated in considerable measure by Chevalier, Louis, Classes laborieuses et classes dangereuses à Paris pendant la première moitié du XIXe siècle (Paris, 1958)Google Scholar.

³ Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 78–82, 296–98.

⁴ Gatrell, V. A. C., “Crime, Authority and the Policeman-State,” in The Cambridge Social History of Britain, ed. Thompson, F. M. L., 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1990), 3:250ff., 278, 287Google Scholar.

⁵ For youth, see Shore, Heather, Artful Dodgers: Youth and Crime in Early 19th-Century London (Rochester, NY, 1999Google Scholar; repr., Rochester, NY, 2002), 7, 17, 29–31, 34. Citations are to the 2002 edition. See also Gatrell, “Policeman-State,” 278–79. Quotations are from Wiener, Martin J., Reconstructing the Criminal: Culture, Law, and Policy in England, 1830–1914 (Cambridge, 1900), 14–27Google Scholar.

⁶ Bailey, “Fabrication of Deviance,” cites various authorities that separated the working and criminal poor (223, 232, 234). See Shore, Artful Dodgers, 53, 151; Philips, David, Crime and Authority in Victorian England: The Black Country, 1835–1860 (London, 1977), 126–27, 287Google Scholar; Emsley, Clive, Crime and Society in England, 1750–1900, 2nd ed. (London, 1996), 173Google Scholar. For more recent evidence of the blurring of lines between working and crime, criminals and the police, see Hobbs, Dick, Doing the Business: Entrepreneurship, the Working Class, and Detectives in the East End of London (Oxford, 1988), 117, 149–50Google Scholar.

⁷ The quote is in Wiener, Reconstructing the Criminal, 20; Himmelfarb, G., “The ‘Culture of Poverty,’” in The Victorian City: Images and Realities, ed. Dyos, H. J. and Wolff, M. (London, 1973), 2:711, 713Google Scholar; but for doubts about a subculture, see Gatrell, “Policeman-State,” 303 (while stating that “professional” crime certainly existed [299]); Emsley, “Crime and Society,” 173.

⁸ Shore, Artful Dodgers, 17, 29–32; Wiener, Reconstructing the Criminal, 14, 17; Stevenson, S. J., “The ‘Habitual Criminal’ in 19th-Century England: Some Observations on the Figures,” Urban History Yearbook (1986): 48–49Google Scholar (Stevenson notes that lower levels of policing tended to produce fewer registrations of offenders [44]).

⁹ Bailey, “Fabrication of Deviance,” 224–25, 236–37, 250ff.

¹⁰ Wiener, Reconstructing the Criminal, 29; italics in original.

¹¹ Ibid., 6–8. There is the further difficulty with the Foucault model that it tends to treat the authorities as monolithic. See the evidence of police resistance to the enforcement of middle-class morals on the London working classes gathered by Inwood, Stephen in “Policing London's Morals: The Metropolitan Police and Popular Culture, 1829–1850,” London Journal 15, no. 2 (1990): 135, 137, 142CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹² Johnson, Eric A. and Monkonnen, Eric H., eds., The Civilization of Crime: Violence in Town and Country since the Middle Ages (Urbana, IL, 1996), 1–13Google Scholar, discusses the Norbert Elias paradigm.

¹³ An outstanding exception to this statement is the book by Shore, Artful Dodgers.

¹⁴ For an early example of elite involvement in the reform of policing and punishment, see Beier, A. L., “Foucault Redux? The Roles of Humanism, Protestantism, and an Urban Elite in Creating the London Bridewell, 1500–1560,” in Crime, Gender, and Sexuality in Criminal Prosecutions, ed. Knafla, Louis A., Criminal Justice History, vol. 17 (London, 2002), 33–60Google Scholar.

¹⁵ See, e.g., Lewis, Oscar, La Vida: A Puerto Rican Family in the Culture of Poverty—San Juan and New York (New York, 1966), xii, xxi, xxiv–xxviGoogle Scholar. See the powerful attack on the Lewis formulation and evidence by Valentine, Charles A. in Culture and Poverty: Critique and Counter-proposals (Chicago, 1966), chap. 3Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 135ff., 249, 251. Foucault did cite resistance to some forms of forced labor (241, 286–87) and efforts by workers’ newspapers to resist the isolation of delinquents from the urban working classes. See Gatrell, “Policeman-State,” 302–3, for a statement that professional criminals were “usually conceived within and sheltered by the urban poor.”

¹⁷ Linebaugh, Peter, The London Hanged: Crime and Civil Society in the 18th Century (Cambridge, 1992)Google Scholar; Gatrell, V. A. C., The Hanging Tree: Execution and the English People, 1770–1868 (Oxford, 1994)Google Scholar; but esp. Laqueur, Thomas W., “Crowds, Carnival and the State in English Executions, 1604–1868,” in The First Modern Society: Essays in English History in Honour of Lawrence Stone, ed. Beier, A. L., Cannadine, David, and Rosenheim, James M. (Cambridge, 1989), 332Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Mayhew, Henry, The Morning Chronicle Survey of Labour and the Poor: The Metropolitan Districts, ed. Razzell, Peter, vol. 3 (Horsham, 1981), 83–87Google Scholar (hereafter MC Survey); repr. in Mayhew, Henry, London Labour and the London Poor 4 vols. (London, 1861; repr., New York, 1968), 3:386–88Google Scholar (hereafter LLLP). Citations are to the 1968 edition. The MC Survey and LLLP versions differ only slightly.

¹⁹ F. B. Smith, “Mayhew's Convict,” Victorian Studies 22 (Summer 1979): 431–48.

²⁰ For the historiography, see ibid., 431–32; David Englander, “Henry Mayhew and the Criminal Classes of Victorian England: The Case Reopened,” in Knafla, Crime, Gender, and Sexuality, 88–90; Himmelfarb, G., The Idea of Poverty: England in the Early Industrial Age (New York, 1983), esp. chaps. 14–15Google Scholar; E. P. Thompson, “Mayhew and the Morning Chronicle,” 11–50; Yeo, Eileen, “Mayhew as a Social Investigator,” 51–95, both in The Unknown Mayhew, ed. Thompson, E. P. and Yeo, Eileen (New York, 1971)Google Scholar.

²¹ Smith, “Mayhew's Convict,” 439–41, 443–44.

²² MC Survey, 83, 87.

²³ Smith, “Mayhew's Convict,” 443–44.

²⁴ Mayhew, LLLP, 1:20, 101, 2:5, 233, 4:v, 1, 23–27, 29, 30, 31, 33; MC Survey, 50.

²⁵ LLLP, 3:23–27, quote on 29.

²⁶ MC Survey, 83, 87; italics in original.

²⁷ Ibid., 83, 87.

²⁸ Ibid., 87; Smith, “Mayhew's Convict,” 440.

²⁹ Englander, “Henry Mayhew,” 101.

³⁰ Shore, Artful Dodgers, 35, 51.

³¹ Smith, “Mayhew's Convict,” 436.

³² Old Bailey Sessions Papers (London, 1823), 213–14, 219, 224–25Google Scholar.

³³ Ibid., 212, 214–15, 217.

³⁴ Ibid., 212, 222, 226; Smith, “Mayhew's Convict,” 436. See Shore, Artful Dodgers, 58, on reoffenders.

³⁵ Smith, “Mayhew's Convict,” 435–36.

³⁶ Shore, Artful Dodgers, 136–37.

³⁷ Casella, Eleanor Conlin, “To Watch or Restrain: Female Convict Prisons in 19th-Century Tasmania,” International Journal of Historical Archaeology 5, no. 1 (2001): 48–53, 58, 60–63CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. For this reference I must thank Stephanie M. Dale and William Matthew Postlewaite, students in the Illinois State University master's program in historical archaeology.

³⁸ Smith, “Mayhew's Convict,” 435–36, 438–39.

³⁹ Ibid., 437; MC Survey, 83–84.

⁴⁰ Smith, “Mayhew's Convict,” 436.

⁴¹ MC Survey, 84–85; Smith, “Mayhew's Convict,” 436–37 (Smith notes a discrepancy in Evans's Bridewell sentence: Evans said it was two months; the Hobart record stated two weeks).

⁴² Smith, “Mayhew's Convict,” 437–38.

⁴³ Shore, Artful Dodgers, 31–32, 39, 43, 52, 56, 58–61, 71.

⁴⁴ Smith, “Mayhew's Convict,” 436.

⁴⁵ MC Survey, 84–87.

⁴⁶ Smith, “Mayhew's Convict,” 440–41.

⁴⁷ MC Survey, 87; Smith, “Mayhew's Convict,” 435, 439, 441–42.

⁴⁸ The classical statement on identity-psychology is Erikson, Erik, Childhood and Society (1950; 2nd ed., New York, 1963), esp. pt. 4Google Scholar. See Hoffman, Ronald, Sobel, Mechal, and Teute, Fredrika J., eds., Through a Glass Darkly: Reflections on Personal Identity in Early America (Chapel Hill, NC, 1997)Google Scholar. I am grateful to Susan Westbury for this reference. See also the valuable studies in Porter, Roy, ed., Rewriting the Self: Histories from the Renaissance to the Present (London, 1997)Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ MC Survey, 87.

⁵⁰ Smith, “Mayhew's Convict,” 437; MC Survey, 83–84.

⁵¹ Kamensky, Jane, Governing the Tongue: The Politics of Speech in Early New England (Oxford, 1997), 9Google Scholar.

⁵² Pike, K. L., Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of Human Behaviour (Berlin, 1965)Google Scholar, cited by Hymes, Dell in “Afterword,” in Language, Self, and Society: A Social History of Language, ed. Burke, Peter and Porter, Roy (Oxford, 1991), 338, 346Google Scholar.

⁵³ Roy Porter, “Introduction,” in Burke and Porter, Language, Self, and Society, 11–12.

⁵⁴ Patrick Joyce, “The People's English: Language and Class in England, c. 1840–1920,” in Burke and Porter, Language, Self, and Society, 155.

⁵⁵ Beier, Lee, “Anti-language or Jargon? Canting in the English Underworld in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” in Languages and Jargons: Contributions to a Social History of Language, ed. Burke, Peter and Porter, Roy (Cambridge, 1995), 67–75Google Scholar; Gatrell, Hanging Tree, 126–31.

⁵⁶ Beier, “Anti-language or Jargon?” 71–75; Gatrell, Hanging Tree, 131; Shore, Artful Dodgers, 55, 62, 77–78, 89, 134. The notebook is in the British Library (Egerton MS 3710) and is by the recorder of London, John Sylvester. I am grateful to Allyson May of the University of Toronto for this reference.

⁵⁷ Gatrell, Hanging Tree, 131, 147.

⁵⁸ Peter Burke, “Introduction,” in Burke and Porter, Languages and Jargons, 5.

⁵⁹ For the same feature in an earlier period, see Andrea McKenzie, “‘False Courage’ or ‘Manly Resolution’? Re-reading the early 18th-Century ‘Game’ Criminal” (paper presented to the North American Conference on British Studies, Pasadena, CA, October 2000).

⁶⁰ MC Survey, 84; in LLLP (3:86), the term was bowdlerized to the meaningless “smatter-hauling.”

⁶¹ MC Survey, 84–85 (“on the left” is a misprint, it seems [84]).

⁶² Ibid., 85–87.

⁶³ Smith, “Mayhew's Convict,” 443.

⁶⁴ Information cited here is from the Oxford English Dictionary (hereafter OED), 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1989)Google Scholar; Partridge, Eric, A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, 7th ed. (New York, 1970)Google Scholar. For Vaux, see McLachlan, Noel, ed., The Memoirs of James Hardy Vaux, including His Vocabulary of the Flash Language (London, 1964)Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Partridge, Dictionary of Slang; OED.

⁶⁶ Scherer, Klaus R. and Giles, Howard, eds., Social Markers in Speech (Cambridge, 1979), 25Google Scholar; Halliday, M. A. K., Language as a Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning (London, 1978), 164Google Scholar. I am grateful to Margaret S. Steffensen for the first reference.

⁶⁷ For just a few examples, see the classic remarks by Riesman, David, Glazer, Nathan, and Denney, Reuel, The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American Character, abr. ed. (New York, 1953), 105–6Google Scholar; Murray, Thomas E., “The Folk Argot of Midwestern Gangs,” Midwestern Folklore 19 (Autumn 1993): 141–42Google Scholar; de Klerk, Vivien, “Slang: A Male Domain?” Sex Roles 9 (May 1990): 9–10Google Scholar; Epstein, Jonathon S., ed., Youth Culture: Identity in a Postmodern World (Oxford, 1998), 13Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Burke, Peter, “Languages and Anti-languages in Early Modern Italy,” History Workshop 11 (Spring 1981): 28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beier, “Anti-language or Jargon?” 66–68.

⁶⁹ Burke, “Introduction,” 15, although the author emphasizes collective identities rather than individual ones.

⁷⁰ This is problematic given that one of the journalist's many lines of work was apparently as a ventriloquist! (The information is from Thomas Prasch.)

⁷¹ Hotten, J. C., The Slang Dictionary, preface by J. D. A. Widderson (1959; Totowa, NJ, 1972)Google Scholar. Much of Hotten's material came from Mayhew's work. See, most recently, Coleman, Julie, A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries, vol. 1 (Oxford, 2004)Google Scholar.

⁷² For an extensive bibliography, see Burke, W. J., The Literature of Slang (New York, 1939)Google Scholar.

⁷³ Horvath, Barbara M., Variation in Australian English: The Sociolects of Sydney (Cambridge, 1985), 32–35, 39–40Google Scholar; Casella, “To Watch or Restrain,” 48. For the Cockney as a cultural phenomenon, see Jones, G. Stedman, “The ‘Cockney’ and the Nation, 1780–1988,” in Metropolis: London: Histories and Representations since 1800, ed. Feldman, David and Jones, G. Stedman (London, 1989), 272–324Google Scholar. If Evans was born in “St. Andrews, Blackfriars,” as he claimed, which could be either St. Andrew by the Wardrobe or St. Andrew Holborn, he may qualify as a Cockney, which is conventionally defined as being born within earshot or about a quarter of a mile of “Bow Bells,” or the parish church of St. Mary-le-Bow, Cheapside; see Smith, “Mayhew's Convict,” 437; Wright, Peter, Cockney Dialect and Slang (London, 1981), 11Google Scholar. Of course, not all convicts were Cockneys.

⁷⁴ Gatrell, Hanging Tree, 127; Horvath, Variation in Australian English, 39–40.

⁷⁵ Steffensen, Margaret S., “Gen: An Affective/Evidential Particle in Australian Creole English,” in Papers from the 25th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. 2, Parasession on Language in Contexted, ed. Music, Bradley, Graczyk, Randolph, and Wiltshire, Caroline (Chicago, 1989), 262Google Scholar. I am grateful to Steffensen for this reference to her study, which suggest that “gen,” which had a variety of meaning among Aborigines in the Northern Territory, is English criminal slang, because the word is interchangeable in Australian Creole English with “gamon,” which derives from “gammon,” which is English cant for “to deceive, feign or pretend.” “Gammon” appears in standard English dictionaries of cant and was probably brought to the South Pacific by the likes of Evans. See Hotten, The Slang Dictionary, 173. The term was documented in New Zealand in 1815, was recorded in Sydney in 1834, and in the 1940s was still in use in the neo-Melanesian language where, as in cant, it means “false, deceitful, to be fooling, to lie” (Steffensen, “Gen,” 262).

⁷⁶ Mugglestone, Lynda, “Talking Proper”: The Rise of Accent as Social Symbol (Oxford, 1995), 91–92, 99–100, 118, 157Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ Joyce, Patrick, Visions of the People: Industrial England and the Question of Class, 1848–1914 (Cambridge, 1991), 263, 279–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁸ Beattie, J. M., Crime and the Courts in England, 1660–1800 (Oxford, 1968), 199–200Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ Report from the Select Committee on the Police of the Metropolis: Ordered by the House of Commons to Be Printed, 17 June 1822, British Parliamentary Papers … 1822 (440), vol. 4, Crime and Punishment, Police, Irish University Press Series of British Parliamentary Papers, ed. O'Neill, T. P. (Shannon, Ireland, 1968), vol. 3, cols. 8–9Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ Inwood, “Policing London's Morals,” 130–34.

⁸¹ Wiener, Reconstructing the Criminal, 98. Wiener notes that the Australian prison colonies were criticized for being both too harsh and too lenient (98–99).