Social Discipline and the Refusal of Poor Relief under the English Old Poor Law, c. 1650–1730

Jonathan Healey
{"title":"Social Discipline and the Refusal of Poor Relief under the English Old Poor Law, c. 1650–1730","authors":"Jonathan Healey","doi":"10.1017/s0018246x23000651","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n There has been debate about the extent to which the English old poor law could operate as a system of social discipline. This article looks closely at an almost completely neglected set of sources, petitions by local communities asking to stop (or cut) a pauper’s relief, to assess how far poor relief was used as a disciplinary tool. Taking 182 appeals by Lancashire townships from the Civil War to the appearance of workhouses in the county, it suggests that poor relief operated robustly as a system of labour discipline, but only weakly as a wider tool of behavioural control. There is some evidence that townships wanted to end doles to those engaged in ‘bad’ behaviour, such as excessive drinking, gambling, or insubordination, but such cases were infrequent. Far more important were attempts to stop relief where paupers could work or could support themselves through their own productive assets. In turn, townships’ focus on the ability to work suggests that ‘deserving’ poverty was understood in terms of bodily impotence, whilst the need to restrict poor relief to those who were ‘necessitous’ required officers to engage in close surveillance of the poor and their bodies.","PeriodicalId":515830,"journal":{"name":"The Historical Journal","volume":"32 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Historical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0018246x23000651","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There has been debate about the extent to which the English old poor law could operate as a system of social discipline. This article looks closely at an almost completely neglected set of sources, petitions by local communities asking to stop (or cut) a pauper’s relief, to assess how far poor relief was used as a disciplinary tool. Taking 182 appeals by Lancashire townships from the Civil War to the appearance of workhouses in the county, it suggests that poor relief operated robustly as a system of labour discipline, but only weakly as a wider tool of behavioural control. There is some evidence that townships wanted to end doles to those engaged in ‘bad’ behaviour, such as excessive drinking, gambling, or insubordination, but such cases were infrequent. Far more important were attempts to stop relief where paupers could work or could support themselves through their own productive assets. In turn, townships’ focus on the ability to work suggests that ‘deserving’ poverty was understood in terms of bodily impotence, whilst the need to restrict poor relief to those who were ‘necessitous’ required officers to engage in close surveillance of the poor and their bodies.
约 1650-1730 年英国旧济贫法下的社会纪律与拒绝济贫
关于英国旧济贫法在多大程度上可以作为一种社会惩戒制度,一直存在争议。本文仔细研究了一组几乎完全被忽视的资料,即地方社区要求停止(或削减)救济贫民的请愿书,以评估济贫法在多大程度上被用作惩戒工具。从内战到该郡出现救济院期间,兰开夏郡各乡镇共发出 182 份请愿书,这表明济贫救济作为一种劳动纪律制度得到了有力的执行,但作为一种更广泛的行为控制工具,其作用却很微弱。有证据表明,乡镇希望停止向那些有 "不良 "行为的人发放救济金,如酗酒、赌博或不服从命令,但这种情况并不常见。更重要的是,在贫民能够工作或能够通过自己的生产性资产养活自己的情况下,试图停止救济。反过来,乡镇对工作能力的关注表明,"应得 "贫困被理解为身体上的无能,而将穷人救济限制在 "必需 "人群的必要性要求官员对穷人及其身体进行密切监视。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信