Testifying for the Poor: Epistolary Advocates and the Negotiation of Parochial Relief in England, 1800-1834
Testifying for the Poor: Epistolary Advocates and the Negotiation of Parochial Relief in England, 1800-1834
复制标题
为穷人作证：书信倡导者和英格兰教区救济的谈判，1800-1834 年
DOI：
10.1093/jsh/shv092
复制
发表时间：
2016
影响因子：
0.8
通讯作者：
King S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
King S
英格兰和威尔士的《旧济贫法》（1601-1834）的核心是一系列永恒的问题：谁应该有资格获得福利金;福利金应该如何与贡献相平衡;以及如何对待移民。在最近的历史编纂中，这些问题的答案是通过贫民信件的透镜构建的：由离开定居地的穷人写的或为他们写的叙述。这些文件表明，穷人在形成救济实践方面具有能动性。我们的文章将贫民信件放回更广泛的背景中。事实上，它们只是最终决定穷人如何获得救济的书信体的一小部分。在这个语料库中，最大的作者群体是书信倡导者朋友、家人、官员、医生、地主、雇主和邻居，他们代表穷人写作。分类和分析这些信件，我们认为：教区国家是，并预计，在面对倡导者的可塑性;一个根深蒂固的文化，个人和社区慈善事业确保穷人的法律实践是不是简单地偏向于纳税人的利益;在回答如何“做”移民的福利权问题时，官员和书信体的倡导者在一个以稳定性和平衡为关键标准的环境中相互通信。即使旧济贫法的政治命脉在19世纪20年代和30年代消失，社区对移民福利需求和教区义务的态度仍然非常灵活。
At the heart of the English and Welsh Old Poor Law (1601–1834) lay a set of timeless questions: who should be eligible for welfare payments; how such payments should be balanced with contribution; and what to “do” about migrants. In recent historiography, answers to these questions have been constructed through the lens of pauper letters: narratives written by or for the poor who were out of their place of settlement. These documents show that the poor had agency in shaping relief practice. Our article puts pauper letters back into their wider context. They were in fact a minor part of the epistolary corpus that ultimately shaped how the poor obtained relief. Within this corpus, the largest group of writers were epistolary advocates—friends, family, officials, doctors, landlords, employers and neighbors—who wrote on behalf of the poor. Classifying and analyzing such letters, we argue: that the parish state was, and was expected, to be malleable in the face of advocates; that a deeply ingrained culture of individual and communal philanthropy ensured that poor law practice was not simply skewed in favor of the interests of ratepayers; and that in responding to the question of what to “do” about migrant rights to welfare, officials and epistolary advocates corresponded across a landscape in which contestability and balance were the key criteria. Even as the political lifeblood of the Old Poor Law flowed away in the 1820s and 1830s, communal attitudes towards migrant welfare needs and parochial duties remained remarkably flexible.