John Clarke, former major organizer for the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP, posted the following a couple of days ago on Facebook. There were also some comments, which I include.
London’s Metropolitan Police Service was set up in 1829, while the New Poor Law for England and Wales emerged in 1834. The first Toronto Police force was formed in 1834 and the Toronto House of Industry, the first workhouse in Upper Canada, opened up in 1837.The close connection between these two key mechanisms of social control is striking. The police patrol and control potentially restive impoverished working class communities while punitive and highly intrusive forms of income support are also a potent means of imposing compliance.As the new system of relief was being established in England and Wales, proposals were actually advanced to place supervision of workhouses in the hands of the police. High levels of resistance to the new legislation precluded this but the very fact that this was considered is enormously telling.I’m trying to look deeper into the complementary nature of police repression and ‘less eligibility’ based forms of social provision. If you are aware of other examples of this link, it would be great if you could pass on sources.Robert Peel was celebrated as father of policing while community policing was embraced as best strategy. However, all came down to the ability to supervise the poor so the rich can feel safe with no real substance social order.This is a great project! I’m with you concerning the correlation, but how do you think we should understand the fact that the police forces antedate the other mechanisms of working class regulation you describe?The police forces came first in both the examples I gave but there might be cases of a reversed order. Certainly, however, repressive methods and coercive forms of social provision predate the Industrial Revolution period we are looking at here.Brutal legislation to impose the ‘work ethic’ goes back to the 1500s. 70,000 ‘vagabonds’ were executed during the reign of Henry VIII alone. The Elizabethan Poor Law did include a workhouse system. However, it is striking that the Tudors, at the dawn of capitalism, tried straight state violence before they had to reluctantly provide some supports. Since any form of social provision threatens to reduce levels of desperation and increase worker bargaining power, there may well be a general tendency to use the police club before setting up the welfare office.John Clarke that would be my read too. If that’s the case, then it’s all the more clear that social provision as conceived thus far has itself been a logical extension—and even a mode—of policing. It’s an argument we’re accustomed to making, but it’s extremely useful to have the historical data points. Thanks for the work you’re doing on this!My take is that they both came about as a result of the impossibility of the old feudal methods of control with emergence of urban society. (The old feudal methods could be adapted as long as capitalism was rurally-based.) This is why, for example, you find, certainly in England, the surprising Tory opposition to the establishment of both. A minority of Tories, but definite Tories nonetheless.I think there’s a great deal of truth in that, in terms of assessing the measures taken in the 1800s. However, intensified forms of social control do begin in the earlier period, as dispossessed peasantry is being transformed into a modern working class. Moreover, urbanisation that takes place is itself a reflection of changes in the productive process and the kind of workforce that is needed.John, yes, urbanisation is a consequence of the capitalist mode of production. But the old system of Justices of the Peace worked to control things in the capitalist countyside as long as social control could be face to face. It’s the anonymity of the city that demands that control takes a new form.Comparison of England and Canada – where the old system of JPs never reigned – looks like it could be interesting. Also interesting would be a comparison of England and France – where the Reformation never succeeded – since the first English Poor Law was a consequence of the Dissolution of the Monasteries, care of the poor having previously been the responsibility of the Church.
The Abolitionary 