This article examines the experiences of care and relief for paupers deemed lunatics, idiots and imbeciles during the initial decades of the New Poor Law. Analysis focusses on two Lincolnshire Poor Law Unions (the Sleaford and Lincoln) and is structured around three loci of care: the parish, the asylum and the workhouse. Although the parish continued to be the primary locus of care throughout the early New Poor Law period, this article notes a growing willingness to admit paupers into asylums as the 1830 s and 1840 s progressed. Indeed, the geography of asylum provision within the unions of study became increasingly non-local through the use of institutions outside of Lincolnshire during the 1840 s. Similarly, the institutional experience of the union workhouse is stressed, particularly for paupers deemed idiots and imbeciles who were often inmates for decades. Such mirrored local practice pre-1834, with the unions of study continuing to utilise a developed Old Poor Law workhouse infrastructure to provide in-door relief in the transitional period between unionisation in 1836 and the opening of union workhouses in 1838. However, institutional care generally sat against previous experiences of support within the parish and was often only sought due to the ability or inclination of families to provide for mentally ill and cognitively disabled relatives. Here, individual life cycles of support could permeate differing loci of care, showing that binary designations of institutional versus non-institutional relief often simplify the complexity of holistic lived experience. An emphasis on life cycles of support has also highlighted a demographic continuity in receipt between the Old and New Poor Laws, with many paupers deemed lunatics, idiots and imbeciles receiving relief before and after 1834. Moreover, evidence suggests that those labelled as pauper lunatics, idiots and imbeciles were far from passive, demonstrating opinions on relief offered and received albeit with the potential for agency often constrained due to their categorisation. As such, this article has tried to place pauper voice at its centre, examining how poor law relief recipients categorised as lunatics, idiots and imbeciles traversed support options during the early New Poor Law period.

本文探讨了在新济贫法实施的最初几十年中，为被视为疯子、白痴和低能者的穷人提供的护理和救济的经历。分析侧重于林肯郡的两个济贫法工会（斯利福德和林肯），并围绕三个护理场所构建：教区、庇护和济贫院。尽管教区在整个早期的新济贫法时期仍然是主要的护理场所，但本文指出，随着 1830 年代和 1840 年代的发展，越来越多的人愿意接纳贫民进入庇护所。事实上，在 1840 年代，通过使用林肯郡以外的机构，学习联盟内的庇护提供地理变得越来越非本地化。同样强调工会济贫院的制度经验，特别是对于被视为白痴和低能者的穷人，他们经常被关押数十年。这种反映了 1834 年之前的地方实践，在 1836 年成立工会和 1838 年工会济贫院开放之间的过渡时期，学习工会继续利用发达的旧济贫法济贫院基础设施提供室内救济。然而，机构护理通常与以前在教区内获得支持的经验相反，并且通常仅由于家庭有能力或倾向于为患有精神疾病和认知障碍的亲属提供服务而被寻求。在这里，支持的个人生命周期可能会渗透到不同的护理场所，这表明机构救济与非机构救济的二元指定通常简化了整体生活体验的复杂性。对支持生命周期的强调也强调了新旧济贫法之间的人口统计连续性，在 1834 年之前和之后，许多贫民被视为疯子、白痴和低能者。此外，有证据表明，那些被标记为贫民疯子的人，白痴和白痴绝不是被动的，他们对提供和接受的救济表达了意见，尽管由于他们的分类，代理的潜力往往受到限制。因此，本文试图将穷人的声音置于其中心，研究被归类为疯子、白痴和白痴的贫困法律救济接受者如何在新济贫法时期的早期遍历支持选项。在 1834 年前后接受救济的白痴和低能者。此外，有证据表明，那些被贴上“穷困潦倒的疯子”、白痴和低能者的标签的人远不是被动的，他们展示了对所提供和接受的救济的意见，尽管代理的潜力往往因其分类而受到限制。因此，本文试图将穷人的声音置于其中心，研究被归类为疯子、白痴和白痴的贫困法律救济接受者如何在新济贫法时期的早期遍历支持选项。在 1834 年前后接受救济的白痴和低能者。此外，有证据表明，那些被贴上“穷困潦倒的疯子”、白痴和低能者的标签的人远不是被动的，他们展示了对所提供和接受的救济的意见，尽管代理的潜力往往因其分类而受到限制。因此，本文试图将穷人的声音置于其中心，研究被归类为疯子、白痴和白痴的贫困法律救济接受者如何在新济贫法时期的早期遍历支持选项。