Tukthús, arbeiðshús og fátækragarður: Initiatives of workhouse/poorhouse building in the 18th and 19th century Tórs

Abstract

Úrtak
Evnið í hesi grein er ætlanir um at stovna tukthús í Havn, upprunaliga sum partur av herdum stríði móti ullarbidding og reiking um landið, og við fyrimynd í líknandi stovnum í øðrum pørtum av danska-norska kongsríkinum. Umframt at vera fongsul vórðu tukthús í samtíðini umtalað sum búskaparligar og sosialar nýskipanir, sum klekingarstøðir fyri nýggjar vinnugreinir og sum siðbøtandi stovnar, har lógbrótarar skuldu tyktast til góðan arbeiðssið til egið og samfelagsins gagn. Tíðarandin var í størri mun at nýta revsiarbeiði heldur enn likamsrevsing fyri t.d. stuldur og bidding. Tukthúsætlanin varð fyrstu ferð borin fram í 1770-árunum og uppafturtikin í fleiri umførum í 19. øld, men varð ongantíð framd í verki, og klagurnar um ullarbidding og reiking um landið hildu fram. Embætismenn sóu tað sum eina høvuðsgrund til ta áhaldandi biddingina, at fólk hildu fram at geva biddarum gávur og olmussur heldur enn at melda teir. Hesin hugburður verður tulkaður sum ein tvístøða: bæði sum opinleiki fyri samfelagsbroytingum í anda upplýsingartíðarinnar, og sum trekleiki at lata frá sær vald at skilja millum rangt og rætt, millum verdugar og óverdugar biddarar, til politi- og rættarmyndugleikar, og ivasamt álit á hesar myndugleikar.

Abstract

This paper is a study of the intended building of a workhouse in the Faroe Islands in the late 18th century, originally in connection with a law reform introduced to restrict begging and vagrancy of the poor. Explicit aims were to install a work ethic and moral uplift of the criminal poor, and to promote new industries, especially manufacture. The plans were aborted after some years, but resumed in three instances in the 19th century, modelled by contemporary poor politics and criminal politics, the spirit of which was to use imprisonment with hard labour rather than corporal punishment for lawbreaking, such as begging and stealing. The workhouse never came into being, and complaints of begging vagrants continued. Public officials in charge of implementing the planned institutions saw a main obstacle to restricting begging in the failure of farmers and other well-to-do people to give up the old habit of giving alms to the poor rather than reporting them to the police authorities for prosecution. This ambiguity is interpreted as on one hand openness to modernization in the spirit of Enlightenment, and on the other hand a slowness to concede the power of discriminating between right and wrong, between worthy and unworthy beggars, and a scepticism in an extended system of police and juridical authorities.