Another downfall of the Speenhamland System was that the parish had no control over food prices. Wheat prices rose during the French wars and so did the number of workers requiring poor relief. Before the war, the cost of poor relief was below £2 million, but during 1812 when wheat prices were at there highest this figure rocketed to £8.8 million. The 1830’s saw a large increase in the number of riots witnessed in Britons rural south. The Poor Law couldn’t even keep the peace.
Why were some people dissatisfied with the treatment of paupers by 1834?
The Speenhamland system was inefficient due to the fact that it was based on the Old Poor Law of 1601. Britain had a rapidly increasing number of paupers. Many Able-bodied workers were claiming poor relief as unnecessarily as it was easier than working for their money. This laziness caused the costs of poor relief to rise to over £8 million, nearly four times as much as it was in 1795.
During the Swing Riots 1830-1832, labourers in the south and east of England turned to violence in an attempt to solve their problems. Many properties, hayricks and threshing machines were damaged. This was done in protest over low wages and the increasing use of machines instead of men.
The Old Poor Law couldn’t cope with two major factors;
- There were too many systems in operation throughout the country
- The rising population and the distribution of the population
Paupers were not encouraged to find them selves work, as there were fewer and fewer incentives to get them motivated.
The following are reasons why there was an investigation into how the poor were dealt with before 1834;
The rising cost of poor relief
The increasing numbers of people claiming poor relief
The encouragment of larger families in order to gain more money
Are the reasons equally important in bringing about the Poor Law Act of 1834? Explain your answer.
A growing number of people living in the countryside were living in poverty, rather than those living in towns and cities. The cost of poor relief was rising fast. The population was still increasing because of the incentive to have larger families. Also during the Swing Riots of 1830 farmers and overseers were threatened and much property was destroyed.
At this time the poor were still treated by use of the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601. This was an old system, which was by far inadequate to cope with the rising population, as well as the migration of people from the countryside to the new industrial towns and cities.
The number of paupers rose because men who were able to work chose not to as they could receive money without the need for labouring. It was the easier option.
After noting the above points, I believe that the reasons given for change in the Poor Law are all important. A single point would be insufficient to tip the balance for change. Rising costs of poor relief were seen as a problem because of the way workers who could receive money for not working could easily abuse it. This abuse obviously made the cost of the system rise.
Many people living in the countryside were being classed as poor, they flocked to the nearest towns and cities. These people were not looking for work, but only for the money they could receive from the Poor Law system. When more people claimed for poor relief it sends the costs up. This easily links the first two points together, both resulted in a rising cost of poor relief. Using only these two points the new system would have to have a set of rules to determine who is eligible for poor relief and who is not.
The size of families also increased the simple philosophy that is you had a larger family then you would receive more money form the Poor Law was used by workers. People had more children in order to claim more money, although the money they received would only just cover the food costs for a larger family. If there were to be a new system it would have to recognise who really depended on the system and who was only abusing it. By doing this poor relief costs would be lowered.
In my opinion each of the problems faced by the poor relief system is of equal importance, they were all caused by each other. Poor relief had too many systems in place. If people had a better incentive to work then they wouldn’t have claimed off the poor relief system in the first place. Workers were quick to realise ways on abusing the system to their own wants. If they couldn’t receive more money for bigger families, then the population growth wouldn’t have been as rapid. If both of these had not happened then the poor relief system would have worked fantastically. Unfortunately these damaging factors did happen and the Old Poor Law was revised. The government called upon a Royal commission largely as a result of these damaging factors.
Jack Copson 11-1
History Coursework
The Andover Workhouse Scandal
The Andover Workhouse Scandal
1)
From source A I noticed that the workhouse at Andover was built so that it only shows its best side. Within the workhouse’s walls there was a dead house and a bone house. The dead house was where dead inmates were kept and the bone house is where animal bones were kept; these were later crushed up in order to make fertiliser. These were deliberately placed at the rear of the building and out of sight of any visitors.
I also noticed that men and women were separated. This was done to prevent the growth of families while inside the workhouse, this must have been demoralising for people as they were split up from their loved ones. The masters quarters were situated in the centre of the building, this gave quick access to all parts of the workhouse.
The boardroom was where the Board of Guardians met when there was a meeting. This was cleverly situated at the front of the building so that they did not have to see inmates and the conditions in which they lived.
The workhouse was built on the top of a hill on the outskirts of a nearby town. This was mainly in order to prevent people from the towns coming to work in the workhouses. The workhouses were built to look like prisons. This created a feeling that the inmates were treated like prisoners and the conditions inside would be very prison-like.
2)
Source B is taken from a school textbook ‘British Social and Economic History’. This source gives a stereotypical view of the country. It is only useful as to look at workhouses in general, it is not specific to Andover. The source doesn’t tell you about the changes made for the Andover workhouse, but does tell you about changes in the Poor Law.
The source has clearly been created to highlight changes to the Poor Law only. For example;
“No able bodied man was to be given any relief form the poor rates”
The stated that;
“If such a man asked for help, he and his family should be forced to live in the workhouse”
The source is giving out a generalised view of workhouses and is not affective in an isolated case such as the Andover scandal. It is not affective because it doesn’t mention Andover.
3)
Source C is an opinion about conditions in Andover workhouse. It was written by a doctor, L.T Nayle. It is most likely that he was invited to the workhouse to comment on its facilities. The report was written in the early 1840’s, implying that it was before 1845. This is an important fact, as the Andover scandal did not break out until 1845/46. Doctor Nayel said;
“Cleanliness and good order cannot be exceeded”
He also said;
“Healthy appearance of men, women and children”
The conditions may have deteriorated after the report. The scandal then broke out.
Source D is a pauper describing the living conditions inside Andover workhouse. This is only one mans opinion and he may have been asked leading questions in order to get the answers the questioners wanted. For example, about having to eat raw flesh off of animal bones in the bone house;
“Sometimes I have had one that was stale and stinking”.
A whole investigation cannot be based entirely on one mans opinion on workhouses. This man said that they were fed, but it wasn’t enough for a man;
“A pint and a half of gruel is not much for a man’s breakfast”
Personally I believe that source C portrays the conditions which were in operation when Dr. Nayle visited Andover. Obviously for the scandal to break out it must have taken a large deteriation of standards.
Source D however, is the opinion of an inmate of the workhouse. He would have realised these conditions every day, and although he may have been asked leading questions, his testimony is more reliable. I believe that source D is more reliable than source C.
4)
Source C is taken from a report given by Doctor L.T Nayle, it was likely that he was invited to view the conditions at th Andover Workhouse. The opinion was written before the Andover Scandal of 1845/46. The source only gives an opinion about the conditions at Andover itself, not those of the scandal.
