The next source I will be analysing is source G, a critical view of workhouse life, which was drawn by Pugin, an architect in 1841. This source also gives us a view of opposing the workhouse system. The verification for this is starting with the center drawing. This drawing gives the onlooker a feeling of a prison because of its features. One of its features is the high boundary wall, and also the towering segregation walls. The bottem picture on the right is representing segregation. This picture shows a husbend and wife being split up. Next the picture in the center is representing the harsh punishments, which took place in the workhouses over the country by showing us dissection. After 1834, the breaking of workhouse rules fell into two categories: Disorderly conduct, which could be punished by a withdrawal for food "luxuries" such as cheese or tea, or the more serious Refractory conduct, which could result in a period of solitary confinement. The workhouse-dining hall was required to display a poster, which spelt out these rules. The next picture, on the left shows us the poor diet, which the paupers had in the workhouses. From 1835 onwards, the Poor Law Commissioners issued sample dietary tables for use in Union workhouses. Each Board of Guardians then used one of these tables as the basis for the particular diet in their own workhouse, subject to the agreement of the Poor Law Commissioners. Children and the aged or infirm had a slightly different diet, usually with more meat-based meals, and with inclusion of milk or tea. The main constituent of the workhouse diet was bread. At breakfast it was supplemented by gruel or porridge — both made from water and oatmeal (or occasionally a mixture of flour and oatmeal). Workhouse broth was usually the water used for boiling the dinner meat, perhaps with a few onions or turnips added. Tea — often without milk — was often provided for the aged and infirm at breakfast, together with a small amount of butter. Supper was usually similar to breakfast. The next two pictures on the, middle and top left symbolise punishment for a second time.
The next source I will be analysing is source H, which is; a transcript of part of a letter from the Gressenhall Board of Guardians to the Home Secretary, giving their reaction to the Poor Law Amendment Act 1836. This source is supporting the workhouse system. Firstly this source mentions the saving of money for the ratepayers. It states ‘ the average expenditure on the poor relief has been reduced by about 58% (since the Poor Law Amendment Act). Source G states ‘ there have been moral benefits too.’ This is saying that lazy people or scroungers have been getting the money but now they have to go into the workhouse. This source also tells us ‘the aged, infirm & sick continue to receive outdoor relief, and in some cases the amount they receive has increased.’ By linking this statement and the last, this tells us that the writer believes that only the deserving poor should get the outdoor relief. This system of relief allowed the poor to remain in their own homes. As attitudes changed, the poor were often viewed as idle, and it was believed that employers paid deliberately low wages knowing that the parish or Union would make them up. It was felt that expenditure on outdoor relief was too high and under the New Poor Law changes were made which almost abolished this system of relief. Additional evidence that this source is supporting the workhouse system is that it says,’ one of the main advantages of placing destitute families in the workhouse in that the children are educated.’ This shows that the writer believes that putting poor families into the workhouses also help their children by giving them an education. The educational policy of the workhouse was summed up by the master of the Ennistymon workhouse in his report to the guardians on the 14th June 1844 ". The aim is, children to be useful and respectable members of society, the course of education such as that will require is not limited to reading, writing and arithmetic, but it likewise comprises careful moral and religious instruction as well as training in habits of industry. They should know how to work with their hands, so fit them to become good servants". In 1834 the Poor Law Amendment Act was passed. It attempted to ensure daily instruction to pauper children. It proposed the establishment of district schools, away from the workhouse premises, bringing together children from workhouses in different parishes. By 1859, only 6 such schools had been founded. This was due, in large part, to the reluctance of people of the parishes to expend any resources on the education of those they were already feeding and housing. In 1847 an inspection of 41 workhouses in the northern counties found their internal schools being taught by teachers who were they paupers. Most of them were barely literate, lacking basic reading skills and unable to write at all.
The final source I will be looking at source I, which is from a history textbook published in the 1980’s. This source is also supporting the workhouse system. This source tells us that the money in which was spent on the poor have gone down considerably due to the construction of the workhouses; a similar point to source H. Source I also states ‘ The number of paupers had also fallen.’ This tells us that once the workhouse were constructed and the able-bodied paupers not being able to get outdoor relief and having to go into the workhouses, the number of paupers decreased.
Using my own knowledge, my opinion is that I am against the workhouse system. I can support my statement by this evidence. Firstly how the paupers were treated on arrival to the workhouse: Whatever the regime inside the workhouse, entering it would have been a distressing experience. New inmates would often have already been through a period of severe hardship. Admission into the workhouse first required an interview to establish the applicant's circumstances. A Relieving Officer who would visit each part of the Union on a regular basis most often undertook this. However, the workhouse Master could also interview anyone in urgent need of admission. Formal admission into the workhouse proper was authorised by the Board of Guardians at their weekly meetings. In between times, new arrivals would be placed in a receiving or probationary ward. There the workhouse medical officer would examine them to check on their state of health. Those suffering from an illness would be placed in a sick ward. Upon entering the workhouse, paupers were stripped, bathed (under supervision), and issued with a workhouse uniform. Their own clothes would be washed and disinfected and then put into store along with any other possessions they had and only returned to them when they left the workhouse. This uniform was not very pleasant. In 1837, the Guardians advertised for the supply of inmates' clothing. For the men this consisted of jackets of strong 'Fernought' cloth, breeches or trousers, striped cotton shirts, cloth cap and shoes. For women and girls there were strong 'grogram' gowns, calico shifts, petticoats of Linsey-Woolsey material, Gingham dresses, day caps, worsted stockings and woven slippers. ('Fernought' or 'Fearnought' was a stout woollen cloth, mainly used on ships as outside clothing for bad weather. Linsey-Woolsey was a fabric with a linen, or sometimes cotton, warp and a wool weft — its name came from the village of Linsey in Sussex. Grogram was a coarse fabric of silk, or of mohair and wool, or of a mixture of all these, often stiffened with gum.) In later years, the uniform for able-bodied women was generally a shapeless, waistless, blue-and-white-striped frock reaching to the ankles, with a smock over. Old women wore a bonnet or mop-cap, shawl, and apron over.
More evidence is that of the conditions inside the workhouse; once inside the workhouse, an inmate's only possessions were their uniform and the bed they had in the large dormitory. Beds were simply constructed with a wooden or iron-frame, and could be as little as two feet across. Bedding, in the 1830s and 1840s at least, was generally a mattress and cover, both filled with straw, although blankets and sheets were later introduced. Bed sharing, particularly amongst children, was common although it became prohibited for adult paupers. Another horrifying aspect of being in a workhouse was cleanness. The inmates' toilet facilities were often a simple privy — a cess-pit with a simple cover having a hole in it on which to sit — shared perhaps by as many as 100 inmates. Dormitories were usually provided with chamber pots. Once a week, the inmates were bathed (usually superintended — another assault on their dignity) and the men shaved. The Andover scandal of 1845-6 highlighted the hardship of the workhouse regime. McDougal, the Master of the Andover workhouse, had a reputation for inhumanity; rumours of excess cruelty eventually led to a public enquiry. Bone crushing was a normal occupation for paupers. The bones of horses, dogs and other animals (and there were hints that some from local graveyards) were crushed for fertiliser for local farms. The paupers were so hungry that they scrambled for the rotting bones. Bone crushing became the focus of a case, which was reported extensively by The Times and was followed avidly by the public Edwin Chadwick emerged particularly well and reached the height of his prestige and power at this time. Andover was only the most notorious example of workhouse cruelty. There were several other major scandals and incidents, all recorded by the press in minute detail. Inflicted cruel punishments on those under his rule. Some inmates were forced to spend the night in the workhouse mortuary as a punishment. The report of the select committee found that the workhouse master was unfit. He was forced to resign. The Andover scandal was an extreme example of how workhouse system could produce horrific results. This case was unforgivable but was untypical. Many of the other alleged bad workhouses were other exaggerated.
For this evidence I have found I conclude or that in my opinion that the workhouse was not a very nice place to be in. Also I can see why there was so much controversy over the workhouse system. I think that the workhouse was good in the sense that the children got a good education for the future, and taught the basic skills they would need. On the other hand, for the adult paupers life was poor, due to the living and working condition. Although there are reasons for both, supporting and being against the workhouses, I think that the reasons to be against the workhouse system outweighs the reasons for supporting it.
