c) Source 2 was written by a poor law assistant commissioner in 1841. Source 2 mentions that children should not be attached to a workhouse and is supported by source 1 where children have not even been mentioned. Source 1 shows no children entering the workhouse referring to source 2 where it mentions that they would ‘acquire nothing but evil’ if they entered a workhouse and it is not their they are in such a position. Source 2 describes the paupers who ‘commit crimes and follies’. Source 1 also refers to the paupers as being criminals ‘rogues and swindlers’ who are to enter a prison ‘bastille’. Source I mentions that the old infirm and poor are to enter a workhouse but no mention of children and in source 2 it says they should be provided with and education and work out of a work house and away from their parents to prevent them from gaining the ’vice, reputation and misfortune of their parents’.
d) Sources 2 and 3 are to some extend useful to a historian investigating pauper living in the late 1830s and early 1840s. Source 3 is a list of offences committed in workhouses between 1835-1842. These figures were sent to the poor law commissioners and published in political papers in 1845. The crimes were committed at the time when the Poor law amendment act had been implemented and was published when the act was still in practice. This is therefore a source written at the time. A primary source so expect it to have some value however primary sources do tend to be biased. The results were sent to the commissioners so they might have been changed by the board of Guardians to show what the commissioners wanted to see. The new poor law was working so therefore there was less complaining then again the results may have further been changed in some way or the other by the commissioners to fit the interpretation they want to give but then again commissioners were members of government and we would expect them to be thrust worthy. A problem with this source is that we don’t know how typical it is of all other workhouse inmates committing these crimes and these many. The results were published in a political paper and the findings must have been an accurate representation of most of the workhouse plus we would expect the information to be accurate and trustworthy. The source has its limitations but is still useful to some extend because it gives figures which must have been calculated plus we know from our own knowledge that people did run away from workhouses and did commit all the crimes mentioned in the source. By this we can assume that the conditions were really harsh and working under the less eligibility principle.We don’t know to what extend these findings are reliable because there are still a high number of offences but he whole point of an amendment act was to improve the morals of people and reduce bad habits. The source is limited in utility and gives no more information apart from workhouse crimes and more information is required.
Source 2 is a report written by an assistant commissioner in 1841. This source is also a primary one at the time so must have some usefulness. This a report by a commissioner and can be therefore bias because the commissioners produced a rather unstatistical and flaud royal commissioners report so they cant be trusted and there is no reason why they cant do it again. They want the paupers to look bad so justifying the harshness. The report is suggesting that children should be kept separate from their parents because their parents give a bad influence and that all children should be educated. We know from our knowledge that children were separated from their parents when entering a workhouse and were also applicable to an education and were trained as appetencies because it was felt that it was not the children’s fault they are in such a position. The source mentions that ‘their position is a result of the crimes and follies committed by their parents’ the source also mentions that ‘children should be inspired with the love of knowledge and work’ supporting my own knowledge. We don’t know to what extend this was actually carried out and how typical it was. There is limited information because there is no mention of any other ways in which the paupers were living in the workhouse.
As a historian I need more sources to make a clear conclusion about the ways paupers were living in workhouses in the late 1830 and early 1840.
e) The poor law amendment act focused in the less eligibility principle. This meant that able-bodied paupers would only receive relief if they entered a workhouse where conditions would be worse then the lowest paid independent labourer living out of a workhouse. The deterrent principle was applied so those people in most need for poor relief would ask to be relieved inside a workhouse and others would find work. The deterrent elements included the segregation of the sexes and families, hard labour (born crushing), horrible meals, uniforms (some workhouses had different uniform for different types of poor, unmarried mothers were made to wear a yellow strap). Source 5 supports this less eligibility principle as it mentions that ‘the inhumanity of the workhouse revolved around boredom, routine, petty regulations, and official arrogance, with scope for personal abuse. Meals were to be eaten in silence according to the new poor law. Source 4 states the less eligibility principle as well because it claims ‘that the people who receive poor relief are place in conditions worse then the lowest class of labourer and that relief in a regulated workhouse would not be a hardship to people like this, implying that relief in a workhouse would be worse then the lowest paid labourer. Both the sources 4 and 5 support each other on the less eligibility principle as they both include evidence of the deterrent elements.
According to the 1934 act poor relief was to be controlled centrally and administered accordingly locally. The central commission was based in London in sumerset house consisting of 3 commissioners who regulated rules, diets etc. These rules were then to be implemented by the board of guardians elected by the local ratepayers who also assigned as matron and mattress to control the workhouse. Source 5 supports my evidence that ‘both local and National officials were provided with the impossible task of marrying deterrence and human relief within the same system.
The extend to which these factors were carried out various from time and place. Source 5 mentions that the ‘ time and area’ varied in implementing these factors of the act.
In the northern industrial areas opposition was high. Since the trade was fluctuating and employment was cyclical for only short and temporary they believed that the new poor law did not apply to them. The fact that many town in the industrial areas had changed their poor relief before the 1834 act in order to make it cost efficient believed that that the 1834 act did not apply to them. The commissioners evidence as also based on the north and again did not really apply to he North. The act was prevented in many industrial areas till about 1848.
The jps and magistrates apposed the centralisation tendency and believed that the government was interfering in local matters. Many board of guardians were the overseers of the old poor law and did not cooperate with the commissioners. As a result outdoor relief was still given in many areas and the guardians implemented poor law according to the needs of the locally.
However the commissioners did a good job as the aim was to reduce cost which was reduced. The parishes were also incorporated in to unions.
The new poor law up to some extend was able to implement deterrence and human relief.
