10H (Mr Tomlinson’s group) Easter Homework
10 H (Mr Tomlinson’s class)
History homework over the Easter holiday.
Make sure that ALL of coursework 1 is completed and printed out neatly ready to hand in (please check spelling and grammar). This should already have been finished – you should just be amending the final drafts. Anyone who does not have this ready to hand in should expect 45 minute subject detentions until this work is completed. I am confident this will not be the case though.
Complete coursework 2, questions 1, 2 and 4 (NOT QUESTION 3)
We will look at question 3, 5 and 6) when you come back after the holiday.
There will be information on the blog and I would encourage you to use the blog if you can.
http://arrowhistory.wordpress.com/
I will monitor the blog throughout the holiday and will offer help if you need it.
Please take the time to think about the work though, we have had lessons on what needs to be included in these questions AND how to structure each question.
You are ALL more than capable of getting great marks in this coursework!
Have a great holiday – my advice would be to get this work out of the way as soon as possible so you do not need to worry about it throughout the holiday!
11 comments so far
Leave a reply
Jack Wood
COURSE WORK 1
1. The speenhamland system worked in lots of ways and it helped the poorest people by giving them money so they can at least have bread to live off. Then when the price of food (BREAD) went up because of poor harvest or the amount that they had produced, the amount that they got given would of raised so they could still eat. The money would come from the parish and then that money would come from the rich people’s tax money. How big the family was meant how much money they would have got from the parish,(SO, THE MORE CHILDREN A FAMILY HAD, THE MORE MONEY THEY WOULD HAVE RECEIVED?) the main person who gave out the money was called the overseer and he would walk around to the poor and give them poor relief.
Not bad Jack. Well done.
2. The effects of the speenhamland system were both positive and negative. The positive points were the really poor people would have had a little amount (OF MONEY) coming in so they didn’t starve to death. This means they would get the basic amount, it would stop riots in England like the revolution that had happened in France (DEVELOP THIS… WHY WERE THE PEOPLE LESS LIKELY TO RIOT IF THEY WERE GETTING SOME MONEY..?), and the authorities (THOSE IN CHARGE) didn’t want this to happen as they would lose their power. The negative effects were that employers will pay as little wages to workers as they could, so they don’t lose as much money as they would if they were paying the full wage (SO THEY WERE ABLE TO MAKE A PROFIT OUT OF THE SYSTEM..) because the parishes would pay the rest so they could eat as well. But the parish would run out of money very quickly, the price of poor relief was rising dramatically (HOW DRAMATICALLY? INCLUDE SOME FACTS AND FIGURES HERE). The price of bread went up because because the weather had destroyed the crops so that meant the price of bread shot up and so did poor relief then, also people were paid for how big the family was and people had an idea if they had a big family they would get money from the parish (SO.. WHAT EFFECT WAS THIS HAVING?). Another negative effect was that it was making workers lazy because they would still be getting paid whether they were working or not and the parish still paid so they could live.
Well done Jack. A good effort Only needs slightly redrafting. Have a think about some of the points I have mentioned.
3. The rising cost of the poor relief was important because; the people who were not working got paid as much as people working. The employers thought well I could pay the minimum and the parish would top it up. So then the parish would lose a lot of money due to employers but people that were working left there jobs be cause they known of they started at home they would still get the same pay as of they were working. (DEVELOP THIS – why would this mean that a change in the law was needed? Link it back to the question..) But the people who were starving stated rioting in the south of England in 1839. They wanted more money and machines they destroyed (DEVELOP THIS POINT about the swing riots, think about the general mood of the poor and why were they destroying the machines?) but then that caused change in the poor law because it made landowners fearful of revolution like the one in France and it raised social awareness. (EXCELLENT POINT) It also affected rich and powerful landowners and it showed the poor were unhappy living off benefits and felt threatened by machines. WHY? But it only happened in the south but people from all over England knew it was going on. (….”THEREFORE”……. This final point could perhaps be linked back to the inconsistancy of the old law?)
Good. You need to relate your points back to the question however…. for instance…. “yes, cost was an important reason because……..” “…however there were also other important reasons such as…. (the inefficiency of the old law) ..and develop this (the inconsistancy of the old law) ..and develop this.. (also the impact of the Royal Commission’s Report) ..and develop this.
We can talk about this when back at school if you come to spend half an hour with me after school.
COURSE WORK 2
1. The Andover workhouse was sectioned as shown on the source A, were the men and the females were sectioned off so they couldn’t see each other. There was a dead house where they collected bones to crush and grind but the workers would of fought to crush the bones because if the guards were looking they would suck the marrow out of the bones. But they crushed bones to act as soil for plants but they even put dead people’s bones in there that had died in the workhouse. There was a masters quarters in the middle of the house so they can be anywhere in the workhouse in a couple of seconds if anything was going on. WHAT DOES THIS SUGGEST ABOUT HOW STRICT THE WORKHOUSE MIGHT HAVE BEEN?. They placed the workhouse on top of a hill to see over the town but the town could see the workhouse and how depressing it was going to live there. They had big walls surrounding the workhouse so no one could escape or run away but they only had one hour out of there sells so it was really sad in there and because of the big walls they will be more depressed.
A SOUND ANSWER. GOOD USE OF OWN KNOWLEDGE TOO, BUT BE CAREFUL IF YOU CAN’T PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE TO BACK UP WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
2 / 4 I DON’T GET SIR PLEAS REPLY I DON’T GET IT AT ALLLLLLL
You have the information to be able to answer questions 2 and 4. I will give you a couple of hints, but you should be able to answer this by now. You know approximately how much needs to be written for each question now and you know what sort of detail you need to go into to pick up the marks.
Q2. Talk most about the ways in which the source is useful. How much information is it telling you, and how trustworthy is the information it is telling you?
What is it telling you about ANDOVER? Is is telling you ANYTHING about Andover workhouse specifically or in general? If yes, is it therefore useful to a historian studying Andover? If NO is it useful to a historian Andover or workhouses in general?
Source B may be useful because…
However, source B is limited because…
Source B was written…
This makes it useful because…
However, we must be aware that…
Remember to develop each point, the worksheet I gave you where I asked you to complete the table will help you answer this question.
Q4. Ok, first try to assess each source individually in relation to the question. Tell us in detail what each source is (think about how you did question 2) and more importantly WHAT it is telling us. Does each source agree/suggest that there was a scandal at Andover? How and why? Look who wrote the source, why might the source be more or less reliable or trustworthy?
Give them a go and I’ll have a look if you post them on here and make some suggestions.
WELL DONE for getting some of your work on here so soon.
Coursework 1:Question 1:Describe how the speenhamland system operated?The Speenhamland system operated in a number of ways. The overseers were the ones giving the parish the money so the poor could survive. If the overseers didnt give them money then they wouldnt be able to survive as they didnt have money to buy bread. The parish had to give the poor money to surivive on bread. This depended on the price of bread. If the poor Had more children it means that the parish would have to give the family more money so the whole of the family would have survived. This means the more children they had in a family the more money they would have got. They didnt have no control in how much the price of bread was so there was no control over the cost of poor relief. the parish was responsable in looking after their own paupers. The poor relief were also topped up by the parish. This allowed employers to pay below the wages as the parish would have made up the difference and make a profit. The parish would give money to survive as if they didnt have no food then the poor would have died. Question 2:Explain the effects of the speenhamland system?The Speenhamland system had many different effects. These were postive and negative efffects. First of all i am going to be talking about all the postive effects. People could not afford food to survive, so the poor had to top up the poor relief, so the poor had enough money to buy bread and to survive. Another postive effect was that it kept workers quite at a differcult time because they had nothing to riot about. This meant Eventhough the poor was staving to death they couldnt complain, because they had to earn money for their family and food. Another benefit for the labours was that they were forced to look carefully at the problem of proverty because they had to do something to reslove the problems of provety. This was becasue they didnt want riots like they did in France during the French revolution. So they topped up the allowence fort he poor. They didnt want riots because the people who ruled the country lost their home, jobs and power. This was a threat of the way of life. However there were also many negative effects. the speenhamland system encouraged the poor to have larger families and the population increased. This was because the more they had in a family the more money and food they would have recived of the parish. This ment they could of brought more food to feed the family. The Speenhamland system ment that the more money they would have recived the more money they would have got to go out and buy bread. Another disadvantage is that the cost of helping the poor increased because the population increased and also there were too many poor people to pay for. It also encouraged laboures to be lazy because all the poor would end up with the same amount of oney eventhough some would work harder than others. This wasnt really fair becasue some people would have worked really hard to get money for their families adn the others would have been slacking.However the system made labours worse off as it damaged their pride and self respect. This was becasue the poor didnt have enough money to support their families so they had to go to the parish to get more money. This felt like charity to the poor. Most people in them days didnt want charity they wanted to earn their own money by them seleves to support their own family.Question 3:The rising cost of the poor relief was the most important reason for the introduction of the new poor law of 1834:- How far do you agree with this statement?The rising cost of the old poor relief was an important reasons for the introduction of the new poor law of 1834, but there were other reasons to such as, inefficiency of the old poor law, inconsisency of the speenhamland and other system which encouraged people to become lazy. In 1834 the cost had hugely because of how many poor families there were. The royal commission that was looking at poor relief found that spending on the poor had gone up from less than 2 million in 1776 to 8 million in 1823. The population had risen. The parish had no control over the cost of helping the poor, because the parish had to give the poor money to survive. The money that the parish gave to the poor would have gone towards bread and food. The effects of the population are that the poor they had too many children to feed. Also in 1834 the swing riots had a massive effect on the landowners becasue the workers would have gone around smashing all the farmers machines. They did this because the farmers got the equitment to make the farms better so they had to let their workers go. The workers wasnt very happy with the farmers decision becasue they wanted to earn money and to do the work themseleves. They kept on smashing the machines so they would get their jobs back because they thought if they smashed up the machines they would get more machines because they were too expensive. Farm workers were rioting in the south of England in 1830. They wanted more money and all the machines destroyed. If the farmers got more money they would but much better machines so their farm would be much better. It causes change in the poor law because it makes lanowners fearful of revelation like the one in France. What happened was the authorites lost their power. Also theu heads would have been chopped off. They would have tried to stop this as best as they could by doing what make them happy. This was feed and water them, give them more money and also give them shelter. This was important to the farmers and the land owners because they didn’t want their machines smashed up all night every night until they gave the workers thei job back. This affected the rich and powerful land owners because they were the ones paying for all the machines that the farmers had. The poor were so unhappy because they had to live on benefits and they felt threatened by the machines. Although the swing riots happened in the south, everybody all over the country knew about it and they weren’t very happy when they found out. There were also a couple of others as well as the swing riot which was: Inconsistency of the old poor law, inefficiency of the old poor law, allowance (the rising cost) and the impact of the royal commision’s findings. In 1834 the incosistency of the old poor law was very poor because the report of the old poor law pointed out that the poor law was not consistently applied. Also the old system had already been altered in many ares, and the labour rate or rounds men system were being used instead. They used the old system because it was much easier than the new system. In many parish workhouses were non existent. Also inefficiency of the old poor law use the parish system was inefficent. Britain in 1830 was very different that what Britain is today. When Queen Elizabeth 1 was queen of Britain was also very different that what it was in 1830 when the old poor law passed. Parishes were too small to operate efficiently, and their employees were unpaid. Overall I think that the poor was lazy because of the was old system was setup. But even though loads of the poor lost thei jobs they could have got up and found another job. I know it must have been easy because all the poor was looking for a job but they could have found a new job if they tried hard enough. The poor got their bread for free because the parish would have to pay their rest up to standard rates.
Well done Sam. I’ll have a look at this before we get back to school and elave some comments. DON’T FORGET THE QUESTIONS FROM COURSEWORK 2 TOO THOUGH! Mr T
Coursework 1
Describe how the Speenhamland system operated.
The speenhamland system operated by giving people more money. enough to survive by topping up wages. The speenhamland system was where the Parish looked after the paupers. The Parish would top up the wages, the poor labourers to subsitence level. The amount of money that the parish was given out depended on bread prices and the number of children in the family. The person in charge of the poor was called the overseer of the poor. The money that was given came from the rich people.
Explain the effects of the Speenhamland System.
The speenhamland system had many effects some positive but some negative. One beneficial effect of the Speenhamland system was that it helped save people from starvation. Since many people were poor it would give them some money by topping up their wages so they could buy food at a reasonable price. This was known as poor relief. there were a few bad effects aswell. One of the criticisms was that it encouraged lazy workers, this was because they would receive the same amount of money, even whilst doing nothing. Another problem with the speenhamland system was that in the long term it made labourers worse off as it could hugely damage the worker’s pride and self-respect. However, the system prevented starvation and saved many lives. the system helped raise the issue of poverty. It also kept the workers quiet at a time of high prices and low wages. Due to the speenhamland system it was said to encourage families. This was because the more children you had the more food/money you recieved. The problem with this was that if a family had alot of children then the Government would have to pay out alot of money to pay for them.
The rising cost of Poor relied was the most important reason for the introduction of the New Poor Law in 1834. How far do you agree with this statement?
The rising cost of the poor relief was an important reason for the introduction of the New Poor LAw in 1834, but there were other reasons to such as cost, inefficiency, inconsistency and allowances. The english poor laws regulated both the working and nonworking poor. The old poor laws use of the parish sustem was inefficient, Parishes were too small to operate efficiently and their officials were unpaid amateurs. the report also pointed out that the Old Poor Law was not being consistently applied. In many Parish workhouses they were non-exsistent. Everyone knew that the Old Poor Law was expensive. but the commission spelled it out in detail. The Speenhamland System came under fierce attack because of the way in which it discouraged individuals from trying to better them.
Coursework 2
What can you learn about source A?
I can learn that in the workhouse the rooms are very close together so that there is more spare for more rooms. There is a dead room which is the room where when people die thats where they put them. The people die from either starvation or dehydration. I can see that there are high walls so nobody can escape this suggests that once your in there you can never get out. There is a seperate gym room for the men and women so they can work out whilst they are in the workhouse. There are a couple of windos throughout the workhouse. The workhouse is a dark,gloomy and dingy place. I can learn that there is a bone house which is where the people crush bones sometimes if the workers are really hungry then they suck out the marrow from the bones. The workhouse doesn’t look like there any buildings around it or any trees etc.
Dont Get Question 2 On Coursework 2 ?
Describe How the Speenhamland System Operated?
The Speenhamland system was operated by the price of bread if the price of bread went up then so did the poor relief. To receive money off of the parish, it depended on the price and bread and the number of children per family. The system saved many people from starvation by providing them with money to buy bread. The system would give extra money to the families who couldn’t survive on the wage given by the employers. With the extra money received it provided the poor to be able to buy bread. Overseers were appointed by the parish to provide/collect the money, the money they were giving the poor was provided by the taxes of the rich rate payers.
Explain the Effects of the Speenhamland System.
The Speenhamland system had many effects, some of which were positive and some negative, these of which had great effect on the war. The parish saved the paupers from starvation by supplying them with a subsidence level of money. Many employers (such as farmers) kept the wages low (cheap labour) because they knew the parishes would top the employees’ wages back up, because the Speenhamland System had said so. The extra money given to the poor kept the poor from complaining; because they knew that they were going to get money no matter what, the authorities or those “in power” didn’t want the workers complaining and rioting, but theirs ended and made the French Revolution (The French Revolution was a group of people who went against the monarchy and aristocracy by using violence and murder to abolish those in power). Again the authorities or those “in power” didn’t want this to happen. Because it may have lead into a Revolution like it had for the French.
Another effect was the cost of helping the poor had increased (the cost had risen from just less than £2 million in 1776 to £8 million 1823), because the Speenhamland system worked by providing money to families who had a considerable amount of children, the more children you had the more money you would recieve off of the parish, to buy bread; this was a negative effect as the population of poor was increasing, which meant the rates would soon go down because the parish couldn’t afford to keep topping up the pauper’s wages as the poor relief was increasing, the more people there was the more money had to be paid out in order to cover the whole of the poor relief . It was impossible as they would soon run out of money because the poor relief was increasing.
Another effect was laziness, many of the poor became lazy because they knew that they were going to be paid anyway however much work they did. By doing this it didn’t allow the poor to value money, they knew they were going to get the money so they didn’t do as much or the amount of work they were supposed to do. The extra money given, made the poor become lazy. They didn’t work as hard because they were expecting more money and so they thought they could slack because it didn’t really matter because they were getting paid no matter what, it was made a policy to the paupers to get paid the subsidence amount of money.
Following on from this, the workers self belief was affected too. They had no self belief, whereas before, they encouraged themselves to work and work hard for the money they were going to receive, but because the parish were topping the paupers money up anyway it meant that they didn’t encourage themselves to work but to encourage themselves not to get so involved. Therefore they became lazy and didn’t want to work because they were being paid anyway.
“The Rising Cost of Poor Relief was the Most Important Reason for the Introduction of the New Poor Law of 1834:
How Far do you agree With This Statement?
The rising cost may not have been thought to be the most important reason, but it did contribute hugely to the introduction of the New Poor Law of 1834. The cost had risen from just less than £2 million in 1776 to a staggering £8 million in 1823 that means it has risen by £6 million in just 47 years.
The cost was rising dramatically because the “poor” population was increasing, the reason for this was the poor had realised that the more children they had the more money you would receive off of the parish under the Speenhamland system. The effects of this meant that the people who provided the money couldn’t keep giving them charitable money because they themselves couldn’t afford it because the population of poor was rising and so they had to give more money out. They just couldn’t do it; it was just too much money, this then meant that the old poor law had more reason to be terminated.
There were many different reasons for the introduction of the New Poor Law. Other reasons that were thought to help the introduction of The New Poor Law were things like:
The royal commission who was appointed by the government thought that the conditions of the workhouses were too comfortable for the workers. They thought that they could be a lot harsher. The royal commission wanted the workers to realise that the workhouses was hell. If in any circumstance, a worker was to be sacked and had to find a new job, they would hope they would look else where other than the workhouse. They wanted them to realise that the workhouse would be the very last option, and that the workhouse would be worse than the lowest paid job. The royal commission also wanted there to be one system in one area, uniform. They didn’t like that there was inconsistency in different areas, they wanted there to be one system of poor relief throughout the whole country. They also wanted the parishes to join up to make one big workhouse; the impact of the Royal Commission’s report was a big factor of The Introduction of The New Poor Law.
Another reason would be the swing riots. In the summer of 1830 there were riots in Kent and the south of England. The farmer labourers demanded the destruction of threshing machines and asked for an increase in wages, they confronted the farmers and said “if you don’t get rid of those machines and employ us, we will destroy them ourselves,” and threats were issued and signed by “Captain Swing,” ( a fictional character). Of course the farmers refused and so there were riots. If this wasn’t solved it could have lead to a revolution, like that of France, this could mean mass violence across the nation (riots).
It was thought the Parish was inefficient as it wasn’t run by the government, professionals, it was run by amateurs; they didn’t take them seriously as they weren’t of any authority, they were just people who were trying to make a difference. The parish was also thought to be too small, and so the royal commission recommended that all the parishes were to join together to make one big workhouse.
I personally think it was the rising cost that was a big factor that finally introduced the introduction of The New Poor Law; I think this because the rising cost had a massive impact on people’s lives. The paupers were living totally different lives to what they were living before hand, for example they had to work hard for their money and be grateful for what they received when the Old Poor Law was in hand. The rising cost depended on the harvest of bread and when it increased because of the nature of the Speenhamland System as mentioned, the population of the poor grew this all relating back to the rising cost.
Coursework 2
What Can You Learn From Source A About The Workhouse At Andover?
From source A, I can see that there is a “dead” house, this tells us that people died in the workhouse, this could be because there was lack of food therefore they may have died from malnutrition. Furthermore, the workhouse was dark and dingy, from this I can see that there are few windows meaning it would be very stuffy, making it insufferable conditions for the workers.
I can see that there are high walls, this maybe for security and to make the place look intimidating to the outside world, but they could be there to stop the workers from escaping. Therefore it will make the people who were thinking of going into the workhouse, think twice and not even consider entering the workhouse, this will make them think and encourage them to find other work.
Another thing is that the workhouse is built on a hill; this is mainly to scare the outside world, and convince them not to end up in there. If the workhouse is built on the hill, everybody can see it and will know that, the workhouse would be there very last option of work if need be, but because it is built on a hill, it scares them in a way because it is constantly reminding them, and they will not want to end up in there.
How Useful Is Source B for an Historian Studying Andover Workhouse?
Explain Your Answer Using Source B and Your Own Knowledge.
I think that the following passage was very factually written. It contains a lot of facts and states them all correctly. I think most historians would enjoy this piece as it is very informative and contains a lot of facts. I think that the historians will also realise the information is trustworthy because this passage is out of a school book, meaning it will be trustworthy because if it wasn’t they wouldn’t put it in a book where students would look and use the information.
I didn’t do question 4, because i didn’t get it.
3) The rising cost of poor relief was the most important reasons for the introduction of the new poor law ?
One reason for the new poor law was the cost. Because the speenhamland system was encouraging people to have
more children and you would get more money which meant there was more poor people with more children. The prices
of bread was rising beacuse the way the speenamland system worked if the prices of bread went up this meant
the poor relief would have to go up therefore that would prevent any riots from happening they kept them from
rioting and kept them farely happy. People started riots because they was starving they had nothing to loose
they started riots in the south of england in 1839 they couldnt get any jobs because the farmers were getting
new machines in so they needed less workers so they decieded to riot they destroyed the machines this was known
as the swing riots but then farmers land oweners got fearful over the riots just incase of the revolution like
in france so that raised social awareness. This now also raise awareness to the rich beacuse the poor was unhappy
living in poverty so they got threatened. This affected the rich and powerful land owners because they were the ones
paying for all the machines that the farmers had. The poor were so unhappy because they had to live on benefits and they
felt threatened by the machines. Although the swing riots happened in the south, everybody all over the country knew about
it and they weren’t very happy when they found out.
From source A, you can learn that workhouses in 1842 were like prisons; we know this because it’s all enclosed with big walls around the workhouse which made getting out for inmates very difficult. You can also learn that workhouses separated the males and females; they would have done this to break up families and to stop more children from being born. Also Because of the Diagram. We can see that there is a master’s quarter, this show that the inmates inside the work house would have had no freedom to make their own decisions and had someone to look over them. That masters building was in the middle so that it separated the males and females. He is in the middle so he can see both males and females. Also from the source you can learn that the workhouses were built on a hill so the town’s people were away from their families and friends. It also Suggest that they were lonely, this also would stop people wanting to go into the workhouse. I can also see a Dead house I think that this is where the dead people would have been put. This Suggesting that a lot of people would have died in the workhouse. Also the inmates might have had to break the Bones of there Dead inmates in here Very grim!
A historian studying The Andover workhouse would find source B useful for explain what part the workhouse played in the new system, it explains that there would be people who were paid to do jobs, it also Says that there was a Board of Guardians who would make sure that the workhouse was run properly, they also would keep an eye on the master of the workhouses. It also told us how it should be run, but the Source doesn’t tell us what happen in the workhouse it self. It should be reliable because it was written by peter lane for a school text book, but only intend for children but a historian would won’t to read Original sources or text. Peter lane wrote this in 1979 this makes the text out dated. Also Text books to day give you Original sources.
Sources C, D and E
Source C disagrees with both d and e because it give a good impression Of the Andover workhouse. It was written by a doctor in the early 1840s and it tells us that he considered the workhouse to be clean, in good order and that the men, women and children were healthy, where as Source give a bad impression and source E there was rumors of a scandal.
Source D disagrees with Source C but agrees with Some of Source E because it was described by a pauper saying people were so that hungry that they were eat the flesh off the rotting bones
Source E slightly agrees with Source C, because it says the Andover workhouse followed the regulations with seem to say that there was nothing wrong like source C. It was written by David Taylor for a school text book starts off by say that the Andover workhouse followed the instruction from the regulations issued by the poor law commissioners, but later on it talk about how the scandal came too light. It shows that Source E Agrees with Source D when it talk about the Scandal of eating of raw flesh because they were so hungry. I think that this Source agrees more with Source D because it talks about how mp got involved about the scandal.
I need to add more of my own knowlig
From source A, you can learn that workhouses in 1842 were like prisons; we know this because it’s all enclosed with big walls around the workhouse which made getting out for inmates very difficult. You can also learn that workhouses separated the males and females; they would have done this to break up families and to stop more children from being born, also Because of the Diagram. We can see that there is a master’s quarter, this show that the inmates inside the work house would have had no freedom to make their own decisions and had someone to look over them. That masters building was in the middle so that it separated the males and females. He is in the middle so he can see both males and females. Also from the source you can learn that the workhouses were built on a hill so the town’s people were away from their families and friends. It also Suggest that they were lonely, this also would stop people wanting to go into the workhouse. I can also see a Dead house I think that this is where the dead people would have been put, this suggesting that a lot of people would have died in the workhouse. Also the inmates might have had to break the Bones of there Dead inmates in here Very grim!
Source b telling me what part the workhouse played in the new system, it explains that there would be people who were paid to do jobs inside the workhouse, it also says that there was a Board of Guardians who would make sure that the workhouse was run properly, they also would keep an eye on the master of the workhouses. It also told us how the workhouse should be run.
A historian studying the Andover workhouse might find source B useful because the source gives us information about workhouses in general, but doesn’t tell us what happened in the Andover workhouse itself. In the text it doesn’t say anything about the Andover workhouse so it makes this text very useless if only looking at the Andover workhouse. To be useful to a historian studying Andover we would need to know what happened inside Andover workhouse and we would need to compare Andover to other workhouses so we could understand if Andover was worse than any other workhouse.
It should be trustworthy because it was written by Peter Lane who we would think is a historian because he is writing for a school text book. Peter Lane wrote this in 1979 this could make the text outdated, but in general I would think that the source is trustworthy.
In conclusion I think that source B isn’t very useful to a historian studying the Andover workhouse because it doesn’t talk about the Andover Workhouse, but it could be useful to a historian studying about ALL workhouses
Sources C, D and E
Source C disagrees with both d and e because it gives a good impression Of the Andover workhouse. It was written by a doctor in the early 1840s and it tells us that he considered the workhouse to be clean, in good order and that the men, women and children were healthy, where as Source give a bad impression and source E there was rumors of a scandal. So this means that there must be something wrong, he could have lied, for money or to save his job or maybe he didn’t wont people to know what was happen.
Source D disagrees with Source C but agrees with Some of Source E because it was described by a pauper saying people were so that hungry that they were eat the flesh off the rotting bones
Source E slightly agrees with Source C, because it says the Andover workhouse followed the regulations with seem to say that there was nothing wrong like source C. It was written by David Taylor for a school text book starts off by say that the Andover workhouse followed the instruction from the regulations issued by the poor law commissioners, but later on it talk about how the scandal came too light. It shows that Source E Agrees with Source D when it talk about the Scandal of eating of raw flesh because they were so hungry. I think that this Source agrees more with Source D because it talks about how mp got involved about the scandal
6 study all sources
How far do you agree that Andover workhouse in the mid 1840s was harsh than others
Work
In sources D and E and from my own knowledge I know that in the Andover workhouse they were made to break bones this was for the local famer to us as food for his plants , other workhouse were doing work like, wood-chopping, corn-grinding to be made in to bread.
Workhouse from the outside,
From my first source question I leant that Andover looked for like a prison because of the high walls and that there was a building that separated the female and males, but this was very common in workhouse to stop the population from growing and other reasons. From workhouse.org I have learn that many workhouse didn’t have a wall around the workhouse this show that Andover workhouse was a lot hasher than others
6 study all sources
How far do you agree that Andover workhouse in the mid 1840s was harsh than others
Work
In sources D and E and from my own knowledge I know that in the Andover workhouse the poor were made to break bones and this could be used by the local farmer to use as fertiliser for his crops. The paupers in Macclesfield workhouse chopped wood – I know this from the website workhouse.org. This shows that the work they were doing inside Macclesfield workhouse was a lot harder than Andover Workhouse. Although wood chopping wasn’t the nicest job, it was a lot better than breaking bones of dead animals in your opinion. Also on the website workhouse.org from an unnamed workhouse they used to pick oakum, this would have been a boring job to do but it would have been a lot nicer than breaking bones.
I agree that Andover was harsher than other workhouse in the jobs they had to do because from my own research I learn that Macclesfield workhouse, and unnamed workhouse that they did a lot nicer jobs than the jobs at Andover workhouse
Workhouse from the outside
From my first source question I have leant that Andover looks like a prison because of the high walls and that there is a building that separated the female and males, but this was very common in workhouse to stop the population from growing and other reasons. From workhouse.org I have learn that the workhouse in Amersham, Buckinghamshire doesn’t have a wall around the workhouse, this proves to me that Andover workhouse was a lot hasher than some other workhouses in that it would have looked like a prison from the outside. Also on the website Workhouse.Org I have Learn