Source C was written by a doctor so you would think this would make the source very reliable because a doctor is a respected person in society. The doctor says that everything is fine in the Andover workhouse “cleanliness and goof order cannot be exceed, with healthy appearance of men,” but from what I know from other sources and from my own knowledge this must be unreliable because parliament (as in source E – “report of the parliamentary select committee) and the newspaper ( as in source E – “ the times sent a reporter to Andover”) suggests that there was a scandal the doctor may have wrote source C because the people in charge of the offered money, or maybe if he didn’t do this he could lose his job. If this is true then this would make the source less reliable. On the other hand when the doctors wrote his report, maybe everything was fine. This was because the report was written in 1840 before the Andover workhouse scandal (which was 1845) had become known. If this is the case then this would make the source more reliable. This could made more reliable if there was more by having more than one doctor’s reports because there would have been more evidence of what that conditions were like

source D could be reliable because it was written by a pauper at the time of the scandal – 1846, he talks about how “ we used to be like a pack of dogs” over the fresh of bones and this is what the papers reported when looking into the scandal – in source E it says “..so hungry eating raw flesh…” but this source could also be less reliable because he could have been doing it to make the Andover workhouse sound worse that it really was so people would feel sorry for him because he was treated badly he wonted the workhouse to be shut down.

In my Conclusion I think that source D and E were the most reliable because there are two source telling me that same thing, this means that I feel that Source C is less reliable this is because there is only one source from that time, and it is tell me different what what I have learn from source D and E and from my own knowledge. But Both D and E would have been written for the press, witch makes it less reliable.

4)source C, D and E how far do these source agree there a scandal at the Andover workhouse in the mid 1840s

Source C disagrees with both D and E because it gives a good impression of the Andover workhouse. It written by a doctor would be seen as a reliable person in the early 1840 before the Andover scandal and it tells us that he considers the workhouse clean, in good order and the men, women and children were healthy this makes it unreliable, where as source D gives a bad impression and source E there was a rumour or a scandal. So this suggest that there must be something wrong, this means that the doctor could have lied this could have been for money, to save his job or maybe he didn’t wont be to find out. Or he could have said it before the sandal even happened.

Source D agrees with Source E because they both talk about there being something wrong with the Andover workhouse. One from a pauper (this make it reliable because it was written by some one who was there) talking about having to eat the raw flesh of the bones. And another from a reporter who had been to see what had happened this makes it reliable because he say it . But both disagree with source C because it talks about there being nothing wrong with the workhouse. But source C and D Slightly agree with each other because it say that the Andover workhouse followed all the regulations that means they don’t seem to be doing nothing wrong. Source C is written by David Taylor from a school text book this makes this reliable because it was written to be learnt from.

1)source A what can you learn from source A about workhouse at Andover

From source A you can learn that the Andover work house in 1842 was like a prison; we know this because its all enclosed with big walls around the workhouse around the workhouse which would make getting out very difficult for inmates. You can also learn that workhouses separated males and females; they would have done this to break up families and maybe to stop children from being born, also because of the digram we can see that there is a master’s quarter, this shows that the inmates inside the workhouse would have freedom make their own decisions and had someone to look over them, that why the masters building was in the middle, between the males and females quarters so that is separated the males and females. Also from the source you can learn the workhouse was 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 wanting to go into the workhouse. Also from the source I can see that that the Andover workhouse had a dead house I think this is where the dead would have been put, this suggest that a lot of people would have died in the workhouse. Also the inmates might have had to break there dead inmates in the bone house .

2)Source b how useful is source B for historian studding Andover workhouse

Source B is telling me what part the workhouse played in the new system, it explains that there would have been 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 workhouses was run properly, they also would keep an eye on the master of the workhouses. It has also told us how the would have should be ran

A historian studding Andover workhouse might find source B useful because the source gives us information in general, but doesn’t tell us what happen in the Andover workhouse itself like daily routines jobs diet. In the text is doesn’t say anything about the Andover workhouse so it makes this text not very useful 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

this test should be trustworthy because it was written by peter lane who we would think is an historian because he is writing for a school text book. Peter lane wrote this in 1979 this would make the text outdated, but in general I would think this source is trustworthy and therefore useful

In my conclusion I think 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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.