Workhouse in england. Coursework English workhouses. See what "Workhouse" is in other dictionaries
The phrase "Workhouse" usually evokes in our minds terrible pictures, inspired primarily by the works of Dickens.
But what was this social institution really like?
The information below is taken in full from Peter Higginbotham's site http://www.workhouses.org.uk/, on the history of workhouses in Britain. The site contains a huge number of interesting photographs of considerable historical and cultural value.
People ended up in workhouses for various reasons. This usually happened to those who were too poor, old or sick to support their own existence. It also happened during periods of long-term unemployment. For unmarried pregnant women, the workhouse was often the only place to stay before and after the birth of the child. Before the advent of state mental hospitals, workhouses accepted mentally ill people with no means of subsistence.
Strictly speaking, workhouses were not prisons, and admission to them was in most cases a voluntary, albeit painful decision for a person, since, among other things, it automatically changed his legal status - until 1918, those living in workhouses were not entitled to vote elections.
A uniform.
Initially, it was assumed that the inhabitants of the workhouses would sew their own clothes and shoes, but in practice, due to the lack of qualifications of workers, uniforms were usually bought. Usually, the uniforms were made of rough fabric and the emphasis was on the strength and durability of the garment rather than its comfort.
The men's uniform consisted of a thick cloth jacket, breeches or trousers, a striped cotton shirt, a cloth cap and boots.
The women's uniform consisted of an upper cape, made of a coarse fabric, which was a mixture of silk, mohair and wool, a chintz shirt, a half-woolen fabric underskirt, a striped linen dress, a cap, woolen stockings and woven slippers.
By 1900, men in workhouses usually wore blazers, trousers, and vests, and the bowler hat replaced the cap.
In later times, female workers wore shapeless, blue and white striped, ankle-length dresses, while older women wore bonnets, shawls, and aprons over their dresses.
Classification and segregation.
Since 1834, the inhabitants of workhouses have been divided into 7 groups:
Elderly or infirm men.
Strong, hard-working men and boys over 13 years old.
Adolescents and male children from 7 to 13 years old.
Elderly or frail women
Strong, hard-working women and girls over 16 years old.
Girls from 7 to 16 years old.
Children of both sexes under 7 years old.
Each group lived on its own territory. Husbands and wives were separated as soon as they arrived at the workhouse and were severely punished even for trying to simply talk to each other. Beginning in 1847, spouses over the age of 60 could apply to live together in a separate room. Children under the age of 7 could be accommodated in the women's ward and, from 1842, their mothers were admitted to them "within a reasonable period of time." Parents were allowed to visit their children "at a certain time every day"
Inside the workhouse
The workhouse was a small, autonomous settlement. In addition to common areas such as the dining room and sleeping quarters, it had its own bakery, laundry, sewing and shoe workshops, a vegetable garden and orchard, and even a pigsty for fattening pigs. There were also classrooms, a nursery, an infirmary for the sick, a chapel and a mortuary room.
Once in the workhouse, the man only had a uniform and a bed in the large dormitory as his personal property. The beds were designed as wood or iron frames no more than 2 feet wide (i.e. 60 cm). The bed had mattresses stuffed with straw, and bedspreads, blankets, and sheets were introduced in the 1840s.
Children often shared one bed, it was forbidden for adults.
The beds for the tramps were wooden boxes, more like coffins, or even wooden platforms raised above the floor. In some places, metal rails were used to support the low-sided bunks.
An ordinary cesspool served as a lavatory. The bedrooms usually had pots, and after 1860, earthen closets - boxes of dry soil, which was later used as fertilizer.
Once a week, the inhabitants of the workhouse washed themselves (usually under the supervision of the caretaker - another insult to their dignity) and the men shaved.
Rise 6 in the morning
Breakfast 6: 30-7: 00
Start of work - 7:00
End of work - 18:00
Hang up - 20:00
In winter, the rise was at 7 am.
Half an hour after the signal announcing the wake-up call, the Master or Matron called each section of the workhouse.
Common prayer was read daily before breakfast and after dinner, and church services were held on Sundays, Good Friday, and Christmas.
Rules and Regulations
One of the sources that give a correct idea of \u200b\u200blife in a workhouse is the code of conduct, according to which the order was regulated. These rules were posted on public display and read aloud so that the illiterate inhabitants of the workhouse would not have excuses for disobeying these rules.
In 1847, 233 articles developed by the Poor Law Commission were consolidated into a General Code of Rules for Workhouses, which was in force for the next 60 years. So, for example, according to articles 120 and 121 of the Rules, the inhabitants of the workhouse were strictly prohibited from gambling (cards, dice, etc.), smoking in any room and carrying smoking accessories, including matches.
Violation of discipline and punishment
After 1834, workhouse rule violations fell into 2 categories:
1. minor violations of public order;
2.willful disobedience to the rules
For violations of the first type, as a rule, relatively light punishments were imposed in the form of deprivation of certain types of food (most often, cheese and tea), while for the second type a more serious penalty was imposed, up to solitary confinement in a kind of punishment cell.
Workhouse punishment books often record the extreme severity of punishments given to their occupants.
Misdemeanor | Punishment |
||
Elliott, Benjamin | Neglected work | To deprive lunch, for dinner nothing but bread. |
|
Rustled and swore | 24 hours in a punishment cell on bread and water. |
||
Fought at school | Deprived of cheese for a week |
||
Greenham, Mary and Payne, Priscella | Quarreled and fought | Deprive meat for one week |
|
Broke the window | Sent to prison for 2 months. |
||
Tried to escape, climbed the wall | |||
Refusal to work | Jail for 28 days. |
||
Refusal to work | Deprivation of cheese and tea for dinner, deprivation of breakfast |
||
Soaper, Elizabeth | Used swear words in the bedroom I tried to incite others to disobey. Refused to work. | Imprisonment for 14 days by decision of the magistrate |
How and what they ate in the workhouse
As a rule, the meals of the inhabitants of the workhouse were scheduled in great detail.
For example, in the St. John's Ward Workhouse in the 1870s, each adult resident was supposed to:
7 ounces (about 200 grams) boneless meat
2 ounces (56 g) butter
4 ounces (112 g) cheese
1 lb (453 g) bread
3 pints (1.7 L) beer
Children and old people received food with a high content of meat and dairy dishes. Since 1856, special dietary tables have been introduced for children aged 2 to 5 and from 5 to 7 years. Special food was required for sick people. Thus, Oma workers dealt with at least seven kinds of diets, each of which was carefully calculated. At the time of his admission to the workhouse, each newcomer was attached to a certain "table"
The main ingredient in the diet was bread. For breakfast, it was supplemented with oatmeal boiled in water, sometimes with the addition of flour. The broth was the water in which the meat was cooked for dinner, sometimes with a few onions and rutabaga. Tea - often without milk - was served to the elderly and disabled for breakfast. Dinner was a repetition of breakfast. Lunch was the most varied, although a few days a week it could be just bread and cheese. Other types of lunch could include the following dishes:
Rice pudding, rarely raisin pudding (served mainly to children and the infirm)
· Meat and potatoes grown in the workhouse vegetable garden; the meat was usually cheap beef or lamb, sometimes pork or bacon was cooked. Since 1883, in some workhouses, fish was served once a week for dinner.
Soup - meat chowder with the addition of a small amount of vegetables and seasoned with pearl barley, rice or oatmeal for thickness
Until the 1870s, sugar was a rare treat in workhouses. Fruit was practically absent.
Pea soup, 1 pint - Meat (shank or beef) 3 ounces bones, 1 ounce; peas, 2 oz; potatoes and other fresh vegetables, 2 ounces; dry herbs and spices; meat broth. Pearl barley soup or meat chowder, 1 pint meat, 3 ounces; bones, 1 ounce; Scottish Barley, 2 oz; carrots, 1 ounce; seasonings and broth. Chowder, 1 pint Meat broth, 1 pint pearl barley, 2 oz; leeks or onions, 1 oz; parsley and condiments. Rice pudding, 1 lb Rice, 3 oz; kidney fat, ½ ounce; sugar ½ ounce; skim milk, ½ pint; spices and salt. Meat potato pie- Flour, 3½ oz; kidney or other fat, ½ ounce; raw meat, 3 ounces; 7 ounce potatoes; onions, spices and broth. Gruel porridge, 1 pint Oatmeal, 2 oz; molasses, ½ ounce; salt and allspice, water. Oatmeal, 1 pint Oatmeal, 5 ounces; water and seasonings. Eat with milk. Tea, 10 pints Tea, 1 oz; sugar, 5 ounces; milk, 1 pint. |
In large workhouses, workers usually dined in rows one after the other, men and women separately. In the canteens there were scales in order to weigh portions in cases where the workers felt that their portions were smaller than the standard ones. Be that as it may, the practice often did not follow the theory and the quality and quantity of food served to the inhabitants of the workhouses was, as Buxton noted, worse than the food of the convicts. In 1845, the Andover scandal came to the attention of the public when it was discovered that in the Andover workhouse, workers engaged in grinding animal bones were so hungry that they scraped rotting meat from the bones and hid some of their "prey" for later eating.
There were frequent cases when this or that poor fellow, leaving the workhouse in the morning, returned in the evening and demanded to be taken back. The reason for such absences was often an ordinary desire to drink. Attempts were made to somehow regulate the process: for example, they lengthened the period in which the person living in the house had to warn about their departure, or they did not give away the clothes that were the property of the workhouse.
But, of course, most stayed in the workhouse for a long time. A Parliamentary Report from 1861 stated that 20% of the inhabitants of workhouses had been there for more than 5 years. Most of them were old people or suffering from various physical and mental ailments in a chronic form.
Medical care in workhouses
Almost all workhouses had blocks for the sick. At the same time, aside from one "sanitary officer," the nursing care was provided by female workers in workhouses, many of whom were so illiterate that they could not read the name of the medicine on the label. Until 1863, there were no skilled nurses in workhouses outside London
The 1860s saw a gradual improvement in health care in workhouses. The most notable figures were Louisa Twining, Florence Nightingale, and the medical journal The Lance t. In 1865, The Lancet began to publish a serious account of the conditions in which the sick in the workhouses were. Description The home of St George the Martyr in Southwark was typical of that time:
As a result, the government was forced in 1867 to pass a law called the Urban Poor Act, which required hospital blocks to be located in workhouses separately from their places of residence.
Another serious problem for workhouses was the presence of venereal patients. These patients, as a rule, were not admitted to charity hospitals. Many workhouses had special "infection wards" for these patients.
Death in a workhouse.
If the occupant of the workhouse died, his death was reported to the family (if there was one) and the relatives could arrange the funeral themselves if they wanted.
If this did not happen, the organization of the funeral was undertaken by the servants of the workhouse and the deceased was buried in a cemetery belonging to the parish on whose land the workhouse was located. Few workhouses had their own cemeteries. The burial was carried out in the cheapest coffin in an unmarked grave, into which, if necessary, several more coffins could be lowered. Since tramps were also accepted into workhouses for a temporary settlement (up to 2 days), then, in the event of the death of such “temporary” tenants, according to a special law of 1832, their bodies, unclaimed by their relatives within 48 hours, could be given for medical needs. Be that as it may, all deaths were necessarily recorded. In some places, workhouses had special coffins for transporting bodies to the cemetery (where they were buried without a coffin). Such a coffin had a hole in the lid, where a special flag was inserted to warn of the presence inside the body.
In 1575. in one of the English statutes, which dealt with "the punishment of vagrants and the relief of the burden of the poor," construction of correctional houses, one per county. Their name became associated with the idea of \u200b\u200bworkhouses and became synonymous with them; soon in England there were up to 200 workhouses under this name... A few years later, it was decided to support a private initiative: from now on, to open a correctional house or a "hospital", no official permission was required.
London workhouse was a well-guarded workshop, under constant supervision and distinguished by prison discipline. The workshops were controlled by craft guilds, and the prisoners' food depended on the results of their labor.... The idle vagrants were sent to work in mines and bakeries, where the work was hard and required not qualifications, but only physical strength. The house soon faced insurmountable difficulties: unemployment in London was so great that it was unable to provide work for all the vagrants sent there, which immediately diminished the role of the house as a punitive institution.
At the beginning of the XVII century. was undertaken total reorganization: at correctional homes and hospitals, handicraft workshops and manufactories (mills, spinning mills, weaving) were obligatory, bringing additional funds for their maintenance and giving work to those who were kept there. The right to decide who deserved to be placed there was vested in the magistrate. However, these measures were not successful: correctional institutions soon merged with prisons, and in Scotland it was not possible to introduce them at all.
England was in economic downturn during the creation of the first correctional houses, so their introduction was ineffective. Already in the middle of the 17th century. the rise began, requiring the greatest possible involvement of labor, preferably cheap, which became a powerful incentive in the organization of work (correctional) houses.
IN Holland appeared two workhouses: for men - Rasphuis, where the main occupation was the processing of Brazilian wood, and for women and children - Spinhuiswhere the latter were spinning and sewing clothes. Work in Dutch workhouses was carried out in groups and paid. In addition, special time was set aside for prayer and reading of religious books, and the stay was limited to 8-12 years. At the same time, cruel punishments awaited violators of the regime: in the same Raspheis they were kept in separate cells, constantly filled with water. The cell had a pump and the prisoner was constantly busy with work, pumping out water.
The Dutch model became indicative of the construction of workhouses in Germany... In the 1610s. such establishments appeared in Bremen and Lubeck, and then in a number of other cities. Attempts have been made here introduce some rational principles into the functioning of houses: so, in the charter of the Hamburg workhouse, it was noted that the cost of the work performed was clearly calculated, and those who were in attendance received only a fourth of it. Eight managers drew up a general work plan. The foreman gave a task to everyone and at the end of the week checked how it was done. In Germany, each of the insulators has its own specialization.
In Francewas created three workhouses: for men, for women and children over the age of eight, and for the seriously ill. In the first two, inmates were required to work from dawn until dusk, starting at 5 am in the summer and 6 am in the winter. Men were employed in mines, brewing, sawmills, and "other places of hard labor," while women and children sewed and spun, dressed shoes and buttons, etc. Those who did not meet the work quota set by the guards were punished: their daily food the diet was reduced, and with constant labor disturbances, they were evicted from the hospital and imprisoned in a dungeon. The beggars who worked in these hospitals were paid only a quarter of their earnings, the rest went to the hospital. In parallel, special squads of guards to combat street begging with the introduction of a special reward for the capture of vagrants.
In the eyes of the authorities and the outside public, these hospitals have become, with all their contradictions, institutions of charity.
In the 1620-1630s. the leading role in the creation of hospitals in France, called "general", began to play a secret religious and political organization, the Society of Holy Communion.
May 4th 1656g... a special education decree was signed General Hospital in ParisThis was necessary, since the number of the poor in the capital reached 40 thousand people.
The Paris General Hospital has become a single governing body for several existing institutions (combined all the early existing shelters and hospitals). Every year the number of establishments grew, correctional house for prostitutes, in 1666. The clothes of the prisoners in the institutions of the General Hospital were a gray robe with a hood, each bearing the hospital's emblem and number. The General Hospital was to admit everyone who came voluntarily or sent by decision of the royal or judicial authorities. Responsibilities for the provision of food and general supervision of the abused were assigned to the managers.
In general, with all the variety of workhouse models that have found their application in different countries of Western Europe, these correctional institutions performed two most important functions:
a) withdrawal from society of loiters and prevention of unrest and riots in order to maintain social peace and balance;
b) the use of cheap labor by providing work to people who are kept under lock and key and forced to work "for the good of all."
Throughout the entire XVII century. there are more and more calls for "charity schools" or "free schools for the poor." In Paris, free schools were established in most Catholic parishes thanks to a large influx of private donations, and some of these schools also taught professions.
Girls, who had been away from education for a long time, were not forgotten either. In 1646. Louise Bellange gathered 40 poor girls. New monastic associations also dedicated themselves to the same mission: the order of the Ursulines "maintained schools for girls with and without boarding schools."
Nevertheless, free schools never became educational institutions intended for the lowest strata of the people. From the very beginning, a fairly wealthy public was drawn there: children of artisans, merchants, bourgeois, who did not get into traditional schools.
Thus, in the 16-18 centuries. in Western Europe the transition from the church system of assistance to the state one begins.
A very clear picture showing the difference in "social support for the poor" during capitalism and the Middle Ages.
Above is a modern (19th century) Workhouse in England. Maintenance of the poor under "democratic, market capitalism". Prison conditions of detention. Beating and bullying. Miserable hungry food - gruel and porridge. "Maintaining discipline" by imprisonment in a punishment cell. The corpses of the deceased are handed over to doctors "for scientific purposes" (for disassembly for organs).
Below is a medieval Catholic monastery. Maintenance of the poor during the terrible Inquisition and other "horrors of medieval obscurantism." Conditions are quite decent. The food is tolerable - chicken legs, white bread, cheese, wine. "Maintaining discipline" by preaching repentance. The dead are buried with all the honors.
Here, of course, the supporters of pure, unclouded capitalism will exclaim: " But now there are no such Workhouses. On the contrary, the poor are completely blooming and impudent! Everybody gets huge social assistance and doesn't want to work at all! In the United States, 40% already live on welfare benefits! Yulia Latynina said!"
But this is a temporary phenomenon. Everything goes to the fact that the tough legislation against the expropriated, which Latynina and others like her yearn for, will be restored. The hysteria now being fanned is helping to prepare "public opinion" for this.
Many norms are already being introduced: seizure of apartments for debts, seizure of children from low-income families within the framework of "juvenile justice", etc. It remains only to return the formal imprisonment for "parasitism".
But even here the bearer of a pure, unclouded capitalist worldview will exclaim: " So why is it bad for us? After all, we will not suffer if they imprison any beggars and homeless people, tunedians and alcoholics in the "special house"".
Guys, pay attention to the words:
"The threat of being housed in a workhouse forced many poor people to agree to any conditions of work in factories, which allowed factory owners to cut wages."
And this applies to everyone. For the salary will be reduced for everyone. With disenfranchised slaves working for minimal wages, no one wants to pay you a high salary just for assurances of your loyalty to "market capitalism" decent "university graduates. Do you want to live in constant fear, gentlemen?
Original taken from timplay in Historical facts. Workhouse.
A work house is a charitable institution created to help those in need and in the form of assistance providing paid work with the indispensable residence in such a house and submission to its internal order. According to the Oxford Dictionary, the first workhouse appeared in Exeter in 1652. At the same time, there is a mention of the term in 1631: the mayor of Abingdon announces "the construction of a workhouse to provide work for the disadvantaged."
Workhouses first appeared in England in the 17th century and were originally forced to combat begging. Under the begging laws, the bankrupt poor were placed in homes where they were required to work. Internal order was not much different from prisons. There was a system of rewards and punishments: additional work could be assigned for violation of discipline, corporal punishment, punishment cells, and food restrictions were also practiced. Men, women and children were kept separate from each other. The threat of being housed in a workhouse forced many poor people to agree to any conditions of work in factories, which allowed factory owners to cut wages.
Under the Poor Law of 1834, all those who applied for public assistance were forcibly placed in workhouses. Conditions in workhouses have repeatedly caused scandals (for example, the Andover scandal or the Huddersfield scandal). The Chartists included the demand for the liquidation of the workhouses in the 1842 petition.
In connection with the development of social (including pension) security in the 20th century, the workhouse system has outlived its usefulness. They have actually turned into homes for the elderly and disabled.
Photo en.wikipedia.org
Fighting poverty and unemployment through the provision of "labor assistance" is not a new idea, and this idea was embodied on the largest scale in Victorian England. True, the result of the British came out, to put it mildly, ambiguous. The word "workhouse" is known to many thanks to literature, but it evokes the most bleak associations. Indeed, the workhouse system in England was almost universally hated. But the state was able to offer something in return only in the twentieth century.
Imagine that it is a cold night outside somewhere in the middle of the 19th century. The scene is a slum of some British city, let's say we are in the East End, the proletarian part of London. A crowd gathered at the gates of the gloomy brick building. The building is a workhouse that has been built in recent years in ward unions under the new Poor Law.
Someone hobbled along, others brought their family. Most are dressed in such rags, by which you cannot even guess what they were in their best times, but on someone, albeit a thousand times repaired, but a frock coat and even a faded top hat: fate is a windy lady. One way or another, these people have nowhere else to go: they are either no longer suitable for other work, or they are not taken somewhere else, which means that the poor fellows do not even have a few shillings a week for renting a closet in the slums and on coal to heat.
They say that it is better to go to collect garbage in the mud on the banks of the Thames in the hope of selling something to a junk dealer or collecting dog excrement for tanners (skins are cleaned with alkali-rich feces, and for a bucket of “product” of good quality and the right consistency, you can help out up to a shilling) ... But going to the workhouse is the last step. Unfortunately, the laws in the country are now such that no other aid can be expected from the state. Do not stay on the street to die of cold and dampness.
Inconvenient charity
The Industrial Revolution brought prosperity to England and a reputation as the flagship of world progress, which Albion will retain until the 20th century, when the nimble Yankees will take over the proud title. But the underside of this undoubtedly titanic dash was pretty unsightly. Yes, newfangled machines, each more productive than a dozen people, move the country forward. On the other hand ... people whom these machines have replaced are joining the ranks of the unemployed.
The early 19th century in England was marked by "revolts against the machines." The workers, following the example of the semi-mythical rebel Ned Ludd, begin to smash the factory machines - whole regiments of “red coats” have to be thrown to suppress the protests, but they are so lacking in the Pyrenees, where Wellington is at war with the French! Luddites are not afraid of either noose or exile to Australia, despite the fact that sabotage in wartime is a serious crime. Rural workers are also revolting - the introduction of powerful threshers left them without a piece of bread, which is now expensive: the government took its farmers under its wing and imposed protective duties on foreign grain, without thinking about how this would affect prices within the country.
And most importantly, the rise in unemployment, when the industrial breakthrough in the second quarter of the century was replaced by a crisis that coincided with a population explosion. So the already large army of English homeless people began to multiply at a truly alarming rate.
Society is naturally agitated. At the end of the last 18th century, an unfavorable scenario for the development of events was predicted in the book “Experience of the Population Law” by the Anglican priest and scientist Thomas Malthus. True, the thought expressed in the work is far from the ideals of Christian love: the population, writes Malthus, is growing much faster than its livelihoods multiply, and if this goes on, hunger and other cataclysms cannot be avoided. What to do? According to Malthus, people who cannot provide themselves normally should engage in moral self-restraint and abstinence, and society, in order not to encourage the reproduction of the poor, should stop abusing charity.
The scientist's word quickly found a response in society, or rather, in the middle and upper classes. The case started. In 1834 Parliament passes the Poor Law Improvement Act. The system of charity that had developed by that time, which placed the care of the poor on the shoulders of the members of the parish, was radically revised, and since then England has become a "country of workhouses."
Of course, the idea of \u200b\u200bgiving shelter and food to the poor in exchange for labor was not new: at least at the end of the 17th century, there were already workhouses in the country. But if previously the members of the parish who were left without means of subsistence could count on help in money or bread, now the law obliged parishes to unite and build new workhouses, and to stop benefits for the poor. In the next decade, lawmakers issued two more norms that completely banned the provision of any assistance to the poor other than getting into workhouses (although this ban was nevertheless ignored in many parishes).
To top it all off, the architects of the “new charity” decided that so that the number of beggars and parasites would decrease and they would not think of burdening society with themselves unless absolutely necessary, workhouses should be made intimidating.
"BASILIES" FOR THE POVERTY
“... The homeless had some kind of freedom. Getting into the workhouse meant giving up self-respect and losing family ties. It inspired unimaginable horror ... - writes the researcher of the Victorian life Lisa Picard. - Now an old person or a cripple, who needed only a little help, could not stay in his own house, receiving “allowance for the poor” from the parish. Spouses, who had lived together for more than a dozen years, had to go to the workhouse, where they were separated, assigned to the department for “male beggars” and “female beggars”. The children were taken away from them. The brothers might never see their sisters again. Such was the order in the workhouse. "
Workhouses were quickly dubbed "beggar's bastions." The resemblance to prisons was evident. Here is a typical workhouse dating back to the 1830s and 1840s: a high fence and dull buildings for separate living and working for different categories of “residents”: children, crippled, women and men - all separately. Rise before dawn. Hang up on signal at eight in the evening. Lunch on call. All are in a convict form (the clothes of women who gave birth out of wedlock are marked with colored stripes as a sign of shame). Whoever violates the regime will go to the punishment cell. With relatives, if they come to the workhouse, meetings are short, strictly according to the hours - and even if they are very lucky. The work is monotonous and hard. If you are a man and can hold a hammer in your hand, go to crush cobblestones into rubble for roads. If a woman, an old man or a child is like Dickens's Oliver Twist, you will, stripping your fingers into the blood, pinch the old tarred ship ropes on tow with breaks for food and prayers. Rest on Sundays - but on ordinary days, free time is not allowed. Although you have to work a lot, the food is extremely poor:
“The workhouse in St. Marylebone involved both crushing stone and plucking tow,” Picard writes. “For this, the poor did not receive payment, only a bread ration: 4 pounds a week for a married man, and another two-pound loaf for each child. With little luck, he could sell part of the bread in order to buy something necessary ... "
How can we not recall a textbook scene from no less textbook Dickens?
“Evening has come; the boys took their places. An overseer in chef's outfit was placed at the boiler; his beggar assistants sat behind him. The porridge was poured into bowls. And a long prayer was read before the meager meal. The porridge disappeared; the boys whispered to each other and winked at Oliver, and the nearest neighbors pushed him ... He got up from the table and, going up to the warden with a bowl and spoon in hand, said, a little frightened by his insolence:
Sorry sir, I want some more.
The warden was a stout, healthy man, but he turned very pale ... The assistants were numb with surprise, the boys with fear ...
The warden struck Oliver over the head with a scoop, grabbed him tightly by the arms, and yelled for the beadle.
The Council was in solemn meeting when Mr. Bumble burst into the room in great excitement and, addressing the gentleman in the high chair, said:
Mr. Limkins, I beg your pardon, sir! Oliver Twist asked for more porridge!
There was general confusion. Everyone's faces were contorted with horror ...
This boy will end his life on the gallows, ”said the gentleman in the white waistcoat. "I know this boy will end his life on the gallows."
In addition, other trustees and overseers did not hesitate to cash in on the allowances of the inhabitants of the workhouses. Some of the facts unearthed by journalists had a great resonance, although it was only a drop in the sea of \u200b\u200babuse. Then, as now, in closed social institutions they tried to prevent the curious from poking their noses into the internal affairs of the “social workers”.
One of these scandals that "burst" into the outside world happened in the Andover workhouse (Hampshire in the south of England). Its inhabitants were assigned to an unpleasant job - to process old bones into fertilizers. The diet of the poor fellows was so “facilitated” by the guards that people rushed to gnaw on the rotten moss in hunger.
However, conditions in the workhouses depended on the goodwill of the trustees. Here is what Picard writes about the other workhouse, comparing it to Saint Marylebone:
“In the Westminster General Workhouse, every vagrant who applied to the regular department was welcomed at any time of the day or night, given 6 ounces of bread and an ounce of cheese, given him a bed on a straw-covered deck, and given two or three blankets to fumigation. When they left, in the winter at eight in the morning and at seven in the summer, they were given more bread and cheese. No work was required. This shows how parishes and the Union (unions for the care of the poor began to appear on the basis of parishes after the law of 1834. - Note A. Ts.), Despite the laws, each continued to act in his own way, generously or sparingly. "
CHILDREN
If an adult man could still leave the workhouse and try to find seasonal work, then the elderly, women and children, as a rule, had nowhere to go.
In the workhouse, however, children were entitled to some kind of free primary education, which, in general, was not guaranteed by British legislation at that time. In addition, such children, like Oliver Twist, were often sent to the training of masters. True, the methods of education and vocational training were such that children sometimes died.
However, if the child was left an orphan, he might not live to see this happy moment. After the death of his mother, Dickens' hero, I remember, was sent to the so-called “children's farm”, where “from twenty to thirty other young violators of the law on the poor were swarming for whole days on the floor, without suffering from excess food or clothing, under the maternal supervision of an elderly person, which received these criminals for seven and a half pence from the soul. " Oliver Twist couldn't bear any good memories from the farm, but at least he got out of there alive. There are cases when the mistresses of such farms, taking money for the children, simply killed them in order to collect the next batch - they were not particularly interested in the fate of the pupils. And it did not often come to justice, although there were exceptions. So, in 1870, the owner of one of these "farms", Margaret Waters, was sentenced to hanging: a woman deliberately starved 19 children to death.
ELIMINATION
The workhouse system caused outrage in society. The demand for their destruction was voiced during the Chartist riots of the 1840s (see Solidarity, No. 17, 2012) - during the riots the Chartists even tried to storm the workhouses. Journalists and writers like Dickens shouted about what was happening outside their walls. Eventually, workhouses begin to "improve" little by little. In the 1860s, when the second wave of workhouse construction swept across England, the organizers at least took care of the appearance of the institutions: the new buildings became less depressing, there was more light and fresh air in them. But the system itself survived until the 20th century.
“While the workhouses were hated, they nevertheless represented an attempt to address the perennial problem of poverty in London, and this was reluctantly acknowledged by those in need,” Picard writes.
Indeed, in large cities and by the beginning of the 20th century, the problem of mass begging remained extremely acute. Here is what Jack London writes, who in 1902, disguised as a poor man, went to personally investigate the life of the London lower classes:
“In London alone, one million eight hundred thousand people belong to the category of the poor, and in part even the poor; add to them another million of those whom a week's pay saves from begging ... Every fourth Londoner dies in a charity; out of every thousand inhabitants of England, nine hundred and thirty-nine die in poverty; eight million people live from hand to mouth and, finally, twenty million do not know the most basic amenities ... from the statistical report for 1886 it is clear that in 1884 81,951 people died in London, of which: 9909 in workhouses, 6559 in hospitals , in lunatic asylums 278 ”.
It was not until the 1930s that they decided to abolish the workhouse system in England. But individual houses, which changed the controversial name to "public aid institutions", continued to work until the end of the 40s. The last “bastilles” were liquidated when the Laborites who came to power after the war took a course towards a “welfare state” and legislatively approved a system of social guarantees for especially vulnerable segments of the population.
And in Ireland something similar existed until very recently. We are talking about the so-called “Magdalene Shelters” - institutions of the “social and correctional” direction, designed to reeducate “fallen women”. In a conservative Catholic country, this also included unmarried mothers or abused women in the 20th century. The essence is the same as in workhouses - closed residence, exhausting labor (as a rule, they worked as laundresses), psychological pressure, cruel treatment of warders, and sometimes sexual harassment. Many of the “maggie”, as the “wards” of these orphanages were called, did not go free until their death. The last “Magdalene Shelters” were closed only at the end of the century.
AND IN RUSSIA - A DESIRED SHELTER
Of course, when we say "workhouse", we mean, thanks to Dickens, especially England, but this phenomenon has spread to other countries as well, including ours. Catherine II decided to instill Western experience in her native spaces. In Moscow, a workhouse was first set up on Sukharevka, and later moved to a spacious house in Bolshoy Kharitonevsky Lane, bought from Prince Yusupov. In part, the workhouse, of course, served as a correctional institution, where the loitering beggars were placed - these were indeed locked up and worked for free. On the other hand, those who came to ask for work voluntarily were sent to do paid work, such as cleaning snow or picking up trash. They could leave the institution at their own discretion, and were kept separately from the prisoners of the tramps.
But workhouses in Russia did not become a comprehensive system - there were much more people who wanted to get into the same Yusupov house than it could accommodate. Perhaps this is why domestic workhouses could not become such cannibalistic institutions?
And then there was a revolution, which brought other ways of "labor education" into life. But that's another story.
"Among the public buildings in a certain city, which for many reasons it would be more prudent not to name and to which I will not give any fictitious name, there is a building that has long been found in almost all cities, large and small, namely, a workhouse."This is how Charles Dickens begins his novel The Adventures of Oliver Twist. Although Oliver's request - "Please sir, I want more" - was spoken in a faint, trembling voice, it was a fierce criticism of the entire workhouse system.
It should be noted that Oliver was very lucky. A doctor was present at his mother's birth, which was more of a privilege than a routine practice. Although Mr. Bumble frightened the boy by plucking a hemp, Oliver was hired as an apprentice to the undertaker. But many of his peers ripped off the skin on their fingers, tearing old ropes into fibers. But no matter how hard the hearts of Dickens' novel were, most Englishmen remained convinced that workhouses were a necessary measure to fight poverty. And conditions there should be a little better than prison conditions. Still not a resort.
Workhouses appeared in England as early as the 17th century and were charities where the poor worked in exchange for food and shelter. Until 1834, parishes were in charge of workhouses. They also provided the impoverished parishioners with another type of assistance - bread and scanty sums of money. Targeted assistance came in handy for the workers and peasants who lost their ability to work. In factories where safety rules were not followed, there were a thousand and one ways to get injured, and frequent illnesses undermined health. But where can we get funds to support cripples, beggars, orphans and widows? The wealthy parishioners were taxed in favor of the parish, which, of course, did not please them. Moreover, in the 17th-18th centuries, the poor, left without means of subsistence, had to return for help to the parish where they were born. At the sight of the gloomy ragamuffins, and even with a brood of children, the parishioners began to grumble. Come in large numbers! Now hanging around the parish's neck.
In the first half of the 19th century, the situation with poverty and unemployment escalated so much that radical measures were required. From 1801 to 1830, England's population grew by two-thirds to reach 15 million. This trend worried economists, especially supporters of Thomas Malthus, who argued that uncontrolled population growth would lead to hunger and disaster. According to him, the population grew exponentially, and food - in arithmetic. If it were not for abstinence and disasters that halt population growth, mankind would be catastrophic. Simply put, hungry hordes would eat all the food.
The followers of Malthus did not like the practice of delivering bread to the homes of the poor. Otherwise, what good, they will begin to multiply uncontrollably. And already in the 1820s – 1830s, the prophecy of Malthus seemed especially relevant. The Napoleonic wars and the trade blockade undermined the economy of England, and the Bread Laws did not benefit the farmers, but they affected the family budgets of the workers - the bread rose in price significantly. Some counties were on the brink of ruin. In the mid-1830s, farmers breathed a sigh of relief, enjoying the warm weather and bountiful harvests, but a three-day snowfall in the winter of 1836 marked the beginning of a prolonged cold snap. England was waiting for "hungry forties", a period of crop failure, epidemics, unemployment, stagnation in the economy.
How, in such conditions, can we take care of the poor, who are growing in number? On the ominous 13 August 1834, Parliament passed a new Poor Law. The outdated system of parish philanthropy was replaced by a new workhouse system. Individual parishes were united in unions for the care of the poor, and a workhouse was built in each union. The poor went there, turning from parishioners into national property. The workhouses were run by a local board of trustees, which appointed an overseer (Master) and a housekeeper (Matron), considered applications from the poor, was in charge of budget issues, and investigated cases of abuse. And there were a lot of them.
The common people were hostile to the innovations. Rumors immediately spread that all the beggars would be forced into workhouses, and there they would be fed with poisoned bread - no parasites, no problems. In fact, the poor were faced with a choice. They could live in semi-prison conditions, with poor food and exhausting work, but with a roof over their heads. Or to preserve freedom, but then to take care of their own food. Conditions are tough, but there were no others at that time. No matter how much the Times criticized new institutions, the middle and upper classes were pleased with the parliamentary initiative. There were fewer beggars, and the parish tax fell by 20%.
Homeless. Drawing by Gustave Dore from The Pilgrimage. 1877
Journalist James Grant described the fate of the poor as follows: “When they enter the gates of the workhouse, they begin to think that they have ended up in a huge prison, from where only death will rescue them ... Many inhabitants of the workhouse consider it a tomb in which they were buried alive. This is the grave of all their earthly hopes "... What did await a beggar family in a workhouse, at the mere mention of which a chill ran down the spine?
The workhouse was a massive building with living and working quarters and patios for walking. Add a stone fence here, and the picture is gloomy. Sick and healthy, men and women, old people and children - all these categories lived separately. Once in the workhouse, the husband went to one wing, the wife to the other, the children over two years old to the third. First, the new guests were examined by a doctor, then they were thoroughly washed and given a gray uniform. As a sign of shame to unmarried mothers, a yellow stripe was sewn onto the dress.
The day at the workhouse was scheduled by the hour. Its inhabitants went to bed at 9 pm, and woke up after dark. The ringing of the bell informed them of the change in activity: get up, dress, read prayers, eat breakfast in silence, and work, work, work! Small children worked along with adults in their free time from school. In addition, children were given to apprentices, as in the case of Oliver Twist, or they tried to arrange for the service.
If the harsh life did not suit someone - well, run like a tablecloth, just don't forget your wife and children. The whole family left the workhouse in the same way as they did. In theory, husbands and wives were allowed to see each other during the day, although they had to sleep separately so as not to breed poverty. In fact, it was very difficult for the spouses to see each other during the day. The same was true for mothers with children, and newborns were taken away from unmarried mothers.
A terrible, but revealing story took place in the Eton workhouse, which was in charge of the former Major Joseph Howe (military men were taken as overseers). One of his workers, Elizabeth Wise, asked for permission to take her two and a half year old child for the night. The baby froze his legs, and his mother wanted to console and heal him. Just before Christmas, Mr. Hove announced that from now on the child should sleep with other children. The mother had the right to visit him during the day. But when the guard found her in the children's ward, where she washed the baby's legs and changed his bandages, he got angry and ordered her to leave. The woman refused to obey, and the warden dragged her out of the room, dragged her up the stairs and locked her in the punishment cell.
The punishment cell was a dark room with a barred window without glass. There, Elizabeth had to spend 24 hours - without warm clothes, food, water, straw to lie down, and even without a chamber pot. The temperature outside was -6 ºС. At the end of her term, Elizabeth was fed the cold oatmeal left over from breakfast, and again herded into the cell so that she washed the floor after herself (the absence of a pot made itself felt). The woman did not have enough strength for wet cleaning - her hands were numb. Then the sufferer was locked in a punishment cell for another 7 hours. Fortunately, rumors of the warder's brutality leaked to the Times, and then another incident surfaced: at his former duty station, Mr. Hove crippled a child by pouring boiling water over him. Despite this incident, Hove was calmly accepted to his new location. However, after the scandal with Elizabeth Wise, he was expelled in disgrace.
