The_Andover_Workhouse_Scandal

The Andover Workhouse Scandal 1/ Source A lays out the changes in the law, made by the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834. The Act is enacted to provide the poor with a minimum standard of acceptable living and is sets up a ‘uniform pattern for the whole country’. While the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 was intended to secure the futures of all those living in poverty; Source A implies that although the conditions were unpleasant – ‘the conditions in the workhouse had to be worse than the conditions endured by the lowest paid workmen outside the workhouse’ they were to remain humane. Despite this the new laws were not followed by all of the individually run workhouses, most notably perhaps, the Andover Workhouse, where conditions were far below the minimum standard and inmates lived in fear of the workhouse master, Sergeant Major Colin McDougal. Source A in of itself is of little use when studying the Andover Workhouse, which ran so contrary to the Poor Law Amendment Act. However, when coupled with other historical sources that inform the reader of the ‘Andover Scandal’, Source A highlights the contrast between the average workhouse and that of Andover. Having been written in 1979 with, we assume, the aid of numerous historical sources, the information is likely to be accurate, as the author will have little to gain by reporting biased facts. 2/ Source B supports the idea that government officials believed that those who entered the workhouses as inmates were of less value than those who earned their own living. The Board of Guardians had, in the case of Andover, overseen the erection of the facility in 1836 and maintained reviews of the site until 1840. After the Andover Scandal it emerged that post 1840 the Board of Guardians had neglected its duties and left the workhouse solely in the hands of its master, Colin McDougal, which allowed him and wife to conduct their reign of terror largely unseen by any regimenting body. As shown in the Source B illustration, the Andover workhouse was built in much the same manner as the other workhouses throughout the country. Men and women were kept separate in order to discourage further generations of poor that were unable to sustain themselves. It also maintained the policy of keeping conditions as unpleasant as possible. The theory was that people would make every effort to support themselves if their only alternative was to suffer in the workhouse. There were no luxuries in the workhouse with the only rooms not used for exercise, quarters or the masters quarters being the bone house, where inmates worked, breaking bones apart to harvest the marrow for use as fertiliser and the dead house. The dead house would have been used far more often in a workhouse than in a local town as people succumbed to the lower hygiene and the depressing atmosphere of the workhouse. The location of the Andover workhouse was similar to that of most workhouses, just outside town to ensure that there was no interaction between the poverty stricken of the workhouses and the peasants of the towns and villages. 3/ That the poor of the Andover workhouse were treated more harshly than at other workhouses is no longer in doubt. Many historical sources agree that conditions were worse and the master brutal. At the time however, comments were not as clear cut with conflicting evidence from different sources. Sources A and B show both the laws regarding treatment of workhouse inmates and the layout of the Andover workhouse. Neither source attempts to suggest that the Andover workhouse was better or worse than any other establishment at the time. Both offer a solely factual view with no opinions to sway the reader. In source C however, evidence is presented by a doctor, LT Nayle that the Andover workhouse is ‘considered for industry, cleanliness and good order’ which ‘cannot be exceeded’. This evidence directly conflicts with all subsequent evidence, and with further investigation, is heavily biased toward maintaining the government’s image of acceptable workhouse conditions. The doctor would likely have been employed by the Board of Guardians to carry out his visit, and therefore it was in his best interests to portray the Andover workhouse as having normal conditions. Had he not done so he may have lost his employment with the board due to his ‘causing problems’. The evidence presented in source C should be treated with caution. Sources D and F are written by David Taylor in 1990. Hence the evidence will have been written with the advantage of historical perspective, sources and impartiality. Having been written as an educational textbook the information will be purely factual. The information included in sources D and F support the idea that conditions in the Andover workhouse were far below standard. Source D reports the events that lead to the investigation into the Andover workhouse. Details in the source such as ‘inmates at the workhouse were so hungry that they were eating raw flesh on animal bones’ are supported by many sources, notably source G. Source G is a first hand account of life in the Andover workhouse by a former workhouse inmate. Questions were asked by the Parliamentary Committee after the Andover workhouse issue was raised in Commons. The former inmates evidence gave further credibility to the goals of the anti workhouse groups. Source E contains evidence from another inmate with further stories regarding starving inmates. The pauper claims he ‘once saw Eaton take up a horse’s leg and take the hair off it, an eat the flesh. The leg was not cooked’. With the corroborating evidence Parliament was forced to act in order to protect the rich from unrest among the poor and suffering. While the Andover Scandal was not the only example of brutal treatment of the poor in the workhouse, most notably the similar Huddersfield workhouse scandal, it is now unanimously agreed to be the worst example of cruelty. This was largely due to the brutality of the master of the workhouse Sergeant Major Colin McDougal. The low rates of pay for masters of the workhouses meant that they were often cruel and incompetent. In the case of the Andover workhouse, the brutality of the master was compounded by the cruelty of his wife Mary Ann, and the temperament of their son. According to various historical sources it was not uncommon for female inmates to be subjected to sexual abuse by both McDougal and his son. Aside from this punishments included being locked in the mortuary with dead bodies overnight and flogging for children that wet the bed (as seen in source F). While the harsh conditions were originally approved by Parliament, especially the savings made by not feeding the inmates properly, after the investigation conditions were forcibly improved. Henry Parker, the Assistant Poor Law Commissioner, found his investigation exceedingly difficult as Parliament wanted the investigation to be conducted as quickly and quietly as possible. Before full details were given to the press Sergeant Major Colin McDougal resigned. While many historians believe this was due to pressure from the Board of Guardians, ultimately the matter was rendered irrelevant as the anti-poor law Mp’s attacked the competence of Henry Parker, after he recommended an acquaintance who had been dismissed for misconduct, for the vacant position of Andover workhouse master. The ultimate inquiry found that almost everyone involved in the Andover Scandal was guilty of at best incompetence, from the McDougals to the Board of Guardians. The 15 strong Andover Committee published a 2 volume report which led to the Poor Law failing to be re-enacted the next year. Bibliography : http://www.workhouses.org.uk/index.html'Andover/Andover.shtml www.victorianweb.org/history/poorlaw/andover.html History Coursework: Changing British Society
  The suffragettes campaigned between 1903 and 1914 for the right of women to vote in parliamentary elections. Explain why the suffragette campaigns had failed to gain women the national suffrage.
 Dating back to the mid 1800s, women’s suffrage had been established as a means to gain more political power in society. In 1903, Emily Pankhurst formed the WSPU, otherwise known as the militant Suffragettes. Her means for doing so was due to the disbelief in the NUWSS, which had been established the year before by Millicent Fawcett. Whilst the NUWSS – otherwise known as the Suffragists – aimed to achieve political equality for women through peaceful and legal campaigns, the Suffragettes ideology was of extremist and military action. Due to the two conflicting groups, the presentation of women was torn among society and the government, and hence, gaining the vote was made a more arduous task. Source 1 was written by William Randall Cremer, an MP in April, 1906. He states that “Women are creatures of impulse and emotion and do not decide questions on the ground of reason as men did”. Considering Cremer was an MP at the time, this source can not be considered entirely reliable as, during that time, there was a Liberal Government, who were wary of allowing women the vote due to the fear of them voting Conservative. It was commonly believed by many men during that period, that women were emotionally unstable and irrational, and therefore, it would be unwise to give them the vote.  The Suffragette campaign during that time emphasised the stereotypical view that many had of women during that time, as proven again in Source 3, “tying themselves to street lamps and park railings, throwing leaflets from the Gallery of the House on the heads of members, or getting themselves arrested for causing obstruction, the public were more amused than angry”. In other words, there was a belief that as opposed to causing anger and true emotion among the public, in particular, among the Government, the Suffragettes became figures of comedy that were not taken seriously, merely ridiculed, and a source of public disgrace for women.  However, whilst source 3 describes the behaviour of the Suffragettes as “terrorist activities”, Snowden highlights the idea that though these militant women were irrational, and therefore damaging women’s quest for the equal right to vote, “The National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies, whose gallant educational and constitutional work for women’s freedom had been carried on for more than fifty years”. In other words, the Suffragists had been “gallant” and were respected in their long-running, peaceful and intelligent campaign for equal rights to vote.   The Suffragists’ peaceful campaigns contrasted greatly with the Suffragettes militant ones. According to Source 3, “When they (Suffragettes) began to destroy property and risk the lives of others than themselves, the public began to turn against them”. Emily Davison was one member of the Suffragettes, who, as with the Suffragette ideology, wanted to cause controversy in order to gain the publics attention. In June, 1913, she threw herself in front of a horse and consequently died as a result. This is just one example of the attempts made by the Suffragettes to prove they would do anything to gain the rights for women to vote. They also stored small bombs in mail-boxes and smashed windows, among many other violent activities. According to Source 3, “the opponents of women suffrage never failed to point to these antics as proof of the unfitness for women to vote”. The opponents of the women suffrage campaigns used the controversy and radicalism of the Suffragettes to their advantage, and as a means of proving that their theology was right: women were not emotionally stable, nor rational enough to be responsible enough to vote, and as Source 4 says, “Many bitter things were said of the militant women”, not only my opponents of the women's suffrage campaign, but by the Suffragists themselves, who saw the radical and violent behaviour of the Suffragettes as damaging to their cause.   According to Source 2, women “are longing this, that, and the other to be, they’d like to be lawyers if it we’d allow, MPs they will be if they can anyhow”. This source was written in 1879, around the time women were becoming far more aware of their lack of rights, and far more determined to gain them. “There’s too many old women in Parliament now” is a colloquial reference to the way in which there were already too many men who were fussy and stuck in their ways. By this, the Source is referring to how they do not need any more women in Parliament as they already have “too many”, in other words, the old, fussy men. The right for women to vote was not a major Government issue at the time and therefore, it was not treated as an important matter. It was a stereotypical view that women were to remain at home and take care of the domestic jobs such as housecleaning and taking care of the children. Not voting in Parliament and becoming involved in politics.   The Suffragists were gradually gaining respect from members of the Government, and slowly beginning to reverse the stereotypical view of women at the time. According to Source 4, “the law abiding advocates of votes for women” were “quite orderly and devoid of any untoward incident”. This suggests that the Government was willing to listen to and take seriously the ideas of the peaceful Suffragists, however, whilst this source uses the Suffragists’ peaceful protest positively, the Suffragettes saw it as merely prolonging them getting the vote. They were aware that the Government was not particularly straining itself to give women the right to vote. Unlike the Suffragists, who campaigned, marched, held talks with members of Parliament, and handed out leaflets, the Suffragettes wanted direct and extremist action in order to gain publicity and played a dangerous game which resulted in a great deal of negative publicity for women as opposed to showing society that women were in fact, responsible. However, any publicity was seen as good publicity to the Suffragettes.   In order to stop the chaos, members of the Suffragettes were often arrested, however, this began the game of Cat and Mouse. Many would purposely get themselves arrested, and then, refuse to eat. This gained much publicity for them. After being released from prison, they would then be arrested again and so, the game continued. And still, the Suffragettes were gaining no Government sympathy, merely ensuring that “the public began to turn against them”.  According to all the sources but 2, which basically suggests that Parliament and the Government needs young, positive men as opposed to old, fussy men and women, the reason women had not acquired the right to vote by 1914 was because of the violent, extremist nature of the Suffragettes, contrasted with the law-abiding, “gallant” Suffragists. The Suffragettes reinforced the on-going idea that women were unstable, irrational and irresponsible and therefore, it was unwise to allow them the right to vote, and severally damaged any positive impact the Suffragists had upon the changing society of proving that women were intelligent and reasonable beings, capable of voting rationally. Women had not required the vote by 1914, because women were regarded in a very stereotypical nature, of being impulsive and irrational, and it was only during the first world war that women proved themselves to be very capable of taking on the man's role of being the breadwinner, and taking on the men's jobs whilst the men themselves went off to right. It was then, that women proved themselves to be capable of thinking and acting reasonable, hence, soon after, some were given the opportunity to vote.