The workhouse system in the years 1834-47 failed to uphold the principle of less eligibility.

How far do you agree with this statement?

The principle of "less eligibility" was a key aspect of the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 in
Britain, which aimed to make the conditions inside workhouses less favourable than the
lowest conditions of independent labour. The idea was to deter people from seeking relief
unless they were truly destitute and unable to support themselves. This would be achieved
by making the relief available only in the workhouse, whereby the workhouse would be a
genuine test of their destitution. In the years 1834-47 such practises were upheld to a large
extent given by the examples of the Andover scandal and rigid regulation enforces within
the workhouse which to a large extent humiliated and degraded the paupers.

The workhouse was intended to be the last refuge for the destitute. It was intended that the
principle of less eligibility, together with the deterrent conditions offered by the workhouse
test, would be self- regulating. It could be argued that the principle of less eligibility was not
upheld to its full potential. One crucial aspect to consider is the workhouse's provision of
employment opportunities for paupers. Under the workhouse system, paupers had to
participate in labour in exchange for relief. Although the wages for this labour were
minimal, the requirement for paupers to contribute in some capacity ensured adherence to
the principle of less eligibility, this means that people who got aid from the workhouse had
to work for it. The primary objective of this labour was to rehabilitate paupers and
reintegrate them into the workforce. While this objective was theoretically attainable, its
implementation encountered significant challenges. Although paupers received wages,
these were often lower than what could be earned in the lowest-paying jobs outside the
workhouse. This difference really hurt the main goals and effectiveness of the workhouse.
Furthermore, working conditions within the workhouse frequently failed to meet basic
standards, rendering the principle of less eligibility meaningless. or people were forced to
work hard for very little pay in terrible and dirty conditions, which made finding
employment in the free labour market a more attractive prospect. While the workhouse
provided employment opportunities, its failure to provide adequate wages, offer meaningful
work, and maintain sanitary conditions undermined the principle of less eligibility, rendering
its role in providing work ineffective.

Another important aspect to consider is how families were split up in the workhouse. The
workhouse system had strict rules about separating family members, which caused a lot of
emotional pain and difficulty. When someone entered the workhouse, it meant their
parents gave up all responsibility for them. This made people think twice about going to the
workhouse, even if they were extremely poor, because it meant being apart from their
families. People had to choose between earning a little money and staying with their kids.
However, there was a way that the idea of less eligibility helped these kids. It was thought
that unlike their parents, children couldn't be blamed for being poor. So, if children were in
the workhouse, they could get a better education, better medical care, and learn a trade
when they were a bit older, which meant they could make money on their own and not live
in poverty. But there were still ways the idea of less eligibility wasn't followed. With the
apprenticeship system, children could be taken far away from their families and never see
them again. Also, unlike adults, children couldn't leave the workhouse on their own. They
could become so used to living there that they couldn't handle being outside. It wasn't until
the Education Act of 1870 that children in workhouses could get a basic education, which
helped them fit into society better. Separating families in the workhouse shows that the
idea of less eligibility wasn't followed, because families would rather stay very poor than be
apart. Even though children in the workhouse got some benefits like education and better
care, they were still treated badly, like in the apprenticeship system and being confined like
in a prison. Because of these reasons, I believe that separating families in the workhouse is a
clear example of how the idea of less eligibility wasn't followed.

Another important aspect to consider is the living conditions in the workhouse. Many
workhouses were overcrowded, extremely dirty, and offered really bad living conditions.
These conditions were made deliberately harsh so that only those who really, really needed
help would ask for it. One big part of living conditions, along with work and separating
families, was the food provided. The food given to paupers was of low quality, and they
were only given enough to keep them alive. This was meant to make them feel low and
disciplined. The government also made six different diets that workhouse bosses could
choose from to give to paupers. This is where the idea of less eligibility is clear. But most
poor people outside the workhouse could barely manage to eat enough to survive. So, the
point of these diets was to keep people alive but also make mealtimes really boring. Paupers
were not supposed to enjoy the food they got. On top of this, the food given to paupers was
really bad quality. The meat, oatmeal, and cheese they were given were not good enough,
and sometimes they were mixed with other stuff. The meals were also made badly and
carelessly. In some workhouses, paupers weren't even given cutlery, so they had to eat with
their hands and drink from bowls. This shows again where the idea of less eligibility wasn't
followed. People were treated and fed like animals, not like human beings, in the
workhouse. Especially through the food they got and the lack of enough to eat, it's clear
they were treated very badly. So, for the paupers' diet, the idea of less eligibility wasn't
upheld.

In conclusion, it's important to recognize that the idea of less eligibility was applied
differently in various workhouses and regions during this time. Some workhouses might
have offered better conditions for work and living, and maybe more food options. But
overall, I agree with the statement that workhouses didn't stick to the principle of less
eligibility. There are a few reasons for this. First, the wages weren't fair, and the jobs given
to paupers were dull and repetitive. Then, there's the issue of separating families, where
kids could lose contact with their parents from a very young age, just to be sent away
somewhere else. And finally, the conditions inside the workhouse weren't better than life
outside. People were still hungry, living in really dirty conditions, and the workhouse could
treat them like they weren't even human, with bad food, boring jobs, and even shaving their
heads. Sure, some parts of less eligibility were met, like giving paupers shelter, food, and a
job. But compared to the terrible conditions inside, it's clear to me that the workhouse
didn't follow the idea of less eligibility from 1834 to 1847, and it failed.