The workhouse system in the years
1834-47 failed to uphold the
principles of less eligibility. How far
do you agree with this statement?
Tags
Files & media
intro:
one of the foundations of the new poor relief system established by the 1834 Poor Law
Amendment Act was 'less eligibility'. This was characterised as the position of the able bodied
recipient of poor relief not being made genuinely or ostensibly as desirable as the labourer of
the lowest class outside the workhouse. This essay will demonstrate the while provision of
food may not always have upheld the principles of less eligibility, the workhouse regulations
and disciplines illustrate the implementation of the principle. Thus, to claim that it failed to be
unjust.
main body:
1) healthcare and food provision
principle of less eligibility would cite the healthcare and food provisions while this claim
has merit, it does not negate the harsh policies in chores and regulations
given the condition many people outside would have to supply absolutely nothing in order
to be perceived as adhering to the concept of less eligibility
due to level of work that workers undertook, this would be impossible
workhouses made an imperfect attempt to sacrifice food quality
gruel the most common workhouse meal extremely calorific to continue working but
was also monotonous and plain
overall, would be inaccurate to say that the food provided to paupers failed to adhere to
the principles of less eligibility as, even though the quantity of foo was above the standard,
a compromise was reached in terms of quality of food
2) work
commission ruled that work done inside the workhouse could not pay more than what it
cost the workhouse could not pay more than what it cost the workhouse to keep the
pauper
The workhouse system in the years 1834-47 failed to uphold the principles of less eligibility. How far do you agree
1
with this statement?
1834-47 failed to uphold the
principles of less eligibility. How far
do you agree with this statement?
Tags
Files & media
intro:
one of the foundations of the new poor relief system established by the 1834 Poor Law
Amendment Act was 'less eligibility'. This was characterised as the position of the able bodied
recipient of poor relief not being made genuinely or ostensibly as desirable as the labourer of
the lowest class outside the workhouse. This essay will demonstrate the while provision of
food may not always have upheld the principles of less eligibility, the workhouse regulations
and disciplines illustrate the implementation of the principle. Thus, to claim that it failed to be
unjust.
main body:
1) healthcare and food provision
principle of less eligibility would cite the healthcare and food provisions while this claim
has merit, it does not negate the harsh policies in chores and regulations
given the condition many people outside would have to supply absolutely nothing in order
to be perceived as adhering to the concept of less eligibility
due to level of work that workers undertook, this would be impossible
workhouses made an imperfect attempt to sacrifice food quality
gruel the most common workhouse meal extremely calorific to continue working but
was also monotonous and plain
overall, would be inaccurate to say that the food provided to paupers failed to adhere to
the principles of less eligibility as, even though the quantity of foo was above the standard,
a compromise was reached in terms of quality of food
2) work
commission ruled that work done inside the workhouse could not pay more than what it
cost the workhouse could not pay more than what it cost the workhouse to keep the
pauper
The workhouse system in the years 1834-47 failed to uphold the principles of less eligibility. How far do you agree
1
with this statement?
