I visited the Workhouse, Southwell near Nottingham last week. It is a historical relic now looked after by the National Trust.

It is, unsurprisingly, a grim place that you really would not want to be in. That, as the audio information guide and the introductory film repeatedly said, was part of the point. This workhouse - and perhaps this was not emphasised enough - was distinctive among workhouses in adopting with great enthusiasm the idea that being a 'burden on the rates' should be something that no one would do unless it really was a last resort. An aspect of it that seems particularly hard is the breaking up of families into separate accomodation for women, men and children.

I certainly do not endorse that part of the deal. I also do not suggest we should go back to them.

But there seems to me no doubt that the Poor House or Workhouse system had major advantages which, in our horror at the tough conditions, are easy to ignore and generally are ignored:

- It did not create a vast class of people living on benefits.

- It did not encourage the creation of children outside marriage.

- It did not cause the many adverse consequences of these things which I won't describe in detail here (having done so at length in The Welfare State We're In) but which include misery on a massive scale, deep psychological scars, crime, child abuse and suffering and debasing of culture and civilised behaviour. There is misery here, but usually behind private doors, not on view in an institution.

- It did not encourage fraud and dishonesty.

- It did encourage saving.

- It did encourage mutual support within families and the creation of Friendly Societies which, in turn, strengthened mutually helpful and civilised behaviour.

What struck me most was the tiny proportion of the population in the workhouse. It was built for a maximum capacity of 158 people as at 1881. We were told that the majority of these were the old and infirm who were treated 'tenderly. Workhouses were at the origin of many local authority hospitals. In fact this one had an extra wing created for the old and infirm in 1871.

With a capacity of 158, the maximum number at the workhouse that were unemployed was 78. More probably the number was nearer 50 or 60. Meanwhile the population of the 49 parishes it served in 1871 was 20,352 according to a table in the entry hall (the number of parishes served increased after this date eventually to 60). So that suggest that the number who were on state benefits for unemployment amounted to 0.3% of the total population. The total number in the workhouse when full - including the old and infirm - was less than 0.8% of the population.

I guess that most people at the time were considered to be of working age given that children were expected to work from 11 and life expectancy was much lower than today. But even after adjustment for that, the unemployed on state benefits would seem to have amounted to less than 0.5% and the unemployed plus those of working age considered infirm would surely not have been less than 1%.

Compare this with the numbers who are claiming benefits as being incapable of work or unable to get work today. In many 'advanced' countries, there are about 10% claiming unemployment benefits and between 5 and 12% of working age claiming incapacity benefits. The rate for births outside marriage has, notably in Britain, exploded.

The Work House system was harsh and I do not believe any democratic society today would want it. However if one calculates the misery and crime and other suffering and the moral and cultural decay caused by the present benefit-dependent society by millions of people, is it better than the hardship and misery in workhouses suffered by a tiny proportion of Victorian society? It is a calculation that cannot easily be made. But it is moral cowardice not even to consider it.

One other point:

The National Trust presentation is reasonably fair for the vast majority of the tour. The fictional manager of the Work House in the audio guide is depicted as callous and incompetent but, on the whole, the presentation does try to suggest what they were trying to achieve. However in the final room, an exhibition gives the impression of huge progress since then. In a 'then and now' presentation, it appears that the workhouse was all there was for those in trouble in Victorian times. No mention is made of the vast Friendly Societies or the charities with budgets bigger than those of other countries at that time. Nor is there mention of family support. In contrast, the state welfare provision is presented as being totally fine and having no adverse consequences. There is also no mention of the fact that some comparisons are totally unfair since economic growth has created a society that is vastly richer than that of 1871.

The final page of the guide book makes a modest attempt at neutrality but the room at the end of the tour is absurdly and scandalously one-sided.

Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Welfare benefits

Comments (2) TrackBack (20)

Comments

Add a Comment