ASPECTS OF CIVIL ADMINISTRATION AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN
NINETEENTH CENTURY KNOTTINGLEY
By TERRY SPENCER B.A. (HONS), Ph D.
Preliminary Draft May 2005
CHAPTER SEVEN
KNOTTINGLEY WORKHOUSE
The
Elizabethan Poor Law legislation was administered by the churchwardens as
the appointed overseers of the parish. Materials purchased from the Poor
Rate levy were stored and worked upon by able-bodied paupers within the
confines of the church vestry or some more convenient adjacent building,
whilst the sick and aged, too feeble or infirm to undertake manual labour,
were housed in alms houses.
By
the eighteenth century the sphere of activity of the parish officers had
widened to encompass virtually all aspects of local affairs so that the
more wealthy and important members of the local community formed an
oligarchy known as the Vestry in recognition of its administrative origin,
had become a standing executive committee dealing with the management of
the entire township.
The
effect of this administrative expansion is evident from the fact that work
undertaken by able-bodied men seeking parish relief was either done within
the Town’s Quarry, hewing and breaking limestone for use on agricultural
land and construction of local buildings and roads, or repairing the
latter, using stones gathered from the outlying fields of the township.
What
provision was made for the aged and infirm during this transitional period
is uncertain but it is not improbable that accommodation was provided on
the site of the former manor house of the Wildbore family which stood
adjacent to St. Botolph’s Church. Prior to the demolition of the manor
house in 1843, to facilitate access to the limestone beneath, (1) it is
known that the building was sub divided and that one part formed the town
prison. It seems likely, therefore, that the parish workhouse may also
have been located within the confines of the former manor house. By the
late eighteenth century, however, a decision had been taken to establish a
new poor house at Knottingley. The site for this development was at the
junction of Weeland Road and Headlands Lane, occupied by three cottages
donated sometime before by Mr. Daniel Poole as a residence for three poor
widows. (2) Forest states that the poor house was built upon the site of
Poole’s cottages, indicating clearance of the original buildings rather
than their extension or incorporation into the new complex, but does not
furnish a reason for the decision to build a new workhouse nor give a date
at which the development took place. From the evidence concerning the
expansion of the township during the eighteenth century it seems
reasonable to suppose that the existent poor house was too small,
prompting relocation. The construction of the workhouse at Hill Top must
have taken place early in the nineteenth century for by the time of the
Census of June 1841 twenty inmates were housed there; thirteen men and
four women, all aged between 40 – 85, together with three children aged
15, 10 and 5 years. In addition, the building provided a residence for the
Workhouse Master and his family and a committee room used by the Select
Vestry. (3)
The
site for the new workhouse was fortuitous and, indeed, may have been
dictated to some extent by its proximity to the debtors prison situated
only ten or a dozen yards lower down on the opposite side of the Hill Top
road. A further consideration was the fact that the site of the new
workhouse abutted the limestone workings belonging to the township and
were thereby ideally located for the provision of labour for the
able-bodied paupers. (4)
The
Vestry Clerk was also the Workhouse Master and assisted with the
collection of the parish rates and was designated as the Assistant
Overseer and referred to as the Perpetual Overseer since unlike the
annually elected Overseers of the Poor, his was a permanent position. (5)
The first recorded Clerk and Workhouse Master was James Allison who
was succeeded in January 1825 by Thomas Shillito. The terms of Shillito’s
appointment state his responsibility for providing provisions and coals
for the workhouse at 3 shillings per head or at 2s 9d per head should the
number of inmates exceed 20, for which responsibility "he have the
benefit of their labour".
A
valuation was taken of pots and culinary utensils which stock and
valuation Shillito was expected to return upon relinquishment of his post.
It was further agreed that Shillito could, at his convenience, nominate a
third party as Workhouse Master with the proviso that the engagement of
such an appointee end immediately should Shillito cease to be the
Assistant Overseer. Termination of the position was subject to one months
notice by either party. (6)
Shillito
commenced duty on the 8th January 1825, but administrative change appears
to have taken place within a few months of Shillito’s appointment for a
Towns Meeting was convened on the 25th April 1825 at which James Miller of
Ferrybridge was unanimously approved as Assistant Overseer at a salary of
£70 per annum. (7) The numerous entries in the Minute Book reveal that
Miller undertook the role of Vestry Clerk and Workhouse Master (8) but the
fate of Shillito is unclear. In August 1833 a John Shillito gave notice to
quit the Workhouse and the office of [Rate] Collector and shortly
afterwards proceedings were taken against him for the recovery of money
belonging to the Township and unaccounted for. (9) Whether John Shillito
is Thomas under another name is uncertain and even more confusing is that
advertisements for John Shillito’s replacement carried the same title
and salary applicable to Thomas Shillito’s appointment but currently
held by James Miller. (10)
John
Shillito’s replacement was succeeded by William Dickinson who resigned
the office of Assistant Overseer in January 1835 and was replaced by Peter
Sharrock. (11) Sharrock served as Perpetual Overseer until 1838. In April
of that year it was noted that the accounts kept by Sharrock were in a
confusing state with paupers recorded as in receipt of relief payments
long after the periods sanctioned by the Select Vestry, by 4-5 months in
some cases. Whether the problem arose from embezzlement or merely neglect
was unclear but on 1st May 1838 a special Vestry unanimously agreed to
dismiss Sharrock for his "..inattention and irregularities."
Sharrock’s
salary ceased with immediate effect and he was given notice to remove his
goods from the Workhouse by 1st June. (12) On Tuesday 15th May, Sharrock
met the Select Vestry and a compromise agreement was reached regarding
repayment of the money but one year further on the Select Vestry was
experiencing difficulty in obtaining repayment. (13)
In
addition to the management of the Workhouse and the duties of Vestry Clerk
the perpetual Overseer was "..required to attend the collection of
the Poor Rates, to occasionally assist the Surveyor in collecting the
Highway Rates and write an assessment for the Poor and Highway and Church
Rates [and] to pay weekly into the hands of the Overseers all money
collected." (14)
The
applicants for the post were henceforth required to provide two bondsmen
offering a surety of £150 to the township. The salary was £60 per annum
plus £10 per annum for the duties of Clerk and Workhouse Master. (15)
There was no shortage of candidates, however, and on the 10th May 1838,
Isaac Smith, having obtained the highest number of votes of the 14
attendant Vestrymen under the chairmanship of William Moorhouse, was
appointed to the post. The appointment was a judicious one for Smith was
to serve as Assistant Overseer for 21 years thereafter. (16)
Prior
to his appointment Smith was a local schoolmaster and in 1821 was recorded
as residing at Pottery Hill. (17) Following his appointment, Smith, his
wife Jane, and their teenage daughter, named for her mother, resided
within the workhouse, Smith’s wife being Workhouse Mistress. (18)
In
his capacity as Workhouse Master, Smith was responsible for the regulation
and financial administration of the Workhouse in accordance with the
dictates and budget decreed by the Select Vestry committee. The method
adopted by the Vestry was to put out to tender the supply of food, fuel,
clothing and miscellaneous services on a per capita basis, stipulating the
maintenance of minimum standards on a budget of 3 shillings per inmate.
All
indications are that Smith was overworked and poorly paid. Longmate has
revealed the ludicrousness of the general situation at that time in which
a prison governor with adequate staff, received about £600 per annum
while a workhouse master with 600 inmates, assisted only by his wife
received only £80. (19) The same source has also shown that combining the
posts of workhouse master and parish clerk whilst an example of financial
expediency, was a mistake in terms of administrative efficiency for not
only did each post demand different qualities and abilities but that each
job carried a sufficient workload to justify designation as a full time
post, thus promoting inefficiency and mismanagement. (20) Upon subsequent
consideration the committee revealed that the "Unanimous opinion of
the Vestry that Mr Smith have a new rate." (21)
A
note in the Chairman’s handwriting, inserted within the Minute Book
records, "That the salary paid to Isaac Smith, Assistant Master, from
March 21st 1851 to March 21st 1852, be seventy pounds with house, rent
coals, rates – and further, that for the above salary he shall write out
and collect the poors (sic) rates, Highway rates and Church rates."
The
victory was a Pyrrhic one for not only was Smith’s increase obtained at
the cost of a substantial increase in workload but conditional in that
"… the salary allowed to Mrs Smith of ten pounds per year shall
cease from 21st March 1851." (22)
Smith’s
rise in salary was therefore deflated by the loss of his wife’s income,
her post being taken by Miss Mary Fox who was employed as workhouse
mistress for almost a decade and a half until the closure of the workhouse
in 1865. (23)
Undaunted
by indifferent fortune, Smith next sought to subsidise his salary by
actually tendering for the annual contract to victual the workhouse. In
1854 the award of the supply contract was confirmed by a vestry resolution
dated 7th December which stated that, "… Isaac Smith be allowed 3s
6d per pauper per week for each pauper in the House and 3s per week for
the washing in the House of the year commencing 9th November 1854 and Mr
Isaac Smith has agreed to the same." (24)
Whatever
benefit Smith derived from the transaction must have been obtained at the
expense of the inmates. Smith’s own financial position was subjected to
the whim of the Select Vestry committee who as the wealthiest citizens of
the township and therefore the principal contributors to the Poor Rate,
naturally sought to trim the cost of Poor law administration.
Smith
is the epitome of the overworked but underpaid factotum dignified with the
tile of Assistant Overseer and a job description which fits neatly into
the general pattern of duties and responsibilities outlined by Geoffrey
Oxley in his seminal study of the English Poor Law. (25) Smith’s duites
covered the following areas:-
Collection
of rates
Distribution of relief
Keeping of accounts and receipts
Obtaining court orders re defaulters
Checking relief entitlement
Attendance at appeal hearings by magistrates
Collection of settlement certificates
Arranging pauper removals
Preparing cases for litigation
All
in addition to administering the affairs of the workhouse.
With
regard to the collection of the Poor Rate, Smith was assisted by an
assistant collector who was paid the sum of £15 per year. When in 1852,
the post was upgraded to Collector of rates at twice the salary, Smith’s
remuneration was reduced pro rata. Thus from £70 per annum it was
proposed that Smith "… shall have a salary of £50 per year…live
in the Workhouse and provide his own and his wife’s victuals." (26)
Clearly,
Smith’s situation was variable if not entirely insecure and even the
above reduction did not mark the limit of his misfortune for at a meeting
on the 24th June 1852, a proposition was made by Edward Hawke and
supported by Samuel Smallpage, two wealthy limeburners, "That Isaac
Smith’s salary as Assistant Overseer for the year beginning may 25th
1852 to May 25th 1853 be forty pounds – agreeably (sic) to the motion
proposed on May 13th 1852."
The
proposal was backed unanimously by the seven committeemen present. (27) So
heavy were Smith’s duties, however, that by the following November, at
the apparent instigation of the Vestry Chairman, John Carter, it was
decided to pay Smith £30 in token of services rendered from June 1852
(28) However, in March 1858, Smith in his capacity as Assistant Overseer,
was required, "… to do all the work of an Overseer except for
collecting the rates", but was still being paid only £40 per annum.
(29)
Overwork,
added to growing age inevitably took its toll on Smith and in March 1859,
after 21 years service to the Select Vestry, he submitted his resignation
which was accepted and marked with an expression of thanks. (30)
Intermittent entries in Smith’s handwriting in the Select Vestry minutes
during the final year of his stewardship may be an indication of a
breakdown in health. (31) At the annual public meeting to pass the
Overseers accounts on the 21st April 1859 it was proposed, ".. that
the thanks of this meeting be given to Mr Isaac Smith, the Assistant
Overseer, for the correct manner in which he has kept the accounts."
(32)
Clearly,
the formal and publicly expressed votes of thanks was regarded as
sufficient in itself and was doubly satisfying to the members of the
Select Vestry and assembled ratepayers as it cost them nothing.
Meanwhile,
consideration was being given to the appointment of Smith’s successor. A
Vestry meeting on the 17th March had concluded that it would be preferable
to appoint someone, "..to take charge on the entire management of the
House. Collect all parocial (sic) taxes and do in every way in accordance
with the Committee." (33)
With
this catch-all proviso the Select Vestry broke new ground by advertising
publicly in the local papers as well as having handbills printed and
circulated in accordance with previous practice, that a meeting was to be
held for the purpose of electing an Assistant Overseer. (34)
The
job specification stated that each applicant would have to produce a bond
of £200 as security, have the management of the workhouse and reside
therein, collect all the parish rates, be clerk to the Select Vestry and
attend to all other duties connected with the office of Overseer. (35)
At
the Town’s Meeting, held in the Wesleyan schoolroom on the 25th March
1859, Edwin Senior Atkinson was elected to the post, subject to the
acceptance of his bondsmen, Silvester Atkinson and John Fenton, by the
Select Vestry. (36) On the 24th April 1859, Atkinson formally commenced
his public work which was to continue for 37 years, concluding 1896. (37)
Atkinson’s
salary was far more generous than that received by his predecessor. A
Vestry resolution of a few years later, framed at the time when the
Pontefract Poor Law Union had recently been established and the transfer
of paupers from the workhouse at Knottingley to the newly constructed one
at Pontefract was imminent, reveals the salaries paid to the Knottingley
workhouse master and mistress.
"The
salary of £80 per annum be paid to Mr. E.S. Atkinson as Assistant
Overseer from March 25th 1862 to March 25th 1863 and to have the House to
reside in until the Township shall dispose of the same. The
Matron to have her salary continued at the rate of £10 per annum until
the Inmates be removed and her duties cease in reference thereto."
(38)
With
the transfer of the inmates to Pontefract in 1866 a major element of
Atkinson’s responsibilities was removed. In 1872 a recommendation was
approved at the annual Town Meeting that Atkinson be appointed as a
Surveyor of Highways with a good working deputy (39) and in 1880 it was
proposed at the annual meeting of the ratepayers’ that his salary be
increased from £80 to £100 per annum. An amendment by William Worfolk
nullifying the proposal failed to find a seconder and the proposition was
carried. (40)
Ten
years on and like Smith before him, Atkinson was in failing health due to
a combination of age and overwork. Again, the Minute Book entries in a
different hand reveal absence, presumably due to illness. The early years
of the 1890s were particularly strenuous as negotiations in respect of the
adoption of a Local Government Board and the establishment of an Urban
District Council which closely followed on, made exceptional demands on
the Vestry Clerk. At the annual Town Meeting on the 5th March 1896,
William Bagley formally announced the death of E.S. Atkinson and paid
tribute to the loss the township had sustained by his passing and a letter
of condolence was proposed to be sent to Atkinson’s wife and family.
(41)
For
those workhouse inmates capable of undertaking labour, work was
prescribed, being regarded as desirable on moral and physical grounds, not
to mention any economic return arising to offset the economic outlay.
For
the more robust element of the male residents, work was centred on the
roads or in the Town Quarry. Less active inmates were set to perform tasks
within the workhouse, washing, cooking, cleaning and even child minding
were routine jobs carried out by females while the men sawed and chopped
wood or picked oakum. The latter task involved the picking apart of old
ropes to produce fibre used for caulking ships. Indeed, the picking of
oakum seems to have formed the principle indoor occupation at Knottingley,
being eminently suitable for a maritime community where remnants of rope
were plentiful and the building of vessels widespread. The work was
tedious and painful, fingers becoming sore and bloody as the skin was
cracked and worn. To ensure that the work ethic was thoroughly instilled
the Select Vestry appointed Thomas Brook, "...to be overlooker in the
paupers workhouse when the inmates are tearing oakum." (42)
Brook,
from motives of pity or from wilful neglect, appears to have provided a
degree of amelioration by absenting himself from proceedings for in
January 1841, the Select Vestry decreed that, "Thomas Brook be
required to stay with the oakum teazers during their working hours."
(43)
It
appears that Brook was an inmate of the Workhouse for in October 1844 the
Vestry agreed that he, "...be allowed his expences (sic) to go to
Hull to see after his Trinity [House] money." (44)
The
mission was seemingly successful for a few weeks later it was decided that
Brook should pay 10 shilling per quarter from his pension. (45) The
impression gained is that Brook was a former seaman, perhaps possessing an
authoritarian manner, who had fallen upon hard times and was chosen by the
workhouse master, with Vestry approval, to supervise the activities of his
fellow inmates.
An
interesting insight into such activity is revealed by a Select Vestry
resolution of August 1842 that, "John Brevitt & Wife have 3s 6d
per week and that the Overseers Guarantee 4 stones of old rope to tease
into ocum (sic)." (46)
The
precise nature of the edict supports evidence from other sources that in
order to procure a certain amount of relief it was necessary to produce a
specified amount of work. However, experience resulted in many parishes
abandoning all attempts at profitable employment and concentrated solely
on obtaining an element of productive work in return for relief. (47)
Theoretically
the Select Vestry sought to minimise the cost of poor relief. One way to
do this was to contract out all supplies and services concerning the
workhouse. Apart from medical care, the haircutting and shaving of the
inmates was subject to half yearly or annual contracts. The earliest
reference to the system is in 1830 when it is recorded that William Wass
and Robert Lavarack (sic) had both made application to shave the male
paupers in the Workhouse at 1d per head. In August 1838, "Nathan Wass
shave the men in the Workhouse next Year." (48)
In
August 1843 John Lowe was recorded as undertaking the work (49) while in
August 1845 it was agreed "Barber Pease have the shaving for the next
half year."(50)
The
following year the contract was given to Nathan Wass and to Barber Lowe
again for six months from the first of September 1846. (51)
The
renumeration for the work is revealed by a resolution of 23rd March 1848
which states that, "The Barbers have two pounds ten shillings per
annum for shaving and haircutting the paupers in the workhouse." (52)
There
is an indication that the payment may not have been sufficiently inducive
to attract applicants for the work, however, for in October 1853 it was
resolved that "Bradford of Ferrybridge be applied to to shave the men
in the workhouse." (53)
The
words "at 30s per half year" are appended in pencil, presumably
at a later date, suggesting that the Select Vestry had found it necessary
to increase the salary in order to obtain Bradford’s services (54)
although the fact that the contract was awarded to George Hirst for the
following half year at a salary of 26 shillings indicates the existence of
an alternative source about that time. (55)
A
further area of contract work was the provision of pauper coffins. The
exclusive supply of coffins by a contracted agent appears to have
commenced in 1855 when the Select Vestry was specially convened for the
purpose of entering into an agreement concerning such provision. (56)
Previously, the supply of pauper coffins or financial assistance for their
procurement had been conducted in a less formal and piecemeal manner. (57)
However, at the meeting on the 20th December 1855 the Vestry sought to
regularise the supply and decreed that, "…in future the price of
paupers coffins is 13s and for children 7s." (58)
The
Vestry action appears to have met with little or no response from local
craftsmen for in March 1856 the Vestry resolved, "That the Overseer
see the joiners in the Town and request them to give an estimate of what
they will make a coffin for a year at once." (sic) (59)
Following
the survey it was decreed in May of that year, "That George Barton
have the coffin making for the next or coming year for paupers." (60)
Again,
in January 1858, "That John Dixon have the making of the coffins for
the Township at the close of the year [for] the year following." (61)
That
the work was placed out to tender on an annual basis is confirmed by an
entry in the Minute Book dated 19th May 1859, stating that, "Joiners
be requested to send in a tender for Coffins & Co. for the ensuing
year by next Vestry day", (62) and at the following meeting it was
decided, "James Braim have the Coffin making for 1 year commencing on
the 1st day of June Instant." (63)
It
will be seen that the Select Vestry sought to apportion the work amongst
the local joiners (in the same way that medical care was rotated amongst
the local doctors) but considerations of cost were always paramount as is
evident from the resolution of 21st March 1861. "Thomas Braim [to]
make the Coffins for the ensuing year if he agrees to do so at the same
price as Mr. Barton." (64)
The
provision of foodstuffs by local traders was another way in which local
Poor law administration benefited the local economy. The provisioning of
the workhouse was done at the discretion of the Assistant Overseer in
accordance with the specified per capita budget. In 1829 the allowance was
3s 6d per inmate and the same amount applied five years later when a
special Vestry was convened to consider adjustment of the amount to allow
inmates to have "3 meat days per week as a preservation against
Cholera." (65)
Rather
than rising, the allowance decreased over the years and as mentioned, had
reduced to 3s per inmate at the time of Isaac Smith’s appointment in mid
1838. In late 1841 we find the Select Vestry convened to examine and
approve the bills submitted by local traders for settlement. (66) By mid
century, however, it was decided "That every article of consumption
used in the workhouse is let by estimate." (67)
Just
what prompted the change in the system is not easy to define. While there
is no indication of impropriety by any of the Knottingley Overseers, it is
a matter of record that elsewhere such officials were open to corruption
or intimidation and it was in the hope of preventing misconduct that the
payment of a token fee at the conclusion of the year of office was
introduced by the nineteenth century, the post being unremunerative in
earlier days. (68)
There
would appear to have been some delay in implementing the resolution for
although in November 1854 it was decided that "Everything brought
into the House be contracted for", (69) in mid 1858 the Clerk was ordered
to write to the Clerk of the Wakefield Guardians to request a draft
specimen contract for food, shoes, clothing and fuel etc. (7) The extent
to which this action represents an initiative on the part of the Knottingley authoritites or was the result of the New Poor Law system with
its harsh economic realities is uncertain. Whatever the motivation and
however complete the contract system it is quite evident that tendering
was confined to the immediate vicinity for in 1857 it was stipulated
"That the Poor House be provided [for] by the grocers of Knottingley."
(71)
Again,
whether the decision was taken solely in terms of benefit to the local
community or on the assumption that personal knowledge of the tradesmen
within the township would ensure better value for money, is open to
speculation. Perhaps the Vestry members were impelled by the experience of
the previous year when, for whatever reason, it was necessary to agree
"Mr Smith will pay 7s extra charge for milk." (72)
In
general terms little is known concerning workhouse food but given the
financial constraints we may assume that the diet was drab, the staples
being bread, cheese, gruel, potatoes and occasionally, meat. Nor was the
quality of the food beyond questionable standard for in March 1846 the
Vestry, perhaps prompted by news of the Andover workhouse scandal,
resolved that "the flesh meet (sic) for the Workhouse be improved in
quality." (73)
Even
then, the cost restricted quality, hence the decision in September 1852
that, "The Bread Meal for the House shall be seconds and [used] for
puddings." (74)
Yet
whatever the shortcomings, there are lingering indications of a humane
attitude to dietary provision which marks a contrast between the Old Poor
Law system and the harsher uniformity imposed by the Act of 1834. Thus in
1841 it is recorded "Sarah Dyson have a bit of savoury meat and
cheese." (75) An obvious sop to an old woman who at 85 was the oldest
inmate of the workhouse at that time. (76) A few years later it was
sanctioned that the blind inmate "William Darnford have 1lb of meat
extra." (77)
The
usually inaccurately rendered poem, ‘Christmas Day in the Workhouse’
by George R. Simms, dates from 1877 and is therefore a critical comment on
the Union Workhouse system inaugurated after the reform of the Poor Law in
1834. Prior to the establishment of the Poor Law Unions, Christmas Day had
been marked by a treat for the inmates of many small parish workhouses of
which Knottingley was no exception. An item from November 1854 by John
Carter, Chairman of the Select Vestry, records "That the keeping of
the Paupers in the Workhouse as to food and fuel be 3s 6d per week for the
forthcoming year." (78)
Given
such a degree of financial stringency one may assume that any Christmas
treats for the inmates would be sparse unless supplemented by voluntary
donations from sympathetic townspeople. Regardless of source, Yuletide
treats there were. In December 1852, for instance, the Select Vestry
resolved that "The people of the House have some beef and plum
pudding on Christmas Day." (79)
Again,
five years later, it is recorded that "The inmates of the Workhouse
at Christmas Day have an extra dinner." (80)
The
following year the vestry stipulated that the inmates of the workhouse be
provided with "a good comfortable dinner" (81) while a
resolution of 1859 ruled "That the inmates have a Roast Beef and Plum
Pudding with a pint of Ale each on Christmas Day." (82)
Similarly,
the following year it was decreed that "The old men and women of the
workhouse have roast beef and plum pudding with a pint of Ale each and
tobacco." (83)
The
items listed formed the seasonal fare for in 1861 it was merely stated
that "The inmates of the House have their usual treat on Xmas
Day." (84) a sentiment echoed almost word for word the following
year. Thereafter there is no specific mention of Christmas provision but
presumable the customary observation continued until the transfer of the
inmates to the newly opened Pontefract Union workhouse in 1865.
Extra
rations were not, however, confined to Christmas Day. In some workhouses
additional treats were provided on New Years day or Holy Thursday (Good
Friday eve). (85) At Knottingley the time of the annual Feast in early
August was commemorated for in 1849 we find "The people in the
workhouse to have 16lbs Beef extra for the Feast", (86) and in 1851,
again at Feast-time, "That the house have a double quantity of meat
next week." (87)
The
Minute Books afford a few glimpses concerning the material upkeep of the
workhouse. Shortage of funds appears to have dictated that maintenance
work was of a sporadic and piecemeal nature. In June 1842 for example, the
workhouse window frames were painted but there is no mention of associated
features such as doors, gutters and fall pipes etc. (88) Again, in May
1858, it was resolved that the building be painted. Robert Wilson was
asked to examine the building and provide two estimates: one for
undertaking the work using his own materials, the other stating a daily
price with the materials being supplied by the Select Vestry. Indications
are that the latter mode was adopted for the record shows that Wilson was
employed at a cost of 3s 6d per day. (89) Another aspect of cost cutting
is evident from February 1860 when John Earnshaw was employed to underdraw
the kitchen ceiling, the materials being supplied by the Vestry at the
township’s expense. (90) In July the same year the exterior of the
workhouse was ‘slapdashed’ and in Autumn the windows were repaired and
a cover fitted over an open sewer. (91) Despite the apparent concentration
of effort it is clear than maintenance was irregular and infrequent for
examination revealed that many of the windows were too dilapidated to
repair and had to be replaced. The cost of the remedial activity is
unrecorded but the situation was closely monitored by the Vestry
committee, which, following the conclusion of the work, requested the
House Book be produced for its inspection. (92)
A
further structural change, doubtless prompted by considerations of health,
saw the removal of the indoor privies, outside toilets being built in the
workhouse garden in June 1855. (93)
Improvisation
was a necessary feature. When a dresser was required in June 1859, it was
built by the Rate Collector, James Brown, rather than being purchased from
one of the local joiners. (94) However, despite the advent of postal,
telegraph and railway services during the second quarter of the nineteenth
century, the township remained a close-knit community for several decades
thereafter and when specialist work was required it was invariably
obtained from within the local community when possible. Thus the decision
to light the workhouse by gas in December 1856, resulted in the engagement
of Mark Stillings, a local plumber and glazier, to fit the apparatus. (95)
Again, the decree of 1857, quoted earlier that the food for the workhouse
be provided by the grocers of Knottingley, is a further example of the
desire to retain within the town an element of the money contributed to
the Select Vestry as rates. (96)
As
shown above, a careful and frequent check was made of expenditure in both
the context of actual cost and the nature and circumstances which dictated
financial provision. Thus in December 1858, we find a resolution,
"That Mr Smith provide by the next Vestry an account of the number of
men, Women & Children in the Workhouse and also an account of the
number of rooms and beds and how many sleep in each bed."
And
again, some months later, "That there be a statement laid on the
table containing the average amount of Smiths work, Wheelwright work &
Co., per year…" (97)
When
changed circumstances disrupted the financial status quo, as in the case
of an extra charge for milk supplied to the workhouse in 1856, it was
necessary to obtain the sanction of the Select Vestry before payment was
made.
Nowhere
is the practice of fiscal economy more evident than in the case of pauper
burials. When, in 1846, a native of the town, residing as a pauper in a
neighbouring parish, died, the Select Vestry was sent a bill for 10
shillings to cover the cost of burial. The Vestry sought legal advice as
to whether the district coroner had the power to compel payment and then
determined "That the 10s demanded for the funeral of John Hartley be
not paid." (98)
Early
in 1862 the Poor Law Board issued a special order directing Knottingley
and neighbouring settlements to be incorporated into a Poor Law Union
designated as the Pontefract Union. The Select Vestry unanimously agreed
to comply with the order and carry out its provisions and directions. The
reorganisation was a delayed consequence of the legislation of 1834 which
had sought to establish a uniform system of control featuring the
abolition of outdoor relief and its replacement by accommodation in
"well regulated workhouses". As it was envisaged that such
institutions would need to be large in order to cope with the various
classes of pauper, it was deemed advisable to allow parishes to join
together to establish Poor Law Unions of sufficient size. Whilst welcomed
by the governing classes who stood to gain most financially from the
envisaged reduction of administrative costs, there was considerable
opposition in some quarters. Political radicals not only championed the
moral right of the poor relief but were also worried about the
implications of a large bureaucratic centralised body such as the proposed
Poor Law Commission. As a result, the power of the Commission was curbed,
one check being that the newly instituted Poor Law Unions could not be
compelled to build workhouses, a fact which explains the delay of almost
three decades between the act and its implementation at Pontefract.
The
delay in the local implementation of the Act of 1834 resulted in the
maintenance of the old Poor Law system at Knottingley until 1862.
Nevertheless, the New Poor Law cast its shadow over the ongoing system. A
relief payment of September 1834 was pro tem "…until the orders of
the Poor Law Commissioners are received." And in April 1838 the Select
Vestry sought to take advantage of the new system on economic grounds
deciding that the "Inmates of Knottingley Workhouse be removed to
workhouses in the district", instructing the Overseers to make
enquiries concerning the terms upon which the paupers would be accepted.
(99) The transfer (presumably to one of the new Poor Law Union workhouses)
was unsuccessful but the incident reveals the influence of the New Poor
Law legislation on the situation locally.
The
Pontefract Union was formally established on the 15th February 1862. The
candidates for election as Poor Law Guardians to represent Knottingley on
the Local Boards were John Carter, William Jackson and John Howard. On the
20th March 1862 the last resolutions of the Select Vestry concerning
parish administration of the Old Poor Law system were passed although
paupers were retained within the workhouse at Knottingley pending the
construction of the new Union workhouse at Pontefract and the eventual
transfer of local paupers there. (100)
Following
the construction of the new workhouse at Headlands, Northgate, Pontefract,
preparation for the transfer of Knottingley’s inmates commenced. At a
Select Vestry meeting on the 30th March 1865, a decision was taken,
"That as soon as the inmates of the workhouse are removed to
Pontefract, that application be made to the Poor Law Board to dispose of
the furniture and effects in the Workhouse belonging to the Township,
reserving the office furniture & Co." (101)
As
the effects were public property a Town Meeting was called to obtain the
approval of the inhabitants for the proposed sale. The imminent transfer
of the workhouse inmates prompted the Select Vestry to use the opportunity
conferred by those attendant at the Town Meeting to seek additional
approval for the eventual sale of the property. As the Committee room of
the workhouse had hitherto provided the venue for the Select Vestry
meetings and served as an office for the transaction of the business of
the township, would no longer be required, it became necessary to obtain
public approval for the acquisition of replacement premises from which the
Select Vestry could administer the remaining aspects of the governance of
the town. The desired approval was obtained at a public meeting held in
the National Schoolroom on the 22nd September 1865. (102)
By
February 1866 the inmates had been re-housed at Pontefract and steps for
the disposal of Knottingley Workhouse approved. As late as the middle of
1867 however, the sale of the property was still the subject of
consideration (103) The delay appears to have arisen from the failure of
the Poor Law Board to confirm approval for the sale. (104) A further
meeting of the town’s ratepayers was held in the Town Hall on the 20th
January 1868, which confirmed the decision to sell agreed two and a half
years earlier. At a meeting of the Select Vestry on the 5th March 1868,
the sale of the workhouse and its adjoining premises was finally fixed for
the 28th of that month. (105) The sale was eventually registered in a deed
date 1st August 1868 which reveals the purchaser as William Jackson,
proprietor of the Kings Mills, Knottingley, and a prominent member of the
Select Vestry, for the sum of £315. (106)
Some
months after the sale the Select Vestry decided to ascertain Jackson’s
intentions concerning the future use of the property with a view to the
town obtaining the use of the same as a storehouse for public lamps and
accessories. (107) In 1871 when Forrest published his "History of Knottingley", the property was still apparently disused. (108)
However, some time thereafter the property was restored to its original
use as a group of individually occupied dwellings in which form they
remained throughout the early years of the writer, being demolished in the
early 1960s to make way for the present arcade of shops at Hill Top.
On
the 11th February 1869, the Select Vestry took a decision that "…the
crossing across the highway leading to the old committee room at the old
workhouse be at once pulled up." (109)
The
precise appearance and utility of the crossing is not known. No indication
of such a structure features on the earliest O.S. map of Knottingley which
dates from the mid nineteenth century and although the juxtaposition of
the workhouse and Jail yard at the opposite side of the road admits of the
utility of such a causeway but it is difficult to see how such a structure
could exist without being a hindrance to the traffic using the Weeland
Road at Hill Top.
The
final reference to the Workhouse occurred thirteen years after the sale of
the property when it was proposed that the money obtained from the sale
should be used to fund the building of a Board School in the town. The
Board of Guardians were less than happy with the suggestion, however, but
following a Town Meeting which supported the proposed use of the money,
reluctantly bowed to public opinion. (110)
©2005 Dr. Terry Spencer
| INDEX |
INTRODUCTION
| CHAPTER ONE | CHAPTER
TWO | CHAPTER THREE | CHAPTER
FOUR |
| CHAPTER FIVE | CHAPTER
SIX | CHAPTER
SEVEN | CHAPTER
EIGHT | CHAPTER NINE
| CHAPTER TEN |
|
