Resistance to the New Poor Law in 1934-47
Using all these sources and your own knowledge assess the view that he new poor law was resisted far more successfully in the north than the south from 1834 to 1847.
Looking at the sources individually you cant see whether or not the north was resisted the changes better than the people in the south. But when you look at the resistance in the north described in source C and D it seems to be more intense with more organisation to it too. Causing a greater effect than the fairly mild opposition in the south.
Sorces A and B makes the reistance to the new poor law seem quite mild. Source A states that the opposition only occured in some areas ' where a reliance on the poor rate was habitual'. However it does say that within these areas 'every method has been used to obstruct the law' But these sources dont say whether there was serious violence carried out in the south despite the ritos that were 'partial' and 'put down' easily. Source B convays the image that the resistant was only centralised in one county, north Devon. It makes the opposition in source B less edffective that in source A saying that leaders of the opposition had deciebed the poor workers and given them false information about the poor law gaurdians e.g. 'bread was poisoned to kill paupers'. Many of the leaders of the opposition hated the changes as they were the ones who abused the previous system for their gain. The speenhamland system allowed many people to abuse it as employers would pay their workers very poor wages with the knowledge that the system would make up the rest. In comparison with sourses C and D the opposition in the south seems rather minor as it was dealt with so easily. But the provanence does come in to effect as it shows whether we should trust theses sources.
The provenance of these sources does give some reason for unreliability. source B could be seen as being unreliable as the evidence is only situated within one area in the sourth, north devon. The events that
Looking at the sources individually you cant see whether or not the north was resisted the changes better than the people in the south. But when you look at the resistance in the north described in source C and D it seems to be more intense with more organisation to it too. Causing a greater effect than the fairly mild opposition in the south.
Sorces A and B makes the reistance to the new poor law seem quite mild. Source A states that the opposition only occured in some areas ' where a reliance on the poor rate was habitual'. However it does say that within these areas 'every method has been used to obstruct the law' But these sources dont say whether there was serious violence carried out in the south despite the ritos that were 'partial' and 'put down' easily. Source B convays the image that the resistant was only centralised in one county, north Devon. It makes the opposition in source B less edffective that in source A saying that leaders of the opposition had deciebed the poor workers and given them false information about the poor law gaurdians e.g. 'bread was poisoned to kill paupers'. Many of the leaders of the opposition hated the changes as they were the ones who abused the previous system for their gain. The speenhamland system allowed many people to abuse it as employers would pay their workers very poor wages with the knowledge that the system would make up the rest. In comparison with sourses C and D the opposition in the south seems rather minor as it was dealt with so easily. But the provanence does come in to effect as it shows whether we should trust theses sources.
The provenance of these sources does give some reason for unreliability. source B could be seen as being unreliable as the evidence is only situated within one area in the sourth, north devon. The events that