Overview

• Local paupers who had nowhere else to turn, entered this building as a last resort, cut off from the community outside The Workhouse
• Over 150 'inmates' could be housed at a time, managed by a paid Master and a Matron
• They lived in a restricted and regimented environment
• Families were split up: children and adults; men and women were kept apart and were further separated into groups called the 'idle and profligate' or 'blameless and infirm'
• The 'idle and profligate' (a euphemism for the unemployed) completed arduous and dull tasks, such as breaking stones for roads
• Aspects such as education, medical care or diet may sometimes have been better inside the workhouse than for the poor in their own homes

Inmates
The workhouse could accommodate 'commodiously' up to 158 paupers from the 49 parishes who paid for its construction in 1824. As Southwell Union Workhouse from 1836 onwards, it was expected to house even more. In comparison, the numbers of staff were tiny, so inmates were expected to play their part. Local unpaid ratepayers were elected to form a Board of Governors to administer the Poor Laws in the Union.

The elderly inmates and some with disabilities were considered an 'infirm and guiltless' category and given an easier regime than the 'idle and profligate' paupers who were made to work. The building was specially designed to keep the different categories AND the sexes separate. Men were confined to the east wing, women to the west, with children in quarters at the rear. Daily routine restricted inmates to two or three rooms and an exercise yard, provided for each class. Those who worked also used large work yards and a vegetable garden, pasture and orchard in front of the building. The work involved cleaning and maintaining the building, preparing food, washing, and other arduous tasks such as breaking stones or turning a mill. A range of buildings at the rear provided a laundry, infirmary, and cow house.

Life was very regimented, controlled and monotonous. All inmates wore uniforms. They rarely received visitors and could not leave unless they were formally discharged to find or to take up work and provide for themselves. There was a repetitive and dull diet. A strict daily menu was provided, with every portion measured or weighed. The daily main meal might be a stew or suet pudding, supplemented by gruel twice daily. Despite this strict regime, inmates should have been at least as clean, warm and well fed as they would have been in the poorest homes.