Discipline

Dunshaughlin Poor Law Union - 16.10.1847 - Inmate Pay for Cleaning

The inmates of the house refused to clean the privies and were not obliged to do so. The Master was authorised to employ some persons and pay them 10 shillings or 63 cent for this cleaning task. This is an infrequent illustration of the inmates wielding some control on their day to day routine.

Dunshaughlin Poor Law Union - 16.10.1847 - Inmate Pay for Cleaning

Dunshaughlin Poor Law Union - 16.10.1847 - Inmate Pay for Cleaning

The inmates of the house refused to clean the privies and were not obliged to do so. The Master was authorised to employ some persons and pay them 10 shillings or 63 cent for this cleaning task. This is an infrequent illustration of the inmates wielding some control on their day to day routine.

Enlarge image

Discipline was imposed not only on the paupers but also on the Workhouse officials. The first Master, Mr Ball, had been appointed in November 1840, but in his two year tenure his work was often criticised by the Board. For instance, his provision account was found to be in "a very deranged state" and unless this was rectified the Board was determined to engage another Master. About a year later, following an enquiry into a relationship between the porter and a nurse in the House infirmary, the Board made a strong remonstrance to the Master for his neglect in not having reported to the Board " that improper conduct had gone on in the House".

Mr Ball had only a temporary reprieve. A few months later, following complaints among the inmates it was found that "19 gallons of buttermilk charged in the Provisions' Account was not served to the paupers and 57 children were without buttermilk. . .it has frequently occurred before".

The outcome was that the Board asked the Master to resign his office, bringing to an end his turbulent two years in the House.

There are instances of disciplinary measures taken against other officials. In 1847 a nursetender was dismissed because she was "intoxicated and not able to attend to her duty". On a milder note in November 1842 furtive meetings between the schoolmaster and schoolmistress were discouraged.

We may consider one more aspect of this. The inmates did have some influence in the running of the Workhouse. Their complaints instigated the dismissal of the inefficient Master. Also they refused to do certain tasks in the House and were not forced. The best illustration of this came in 1847 when the master reported that the inmates refused to clean the toilets; the board accepted this and told the Master to employ on outsider to do it.