Were mealtimes in the workhouse like Dickens' portrayal in Oliver Twist?

When thinking about paupers (i.e. those who would have lived in the workhouse), Pereira argued: 'It has been very properly stated by the Poor Law Commissioners, that in the dieting of the inmates of workhouses, the object is to give them an adequate supply of wholesome food, not superior in quantity or quality to that which the laboring classes in the respective neighborhoods provide for themselves' (p. 236). The food was meant to be 'wholesome' but not better than working families could afford - it might, after all, serve as a disincentive to work - or so it was thought (Miller, 2013). 

Smith et al (2008) conducted a dietary analysis of Oliver Twist's diet from the novel and in a headline grabbing article calculated that it would be insufficient in nutrients to maintain health and growth, and would have resulted in diseases linked to nutritional deficiencies such as beriberi, rickets and scurvy. However, the diet put forward by Pereira would have been sufficient, they suggest, to maintain a healthy child aged about nine years (unless exceptionally active). Of course, it is problematic to equate Oliver's potential health with that of children today as the researchers note. He would, after all, have been undernourished for his years and would have needed to catch up on growth - but then again, he would have been smaller most likely and so might have needed less food. It is hard to say, and of course and 'Oliver' is a fictional not real child.

Ian Miller (2013) notes that there were regional variations and in some workhouses the staff were overzealous in minimising the portions given. Thus, he argues it is very difficult to assess the workhouse diet across the country with any precision. Poor Law commissioners were tasked with ensuring paupers in the workhouse did not starve to death, rather than concerning themselves with the intricacies of nutritional requirements (such as were known at the time). And as there were no guidelines for feeding children under the age of nine in England, the diet of these children was at the whim of individual medical officers and workhouse masters. Once nine years of age - when regulation of their diet came into full force - their diet might even have been reduced if the workhouse master had been kindlier in his portion allocation for young children where no such regulation existed.

Where Dickens hits a chord is in turning our attention to the harshness of institutional life for children. Children would have been split from their families on entry to the workhouse (assuming they had older relatives), unless very young. Older girls would have been separated from older boys. Families may have been granted a daily 'interview' with their children, but the idea that they might eat a meal together was very far from their experience.   Miller (2013)  notes how meals were strictly timetabled, inmates had to queue for food (sometimes the food became cold), and then they had to eat in silence. Disciplining the bodies of those in the workhouse was clearly meant to instil a sense of self restraint it seems.  Food was even withdrawn from children (in particular) as a punishment to keep them in line. 

But we need to remember that things did change over time. As greater medical knowledge was bought to bear on the workhouse diet, coupled with shifting ideas towards poverty that saw it less as related to idleness amongst the poor, the idea of the workhouse transforming the health of citizens became more important. The Poor Law Board appointed Edward Smith to compile a report on workhouse dietaries (published in 1867) and he was especially keen to ensure children were well fed to enable them to grow up strong and healthy, able to earn a living in later life rather than being a recipient of welfare (Miller, 2013). It was still an environment, which families feared having to resort to, however.