^{page 90 note 1} The principal source used here is the Poor Law Papers in the Ministry of Health archives in the Public Record Office. I am grateful to the Research Fund of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne for a grant to facilitate study of these documents. The correspondence with local Boards of Guardians is contained in the MH 12 series. In addition I have drawn upon an undergraduate dissertation on the Hexham Union by Miss Gloria Cadman, BA in the Department of Modern and Medieval History, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

The following papers may be cited as useful background material for the contents of this paper: Roberts, David, “How cruel was the Victorian Poor Law?”, in: Historical Journal, Vol. VI, 1963, pp. 97–107;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Ursula Henriques, “How cruel was the Victorian Poor Law?”, ibid., Vol. XI, 1968, pp. 365–371; Blaug, Mark, “The Myth of the Old Poor Law and the Making of the New”, in: Journal of Economic History, Vol. XXIII, 1963, pp. 151–184;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Mark Blaug, The Poor Law Report Reexamined”, ibid., Vol. XXIV, 1964, pp. 229–245.

^{page 91 note 1} MH 12/3201. Thomas Wilson/Poor Law Commission (hereafter referred to in notes as PLC), 3/11/1834. For All Saints Parish, Newcastle, MH 12/9096, All Saints Vestry/PLC, 7/11/1834.

^{page 92 note 1} MH 12/9002. Anthony Watson/PLC, bearing dated stamp of receipt 17/11/ 1834.

^{page 92 note 2} A very similar spirit not infrequently appears in the columns of some of the more popular British newspapers of the present day. Even in the age of the Welfare State this attitude of the Poor Law Commission can command a sympathetic echo.

^{page 93 note 1} “Out-door relief” means the giving of relief in the form of doles, without stipulating that the recipient must enter the workhouse. The reports of both the Poor Law Enquiry Commission and the Poor Law Commission itself frequently stressed this regional difference.

^{page 93 note 2} Rose, Michael E., “The Anti-Poor Law Movement in the North of England”, in: Northern History, Vol. I, 1966, pp. 70–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 94 note 1} Some information about Bell appears in McCord, N. and Carrick, A. E., “Northumberland in the General Election of 1852”, in: Northern History, Vol. I, 1966.Google Scholar An aunt of Walsham was the wife of Sir Francis Burdett.

^{page 94 note 2} The first baronet inaugurated a tradition of family service; the son of the Assistant Poor Law Commissioner enjoyed a diplomatic career of modest distinction, while I fear that some readers may derive a grim satisfaction from the circumstance that the Poor Law Assistant Commissioner's grandson was an Inspector of Chinese Labour in the Transvaal.

^{page 95 note 1} These statistical reports appear in the MH 12 series for each Union; for example, the South Shields report quoted here is in MH 12/3201, Walsham/PLC, 16/30/1836.

^{page 96 note 1} The figure cited for South Shields in the report mentioned in note 9 was an average recent annual expenditure of £9049, or about 7s. 6d. per head. For the predominantly rural Castle Ward Union, Walsham cited £5744 and 7s. 5d.; MH 12/9002, Walsham/PLC, 24/8/36.

^{page 97 note 1} McCord, N., “Gateshead Politics in the Age of Reform”, in: Northern History, Vol. IV, 1969.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 2} MH 12/3068, Walsham/PLC, 18/10/1836.

^{page 97 note 3} MH 12/9156, Walsham/PLC 7/9/1836.

^{page 100 note 1} Cadman, op. cit., for detailed description of building of Hexham Union workhouse. MH 12/3201, draft of PLC/South Shields Board, 23/3/1837, for the insistent detailed corrections cited here in text.

^{page 100 note 2} This passage occurs in a very illuminating letter – MH 12/9002, Walsham/ PLC, 5/9/1841 – in which Walsham argues against a scheme for the employment of workhouse inmates in the fields. In this letter Walsham sets out at considerable length many of his conceptions of the proper principles on which the poor law should operate.

^{page 100 note 3} MH 12/9096, contains a lengthy correspondence of the spring of 1837 on this question. Many of the local dietaries of these years exist in the MH 12 series and elsewhere; in general they support the idea that the workhouse diet, though monotonous and far from Lucullan, nevertheless was better than the food of many of the “independent” poor outside. I am indebted to D. Bird and J. Nightingale of this University for their comments on the Newcastle workhouse dietary.

^{page 101 note 1} MH 12/9096, Walsham/PLC 23/2/1839. If dissatisfied by the reception given by the interviewing Guardians, the poor had a right to appeal to the general Board meeting.

^{page 102 note 1} Cadman, op. cit., pp. 99–100. One example must suffice here; in April 1838, Thomas Hedley of Chollerton was given a loan of £8 to replace a horse which had recently died, his business depending upon his having a horse.

^{page 103 note 1} MH 12/3068 contains a lengthy correspondence on this matter; one point of interest which emerges is that the property of this town “boss” was rated at a lower figure than its true value warranted. The Brockett Papers in Gateshead Central Reference Library contain material on the administration of the poor law in that area.

^{page 104 note 1} The Times, 17/7/1838, and a number of relevant letters of July 1838 in MH 12/9096. Letters of May 1840 are in same volume.

^{page 105 note 1} MH 12/9156, letters of September 1837.

^{page 105 note 2} Maddison's letters occur in the Poor Law Papers and in the Home Office Papers too, but the best source for this matter is MH 12/9002, Walsham/PLC, 1/1/1840. Maddison complained about both the Castle Ward and the Newcastle Boards of Guardians.

^{page 107 note 1} Public Record Office, HO 40/39, James Scott/Home Office, 5/1/1838. Scott describes Walsham as “humane as well as talented”.

^{page 107 note 2} MH 12/9002; press cutting of Ramsay/Gateshead Board of Guardians, 27/3/ 1838. Ramsay also includes high praise of Walsham.