Jobbery at the Gaol
Jobbery- noun- improper use of public office or conduct of public business for private gain
The gaol that John Dobson designed was a solid, modern, prison based on the latest trends for penal construction in the early nineteenth century. However, what was fit for purpose in 1828 required modification as the century progressed. By 1856, the gaol had approximately twice as many prisoners as it was designed for, and a significant number of these were women (400 in 1859-60). Building work was needed to alter the prison to suit changing circumstances.
On 1 February 1861, newspaper advertisement announced that the Gaol Committee of the town was seeking ‘Tenders for the erection of certain works required in building the Female Wing and Offices at the Borough Gaol’.
However, all was not smooth sailing, on 12 March 1861, the Newcastle Daily Journal printed a letter, drawing attention to, ‘an abuse which demands notice’. The letter alleged improper behaviour around the awarding of contracts for the work at Newcastle Gaol. Whilst acknowledging that the terms of the tender advertised did not bind the Committee to accept the lowest, or any particular tender, the letter expressed surprise that a contract for some of the work was awarded to someone (unnamed) who had quoted at a higher rate than some of the unsuccessful competitors. The letter writer suggested that ‘a certain ‘clique’ that sought ‘to help their friends to any good thing that may be going’ existed in the town. Jobs for the boys, in other words.
Clearly, there was controversy over the awarding of contracts. What was the complaint about and what happened next…?
Although the substance of the allegation was vague, subsequent letters to the newspapers offered additional details, including an allegation of ‘preferment’ in relation to aspects of the work. The discontent could not be swept under the carpet and ignored, and the argument played out in the newspapers. On 14 March the Newcastle Journal printed a further letter, signed ‘Another Ratepayer’, this time with specific allegations. The letter stated that the contracts for joiners and slaters had not been awarded to the lowest bidder. The writer demanded an explanation from ‘those members of the Council who are above jobbery’. The letter also alleged that some of the Committee had already distanced themselves from the scandal by claiming to know nothing of the decision. The writer suspected that the contracts had been awarded to ‘friends of the committee’ and asked for reassurance that ‘public money shall not be squandered, to serve either private or party purposes.’ It sounded very underhand.
There was no sense of urgency. Almost one month passed before the Town Council met to discuss the matter. At the Town Council meeting, on 10 April 1861 the serious allegations of impropriety were addressed, although not in the transparent way requested by the letter writers. The Mayor of Newcastle, Henry Ingledew, did not seem to see a conflict of interest between his chairing of the meeting and his role as chairman of the Gaol Committee of the Council which had considered and awarded the tenders for the works at the gaol. It could all have been innocent, or a misunderstanding, but it seems there was substance in the complaint. One councillor thought ‘for the honour of the town’ that some reason be offered why the tender accepted for works in the Female Ward of the Gaol was £7 above one unsuccessful tender, and £27 over another. This was a lot of money in 1861.
Councillor Armstrong (also a member of the Gaol Committee) explained to the Council the process that had been followed to award the contracts. He said that the main reason for giving the work to the successful bidder was because the firm (unnamed) had already done extensive works in the Gaol and had proved trustworthy. Price was not the only matter to be considered. This fact alone led the Committee a unanimous to award the contract to the unnamed contractor. The Town Councillors accepted this as a convincing argument. And then moved on to other business.
However, that, was not an end to the matter. The Newcastle Daily Journal was not prepared to let the matter drop. It smelled corruption. On 16 April 1861, it printed a letter which threatened to escalate the drama regarding ‘the jobbery connected with [the] disgraceful transaction’. The writer, ‘A Lover of Fair Play’, challenged the reasons given by Councillor Armstrong and made a specific allegation of ‘preferment’: the successful contractor patronized a ‘particular hardware establishment’ in Dean Street, in which ’a certain gentleman has an interest...Whether that circumstance affected the letting of the contract or not, I leave your readers and the public to divine.”
And here we must end- Covid has prevented further research
Who was the ‘certain person’ with the interest in the shop?
Which was the hardware establishment in Dean Street?
Did anything happen because of these allegations, or did the complaint go away?
We will have to wait until we can get into the archives to find out.
