Category: UK

“The Churchwardens of the parish of St. Clement, in this city, summoned a vestry meeting on Tuesday last, at the request of the parishioners, to take into consideration the best means of detecting impositions on the funds raised for the relief of the poor, when it was agreed that six persons should be appointed to visit the poor of the said parish alternately, to ascertain the justness of their claims, and that the names of all persons receiving relief in the said parish should be printed, with the number of their families and the amounts they received. It is confidently hoped that if every parish was to adopt the same line of conduct, our poor rates would be considerably reduced for the next quarter.”

This short report appeared in the Norwich Mercury in September 1826 and describes what we might now call an attempt to investigate benefit fraud. Parishioners in St Clement had asked for a vestry meeting to consider possible “impositions” upon the money raised for poor relief. It was agreed that six people would take turns visiting recipients to assess whether their claims were justified. This was effectively a small team of local investigators, although without computers, central records or the opportunity to spend several months designing an official logo. But they had a mission to ensure that no-one was defrauding them.

The parish also proposed printing the names of everyone receiving relief, together with the size of their family and the amount they received. The methods would perhaps present certain difficulties under modern ideas about privacy and dignity, but the underlying combination of eligibility checks, home visits and a desire to reduce welfare expenditure feels remarkably familiar two centuries later.

This map shows the empty site in 1884, shortly after Norwich City Gaol was demolished. The land on what is now Earlham Road is today occupied by the city’s Roman Catholic cathedral, but 200 years ago this month the newly completed gaol was at the centre of a substantial argument reported by the Norwich Mercury. The dispute concerned alleged departures from the building contract, work that had apparently not been completed and thousands of pounds in additional charges.

The article reads:

“At the adjourned Sessions, on Wednesday last, Alderman Crisp Brown, we are given from authority to understand, spoke nearly as follows:—He said he had a painful task to perform; but as justice had been denied him in another place, he was obliged to bring it before the Court. Many tradesmen in the city had informed him there was something very improper going forward at the new gaol, with respect to deviations from the contract. He had at various times recommended that a surveyor of eminence, and a stranger, should be employed to survey the works and report to the committee—but this was always strongly opposed by the chairman. In the month of June last he (Alderman Brown) sent for Mr. Richard Brown, the real architect, who formed the plan for our new gaol, and he was accompanied by Mr. Thos. Bird, a surveyor.

They pointed out great deviations, examined the bill of extras, amounting to 2300l. and discovered many things charged as extras which were positively included in the contract: amongst them were twelve iron doors, charged 72l. The iron frames to the cell windows, which by the contract were to have the outer rims and horizontal bars made of hammered iron, were all cast in one piece, which enabled the contractors to execute them at little more than half the expence, and yet not a shilling was deducted. The locking stones to the cell doors, 14 inches long, 14 inches wide, and 9 inches thick, were all left out and no deductions made, &c. &c. &c. He had these gentlemen in attendance upon the spot, with the plans and specifications in their hands, and ready to point out the various deviations, and he begged they might be admitted into the committee-room—but this request was refused. Subsequently he (Ald. Brown) gave a copy of Brown and Bird’s remarks upon the extra charges, & an order was entered in the book that enquiry should be made as to their correctness.—A most extraordinary plan however was pursued. They were sent to Messrs. Mears and Blyth, the contractors, to answer the observations—but they refused to give any answer, although the charges were heavy against them; nor could he (Mr. B.) get any answer whatever from the chairman. There was another glaring imposition, in the deductions for work not executed, with respect to 24 sets of iron louvre blinds to prison wings, and 8 iron doors, 54l. The doors amounted to 48l. leaving only 6l. for the louvre blinds, which the contractors themselves had estimated, when they made the contract, at 64l. 8s. making a difference of 58l. 8s. There were other extraordinary charges, such as 441l. for extra locks, and 284l. for extra brick-work. He had frequently requested to be informed where this extra brick-work was to be found, but could never obtain an answer.

All he wanted was that equal justice should be done to the contractors and to those who were to raise the money. But how was he treated? Why instead of going into the enquiry to ascertain the correctness of the charges, or receiving answers as promised him, the chairman told him (Ald. Brown) that the charges are not correct, and used very unbecoming language, with the evident design of deterring him from pursuing the enquiry. He therefore was compelled to stand up now in Court, in defence of his own character and in defence of his fellow citizens, who were called upon to raise 15,000l. this quarter for the maintenance of the poor, and therefore great care should be taken that they did not pay more for the new gaol than the contractors were entitled to.

The gaol was now finished, and besides the 2300l. for extras already claimed, there were more coming forward to the amount of about 2000l. He should therefore strongly recommend that they follow the example of the justices in the county, who had the whole work of the castle surveyed by a stranger; and therefore he moved that a surveyor of eminence, and a stranger, be employed to survey the new gaol. This was seconded by Alderman Bolingbroke; but in consequence of several magistrates having left the court to attend a committee, the debate was adjourned.”

I’m quite amused by the “he had frequently requested to be informed where this extra brick-work was to be found, but could ever obtain an answer”, which sums up the whole sorry story.

The contractors were playing fast and loose, but just as things were getting excited a number of magistrates left to attend another committee, so the debate was adjourned. Even £4,300 in disputed building charges was apparently no match for the gravitational pull of another meeting, but perhaps they had better snacks at that one. It’s a sign that public contracts have long since proved challenging to keep under control and I do wonder whether they found the missing brickwork.