Kincardineshire Prison Board

Amongst the records in the archives are the Kincardineshire Prison Board Minutes in two volumes covering the years 1840-1860 and 1867-1878 (reference KPB/1-2). These have been reviewed by one of our volunteers, Matthew Davidson, a recent MSc Archaeology graduate from the University of Aberdeen who researched century 19th Aberdeen neighbourhood social connections, and who is looking to work in an archives environment.

Prison Boards were formed across Scotland from 1840 in response to the parliamentary ‘Act to Improve Prisons and Prison Discipline in Scotland’. They were elected each year by the Commissioners of Supply. The board members were local people of prominence: landowners, aristocracy, sheriffs. 

The Kincardineshire board met in Stonehaven at the county court buildings and jail (now the police station). The board had responsibility for this prison – overseeing its enlargement and modernisation – as well as smaller lock-ups in Inverbervie and Laurencekirk. These latter two gradually lost prominence and in the longer term received little attention from the board.

As well as overseeing building costs, repairs, and management, the board appointed staff for the prisons – governors, matrons, surgeons, chaplains – oversaw its own accounts, and disseminated information from government. In a few rare cases they argued against policy, for example successfully against the directive to merge with Forfar to form a new General Lunacy Board.

The first chairperson was the Viscount of Arbuthnott, who remained in post for 7 years, followed by William Innes of Raemoir and Sir John Stuart Forbes of Fettercairn. Other prominent members over the early years included Peter Christian (the chief magistrate of Stonehaven), Anthony Mactier of Durris, William Stewart of Hilton. By 1867 through to the closure of Stonehaven prison in 1878, Colonel William McInroy of The Burn was chair. Among those who served under him were Alexander Scott of Brotherton, Alexander Innes of Raemoir & Cowie, and James Badenach-Nicolson, younger of Glenbervie. From the beginning the clerk was James Tindal, writer in Stonehaven, and he was only succeeded by Robert Tindal (presumably a close relative) in the year 1870.

The standard and format of the entries in the prison board minutes became largely predictable. Every year, the board would be re-elected, the quarterly accounts would be reviewed, and later on, visits would be made to the adjacent prison by the board. These all followed the same formats year after year, in florid verbiage, and must have been something of a chore for the clerk. Amongst the staff salaries recorded in these entries the money the governor had made from selling the work of the prisoners would often be mentioned – commonly making oakum, sheep-nets, tailor work, or carpet shoes. Surprisingly, mentions of the prisoners themselves were quite rare. The board generally commented on the numbers of male and female prisoners, whether they were criminal or civil (i.e. debtors), tried or untried. It took something unusual to occur for any to be named in the minutes, or for an upswing of frenetic activity.

On the 6th October 1854 there was a successful break-out by George Wilson, who had been found guilty of theft and lock-picking. It was the first major incident the board had to address. George had managed to fashion an 11ft long rope with an iron hook out of his hammock and bedsheets. He used this to scale the prison roof and run along the wall until he found an exit point over one of the gardens next door. The minutes do not record if George was ever recaptured, but the incident forced the board to change the warden’s routine and procedures.

In another example, on the 6th April 1872, the clerk received a letter from Mr J. Folliott Powell, Inspector of Prisons, regarding his recent visit to Stonehaven. His opinion of the prison was poor, describing five main complaints: that male prisoners were using a female-only area as a workshop, that prisoners were accessing restricted areas including the kitchens to wash clothes, that ventilators and flues were dirty, that not all the cells enabled communication with the warden and that prisoners were observed working together unsupervised.

Quotes were sought for the re-organisation of the prison but an actual decision to put them into action was delayed until forced through by Hercules Scott of Brotherton in July. The prison governor was adamant in his excuse that the inspector had merely found the place on an unusually busy day.

On the 1st November 1873, untried criminal prisoner George Hay made a complaint about his treatment and asked to speak to an agent of the poor. The minutes do not give details about the nature of the complaint, only that it involved the governor and medical officer. When George was granted an interview with solicitor Mr James Crockatt, both the chief constable and the governor himself were said to have been present in the room with them, which could be construed as intimidation.

Over four months in 1876-1877, James Moffat alias Murphy, who had transferred to Stonehaven from Perth whilst serving a 6 month sentence for theft, made a rare complaint about his treatment at the prison, alleging that the food served was not good for his health. An enquiry to Perth confirmed only that he had been set a gentler diet than the other prisoners (bread & milk instead of the staple porridge & milk).

Rather than settle down, James repeated his complaint with every board visit, eventually claiming the cook was mixing broken glass into the food to poison him. The governor was interviewed but the board quickly came to the determination that there was no substance to the allegation. Notably, it was described that James had served four months of his sentence in Perth, meaning by rights he should have been released in November. One wonders if his allegations prolonged his imprisonment until January. 

In some cases, the board addressed staff behavioural issues. On the 26th October 1858, Janet Norrie, wife of James Robertson the keeper of Stonehaven prison, and Charles Duncan, interim keeper of the prison, were reprimanded for their behaviour towards a magistrate and member of the board. The incident highlighted only poor communication regarding an unusual incident, which required that the keepers paid the board for the upkeep of deserters under the Mutiny Act. This had never occurred before, had clearly never been discussed with the present staff, and Janet Norrie did not have the money on hand to pay the money demanded, the need of which the board member himself never explained. Nevertheless, she and Charles Duncan were the ones forced to apologise.

Occasionally, the board would praise the good behaviour of prisoners and staff alike. On the 18th May 1853, John Brown was about to be released from a seven month imprisonment. The board awarded him 2s 6d plus the cost of his Aberdeen-bound train fare for his good conduct.

Similarly, when surgeon Dr Alexander Martin had to step down part way through his term due to ill-health on the 15th Jan 1876, the board awarded him his full year’s salary due to sympathy with him and his family.

You can view these records at our Old Aberdeen House site under reference KPB/1-2. 

By Matthew Davidson, Volunteer

[An index of the Board Members and any named prisoners is available on our website, alongside additional historical information about the running of the board and prisons in this area:

https://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/services/libraries-and-archives/aberdeen-city-and-aberdeenshire-archives/other-indexes-and-transcriptions]