Cambridgeshire

Police

History

Notes

Policing the Borough of Wisbech in the Isle of Ely

| Introduction | Superintendent Burke and the Wisbech Watch Committee | Biography William Martin Burke |

Policing Wisbech

AN ACCOUNT OF THE WISBECH BOROUGH POLICE FORCE AND SUPERINTENDENT WILLIAM MARTIN BURKE

Superintendent William Martin BURKE joined the Wisbech Borough Police Force in May, 1859. He tendered his resignation in November 1860. This was a short stay, but according to the records of the time, it was an eventful one. Before considering this very brief period in detail it is essential to set the scene with a short account of the history of the Wisbech Borough Police Force before the middle of the nineteenth Century. The Borough of Wisbech Police Force was formed following the Municipal Corporations Act in January, 1836. Before that date the town was policed by one Superintendent, four night watchmen, of whom two were Constables, and two day Constables. Obviously mindful that this level of policing was not adequate for a thriving port with some 8,000 inhabitants the newly appointed Watch Committee resolved to set up a new force consisting of:

• A principal Officer or Superintendent of the Constables to be employed in preserving the peace by day and night
  
• Six night Constables .... to work 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. in Winter and 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. in Summer
  
• Three Constables .... as day Constables, the Superintendent being one, another to also be the Corporation Beadle and the third to be the Town Inspector.

A building adjoining the Rose and Crown Inn, previously used as an engine house, was converted into a watch house and it was resolved that the station be manned throughout the day and night from within the meagre strength of the Force. The former Superintendent, one Allin MILLS, was considered by the Committee to be a "very efficient Officer" and he was appointed the Superintendent of the new Force with the existing Watchman and day Constables being re-appointed.

With minor changes, such as the occasional addition or subtraction of one or two supernumerary part-time Officers, and the appointment of a Sergeant together with some improvements to the Watch House, the Force was to continue largely in the same form into the 1850's. One would anticipate that by the late 1850's the Force would have settled into a stable and reasonably efficient unit after over a quarter of a Century of experience. This however was far from the truth.

The first Superintendent, MILLS, proved not to be quite so efficient as supposed. He was dismissed on the 16th March, 1837 after failing to heed the Watch Committee's warning that his continued residence with his son at the Bowling Green Inn was highly objectionable. On the 11th April, 1837 William Taylor RUST was appointed the new Superintendent. It is indicative of the times that on the 11th December, 1837 two of the supernumerary Constables should be required to patrol during the evenings "in consequence of depredations committed of late" and that ex-Superintendent Allin was ordered to hand over to the new Superintendent a "brace of pistols retained by him belonging to the Corporation".

RUST was to prove more satisfactory and the Watch Committee backed his applications in 1844 and 1845 for posts of Chief Constable of Brighton and Governor of Wisbech Jail respectively. He was unsuccessful in both applications and perhaps disillusionment set in as he was reprimanded by the Watch Committee for drunkenness in June 1853 and threatened with instant dismissal in the event of any repetition. It was however not until 1856 that RUST finally left the Force.

These early years also show a great turn-over at Constable level. Dismissals for drunkenness and improper conduct were many but there were always many applicants for any vacancy which arose.

Disaster struck the Force in 1857 following the Annual Inspection of the Government Inspector, Major General CARTWRIGHT. It was noted that the Force was being run by a Sergeant, no new Superintendent having been appointed, and that the Force was "in-efficient in number and discipline". Also the Force was not policing the whole of the Borough. There were, in effect, certain areas of "no mans land" within the Borough where no patrols were made, the local inhabitants preferring this state of affairs to an increased rate to provide policing. These areas were largely agricultural, consisting of the South Brink and Crab Marsh. There was also criticism of the inadequacy of the lock up and lack of a superannuation fund. The result of the inspection was that the Secretary of State with-held the Certificate of Efficiency and the Force lost it's Annual Government Grant.

This then was the situation which pertained when the Watch Committee advertised for a new Superintendent in April, 1859. There were eight applicants and in May that year William Martin BURKE, then 40 years of age, of Barnsley, was appointed at a salary of £100 per annum. The same year a new Police Station was commissioned on a plot of land formerly used as a cattle market between the new Corn Exchange and the Wisbech Arms Tavern. The former Acting Superintendent, TAYLOR, reverted back to Sergeant rank.

There is every indication that the Watch Committee was looking for a strong man to ensure that the Borough Force became and remained sufficiently efficient to impress the Government Inspector. The attitude of the Watch Committee is shown in a resolution on the 27th May 1859 that;

" .... the Superintendent of Police be required to muster all the Police Force of the Borough together once in every month
and explain to them the rules and regulations for their guidance .... "

On the 17th June that year the Watch Committee minutes record that the Superintendent was empowered to punish Officers for trivial dereliction of duty or breaches of discipline by means of a fine, not exceeding one days pay.

In September, 1859 Major General CARTWRIGHT reported favourably to the Secretary of State following his inspection. During the year the local press carried a number of reports tending to indicate that BURKE had made a name for himself as an efficient leader of the Force. He is for example mentioned in relation to a case against a local licensee for serving after hours and in relation to the arrest of a local herbalist for procuring abortions. By the end of the year however there were indications that all was not well. Perhaps BURKE was over zealous in trying to discipline his small Force and improve law and order in the Borough or perhaps his men decided to oppose and not support him. Possibly both explanations are correct.

The first indication of problems is found in the minutes of the Watch Committee meeting for November that year when Police Constable COTT appealed to the Committee against the decision of the Magistrates of the Borough who had suspended him from duty for drunkenness on a charge preferred by Superintendent BURKE. Despite their earlier attitude, the Watch Committee found that COTT was not drunk and that the Superintendent was in error on this occasion.

At the meeting of the Committee on the 13th December, 1859 a report was received from the Superintendent on the present state and discipline of the Force. The report was considered and ordered to be filed. There is no record of the contents of the report from the minutes of the meeting, but after considering the matter the Committee forthwith dismissed the Sergeant, Edward TAYLOR, who had been the previous Acting Superintendent. Clearly this action brought about an open confrontation between BURKE and TAYLOR. Obviously TAYLOR was not over impressed with being arbitrarily reduced to the rank of Sergeant and a new man, BURKE, being appointed Superintendent in his place. At the Watch Committee meeting on the 6th January, 1860 a Memorial was presented from several persons containing allegations about Superintendent BURKE. The Watch Committee handed the case over to the Magistrates to have a full enquiry, the details of which are reported in the Watch Committee Minute Book. The charges preferred were as follows;

1. Offering a bribe to a notorious prostitute to get a Policeman's wife drunk.
2. Improper conduct towards a Miss ABBOTT who had been arrested by BURKE and was being taken by him from the Police Station to the
   old jail.
3. Abusive and threatening language towards the landlord of the Engineer Tavern.
4. A similar charge in relation to a shopkeeper, George CLARKE.
5. A similar charge relating to another shopkeeper, David MORRIS.
6. Failing to investigate a complaint against an Officer of the Force for improperly letting a lodger into a public house in the absence of the landlord during the night.

Only the last charge, a relatively minor matter, was found proven and BURKE was reproved for not reporting the matter to the Watch Committee. Obviously the Watch Committee had some doubts after this as they removed the Superintendent's power to fine his men shortly after the hearing. TAYLOR's dismissal was however confirmed.

Some problems obviously persisted. It may be that the attempted coup by TAYLOR had shown BURKE that there were some of his Officers only too ready to turn against him and this may have influenced what followed. The Watch Committee admonished BURKE in August for suspending Police Constable COTT without making an entry in the Occurrence Book.

The Superintendent had also issued an order preventing the Constables making complaints direct to the Watch Committee. This order was considered by the Watch Committee and was reversed. The Watch Committee Minute Book duly records that on the 28th November 1860 BURKE submitted his resignation and finally on the 17th January, 1861 there is a record that he was not required after the 19th January, 1861 but that his salary was to be paid to the 1st February that year, when he would be required to give up his residence at the new Police Station.

This rather abrupt resignation following such an extraordinary chain of events leaves many questions un-answered. The local press however were not so reticent as the Secretary of the Watch Committee in reporting the circumstances leading to BURKE's resignation and the events which followed. On December 1st it was reported in the Cambridge Chronicle that Pc COULSON resigned his position and made certain allegations against the Superintendent. The Mayor also made a startling revelation. Not only had he received numerous written complaints about BURKE, but also BURKE had made to the Mayor a false allegation of drunkenness against one of the men. BURKE had called at the Mayor's house a few days earlier and told him that it was his unpleasant duty to report Pc PHILLIPS for arriving at the Station House too drunk to perform his duty. Apparently recalling the previous incident involving COTT, the Mayor insisted upon BURKE producing PHILLIPS there and then. Reluctantly apparently this was done and it was found, according to the Mayor, that he was quite sober, the only smell of drink emanating not from PHILLIPS but from Mr. BURKE. Two other members of the Watch Committee were with the Mayor when PHILLIPS was produced and, according to the Mayor, they were able to testify as to his condition. When this became known at the Watch Committee meeting, the Town Clerk was dispatched forthwith to inform BURKE that he would be dismissed if he did not resign. Obviously this later became the subject of much rumour-mongering in the Borough and the press reported that at the conclusion of business at the Borough Police Court on Wednesday, 30th January, 1861 the Mayor went over the whole incident again in the form of a public statement to set the public mind at rest. This was reported at length in the Wisbech Advertiser on the 31st January and in the Cambridge Chronicle on the 2nd February.

BURKE's account of the matter was considerably different. Clearly he anticipated what was to come and in the Wisbech Advertiser of the 7th February, 1861 he published in advertisement form a number of testimonials as to his honesty, ability, and efficiency, signed by various well placed persons in the Magistracy, the Clergy, and the Military. One such testimonial includes the following;

" .... and that we consider him to be a most active, energetic, sober, intelligent Officer and strongly recommend him to any town or place needing his services .... "

This was signed by no fewer than 12 members of the very Watch Committee which according to the Mayor's account unanimously required his resignation. In another column of the same newspaper under the word "Advertisement" (which appears in small print) is a letter to the Editor from BURKE setting out his side of the story. According to BURKE's account he was leaving town following his resignation because the Mayor had been hounding him for many months. BURKE explains that this occurred particularly since a certain incident when;

"I apprehended a certain prisoner upon warrant and found in his pocket book a letter written to (The Prisoner's) Firm in Hull saying that the Mayor had offered to lend him £10,000 for the purpose of taking into partnership his son and establishing a timber yard in competition with the firm by which he was then employed. One of the partners being in Wisbech at the time taxed the Mayor with his dishonourable conduct endeavouring in a clandestine manner to get one of his clerks away from their establishment"

It would seem that immediately after this the Mayor seized the evidence and sealed it in a packet and prevented the evidence from appearing in Court and ordered certain matters to be kept from the depositions.

BURKE explained the charge of drunkenness against PHILLIPS by stating that PHILLIPS and three other members of the Force were all drinking together that evening in the Sun and in Harwins Beer House and that he had written statements as to PHILLIPS' drunken condition. It would seem that BURKE felt that he could depend upon the testimonials he had solicited, for the Wisbech Advertiser of the 14th February, 1861 lists his name as being short listed for the appointment of Superintendent of Police at the nearby town of Kings Lynn. We do not know whether or not the Mayor's influence extended so far, but it was reported on the 21st February that he was unsuccessful in this application.

The next meeting of the Watch Committee was reported in great detail in the local press. It was reported that Mr. BURKE and his family had that very day left the town for Cambridge. The Mayor was angered by the "gross liable upon him" which had appeared in the Advertiser, even more so when he stated that the advertisements had been paid for by other members of the Watch Committee.

The Mayor then alleged that BURKE had made off with £80 which was money made over to him by the guardians for the relief of vagrants. This was in payment for the work undertaken by the Superintendent but previous resolutions of the Watch Committee made it clear that these monies were not to be kept by the Superintendent as a gratuity in addition to his salary but were to be paid over to the Corporation. It was alleged that BURKE was guilty of embezzlement and some members wanted him dealt with for the offence. The Clerk argued that this might not be a criminal offence and the Committee adopted a more reasonable attitude when the Clerk stated "he would like to know who dare sign a warrant for the apprehension of this man if there be a doubt to its being embezzlement or not". It was agreed to seek the opinion of Counsel on the matter. The report of Counsel on the case must have been favourable towards BURKE. The matter was remitted to the next meeting of the full Corporation in March when it was decided to take the matter no further.

Hostility towards BURKE persisted however in some quarters and he was accused in his absence of stealing some 20 volumes from the small library of books in the Magistrates Room at the Station House. There was no direct evidence in the matter save that the books disappeared at the same time that BURKE left. It was remarked however that Mr. BURKE had gone to Nova Scotia, a matter which apparently raised a laugh at the meeting. The Council apparently to the Mayor's disgust decided therefore to pursue the matter no further.

Whatever the truth of the dispute between the Mayor and the Superintendent there were no similar instances in the records of the Wisbech Borough Police. Only two more longer serving Superintendents were to be appointed before the small Force finally merged with its neighbour, the Isle of Ely Constabulary, towards the end of the Century.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Minutes of the Watch Committee of Wisbech Borough Police 1836 to 1888 (By kind permission of the Wisbech and Fenland Museum).

2. Wisbech Advertiser 1859 to 1861. (By kind permission of Wisbech and Fenland Museum.)

3. Cambridge Chronicle 1859 to 1861 (Cambridge University Library).

4. Gleanings from the Watch Committee Minute Books by W.R.KNOWLES. The Wisbech Society Annual Report 1980, page 8.

Top of page

This page was last modified: 06 November 2025, 13:50

contact us

This site is powered by Web Wiz Green Hosting. We have been using their services for many years and are more than happy to recommend them to you.