Cambridgeshire

Police

History

Notes

Great and Little Shelford

| Introduction | Parish Constables | Self Help | Associations | Seeking Outside Help | Continuity in Post | Paying Constables | Were the Shelford Parish Constables Effective ? | Establisnment of a Lighting and Watching Act Police Force | The Coming of the New Police | Named Shelford Officers |

Policing The parishes of Great and Little Shelford in the first half of the 19th Century

Population: Great Shelford 1821:718, 1831:812, 1841:803, 1851:1038
Little Shelford 1821:438, 1831:483, 1841:527, 1851:580

Introduction

This article deals with policing in the two Shelford parishes in the first half of the 19th Century, up to the arrival of the new Cambridgeshire Constabulary in 1852. The focus of the article is how these two Cambridgeshire parishes overcame some of the shortcomings of the Parish Constable system then in place.

These two parishes lie about three miles to the South of Cambridge. Routes between Cambridge and London pass through the parishes, so the presence and passage of strangers would have been part of normal village life. In 1836 a new police force was established in the Borough of Cambridge, which, some worried, displaced some criminal activity beyond the town boundaries into nearby parishes. Railways were constructed through the parishes in the 1840s, bringing more strangers to the area in the persons of railway navvies. The ratio of labourers to area farmed was higher in the Shelfords than other Cambridgeshire parishes. (Cambridge Chronicle, 29 April 1836 p4, Select Committee on Agricultural Distress, Evidence of William Thurnall farmer Duxford). When times were hard for farmers, this was particularly felt by Shelford villagers. The Cambridge Independent Press, 22 May 1852 p3, reported: "Great Shelford. It is with regret we state that many able bodied labourers have been for a long time out of employ in this place, so that no person can pass the streets without a sympathising feeling towards those poor unfortunate persons. They are continually traversing the streets and seeking for a job, and in all probability without victuals, drink, or money".

These factors may have raised the fear of crime in Shelford residents. However, the crimes mentioned in the local press seem no more numerous than in other Cambridgeshire villages, consisting for the most part of thefts of livestock and crops. One notable exception was a spate of arson attacks on local farms between 1828 and 1833 - of which more below.

Top of page

Parish Constables

In rural parishes in 19th century Cambridgeshire, prior to the establishment of the new Cambridgeshire Constabulary, basic policing functions were performed by Parish Constables. Traditionally Parish Constables were householders nominated by the vestry to serve for a single year. Nomination would have followed some sort of household rota. Serving as a Constable would have been an unwelcome responsibility for most people, taking the appointee away from his business or family interests and on occasion subjecting him to personal danger. Normally the post was unpaid, but constables could claim back fees for particular tasks, such as serving a summons, executing a warrant or taking a prisoner to gaol. In some parishes the vestry might recognise the demands of the appointment and agree to pay additional fees, for example for moving on vagrants or travellers, thus making the post less unatractive, so that some appointees might agree to serve for longer time periods. In other cases a wealthier appointee might prefer to pay a substitute to serve in his place, and substitutes might also serve for different principals for consecutive years.

Police historians have traditionally focussed on the inefficiencies and problems of policing by Parish Constables. The problems generally identified include:

• Ineffective parish Constables who lack experience and knowledge due to serving for no more than a single year.
• Parish Constables unwilling to spend time on policing which took them away from their own work or business
• Constables unwilling to act against members of the community in which they continue to live
• Uncertainties of the criminal law which relied on victims initiating prosecutions. Losing a case could be an expensive experience.

Little evidence has survived of day-to-day policing in the Shelfords in the first half of the 19th Century. However there are occasional incidents which have left a record, which show how these two communities overcame the inherent problems of the Parish Constable system. This link will take you to a list of constables in the Shelfords found mainly through the local press reports.

Top of page

Self Help

Self help in dealing with crime was always an option. For example a loser might offer a reward. So when thieves stole a sheep and butchered it in the field, its Shelford owner, Mr Richard Maris, offered a £20 reward for information leading to a conviction (Cambridge Chronicle 4 February 1825)

Crime victims or their employees might act in person, although this was not without risks. Matthew Hunt and John Shaw appeared at Cambridge Assizes in March 1825. In the street in Gt Shelford they had aroused the suspicion of two labourers, who followed them to the yard of their employer, Mr Headly. There Hunt and Shaw attempted to break open the door of a stable. The two labourers and Mr Headly captured them and took them into Headly's house, where Hunt attacked Headly with a knife. The weapon was taken from him, but only after he had injured one of the labourers by cutting his wrist. Shaw had previously escaped from custody in Manchester after being sentenced to transportation for life for highway robbery. (Cambridge Chronicle 25 March 1825 p4).

Top of page

Associations

Combining together to prevent and detect crime was an important strategy to take the financial risk out of prosecutions, for those who could afford it. In the late 18th early 19th Centuries a number of Associations were formed to detect crimes and prosecute offenders who victimised their members. An annual membership fee bought the services of the association to advertise rewards, organise investigations and pursuits, and manage prosecutions. So, for example, in 1819 Mr John Jennings of Little Shelford joined the Cambridge and Cambridgeshire Association, (instituted 27 Nov. 1813), for the speedy apprehension and effectual prosecution of horse and sheep stealers, felons and thieves of every denomination, and of other disorderly persons, committing Offences in the town of Cambridge, and within the distance 14 miles from the said town, on the person or property of any of the Subscribers. In 1836 Shelford subscribers were:

• John Clarke
  
• Peter Grain
  
• H. Headly
  
• O. Nutter
  
• T. and A.S.Staces
  

(Cambridge Chronicle 19 November 1819 p2 and Cambridge Chronicle 16 December 1836 p3)

Another relevant example was the formation of the Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely Farmers' Association, which held its first meeting 21st November 1832. (Cambridge Chronicle 23 November 1832 p3). This Association was established for two purposes:

1) watching the progress through the legislature of all measures affecting the interests of the farmer; and
2) indemnifying the members against all expenses to be incurred in the discovery of incendiaries.

This was particularly important for the Shelfords as the Association was established in the middle of a spree of arson attacks on local farms and the first President of the Association was Shelford farmer, Mr Peter Grain. (Cambridge Chronicle 27 December 1833 p3.) Peter Grain was himself to become a victim of the Shelford arsonist a few months later. Unfortunately no records have survived to show how this Association supported the search for and subsequent prosecution of the Shelford Arsonist.

Top of page

Seeking outside help

It was, in theory, possible to seek government assistance in situations of dire public disorder or serious crime beyond the capability of local law enforcement. The key to this was an approach by local justices to the Secretary of State, who might or might not respond favourably.

In the Shelfords a series of arson attacks on local farms triggered a plea to the Secretary of State for support. The fires were:

• 7 Nov 1828 Homestead of Mr William Headly, Great Shelford, various stacks and barns to the value of several hundreds of pounds - flames visible from Cambridge, reward of £100 offered. (Cambridge Chronicle 14 November 1828 p3)
• 27 April 1829 Rick yard and barn of Mr Thomas Stacey with about 30 loads of wheat. Damage about £200. Fire could be seen as far away as St Neots, 20 miles distant (Cambridge Chronicle 1 May 1829 p3)
• 15 December 1831 Farm of Henry Headly, 2 barns filled with corn, 2 stables and outbuildings to the value of over £3000

An approach by Lord Hardwicke, Cambridgeshire's Lord Lieutenant and Magistrate, sought government help in the form of a substantial reward and offer of a pardon for information leading to the conviction of the arsonist. As a result an advertisement appeared in the Cambridge Chronicle, 30 December 1831 p3 offering a reward of £800 and a pardon, for information leading to a conviction. The offer of a substantial reward and an approach to the Chief Justice at Bow Street triggered further support. An experienced Bow Street Runner, Samuel Hercules Taunton, came to Cambridge to assist in the investigation. A local labourer, Joseph Ellum (or Ellern), was arrested and examined by Magistrates before being committed to the next Cambridge Assizes. Taunton was in Cambridge and the Shelfords between 31 Dec 1831 and 12 January 1832. Ellerm remained in custody until March, when he appeared at the Assizes. He was promptly released, the Grand Jury having found "No true bill" (Cambridge Chronicle 23 November 1832 p3; 30 December 1831 p3; 20 January 1832 p2; Friday 10 February 1832 p2; 16 March 1832 p2; Bell's Weekly Messenger 18 December 1831 p6)

After almost destroying Henry Headly's farm, The Shelford Arsonist suspended his attacks for just over a year, but further fires continued:

• 26 Jan 1833 Frog Hall, the farm of William Wilkinson, Little Shelford, Large barn full of grain and various stacks value £800 (Cambridge Chronicle 15 February 1833 p3)

The Magistrates wrote again to the Secretary of State seeking further reward money and a pardon. They were again pointed towards the Chief Magistrate at Bow Street and again an experienced officer, this time George Leadbitter, was sent to Cambridgeshire and assisted in the investigation. Magistrates had detained three young men on suspicion of causing the fires, later releasing one suspect. The other two, local labourers Robert Elborne and Joseph Shearing, were interviewed at length, but, in the end, had to be released through lack of evidence and because the series of fires continued even while the suspects were locked up in the Castle.

Next came what at first appeared to be a double event on 7 Feb 1833: Henry Headly's stacks and Mr Carter's stable were burned. A reward of £300 and a pardon were offered. Later it was discovered that the stable fire was caused accidentally by a young boy leaving a candle burning.(Cambridge Chronicle 15 February 1833 p3)

Further fires ensued:

• 25 Feb 1833 Henry Headly's cart shed and stacks (Cambridge Chronicle 1 March 1833)
• 13 April 1833 haulm stack at William Headly's farm (Cambridge Chronicle 19 April 1833 p2)
• 18 April 1833 Barn and other buildings occupied by Joseph Payne (Cambridge Chronicle 19 April 1833 p2)
• 27 April 1833 Barn belonging to William Cambridge (Huntingdon, Bedford & Peterborough Gazette 4 May 1833 p2)
• 23 May 1833 Barn and two stacks, occupied by Mr Kirby (Cambridge Chronicle 24 May 1833 p2)
• 29 May 1833 Peter Grain's sheep pen (Cambridge Chronicle 7 June 1833 p 1 and 2)
• 12 June 1833 Cart shed belonging to William Deans (Cambridge Chronicle 21 June 1833 p2)

Local labourer John Stallon (or Stallion or Stallan) was seen acting suspiciously near to this last fire and was arrested. Again outside help was sought to assist in the investigation, this time in the person of Samuel Holder. Samuel was a Parish Constable in Cambridge but seems to have been involved in cases in the County as well as the Borough (see more on his cases here). Samuel probably played a fairly central role in building the case against John Stallon. At the Assize court trial he produced the necessary exhibits proving that a piece of cloth used to start the fire and which was found at the scene, matched cloth found at Stallon's home. (Cambridge Chronicle 21 June 1833 p2). Stallan eventually admitted starting the whole series of 12 Shelford fires. His claimed motivation was the few shillings paid out by the parish to those who helped with the parish fire engine. Stallon was convicted and hanged for these crimes. (Cambridge Chronicle 2 August 1833 p2; 9 August p2; 22 November 1833 p2; 13 December 1833 p2. The story of John Stallon is recounted in great detail in "Firestarter" by Fraser Grace, Galileo Publishers, 2025, )

Another active Bow Street Officer, James Ellis, was involved in an investigation touching on the Shelfords. This was the case in 1836 of embezzlement by the local letter carrier, Joseph Ryder, but in that case the investigation was ordered and the officer was directed by the Cambridge Postmaster and the Postmaster General. Ryder was convicted at the Lent Assizes but received an excellent character reference from Shelford resident Sir Charles Wale and other respectable persons and was sentenced to ten months hard labour (Cambridge Chronicle 15 January 1836 p2 and 25 March 1836 p4).

After its formation in 1836 the new Cambridge Borough police was another possible source of outside assistance. For example when Thomas Newling, Michael Mackintire and Robert Ranson, labourers, were sought for robbing John Allen on the highway in the parish of Gt Shelford, it was the Borough Police who apprehended them at Barnwell and mounted a prosecution. They were all transported for 15 years (Cambridge Chronicle 15 July 1843 p2 and 19 August 1843 p2; Cambridge Independent Press, Saturday 22 July 1843 p3)

Support from the Borough Police was occasionally forthcoming to correct rather than support Parish Constables. One such example from 1843 involved Parish Constables from Shelford and Duxford. William Johnson Horberry, a tailor from Little Shelford, was robbed of £1.19s by three men on the highway at Great Shelford. One of the offenders, James Knight of Duxford, was known to the victim who reported the crime first to a Shelford Parish Constable, then to his opposite number in Duxford. The two constables set about compromising the offence. They were happy to end the matter if the offender repaid the victim's money, and they had even offered Knight time in which to pay. Fortunately for the ends of justice the matter came to the knowledge of the Cambridge police and the prisoner was apprehended and committed to take his trial at the Assizes, where he received 12 months imprisonment with hard labour. (Cambridge Chronicle 22 July 1843 p2; 29 July 1843 p3; 5 August 1843 p1)

Top of page

Continuity in post

Very little information is available about the selection and appointment of Parish Constables in the Shelfords before the 1840s. After the introduction of the Parish Constable's Act 1842 magistrates were required to hold a special annual petty session for the appointment of Parish Constables. The novelty of these sessions generated brief local press reports in 1843 and 1844. From these reports we can see that Great and Little Shelford both appointed two Parish Constables and that the names did not change annually. From these and other local press cases the Constables were:

• David Robinson, carpenter, served in Great Shelford at least from 1843 to 45
• James Willis, farmer, served in Great Shelford at least from 1843 to 45
• Thomas Elbourn, blacksmith, served in Little Shelford at least from 1843 to 45
• Edward Whybrow, carpenter, served in Little Shelford at least from 1841 to 1845

(Cambridge Chronicle 8 April 1843 p2 and 6 April 1844 p2)

Top of page

Paying Constables

We do not know what inducement persuaded these constables to serve for multiple years. It is possible that even the small sums involved in Constables' disbursements made a big difference to men trying to support large families. More likely the vestries may have paid the Constables a small salary. The only evidence of this found to date is a single sentence in a report on the Cambridge Division Petty Sessions in the Cambridge Chronicle 2 March 1850 p4. "The overseers of Little Shelford applied for an order to pay the constable his salary up to Lady Day last. [this would have been up to 25 March 1849] The order was granted.

No other evidence has been found of the payment of a salary to any Parish Constables in the Shelfords. As far as the County as a whole was concerned, the Parish Constables Act 1842 imposed some standardisation to the appointment of Parish Constables. As stated above appointments were made at a special divisional petty session held for that purpose. The Act allowed a Vestry, if they wished, to resolve to pay one or more Constables a salary from the poor rate. The overseers were required to send a copy of the vestry's resolution and a note of the amount of salary proposed to the justices at their special divisional petty session. (Section 18). Where a paid constable was appointed, there was no necessity to appoint other unpaid constables. A paid constable could be appointed for 2 or more adjoining parishes. A paid constable served not just for the ensuing year but until he resigned, was dismissed by the Justices for misconduct, or his appointment was rescinded by the vestry. (Section 19).

The County followed the requirements of the 1842 Act, at least in the years immediately after the Act became law. The County may have also introduced a requirement for the vestry to explain and justify to the Magistrates the reason for making a paid appointment. The Cambridge Independent Press, 11 February 1843, mentioned an application at the Cambridge Division Special Petty Sessions from the parish of Wilbraham [sic] for the magistrates' sanction to the appointment of a paid constable at a salary of 9s per week. The Magistrates were told that, "Many disgraceful scenes and immoral practices were of continual occurrence" in this parish. A letter from the Rev Adam Fitch, clergyman of the Parish, detailing the state of the parish, was handed to the magistrates. (Fitch was Curate at Willingham, not Wilbraham, so it seems likely that the reporter had mis-heard the location). Magistrates stated they were unable to confirm the appointment of a constable until 31 March. (Cambridge General Advertiser, 8 February 1843 p1 and Cambridge Chronicle 11 February 1843 p1)

In 1844 Cambridgeshire Justices met to discuss the possible introduction of a new county police force using powers under the permissive Rural Constabulary Act 1839. Mr H.J.Adeane JP, of Babraham Hall, had called the meeting, being mainly concerned about the likelihood of a crime wave caused by navvies brought into the county to construct the railways. Debate centred around likely utility of a rural force versus costs, particularly to farmers. The meeting resulted in the formation of a committee to put together all relevant facts. Later, considering this committee's report, Justices decided to stick with what one Justice described as the "present inefficient constabulary force of blacksmiths and shoemakers". During the debate there is a passing reference to paid parish Constables, described as "Stipendiary Constables". Sir Charles Wale of Little Shelford suggested from his personal local research that a 3d rate would be sufficient to fund a new rural police, which he felt could hardly exceed the present expenses of the "stipendiary constables", who he considered were too highly paid. Mr Pemberton pointed out that they were only paid according to the work they performed (Cambridge Independent Press, 26 October 1844 p1, 14 December 1844 p3).

Top of page

Were the Shelford Parish Constables effective?

One particular set of events gives us an insight. In August 1845 a riot took place in Great Shelford between itinerant Irish farm workers and local Shelford labourers. The cause of the disagreement was that local farmers were hiring cheaper Irish workers rather than local labourers. Sticks, stones, and bludgeons were used and eventually the locals beat off about 200 of the Irish. There is no mention in the reports of any response by or involvement of the local Parish Constables. Warrants were afterwards issued by the Magistrates for the apprehension of eleven of the Shelford party, six of whom were promptly taken into custody, and on the 15th August, committed for trial at the Cambridgeshire Division Petty Sessions, the remaining five escaped. While the constables were executing their warrants on the 15th, the scene on the high road was one of great fury. Men, women, and children mobbed the Parish Constables and their prisoners, shouting and hissing and the road soon became impassable. A man called Rose, being somewhat obstreperous, was beaten round the head and knocked out by one of the Constables. A few old women, unable any longer to witness the scene without interference, rushed to the rescue and liberated the unconscious prisoner. Rose was conveyed home, placed in bed, and a doctor was called. Locals complained that one Constable was unnecessarily violent, while another Constable was singled out for praise for exercising kindness and humanity while carrying out his duties.

Charges of riot, rescuing prisoners and refusing to aid a constable when called upon to do so, were brought at the next sessions against a number of the Shelford men, resulting in short prison sentences with hard labour. (Cambridge Independent Press 25 October 1845 p4). From this we can deduce that although the Parish Constables did not provide an effective immediate response to a serious incident, they were later both dogged and violent in carrying out the instructions of local magistrates.

Top of page

Establishment of a Lighting and Watching Act Police Force.

Finally we come to a divergence in policing arrangements between the Shelfords and the majority of other Cambridgeshire Parishes. At some point around the end of 1850 the vestries at the Shelfords adopted the watching provisions of the Lighting and Watching Act 1833. This would have involved residents calling a special vestry meetings, a positive vote, the appointment of police inspectors and the employment and management of watchmen / constables. The process is described in detail here (opens in a fresh window).

Evidence of the establishing of the Great Shelford force can be found in the ledger of Smart, the Cambridge Tailor. p.148, (Museum of Cambridge). 8 January 1851, where an order is recorded "Great Shelford Police, by order of Mr Headly: Uniform blue frock coat for C. Galley, gilt buttons, braided collar, fine blue pilot greatcoat, material for trousers, waterproof hat, black kid stock, total cost £5.16.0." Interestingly this was paid for by cash in eight installments between Feb and Oct 1851. What does this tell us about the financial state of the parish?

There is an entry in the same ledger kept by Smart, for Little Shelford Police, dated December 26 1850, just two weeks before the entry for Great Shelford police. This is an order by Mr Clare for a blue fine uniform for Police Constable Webb; Frock coat and pair of trousers, blue winter trousers and blue great coat, waterproof stuff hat, oilskin cape lined drugget, a stock and clasp, belt and cape strap. The total cost was £7.2.3. and the account was paid March 25th 1851 by cash. Cambs Archives KP/138/10/1 is an un-indexed bundle of receipts relating to the Little Shelford Force. From these it can be seen that their officer was equipped with handcuffs, staff, patent lamp oil, boots, accommodation, a key for the local cage, and, unusually, a pair of pocket pistols by the Cambridge gunsmith Charles Piper, together with the necessary bullet mould, gunpowder and percussion caps. From this it can be deduced that the Little Shelford Police Inspectors felt that a certain amount of personal danger accompanied their policeman post.

Without hard evidence it is difficult to pinpoint exactly why these two parishes decided to adopt this Act, to raise a police rate and employ paid uniformed watchmen / Constables at this particular time. Possibly a number of factors contributed to making this an attractive proposition.

Concerns over crime would undoubtedly have played a part. Was there a fear that criminals gravitate to un-policed parishes, being driven from places where the new police had been established? Uniformed police had been operating in Cambridge since 1836, and, for example, nearby in Essex (1840), Saffron Walden (1836), Bedfordshire (1839), the Isle of Ely (1841) and Suffolk (1840/45). There remained residual mistrust of the navvies, still in the area building the rail network.

The coming of the railway had made the Shelfords more attractive as a place to live and the population was expanding. New residents would expect to be protected from crime. Was the presence of uniformed police considered to be a sign of modern civilised living which new residents wanted to replicate? The local press, reporting a few years earlier on the Shelford riot, sarcastically referred to the Shelfords as "a civilised place" and its belligerent resident labourers as "the civilised" (Cambridge Independent Press 16 August 1845 p3).

There would also have been concerns about the thefts of crops and animals. (Cambridge Independent Press, 21 April 1849 p3 reported the theft of 34 Fowls from the farm of Mr Gaul of Shelford. The Cambridge Chronicle 28 December 1850 recorded the theft of 2 sheep stolen from Great Shelford, butchered nearby and their heads and skin left behind). Troublesome youths may have been another concern. The Cambridge Independent Press, 3 August 1850 p1, reported a case against four local young men for riotous conduct after the Shelford Feast, while another report in the same paper on 7 September 1850 p3 concerned four local children throwing stones at a passing railway train and breaking a carriage window. Another farm fire in 1850 no doubt reminded people of the terrors of the Shelford Arsonist hanged in 1833 (Cambridge Chronicle, 27 July 1850 p2).

Another factor may have been a desire for local control over local police. Under the Lighting and Watching Act day to day control of policing was undertaken by local police inspectors appointed by the vestry and meeting monthly.

The Great and Little Shelford forces were established at virtually the same time, so one parish may have influenced the other in recognising a need for new policing arrangements.

The Officers who were appointed to these two forces and were sworn as Constables for both Great and Little Shelford, were:

• Charles Galley, Gt Shelford, served throughout 1851
  
• William (or John) Webb, Little Shelford, served to January to March when it would appear that he was dismissed, but for what cause remains a mystery. Webb himself professed to not knowing the reason for his dismissal and pleaded to be re-instated.
  
• William Thompson sworn in for Little Shelford in May 1851 in the place of Webb, served until January 1852.

It is difficult to assess the effectiveness or impact of the new policing arrangements. The Lighting and Watching Act police officers did bring a few additional minor offences before the courts for liquor licensing offences and riding dangerously and without reins. There were also minor assaults on the officers acting in the execution of their duty.

Top of page

The coming of the new police

No sooner had the Shelford officers taken to the streets than the County Magistrates started to reconsider the introduction of a County Force under the Rural Policing Act 1839. This time it was George Jenyns JP of Bottisham Hall who initiated the debate in January 1851. In April 1851 the County Magistrates set up a committee to research and report on all the relevant facts involved in adopting the Rural Policing Act of 1839. The report of the committee was received in April 1851 and the debate on it was scheduled for the Midsummer Quarter Session (Cambridge Chronicle 12 April 1851 and 7 June 1851). In summary the report touched on rising population, increased crime, the cost of a force set against savings from then current expenses, and the cost of an alternating system with Superintending Constables. The report and Petitions against the new police from various parishes were considered and the proposal to form the Cambridgeshire Constabulary was passed by 12:7 votes. The whole process has been documented in great detail by Peggy Watts in her 2001 book "The Formation of the Cambridgeshire Constabulary 150 years ago"
(Cambridge Chronicle 5 July 1951 p 8 and 12 July 1851 p4)

A scheme utilising 70 men, including a Chief Constable, was sent to and approved by the Secretary of State. Captain George Davies RN was appointed Chief Constable and started to recruit his men. All was in place for the new force to take over policing in the County from 1 January 1852. Parish Constables continued to be appointed, serving as local assistants to the new Cambridgeshire Constabulary. The Lighting and Watching Forces ceased operation. William Thompson, Little Shelford, was one of six Lighting and Watching Act policemen who advertised in the local press asking to be considered for appointment to the new police. This was in response to a rumour that the new force was recruiting strangers rather than local men.(Cambridge Chronicle 15 November 1851 page 5.). His plea was not successful and in December he was advertising his services as a deportment coach (Cambridge Chronicle 20 December 1851 p5). Great and Little Shelford parishes became part of the Cambridge Division of the new County Force, headed by Superintendent Lowe and Sergeant Richard Harvey.

top of page

This page was last modified: 13 March 2026, 18:04

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.