Were Ned and the boys social misfits, or just simply a product of their time? … Buggered if I know, but I\’d take a good guess and say more a product of the \’police\’.

Now don’t get concerned that Crichton’s gone all academic like, ‘cause I ain’t. All I’m saying is…. What the boys got up to before that unfortunate confrontation at Stringybark Creek with those four coppers was diddly squat compared to what was happening in that southern den of iniquity, Melbourne, not to mention its surrounding areas. No wonder Mrs Kelly moved her kids as far away from that joint as possible. Moving to the north east of the state was like moving from Baghdad to bloody Bondi, umm, without the surf. Fresh clean air and those wide open spaces, and a chance for a new life for her family.

I sat down the other day to have a squiz through the Police Gazettes from 1871-1875 to see just how much crime was happening in the north east and if I might come across any familiar names to do with the Kelly story. The way the police spoke of this place as being overrun with thieves and other unsavoury characters I thought the Gazette would be filled with the outrageous exploits of these ruffians. I read through hundreds of pages searching for crimes committed in the North East, but to my surprise found next to bugger all. All I came across was a 2 pound reward handed over to dear Constable Edward Hall # 569 from Greta for getting a conviction against a bloke by the name of Murdoch for stealing from a shop. He got 4 months hard labour. There were some other bits and bobs but nothing worth mentioning. Maybe the police were looking in all the wrong places and should have concentrated their efforts and resources more so in the Police Commissioner’s own backyard of Melbourne.

On Sunday 2nd April 1871 Victoria conducted a census to reveal a total population of 731,528 with 207,000 people living in Melbourne alone. From what I could gather in the Police Gazette, a significant percentage of Melbourne’s population was far from law abiding citizens and would make the north east look more like a country retreat. I must also make mention of a notice in January of 1871 that stated from this date forward, any cattle or horses, apart from Government property, that have been lost or misplaced will no longer be inserted in the Gazette unless they are reported to be stolen. You could report your dog, parrot or monkey being lost, but no stock. It was not surprising to see a marked increase in stolen stock after this ruling was made public. It seems it was more convenient to simply list your lost stock as stolen and get the police to look for it. In 1871-75 there are literally thousands of head of so called stolen cattle and horses throughout Victoria listed weekly, but the majority in the southern region. In one instance even the poor old mailman gets done for riding a stolen horse, or was it? The message here seems to be quite clear; if you find lost stock leave it well alone as it’s bound to be stolen. Ain’t that right Ned?

As I continued searching through the Police Gazettes, a clearer picture of 19th century Victoria materialised, and especially that of Melbourne and its surrounding suburbs. It may have been the jewel in the crown of Victoria but was an absolute nightmare for the police. Apart from stock, clothing seemed to be at the top of the list of theft. There were thousands of pieces of stolen clothing, from sac coats to dresses to socks, trousers, handkerchiefs, shoes and linen. One poor bugger who got charged for stealing a pocket handkerchief earned himself one month in the slammer. For stealing a coat or exposing yourself you got 2 months. If you were prone to jewellery you simply had to steal yourself a Geneva watch or ring. If you got done for burglary, that normally would get you 6 years at the “College,” and if you were receiving you got 3 years. Now that’s just a sample of items that got knocked off on a daily basis. Have a look at these… ….. Stolen from the yard of Ninian Taylor, Sandridge, a brown male monkey, lame left leg/light brown female with small bald patch on top of head. I’m not sure if the female mentioned was another monkey or he had simply misplaced his wife. Stolen, 1 magpie without a tail in a wooden cage, door broken and substituted with a bit of wood. Stolen from Edward Robinson 200cwt of 4lb lead sheet from his roof. Is nothing bloody well sacred? The list of stolen items just goes on and on, and that my friends, all in the month of January alone.

I was surprised to see that back in those days, a bloke could have a warrant taken out on him for deserting his wife, children or hired service. Another item that surprised me was, If you were a member of the police force, you were not allowed to vote for a member to serve in the Legislative Assembly or you would be thrown off the force. A directive also came forth to prohibit police from keeping poultry in Government quarters (don’t ask) and even more interesting notices. On the night of 11th at Kerang, a bullock, the property of Peter McArthur, was maliciously shot with a gun loaded with a bullet 18th Feb 1871. The dog stolen from Tom Tully has returned home. The supposed property stolen from William Finlay has been found not stolen. Another unusual notice was … A man has been charged on warrant from Wangaratta with trying to commit suicide. His description is as followS … Scotch, age 43, 5ft 11 in, 12 stone, active appearance, erect gait, high forehead and cheekbones, sunken cheeks, dark brown hair mixed with grey, small whiskers at sides of face, and oh yes, lastly, a large cut on neck under chin, nearly severing the windpipe 6th Feb 1871. Now there’s a bloke you’ve got to feel sorry for. Fails at killing himself and gets charged for it. But have a look at this gem. Man charged on warrant with attempted bestiality on a mare at German’s Lane Tower Hill. He rode the mare on which the attempt was attempted? Maybe he was just attempting to do some trick riding and simply slipped. Either way, it’s got to be a somewhat scary sight.

On a much sadder note, there were numerous reports of bodies of babies, children and adults found dead in streets, bushland, rivers and creeks, and one moving experience of a baby sown in a calico bag and discarded by the side of the road. Children found deserted and malnourished and also left for dead not to mention the hundreds of poor kids sent off to the Industrial schools. These types of notices were not uncommon in all of the Gazettes I read from 1871-75 nor were the many accounts of murder, attempted murder, brutal rapes and sexual assaults, bashings, highway robbery, fraud, drunkenness, prostitution, incendiarism, etc etc. There were of course many instances of rewards given to police for the conviction of criminals, but when you take into consideration their miserable wage, it was clearly nowhere near enough. To me, the country to the north east of Victoria now looked even more inviting. I wonder if Mr. Standish, the Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police had ever ventured much further than the confines of the Melbourne Club to witness such sights, or would it take the likes of four young larrikins from the north east to lure him away from his fine wine and furnishings?

Compared to the amount of serious crime taking place on a daily basis in Melbourne and its surrounding areas, the crimes that were committed by four young men prior to the confrontation at Stringybark Creek and found by a court of law to be guilty of, seem to pale in significance. You just cannot ignore the ages of these four young men.

• Ned Kelly imprisoned for 3 months for assault and 3 months for indecent behaviour in 1870, The McCormick Incident (approx. 15 years of age).
• Ned Kelly imprisoned for 3 years for receiving a stolen horse. May 1871 (approx. 15 years of age).
• Joe Byrne fined 20 shillings for illegally riding a horse in Beechworth 22nd September 1873 (approx. 17 years of age).
• Joe Byrne 6 months in Beechworth Gaol for killing and eating sheep he did not own 30th May 1876 (approx. 20 years of age).
• Steve Hart 8 months in Beechworth Gaol for stealing a horse July 1876 (approx. 17 years of age).
• Ned Kelly Fined 1 shilling for being drunk and disorderly in Benalla, 2 pound 10 shillings for assaulting police, 2 pounds for resisting arrest, and 5 shillings for damaging a police uniform. Sept. 1877 (approx. 22 years of age).
• Dan Kelly with others, Imprisoned over Goodman Affair Oct. 1877 (approx. 16 years of age).

In March of 1878, a warrant was issued by the Chiltern Bench for the arrest of Ned Kelly for horse stealing, and in April of the same year for Dan Kelly and John Lloyd Jnr for the same charge. I must also point out that John Lloyd Jnr was later acquitted of such crime as I believe Dan Kelly would have been if not for the dubious Fitzpatrick Incident on the 15th April1878 that we must all believe was the ultimate cause for the Kelly outbreak.

Did Ned and Dan Kelly deserve such attention that was mounted on them by the police, or was the Fitzpatrick incident to be the perfect opportunity to rid the North East of the Kelly’s once and for all? Surely the hierarchy in the Victorian Police Department could see that there were too many discrepancies in Fitzpatrick’s testimony to accept it as truth, as did some members of the police force according to McIntyre’s confession to Ned at Stringybark Creek (The Jerilderie Letter). Compared to the serious crime being committed on a daily basis in Melbourne and its surrounding areas, why after 6 months did the powers to be feel the need that three search parties of heavily armed police equipped with body straps be necessary to hunt down two young men who had previously been convicted of nothing but mediocre offences? Would the same action be ordered for those convicted of the crime of murder in Melbourne of which there were numerous incidents, or was it just simply they were not Kelly’s? I find it difficult to accept that the testimony delivered by a young and inexperienced police officer, who was known in his own department as being a drunkard, liar, and an officer not fit to do his duty, and thrown off the force, be considered as truth, and throw unnecessary suffering on a family who in my opinion were no different than the many pioneering families who made this country what it is today.

With all that had happened to Ned Kelly and his family, and the manner in which they were treated by police prior to Stringybark Creek, Ned Kelly and his brother Dan knew they would never receive a fair trial. At the time the alleged crime occurred, neither incident or evidence of a charge of attempted murder was ever fully or fairly examined regarding the Fitzpatrick fiasco. It seems to me that the police had already made up their minds and would deliver unto the Kelly’s the full force of what they would deem so called justice. The rest is history, but you’ve got to ask yourself the question; Were the four boys a product of a tough Victorian era or simply the result of a poorly trained Victorian police force and its even more questionable senior officers? You tell me. In hindsight, maybe they would have just been better off moving amongst the real villains in the Chief Commissioner’s backyard instead of to the peace and solitude of the Stringybark forest.