For more information on Sharon Hollingsworth and Brian Stevenson please see the sidebar for the About Your Humble Bloggers link.

NOTE: POSTS AT ELEVEN MILE CREEK ARE ARCHIVED MONTHLY. IF YOU ARRIVE HERE AND THE LANDSCAPE LOOKS BLEAK AND STARK GO TO THE BLOG ARCHIVES. THERE IS WHERE YOU WILL FIND THE VERDANCY.


Monday, October 11, 2010

Alex Fitzpatrick and Kate Kelly - 'A Silly Story'? [Brian Stevenson]

The outlines of the story are very familiar. Constable Alexander Fitzpatrick, wishing to curry favour with his superiors, goes to the dwelling at Eleven Mile Creek to arrest Dan Kelly. Fitzpatrick tries to take liberties with Kate, Dan's sister, and the family try to defend her. In the melee - perhaps - Fitzpatrick hurts his wrist, and returns to the police barracks with a tale of how the Kelly family has attempted to murder him. The Kelly Outbreak has begun, precipitated by the family's reaction to Fitzpatrick's harassment of a young girl.

Yet after his capture, Ned was quizzed by reporters about the involvement of Kate in the Fitzpatrick incident, and he referred it as 'a silly story.' Ned went on to say that had Fitzpatrick interfered with Kate, there would not have been enough police in Victoria to protect him. This was not police verballing, but a journalistic account which appeared in the Age of 9 August 1880. The journalist, by the way, was interviewing the most sought-after person in the Southern Hemisphere at the time and the chances are that he hung on every word and made sure that he got the quotes down accurately. It was probably the interview of his life.

Even though her brother termed it 'a silly story', the harassment of Kate, actual, alleged or fictional, is important. It has been seen many times as the reason for the physical conflict with Fitzpatrick, which in its turn put into play a series of incredible and tragic events that are well known.

But did Fitzpatrick try to interfere with Kate at the Eleven Mile homestead late in the afternoon of 15 April 1878?

The earliest hint of something untoward occurring that involved Kate that I have been able to find (and I would be happy to be corrected on this) is an interview with the lady herself in the Herald (Melbourne) of 7 February 1879, where she said that Fitzpatrick had commenced 'in a violent manner to behave improperly.' Now, it does not say how or towards whom, and it may well be that those words are not those of Kate, but a journalist who was using a delicate euphemism, reflective of the times.

Even if the words did refer to Fitzpatrick misbehaving towards her, it does seem, to paraphrase a later remark of her eldest brother, rather too late for her to speak. And, of course, there are many ways in which Fitzpatrick might have behaved improperly, and in a violent manner. It is also possible that Kate was simply telling fibs. We just don't know, but it seems to me that to accept this declaration as proof that Fitzpatrick harassed Kate seems just a bit too credulous, even for latterday Kelly sympathisers.

The alleged incident took place on 15 April 1878. There is no doubt that an attempted assault on a female would have provided the family with a gilt-edged excuse for assaulting a policeman if such assault was occasioned in defence of a young girl. Yet even though they were invited to do so, Ellen Kelly, Bricky Williamson and William Skillion did not testify at their own trial, where they would presumably have mentioned it. The trump card, excellent grounds for acquittal or mitigation of sentence, and more than likely a way to make life easier for Ned and Dan, who were hiding in the bush to escape going to trial on a capital charge - but the defendants did not use it.

Read the Cameron and the Jerilderie letters. Both blister with hatred towards Fitzpatrick, and there are copious uncomplimentary mentions of him that have sullied his name forever. But search for a mention of what the family surely would have regarded as his most heinous deed, an attempted assault on Kate - and there is nothing. Sure, by the time of the Cameron and Jerilderie letters, Ned's fate was sealed and there was no excuse that could save him from death on the run, or the gallows, but it seems unlikely that his letters, which drip with the hatred of the man who he considered had wronged him so badly, would leave out the details of Fitzpatrick and his unmanly ways towards Ned's sister.

By 1911, when Ellen Kelly told Sydney journalist B W Cookson that Fitzpatrick had tried to kiss Kate, and acted like a fool, what even Ned saw as 'a silly story' had apparently taken firm root, even in his own family. Today, pro-Kelly interests accept it as gospel, and I know that it is firmly established as part of the family's oral tradition, but there seems to be very strong reasons for questioning it. Nothing discussed here exonerates Fitzpatrick entirely, and the contemporary records show him to have been a most unlovely specimen indeed, but there are surely strong grounds, in the matter of an assault on Kate, to suggest that of this he was innocent.

1 comment:

  1. Brian, I think your post will really incite a bit of debate! I am not sure what to think, to be honest. You make some compelling points. It is interesting to note that George Wilson Hall in "The Outlaws of the Wombat Ranges" does not mention Kate in connection with the Fitzpatrick incident. Maybe he was trying to protect her reputation? Or maybe not? Who knows?

    Another thing I would like to bring out is about the journalist mentioned in connection with the Age article of August 9, 1880. David Gaunson, Ned's lawyer for the preliminary hearing in Beechworth, was the one doing the interviewing of Kelly for the Age.

    Good first post and hope to have many more from you!

    Sharon

    ReplyDelete

All comments will be reviewed by the administrator before being published.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.