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, May 16, 2011

The Jerilderie Letter from 1879 to 1930 [Sharon Hollingsworth]

Recently on a Kelly related forum researcher Kelvyn Gill had done a posting asking if anyone knew which edition of the Melbourne Argus from 1930 had printed Ned Kelly's Jerilderie Letter. It seems that Ian Jones had mentioned in the Spring 2000 issue of the Latrobe Journal that "a government copy of the letter was made and presented at Ned's trial. Incredibly, his incompetent defence counsel objected to its being tendered as evidence. The copy was filed away and forgotten.
The Melbourne Argus printed this government text of the letter in 1930, and it was again forgotten until 1948, when Max Brown published it as an appendix to his fine Kelly biography, Australian Son."

I emailed Kelvyn Gill and let him know from my research that the Argus was not the newspaper that the Jerilderie Letter appeared in in 1930. It was the (Adelaide) Register News-Pictorial that ran a series called "The Kellys are Out!" written by J.M.S. Davies (an Adelaide writer, thus the Register News-Pictorial getting the exclusive) that ran between September 13 and October 15, 1930. It later ran in the Melbourne Herald in November and December of 1930. Seems that the Herald gets heralded as the one to carry it for the first time in decades, but the Adelaide paper was really the one that should get the kudos. You can search out the series at http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/home

Brian McDonald's "What They Said About Ned!" says of the series that it "includes an edited version of the Jerilderie Letter e.g. grammar, spelling, punctuation and the reference to the calf's testicles has been left out."

We can only wonder why Davies did not wish to use that bit. Was he worried about delicacy?

Below is where Kelvyn Gill put showing what was used and what was missing in regards to that section of the letter.




Ned’s Jerilderie letter – black text; changes made in Davies’ story are struck out for omissions and red words are those added or replacing words struck out.

When McCormack's got the horse they came straight out to Goold  Gould and accused him of working the horse it; this was false and Goold Gould was amazed at the idea I could not help laughing to hear Mrs. McCormack
accusing him of using the horse after him being so kind as to send  when he had actually sent his boy to take him from the Ruta Cruta and take bring him back to them. I pleaded Goulds innocence and Mrs. McCormack turned on me and accused me of bringing the horse from Greta to Goold's waggon  Gould’s wagon to pull him out of the bog I did not say much to the woman as my mother was present but that same day me and my uncle was cutting calves  Gould wrapped  up wrote a note and a pair of the calves  testicles and gave them it to me to give them to Mrs. McCormack. I did not see her and gave the parcel to a boy to give to her when she would come instead of home giving it
to her he gave it to her husband consequently McCormack  and because of the note McCormack said he would summons me I told him neither me  I nor Goold Gould used their horse.







It is too bad that Ned Kelly was not able to get his letter published in full back in 1879 as he wished to. However The Age newspaper printed an article on February 18, 1879 that had some of the letter's contents in it.. Kelvyn Gill sent me the text of the article found at the State Library of Victoria. It can also be found online at:
http://inside.theage.com.au/view_bestofarticle.php?straction=update&inttype=1&intid=468

The article begins with:





"After the exciting scene with Mr. Rankin in the Royal Mail Hotel, Kelly took Richards and Living with him to look for Mr. Gill, who had run away. Mr. Gill is the proprietor of the Jerilderie and Urana Gazette, and his office is about thirty yards from the hotel. Kelly said he only wanted Gill to publish a statement of his life, which he had prepared. He then took out of his pocket a large roll of paper, fifty-seven sheets in all, closely written on. He was particularly anxious that it should be published, and Mr. Living, desirous of saving Mrs. Gill any further uneasiness, asked Kelly for the statement, and promised to give it to Gill for publication. Kelly then gave Mr. Living the statement, threatening that if he did not publish it he would have to suffer. Mr. Gill did not return from his hiding place until after Mr. Living had left for Melbourne, taking with him the statement, which he showed Mr. Hanlan at his hotel, near Deniliquin. When he resumed his journey he forgot the papers, and Mr. Hanlan made a copy of the statement, and posted the original to Melbourne; but Mr. Living has not yet received it back. On his return journey, however, Mr. Living obtained Mr. Hanlan's copy, but he has since received a communication from Superintendent Brown, who took it upon himself to instruct Mr. Living not to give the letter to the press or make known its contents until he receives the authority of the Attorney General to do so. Living has, therefore, positively refused to give the copy which he now has in his possession, but on Mr. Hanlan being interviewed, his recollection of the contents of the letter appeared to be very good..."


Michael Ball pointed out something interesting in this. It says that Living accidentally left the letter at Hanlon's [Hanlon is the correct spelling, not Hanlan] place and that Hanlon had to mail it to Melbourne?!! First time I had heard that. Interesting in the extreme.

 

2 comments:

  1. Heavens, what Ned could have done with the Internet and email - or even with photocopiers.

    I find it extraordinary that Living 'forgot' the papers. Unbelievable, considering that he had something pertaining to the most famous person in the colony, he could see how much it meant to said famous person, and how 19th century Victorian and common human decency would surely have dictated that he do with them what he said he would.

    As for the 1930 alterations, blamed the delicacy of the times. I remember being asked by a rarely seen great aunt if I would like to use the small room, and not knowing what she meant. So presenting someone with a pair of knackers when they didn't want them would have been seen as unbelievably crude at the time and not the sort of thing that a family newspaper would have referred to in 1930.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just think what the gang (and the Victorian police) could have done with mobile phones in addition to email and the net! But, alas, they had to play it old school!

    Re Mr. Living and the manuscript and "how 19th century Victorian and common human decency would surely have dictated that he do with them what he said he would" do I take it that you are being ironic? Or do you mean "he would do with them what he said he would" when he said he would take the manuscript to Melbourne?

    Why I say ironic is that Living promised Ned he would see that Samuel Gill got the manuscript to print NOT that he was gonna run with it to the Melbourne Po-Po!

    Remember in "A Short Life" where it said:

    "...At this point Living offered to take the letter and arrange for Gill to print it. Ned hesitated, but perhaps because he had done Living a favour - letting him rescue an insurance policy from among the bank papers - he decided to trust the accountant. It was his way to trust people; he was a man of his word and expected others to be like him..."


    Now, that last line surely says a great deal about Ned Kelly's character, does it not? Yet, he, like many of us, had to learn the hard way regarding trusting the word of some people!



    Re delicacy, yes, I guess that folks did not let it all hang out back then like we do now! Though I have seen some old papers (particularly 19th century ones) give some really sensational/gory details into crimes and horrific accidents that modern papers would never print!

    ReplyDelete

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

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