This post is Part 5 of a review by Stuart Dawson of Bill Denheld’s Ned Kelly – Australian Iron Icon: A Certain Truth (2024). As before, bracketed numbers, e.g., (xx), refers to pages in Bill’s book.
Were the Kelly brothers hunted for reward monies after the Fitzpatrick incident?
Bill wrote that while on the run after the Fitzpatrick incident, “Both Ned and Dan by this time had £200 rewards offered for their capture” (105). He meant £100 each, as is clear from p. 253 when he says “The Kelly brothers may have been only wanted for questioning, [they] soon learned of their arrest warrants and at £100 each they knew they could be shot on sight, treated very harshly and imprisoned” (253). He repeats the claim in a couple of places, e.g., “It is well known that the police were offered reward monies for the capture of the Kelly brothers. This reward lured two parties of police to hunt the Kellys down” (221). He then suggests there was more to the hunt than the lure of money, asking “Why did the Kelly brothers attract such substantial rewards? This appears more than a simple manhunt, taking on a notably political dimension that endured for over two years” (48). As to what that political dimension might be, Bill claims that “As far as the Kellys were concerned the Fitzpatrick incident fired a ‘cooked up plan’ to stifle any opposition to the Squatters control” (254).
This is a complex set of claims that seems to go like this: the squatters called the shots in Parliament. The police acted to protect the political interests of the squatters. The Kellys stood up to the squatters, therefore the squatters put up money to incentive the capture of the Kellys. In the middle of this discussion of the hunt for the Kelly brothers, Bill states that “Reward monies came primarily from the Squatters funds through the Melbourne Club” (105). He further states, “The police union saw to it that the police who were already paid a good wage, estimated around £2 a week, could also claim the reward monies. So a police party of four could claim £200 for capture of Ned and Dan. Not a bad incentive considering by law they were also allowed to shoot and kill if necessary” (101). Bill asks, “A question is whose fault is it that two police parties were sent out to bring the Kellys in with a financial reward on their heads, seemingly as an incentive for the police, and all because of Fitzpatrick’s claim of attempted murder, even though there was no proof except for a skin wound on his wrist. A bullet would have passed right through if from a pistol” (254).[1] He concludes this unfair persecution, based on a false claim of attempted murder, made a showdown inevitable: “The Kellys had little choice but to defend themselves against the expected doomed outcome of unfair harsh treatment being dished out to anyone who fell out with the Squatter’s self-appointed laws” (253).
All of this is problematic. The claim that £100 rewards were offered for the capture of both Ned and Dan is fairly common. The Australian Dictionary of Biography says “Rewards of £100 were offered for the apprehension of Ned and Dan Kelly, who went into hiding in the Wombat Ranges near Mansfield”.[2] Keith McMenomy likewise wrote that “In April 1878 a £100 reward was offered for each of the brothers”.[3] All these claims are wrong. The only Kelly with a gazetted reward was Ned, issued on 29 April and published on 3 May 1878,[4] for the attempted murder of Constable Fitzpatrick; and the £100 was “for such information as will lead to the apprehension of the said Edward Kelly”. The basis for the misunderstanding seems to be Standish in RC, Q. 6 stating that “A reward of £100 was also offered for the apprehension of the Kellys”, but his recollection (or wording) was imprecise.
There was no reward offered for information about or for the apprehension of Dan before the Stringybark Creek murders. Further, the reward was for members of the public for providing relevant information, not for the police. Police did not get a reward for apprehending a wanted person; that was their job. As Lachlan Strahan explains it, police could if lucky supplement their pay with reward monies. “Half of all fines were channelled into a Police Reward Fund established in 1849, and the monies used either to reward officers for meritorious conduct or compensate them for injuries or working excess hours”.[5] Only after the later Outlawry Act might a reward be thought of as a bounty.
Bill also claimed that “the Squatters were represented by ‘The Melbourne Club’ that provided the bulk of the reward monies offered for the capture of Ned and Dan following the Fitzpatrick incident” (63). Not only was there no reward for Dan as clarified above; the £100 was from the Government, not the Melbourne Club, and it was not for Ned’s capture but for information leading to it. Second, the Kelly brothers could not be shot on sight; they were not (at least, not yet) outlaws. As Constable McIntyre said to Ned Kelly (and later testified), if they had come across the Kellys they would try to arrest them; only if they faced armed resistance might they consider the prospect of shooting the wanted men. Even after outlawry, felons could only be shot if they were armed or reasonably thought to be armed and not able to be taken without running a real risk of armed resistance.[6]
The idea that the police might get a reward for capturing the Kelly brothers seems to be built around RC Q.15529 where J.H. Graves M.L.A. says “It has been stated, I think, that knowing there was a reward for Ned Kelly, that the chances are that Sergeant Kennedy and Scanlan went off together for the purpose of capturing them [Ned and Dan] by themselves and getting that reward. I think that is extremely unlikely. I think it was simply that they did not know where the hut was.” What seems to have happened is that Graves’ rebuttal of a scurrilous allegation was misunderstood to suggest that there was a bounty for the apprehension of the Kellys post-Fitzpatrick when no such thing existed.
This in turn led Bill to a completely unjustified attack on the character of Sgt Kennedy: “Kennedy must have thought the capture of the Kelly brothers an easy task and with reward monies of £100 for each of the Kelly brothers and their mates, who were now seen as a gang, Kennedy saw this as a worthwhile venture and recruited three other troopers to join his party” (212). This cannot be left unchallenged. Bill has incorrectly inflated the £100 reward for “such information as will lead to the apprehension” of Ned into multiple rewards of £100 each, not just for both brothers, but for all four members of the Kelly gang, the existence of which was unknown before the Stringybark encounter. The whole “reward incentive” theory must be rejected. There was one £100 reward for information about Ned Kelly only; it was not from the Melbourne Club; and the police were not eligible for it.It is hard to see why this theory was maintained in the wake of Leo Kennedy’s Black Snake book.
Were there politics in the Kelly hunt?
According to Bill, “The Fitzpatrick incident … is said to be the reason for the Kelly outbreak; although it [the outbreak] could be seen as a much wider community uprising against the blatant political control of the squatters” (63). It is true that the Royal Commission’s Second Progress Report stated that the Fitzpatrick incident seemed to have precipitated the outbreak,[7] but ignored by many is the context for that: “the abolition of the Glenmore station, the reduction of the numerical strength of the force in the district, and the substitution of inexperienced and inferior constables for those more competent, necessarily weakened that effective and complete police surveillance without which the criminal classes in all countries become more and more restive and defiant of the authorities.” It is solely about what were designated “the criminal classes”, not the selector or simply poor classes. There was no “wider community uprising”. Land reform and ANA meetings yes; ‘uprising’ nowhere. The underpinning reason for the Kelly outbreak seems to be the breaking up of the Baumgarten horse stealing ring with the police slowly honing in on its ringleader, Ned Kelly, and associates.[8]
On one element of the prosecution of the Kellys, Bill says that “the arrest and gaoling of Mrs Kelly for 3 years was a gross injustice and meant as an example not to challenge authorities” (34). Indeed, magistrate Alfred Wyatt later opined that her sentence was “very severe” (RC, Q. 2275), but it was not as harsh as the 6 years her accomplices Skillion and Williamson received. Even CCP Standish described Williamson’s sentence as “very severe” (RC, Q.6). Bill’s view is correct: it was done to make an example of them. In sentencing, Barry J. said, “I hope these sentences will lead to the disbanding of the gang of lawless persons, who have for years banded themselves together in that neighbourhood against the police”.[9] The result, however, seems to have made matters worse.
Bill also suggests “that there was probably a political motive for the two search parties for the Kelly brothers rather than a simple investigation of a scuffle” (34), and “The reason two police parties were sent is more to do with the failure of government with a political bias in favour of the squattocracy and their land acquisition system. Their intention was to quell any possible uprising amongst the settlers who were the most disadvantaged part of society throughout Victoria, but mainly in the north east” (104). Even more strongly, he claims that “The police were being led by egocentric master planners to make it look like they were handling deteriorating confidence in the British Imperial authority” (254). First, it just won’t do to call the fracas and gunshot wounding of Fitzpatrick at Mrs Kelly’s house a scuffle. Ned Kelly fired at a uniformed trooper in the course of his duty. By any account he needed to be brought to account. Second, as previously noted, there were multiple search parties sent out to patrol for the Kelly brothers over the six months before SBC. Third, the other claims need documented evidence to support them but there seems to be nothing in the police files, or parliamentary correspondence, or directives, or newspapers, to support them.
Bill quotes journalist Steve Hodder as writing “In essence, the unrest in northern Victoria at the time of the Kelly outbreak was due in part to centuries old hostilities between the English authorities and Irish peasants. The extent of ill-feeling between the English ruling class and the Irish poor is revealed with a quick history tour of Ireland going back almost a thousand years” (23). This is both wrong and irrelevant. There was no significant English-Irish hostility in Victoria regardless of religious rivalries. As Morrissey showed, the two denominations often helped each other build churches in their new land and participate in joint community activities. As I noted in my Republic Myth book in a lengthy review of a cluster of claims built by some around Kelly’s parents’ Irish background, no-one in Kelly country interviewed by Brian Cookson in 1910-11 mentioned Irishness or Catholicism as a factor in relation to the Kelly saga, nor were these raised as factors by the persecution-obsessed J.J Kenneally.
Bill also quotes Ambrose Pratt’s novel Dan Kelly Outlaw, that “Most of [the Irish then in Victoria] considered it a mere venial sin to ‘pot’ at a landlord …; few indeed that had not been concerned as actors or sympathizers in the agrarian outrages of the period”(92). This might have been inspired by the 1881 Second Progress Report which said “John Kelly [Ned’s father] … was a convict, having been transported from Tipperary, Ireland, to Tasmania, in 1841, for an agrarian outrage, stated to have been shooting at a landlord with intent to murder”.[10] We now know that Red Kelly was transported for stealing pigs from another poor farmer and had lagged on an accomplice who had fired at police; but he doubtless connived at this tale which was better for his survival in prison than stock thief and police informer. As with his son Ned later, there was not an ounce of politics in him.[11]
During the June 1880 Glenrowan Inn siege at least four sympathisers were stuck overnight with about 30 adults, all facing death by accidental shooting, and uttered not one word about politics or a republic. It is worth noting in passing that the set of seven Glenrowan books by Edna Griffiths-Cargill who, as a child knew Jim Kelly well as their old neighbour and from whose volumes Bill has quoted a number of stories, wrote of her childhood that “We lived among Felons you might say; these were the Lost Children of Victoria” (67). Nowhere in these volumes’ hundreds of pages of Glenrowan local and Kelly-linked history is there any mention of Ned or the Kellys having any reflections on politics.
Did the police take political sides?
Bill states that “Mostly the police were of Irish nationality and were chosen because of their opposing religion to their Irish cousins and they were also considered traitors to their class” (67). By whom, one wonders? “By the small settlers”, apparently (101). But this won’t do at all. It implies an active Irish Protestant bias in police recruitment for which, unsurprisingly, there is no evidence at all.
One could equally say that as colonial police were in short supply, a man with experience or even basic training in the Royal Irish Constabulary or other police force was well placed to secure police employment in the colonies. On the composition of the police, Brett Wright wrote that “The Census of Victoria, 1871 recorded that 45 per cent of Victoria’s population was native to Victoria, yet, according to Robert Haldane, there were just ‘thirty native-born constables in a force of 1060’ in 1874. Irish-born men, who comprised less than 14 per cent of the Victorian population in 1871, made up an astonishing 82 per cent of the force’s numbers in 1874”.[12] In the case of the fatal Stringybark Creek expedition, the police party were a mixture of Protestant and Catholic, led by a Catholic (Kennedy). The thought that it was a Protestant shooting party out on a Catholic hunt won’t hold water. One might think from reading Bill that police were widely hated by ordinary folk in those days, but it took only minutes to search Helen Doxford Harris’s historical index of police and police stations for the word “petition” to find over a dozen instances of rural citizens petitioning for the establishment of police stations and the retention of police who had been moved or dismissed.[13]
Bill is unfairly scathing towards the police. In relation to Glenrowan he writes that “The police had set fire to the hotel knowing that a wounded man was still inside the Inn. The police dragged him out; it was Martin Cherry” (276). This is not correct. At the enquiry into Cherry’s death Dr Nicholson testified that Cherry died of a bullet wound on the lower and left side of the belly; “The body was strong and well nourished, and there were no other marks of violence.” Constable Bracken testified that Cherry “was taken out of the hut at the back of the hotel [i.e., an outbuilding]. The fire had not reached that place. Deceased was not affected by the fire. He died shortly afterwards.” Inspector Sadlier who had led the attack on the Inn testified that “It was not until the captives had made their escape from the hotel that I was made aware that deceased was lying wounded in the back kitchen. I then endeavoured to avoid firing into this kitchen. In firing the main building it was arranged that deceased was to be rescued before the fire could reach him. I rushed up to the kitchen myself first. Saw Dixon and others lift out the body of deceased, who was then alive. The hut he was taken from still stands unburnt”.[14] The police did not set fire to the outbuilding where the wounded Cherry lay.
In summary, the police were not eligible for any reward for capturing the Kelly brothers as a result of the Fitzpatrick incident and before the passing of the Felons Apprehension Act after the Stringybark Creek murders. The police have been unfairly and falsely portrayed as incompetent villains by the vast majority of Kelly authors from Kenneally 1929 onwards. Not until Ian MacFarlane’s 2012 ‘The Kelly Gang Unmasked’ was there any well-argued counterbalance to some 80 years of nonsense.
The next post in this series will review what might be Bill’s most controversial claim: that the number of Kelly sympathisers and supporters was vastly greater than I stated in my Republic Myth book.
[1] There has been much discussion of the bullet. A .31 revolver that was one of Ned Kelly’s known pistols. With small black powder revolvers such as the .31 Colt, both the precision and the “man-stopping power” was unpredictable – Gregory Blake, The Eureka Stockade (Big Sky, 2023), 30, cf. 131, 196-7.
[2] Australian Dictionary of Biography, https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/kelly-edward-ned-3933
[3] Keith McMenomy, Ned Kelly: The Authentic Illustrated History (Hardie Grant, 2001), 88.
[4] https://gazette.slv.vic.gov.au/view.cgi?class=general&state=V&year=1878&page_num=963
[5] Lachlan Strahan, Justice in Kelly Country (Monash UP, 2022), 34.
[6] S. Dawson, ‘Ned Kelly Outlawed: The Victorian Felons Apprehension Act 1878’, law&history 8.1 (2001).
[7] Royal Commission, Second Progress Report (1881), ix.
[8] John McQuilton, The Kelly Outbreak (MUP, 1979), 84-5.
[9] O&M, 15 October 1878, 3.
[10] Royal Commission, Second Progress Report (1881), vii.
[11] Kelly clan Descendant Anthony Griffiths quoted in Leo Kennedy, Black Snake (2019), 241, re Ned Kelly ”was a horse thief, and not a very good one: ‘He did not have a political bone in his body’”.
[12] Brett Wright, ‘In Pursuit of the Kelly Reward: an examination of applicants to join the hunt for the Kelly gang in 1879’, Provenance: The Journal of Public Record Office Victoria (Issue 10, 2011), https://prov.vic.gov.au/explore-collection/provenance-journal/provenance-2011/pursuit-kelly-reward
[13] https://helendoxfordharris.com.au/victoria-police/
[14] South Australian Register, 10 July 1880, 2, https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/43152733#
Today’s enlightening contribution from Tweedledum and Tweedledee at BBM is mocking David Dufty’s solid case that what Constable Arthur saw at Glenrowan was not skyrockets that no one else saw but sparks from a locomotive shunting. Tweedledum Perry falls over himself to froth widly at other people while Tweedledee Roswell calls it “the most ludicrous explanation ever”. The IQ count there is getting lower by the month.
Attachment
Hi Rocket Man
the Jones claim was based on bullshit he was provided with by a pissed off Lloyd descendant who admitted he was pulling Jones leg about the Republic, and a sympathiser army.
So now we know there was no army , the entire alleged purpose of the rockets has disappeared. And whats left? Sparks….or maybe even Rockets fired by local Chinese or god alone knows who and for their own unknown reasons. The fact that Arthur was the only person who claimed to have seen them remains a problem….,
It was sparks from a locomotive, seen at night, coming from the exact direction of a parked locomotive. A confused constable saw the sparks, and – being a bit of a dill – thought someone was firing off ‘rockets’ (ie fireworks). Nobody else thought that, and when he mentioned it later, everyone politely changed the subject.
Yet some very clever historians have since concluded that, because one rather dull constable thought he saw ‘rockets’, quite obviously these rockets were flares fired by Kelly conspirators (never named or caught) to signal secret messages to a secret army that nobody ever saw.
There’s a thing called Ockham’s Razor that can help sort this out.
The question of rockets v train engine sparks has been seriously debated on several sites and the points raised were that the trains were not in the snow-covered northern hemisphere, but a part of the world that is extremely prone to bushfires, so train engines had spark arrestors fitted to the stacks. Rockets go very high into the air, single file, unlike sparks from an engine not fitted with a spark arrestor, which spread out and limited in how high the sparks go. The reason only two people not one saw them, constables Arthur and Gascoigne, were because everyone was watching the siege at the hotel and had their backs to where the rockets were fired from. There is also no need to be derogatory towards Arthur, to try and back your implausible sparks theory.
Critical thinker.
Only Constable Arthur mentioned seeing rockets. Nobody else. He claimed Constable Gascoigne also saw them, but Gascoigne never mentioned it and was never asked about it. Not all those present in Glenrowan that night were standing and watching the hotel; there were also people at the train station. Others moved about. And the police had partially encircled the hotel, so even of the police manning the cordon, not all had their back to the station.
The railways of the day were experimenting with methods of suppressing sparks, such as spark catchers, but they weren’t very effective. Sparks from locomotives were causing fires for more than thirty years after Glenrowan.
Here are some articles to illustrate. There are plenty more, either talking about actual fires caused by locomotives, or the dangers of them.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/90321103
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/5971101
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/198554327
https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-539790913/view?partId=nla.obj-539813390
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/208468153
Just do a search for “locomotive sparks”.
Furthermore, the engine from Melbourne had been driven hard, going much harder and faster than a typical journey, and was therefore very hot.
I stand by my assessment that Constable Arthur was a dill. It’s a pity, therefore, that such elaborate theories have been constructed from his claim that he saw “rockets” on the night of the Glenrowan siege.
I have a comment in moderation because it included bunch of trove links, so I’ll summarise:
Regardless of how many people have “seriously debated” this, the points you raise are factually wrong.
Locomotives in 1880 emitted sparks, sometimes even causing fires. There are plenty of articles on trove showing this.
It’s also not true that in Glenrowan that night, “everyone was watching the siege”. For example, there were many people, including passengers and rail staff, at the train station.
Spark arrestors on the trains of that period were not perfect with some sparks escaping, causing bushfires, but the spark arrestors certainly stopped what you claim was omitted. Both Arthur and Gascoigne would be aware of what sparks from a train engine appeared like, as would most people of that period, so there would be no confusion at all. Arthur states that he was facing the direction the rockets were fired from, then turned back to the affray.
In the good old days before fireworks and crackers were banned, we had Guy Fawkes night. For several months beforehand, all the people in the area piled up anything that would burn for a huge bonfire. When the bonfire collapsed into itself, it sent up a huge array of sparks towards the heavens and as kids we would marvel at this, watching the sparks fly up until they burnt out. We also had skyrockets and I can assure you, there was no similarity whatsoever between the sparks emitted from the fire and skyrockets. Nobody could possibly make that mistake.
David Dufty, can you in all honesty state that train passengers and railway staff were not watching the siege? This was the biggest event in all of their lives! Of course they would all have been watching what was going on! Besides, did anyone go around asking everyone there, if they saw rockets being fired? Of course not, so that statements of yours, doesn’t pass the pub test. From what I recall, the train passengers were mostly police, with some reporters and a couple of wives, as it was a police ‘special’ train, not a regular passenger service. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Constable Gascoigne was indeed mentioned. You would have done well to have consult the Royal Commission. It is a wonderful source of information. Also, there were two rockets fired, not one.
James Arthur,
continued,
9th June 1881.
11190. You do not know anything about how he got out?—No. After we were firing the second volley, there was a man came out from the yard, and as he came out there were two rockets let up between the railway station and McDonald’s, and I was looking round to where they went off, and there was some firing went on then, and as I turned round I saw this man going out. I do not know whether it was Ned Kelly.
11191. We never heard of rockets?—Constable Gascoigne can tell about that. I think it was some sympathizers letting them know they were attacked by the police. One was very faint, and the other was a large one.
Critical Thinker
Some things need to be cleared up here.
First, you’ve pasted in an extract of Constable Arthur’s appearance before the Royal Commission, when he mentioned seeing ‘rockets.’ What you didn’t say is that that brief mention by constable Arthur is the only piece of evidence, anywhere, that rockets were fired on the night of the Glenrowan siege. And to put that in context, the transcript of the the Kelly Gang Royal Commission runs to more than a thousand pages of testimony. Nobody else mentioned it. Nor was it mentioned by any newspaper, despite multiple journalists being on the scene. Nor was it mentioned in any witness statement, affidavit, police report, personal letter (that we know of). Two senior police officers at the siege later wrote book-length memoirs; they didn’t mention it. There is an absolute mountain of archival historical record pertaining to the Glenrowan siege, and the claim that rockets were fired was made just once… by Constable Arthur when he appeared before the commission. If the evidence was any thinner it would not exist at all.
Second, the existence of the rockets is foundational to a very big claim; being linked to the secret rebel army that was waiting to sieze control of north-eastern Victoria under Ned Kelly’s leadership. I don’t believe in the existence of that army – certainly not in the formulation described by Ian Jones.
Secret armies aside, I don’t think Arthur’s claim itself about rockets is implausible at face value. I guess the gang could have organised a warning system with a friend or associates, in case the police were on their tail. Sure, it’s plausible. But you’d want more than just one constable claiming to have seen them.
Third, this was a confusing fog-of-war situation. While the notion of warning rockets has face plausibility, you know what else has face plausibility? The possibility that Arthur, though he thought later he saw them, saw no such thing. He may genuinely have believed it. But it was very late, and very dark, and very confusing, and very stressful for all involved. In such an environment, people make mistakes of judgement and perception.
Fourth, it is simply not the case that everyone in town was “watching” the siege. It’s true that the following morning, spectators did flock to Glenrowan. But at 3.00 am, not much was happening, there was not much to see; and it was very dangerous. The civilians aboard the train stayed near the train station; the rail workers likewise stayed with or near the trains; the police moved into different positions, not all with their backs to the station. And there were various individuals moving around the vicinity during the night. By the time the hotel was alight the following afternoon, crowds had gathered and the siege had turned into a spectacle, but during the night, it was serious, deadly business; there was nothing to see; and nobody knew what was going to happen.
Finally, you may well be right about the efficacy of spark-catching technology on the Victorian railways in 1880, but it contradicts what I’ve read, although I admit I haven’t dived deeply into it. You’ve made a claim about a very specific, niche topic, so some evidence to back up your claim would be nice. It’s not good enough to airily declare that people have discussed this on other websites and that they all agreed that I’m wrong. I’d like to see the evidence, please.
Hi David D., the evidence that spark arresters were NOT in use in 1880 as claimed above is in a 1900 W.A. article about them still being in development, Western Mail, Saturday 20 October 1900 p 45 .
I sent this with extra comment and a link plus a PDF of the article last night but it still hasn’t appeared, so it must be stuck in David’s inbox. Anyway, the score is now us 10, Critical Thinker 0.
The police special train hit a railway gate after leaving Melbourne which knocked out it’s braking system. At Benalla, where police and horses were loaded on the driver of the special refused to take the attached carriages as he couldn’t stop if required in a hurry. It was then decided that engine would lead as a pilot train. A policeman was tied to the front of the engine to watch for possible danger. The train driver said, “…. that I would go ahead about a mile with my Engine as pilot and give the warning, if possible, of danger. I accordingly,
proceeding with the utmost care and caution…”
So the train engine was not being “driven hard” as you say, after it stopped at Benalla, as it then proceeded slowly towards Glenrowan. The train driver continued cautiously because he could not stop the engine in a hurry if required, as there were reports that the railway tracks would be interfered with somewhere along the line.
All the links you provided were irrelevant as they were all associated with fires, allegedly caused by train engines. What we are discussing, is how a shower of sparks going into the air could resemble a skyrocket. Also, with the spark arresters that were fitted, although not adequate enough to stop sparks completely, could sparks have been thrown into the air enough, to imitate a skyrocket, that has a single stream of sparks behind it, unlike a much broader array of sparks from a chimney stack and goes far higher than sparks from an engine. In previous discussions on this subject, people posted videos of European trains under load through snow that emitted huge amounts of sparks, but again, these obviously had no spark arresters and did not look anything like a skyrocket.
Your dismissal of Arthur’s evidence at the RC is astounding. He was a police officer and under oath! It is not Arthur’s fault that the Commissioners failed to question Gascoigne about them. Had Gascoigne said he was with Arthur and looking in the same direction as him at that moment and stated he did not see the two skyrockets, then you may have a position to question Arthur’s evidence, but even then, it would be one word against another.
Most of the points you have raised, like Arthur imaging he saw skyrockets and references to fires, are clutching at straws. He either saw something or he didn’t! I have answered some of your other points in a reply to Stuart, which apparently has not been posted.
Critical Thinker.
Hi Critical Drinker,
The train from Melbourne to Benalla went fast and hard, as you acknowledge. Certainly, it stopped for a while in Benalla then proceeded slowly but it still would have been hot. At any rate my position stands even if the engine wasn’t unusually hot.
The links I provided were simply to show that locomotives of that time emitted sparks. You and others claim they didn’t (so therefore couldn’t have done so on the night of the siege), so I showed that they did. You can’t now backtrack and say that’s irrelevant, since I was simply countering a point you made.
As for your commentary about the detailed workings and functions of spark-suppressing rail technology of the mid-nineteenth century, I admit I lack expertise on that topic. Are you an expert on it? I ask because you’re making lots of claims, like this:
“Also, with the spark arresters that were fitted, although not adequate enough to stop sparks completely, could sparks have been thrown into the air enough, to imitate a skyrocket, that has a single stream of sparks behind it, unlike a much broader array of sparks from a chimney stack and goes far higher than sparks from an engine.
You sound very confident in your technical commentary on spark arresters, but I’d like to see some evidence; or at the least, evidence that either you’re an expert on the topic, or that you’ve consulted one.
Otherwise, we’re left where we started, which is that locomotives historically emitted sparks. Because if that’s the case it’s entirely possible that, very late one fateful night, in confusion and under stress, a constable saw distant sparks and thought they were fireworks.
David D, firstly, I have never said that train engines fitted with spark arresters never emitted any sparks as you falsely claim, in fact the opposite. Then you post a quote from me (below), that contradicts your claim and shows I did say sparks were emitted even with spark arresters.
“Also, with the spark arresters that were fitted, although not adequate enough to stop sparks completely, could sparks have been thrown into the air enough, to imitate a skyrocket, that has a single stream of sparks behind it, unlike a much broader array of sparks from a chimney stack and goes far higher than sparks from an engine.”
However, spark arrester would not allow the volume of sparks to escape that you allude to and even if they did, those emissions could not be mistaken for skyrockets! You appear to be too dismissive of what I have said and therefor, not taking in and critically analysing the points I raise.
Stuart, you started off well in your analysis and for a moment I felt you had grasped the obvious, then sadly you let yourself down with your final down, by believing that sparks from a train engine stack could resemble a rocket. 5/10.
Critical Thinker
The way the challenge is put is interesting: “What we are discussing, is how a shower of sparks going into the air could resemble a skyrocket. Also, with the spark arresters that were fitted, although not adequate enough to stop sparks completely, could sparks have been thrown into the air enough, to imitate a skyrocket, that has a single stream of sparks behind it, unlike a much broader array of sparks from a chimney stack and goes far higher than sparks from an engine.”
There is no reason at all to assume that Arthur saw a “single stream of sparks” that resembled a what a modern critic might describe as a skyrocket trail as distinct from some broader array of sparks. What Arthur said is, “there were two rockets let up between the railway station and McDonald’s…. One was very faint, and the other was a large one.”
We don’t know what he saw. He saw something that he interpreted as rockets. We can’t say if it was a single stream of sparks, or much in the way of sparks at all. There is nothing about sparks in what Arthur said. Ian Jones in ‘Short Life’, 2008: 306 working from the same and only source, imagined “two rockets streaking up into the sky, scattering falling stars with dull, delayed thumps”. It is an exercise in pure fiction.
You are right that Arthur “either saw something or he didn’t.” Yes, he saw something. He and apparently Gascoigne thought they saw rockets; but clearly there were lots of other people there including four journalists and a telegraph operator who saw no such thing, nor heard of any such thing to report it. Other people reasonably certainly saw the engine shunting with some sparks as normal and paid no attention to it.
And Gascoigne..
Only Constable Arthur mentioned it.
Hi David D., the crown of victory is ours!! As a chap I spoke to a while back and who is a Puffing Billy volunteer told me, and which I posted on this very blog when Critical Thinker was having a nap, Victorian trains back in the day burned a lot of wood in their engines because it was cheap. And wood is much sparkier than coal.
Now the jewel in the crown: spark arresters were not a thing before around 1900 in Australia. The attached article from Trove, Western Mail, 20 October 1900 p 45 says, “The danger of sparks from locomotive engines passing through agricultural districts is a constant source of worry to farmers during the summer months. … For years past the minds of eminent locomotive engineers have been engaged in the task of devising some scheme for effectively dealing with the matter, but only partial success has attended their efforts, and a perfect spark-arrester is yet an invention of the future. … When Mr. Rotheram took over the duties of Locomotive Engineer from Mr. R.B. Campbell, about four months ago, he set to work to bring , about some improvement in the mode of dealing with the sparks, which, owing to the size of the boilers and the forced draught required, particularly when mounting grades, are inevitable with locomotive engines.”
There’s a lot more in the article about it, but the short answer is that David Dufty solved a problem that had been argued about for years.
Second, the notion that “the reason only two people saw them … constables Arthur and Gascoigne, were because everyone was watching the siege at the hotel and had their backs to where the rockets were fired from”, is factually wrong. As I documented with references in my Republic Myth book, people including the journalists were wandering around the site, including to and from the other hotel, and no-one saw any rockets. The logical explanation is that Arthur and Gascoigne were in proximity of each other and on the far side of the Inn or some other place where their view towards McDonnell’s hotel was blocked, and they guessed in the excitement that a couple of uneven bursts of train sparks, probably from shunting which happened when the train was readying to take Hare back to Benalla, was possibly skyrockets. So no more putting down David D for an “implausible theory”; it’s sheer genius to have cracked that nut.
Attachment Western-Mail-WA-1900-10-20-Saturday-20-October-1900-p-45-Spark-arrestors.pdf
Thanks Stuart. Well done. As I said in an earlier comment, the notion that the gang had some kind of early warning sytem in case the police arrived has plausibility. If it turned out that Tom Lloyd or someone else fired a rocket to alert the gang of the arrival of the police train, there might be a kind of logic to it. I’d say “Fair enough.” If there was a solid case, it would have a small place in this extraordinary event.
But the timing is off in terms of giving warning. They would have been, and should have been, fired long before 3 am. Further, there’s no history of the gang, or other bushrangers as far as I’m aware, using rocket warnings. But most importantly for me, Constable Arthur’s evidence, on its own, is just too thin. Therefore, a simpler explanation is that Arthur saw locomotive sparks in the night from the direction of the station. It was very late at night, he was tired, and it was a confusing, stressful scenario; such a mistake is easy to understand.
Thanks for your compliment, but I wouldn’t say it’s genius to have come up with that idea. My starting point was that I just didn’t buy Constable Arthur’s account, so I started wondering what else might explain his testimony. It would a weird thing to lie about, so I figured he wasn’t making it up. He was simply mistaken.
OK, ingenious then; lateral thinking…
I had to keep that under my hat for a few months before your book came out, after you mentioned it in confidence! Was busting at the seams with excitement though!
Posting this again, as it did not appead.
Nice try Stuart, but I don’t think I was the one having a nap. 10/10 for gloating, but 0/10 for accuracy and research. Spark-arresters had been around since it was realised that sparks from train engines could start fires. There never was a perfect one and they continually evolved in the endeavour to eliminate this problem. So your claim that, “Now the jewel in the crown: spark arresters were not a thing before around 1900 in Australia.” is completely false! Sparks causing fires is digressing from the main subject of, the “implausible theory” of how sparks from a train stack could be mistaken for skyrockets.
Please explain what the problem was that David Dufty solved!
Arthur must have been between the Inn and the station, as he said after seeing the rockets he turned back towards the Inn. Even if half the people present saw the rockets, what avenue or reason did they have to state this? The only ones that had an opportunity to publicly state they saw skyrockets would be reporters of police. Obviously, no reporter saw them, as they would have been watching the siege intently and Arther reported it when the opportunity arouse at the RC. The Commissioners obviously didn’t think the rockets were of importance and did not question Gascoigne about them. The simple fact is, nobody has stated there were no skyrockets!
Stuart, while you are on a roll, can you explain how sparks from an engine can resemble a skyrocket. It’s a visual thing, so try and picture it.
Here is an excerpt from an article a little closer to home from June 1879 with the link below.
Article – Geelong Advertiser (Vic. : 1859 – 1929)Thursday 12 June 1879 – Page 3
GEELONG COUNTY COURT.
Wednesday, 11th’ June.
(Before His Honor Judge Hackett, and Juries of Four.)
Christie v. Topham and others. —- This case, being adjourned from the preceding day, was now proceeded with. Among the other witnesses examined was Joseph Stone, locomotive superintendent, who stated that the material that would pass through the SPARK-ARRESTER on the contractors’ engine would be about the size of a pin’s head. In his opinion, this material would not set fire to grass, as it would be black before it reached the ground, having to pass through a long funnel. The meshes of the spark arrester were one-quarter of an inch in diameter. Cross-examined—Would not swear that some of the meshes were not more than one-quarter of an inch in diameter. John Guest, locomotive engineer, corroborated the evidence as to the non-inflammability of the material that would pass the SPARK-ARRESTER.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/150423737?searchTerm=Spark%20arrester#
Critical Thinker
The first issue is answered in my above post of 28/08/2024 at 8:05 pm, about the assumption built into the question that there was something that could be described as a single trail of skyrocket sparks, when Arthur said nothing about sparks.
The second issue is where Arthur and Gascoigne were at the time Arthur saw saomething that he described as rockets. You suggest that “Arthur must have been between the Inn and the station, as he said after seeing the rockets he turned back towards the Inn.” That is not what Arthur said. He said, “After we were firing the second volley, there was a man came out from the yard, and as he came out there were two rockets let up between the railway station and McDonald’s, and I was looking round to where they went off, and there was some firing went on then, and as I turned round I saw this man going out.” In other words, he was positioned in a place from which he could see a man emerge from the back of the Inn; i.e., somewhere towards the rear of or on the bush side the Inn, not between the Inn and the station.
The third issue is what he was responding to in the RC; namely, he was recounting seeing a man come out of the back of the Inn, saying, “as I turned round I saw this man going out. I do not know whether it was Ned Kelly.” The questioning was to find out when Kelly escaped the still incomplete police cordon. The question of rockets was incidental and if Jones had not fabricated a narrative of thumping skyrockets with showers of sparks, we would not be having this discussion.
Stuart, you are being pedantic, look at this sentence.
“and as he came out there were two rockets let up between the railway station and McDonald’s, and I was looking round to where they went off, and there was some firing went on then, and as I turned round I saw this man going out.” Arther doesn’t state he saw him come out a door or how far from the building this person was when he saw him. What was evident is that this person had left the Inn.
We can assume from this sentence that Arthur was not at the rear of the Inn, facing the station and towards McDonalds. Perhaps Arthur was more to the right of the Inn (as viewing from the station), the point is, he turned to see the rockets and turned back when firing started again, so was not on the other side of the Inn (at the back), looking towards the station and McDonald’s as was claimed here. He could have been to the right and front of the Inn and still see someone moving away from the back of the Inn, but his exact position is irrelevant as he states he turned and saw the rockets, then turned back towards the firing (at the Inn).
Stuart, you did not address that you were wrong in claiming spark arresters were not used before 1900 in Australia. This was the first issue you clamed you addressed, but you were wrong! The fact spark arresters were used, counters the claims that a train engine would emit a large quantify of sparks, large enough and in a fine single trail the went high enough into the air to resemble a skyrocket. Just because Aurther didn’t describe a trail of sparks behind these two rockets, it does not mean there were none. A skyrocket is a skyrocket, just as a steam train is a steam train!
And David Dufty didn’t solve the problem of the rockets, as there is no way sparks from a train engine stack could be mistaken for skyrockets!
Critical Thinker
CT, it is not a matter of being pedantic about Arthur’s words. It is a matter of fact that he said, “there was a man came out from the yard, and as he came out there were two rockets let up between the railway station and McDonald’s, and I was looking round to where they went off, and there was some firing went on then, and as I turned round I saw this man going out.” Anything outside of those words without another source to back it up becomes an imaginative interpretation that goes beyond the evidence.
The Argus 2 July 1880 p. 7 wrote, “It seems that he made his escape by the back door into the bush before the police got the house surrounded.” We are taliking about a rear escape from the Inn and its rear yard.
Here is an 1880 map of the ground. In order to see the man going out from the yard, Arthur must have been positioned somewhere not lower horizontally across the illustration than a line drawn east-west across the back of the Inn.
North of any such horizontal line, with some sort of view of both the station and McDonnell’s hotel, the line of sight crosses the station, the rail tracks including a shunting track, to McDonnell’s. The station building disrupts the view of McDonnell’s in that line of sight. We know that one of the engines was shunted to take Hare to Benalla at the time this was going on (see the timeline in the back of my Republic Myth book). Something was seen, wrongly guessed by Arthur or Gascoigne from their northerly positions, to have been two rockets. The map shows that the area “between the railway station and McDonald’s” is where the train tracks run.
Arthur said of his rockets, seen from somewhere horizontally north of the Inn, that “One was very faint, and the other was a large one.” There were plenty of other people around including at teh station and in McDonnell’s, train personnel among them, and no one saw anyone lighting rockets in the area “between the railway station and McDonald’s”. It is nonsense, well explained for the first time in 140 years by David D.
Attachment
Stuart, that picture you posted is somewhat misleading in the position of the relevant places. I have attached an aerial view from 1935 which gives you a better perspective and understanding of the area. Yes it was a rea escape, so are you inferring that I said otherwise?
Attachment
I was explaining where Arthur would have to minimally positioned so that he could see the man coming out of the rear yard. But great later times photo anyway!
Stuart, in answer to your comment 07/09/2024 at 9:59 am as it has become too hard to read and the ‘reply’ link was missing.
You keep repeating the same rhetoric, most of which does not deserve a response.
STUART: “As for the 1935 photo, you are now offering to alter it by adding trees to try and prop up your non-existent case for a clear view. OK, go ahead; and add darkening over the whole thing to approximate 3:30am at night time. I won’t pay any attention to it, however, as it would be just an irrelevant interpretative distraction from the landscape as it was in 1880 as seen in the sketch done at the time.”
REPLY: Are you suggesting that by pointing out thing on a photo (because it was taken during the day and the incident concerned was at night), changes the whole perspective of where the police, buildings and station were? If so, I truly feel sorry for you and your lack of understanding.
STUART: “All that is going on here is that you are stuck in a narrative of rockets and you won’t change your mind for whatever reason.”
REPLY: Once again, you misrepresent my point of view. The narrative I am stuck on, is that the train engine could not omit the huge amount of sparks that you believe, that could be mistaken for rockets. BTW, rockets mean rockets. Things that go high into the air! It is you that is are stuck in a narrative of engine sparks, imitating a skyrocket, something which didn’t happen, couldn’t happen and is a theory without basis, foundation or any proof what-so-ever. You’re believing this furphy, does not make it fact I’m sorry to inform you!
I know you said you will not look at the attached picture, but that is okay, as it can be viewed by others to show that Arthur and Gascoigne could see unobstructed, towards McDonnell’s hotel. And pleas do not repeat your claim that they were on the north side of the Inn, as they were on the west side, in the area I have indicated, where they could also see anyone exiting the back of the Inn.
Attachment
CT, none of your recent posts deserve a response, but I have politely responded to them anyway. But the novelty is wearing off. You are feeling sorry for my lack of understanding now? You simply can’t follow what has been posted.
On your comparison photo, the point I made many posts ago was that Arthur and Gascoigne had to be positioned to the side (left) and north of a line drawn across the back of the Inn. You are saying “please do not repeat your claim that they were on the north side of the Inn, as they were on the west side, in the area I have indicated”. That is what I stated when I posted the 1880 sketch, with the further quailifiaction of north of the line. I’ve attached your comparison photo with a red line drawn that Arthur had to be north of, in order to see a man leaving out the the back of the Inn yard.
Then you blunder through the second point, saying “the train engine could not omit the huge amount of sparks that you believe”. I don’t believe anything about a huge amount of sparks. What I said in the recent post was “He might well have seen a few sparks above the train and thought of what it might have been, but there is nothing to suggest anything about big trails from skyrockets, most especially since he said one was faint. Sparks; that’s all, and not much of them.”
The only thing it is clear from looking at the various points raised is that whatever Arthur and Gascoigne might have thought they saw, it wasn’t rockets. Phillips was with them and said nothing about any rockets to the RC. Others were in the area and saw nothing that remotely meets your claim of “rockets mean rockets. Things that go high into the air!” Because there were none.
Attachment
Wow Stuart, you have drawn a line right through where I placed Arthur and Gascoigne, where they could see anyone coming out the back of the Inn and an unobstructed view to McDonnell’s hotel! How clever are you!!! Didn’t you see the box with their names in it? The white rectangular area shows where the trees were and police. From anywhere in that rectangle, anyone leaving the back of the Inn could be seen. Remember, the Inn was smaller than the building that is there now. The point of the red lines on the photo were to show the clear vision towards McDonnell’s and that the station building was not in the way.
Are you playing dumb to deliberately wind me up, or are you really as thick as two planks? Blind Freddy or a trained seal could understand what I have shown here, yet you fail to understand it. You can go on believing in unfounded theories instead of cold hard facts, as I won’t allow you to bring me down to your level of idiocy, as you would surely beat me with experience
CT, I have ignored your series of insults for long enough. If you post again anonymously I will pronounce you a coward.
Your argument is this:
1) Arthur said he saw rockets.
2) You know what rockets look like.
3) Therefore you know what Arthur saw.
4) Arthur could not have been mistaken.
That’s all you have. You lose.
Its good to see the Rocket apologists now accepting that it WAS possible for sparks to be emitted from a train – a year or so ago on my FB page they were adamant it was simply not possible because of spark arrestors, but now that they have finally admitted its possible then they can NOT dismiss out of hand the possibility that Arthur was wrong.
So in regard to Arthurs credibility, I remind readers that Arthur was the one who heard Steele say things that nobody else reported hearing, he was the one whose yelling at Steele about not shooting at Mrs Reardon wasn’t heard by anyone else, the one who said that everyone who believed Steele had brought Ned Kelly down was mistaken because what he saw was Ned Kelly tripping over the branch of a fallen tree, the one who wrote Steele had fired twice at Mrs Reardon but when cross examined changed his story and said it was only once .
Finally, now that the myths of the Republic and the associated myth of a Sympathiser army have been demolished, even if by some miracle evidence turned up to prove rockets WERE FIRED, there is no longer any reason for anyone to think they had anything to do with the Kelly Gang.
Someone admitting sparks can escape an engine fitted with a spark arrester, does not mean they admit these sparks could be mistaken for a skyrocket, which is totally implausible. I feel I have wasted my time here, as there are no critical thinkers here that can ascertain all the facts objectively.
Critical Thinker.
No you havent wasted your time here, youve taught us all something about Kelly apologists ; they lack the imagination to shake off the Jones inspired vision of rockets shooting skyward, and the humility to concede that what the tall tale teller Arthur saw and interpreted as ‘rockets’, could conceivably have been something else. Why cant you at least admit that its possible he may have been wrong?
But given that the ‘republic’ and the ‘sympathiser army’ contexts for rocket firing have been demolished, why are you even bothering to argue about them? As I said before even if they existed there is no reason to think they had anything to do with the Kelly Gang.
David, my time here has been wasted and it is not I with the lack of imagination and humility to concede anything. Why can’t you at least admit that its possible Arthur and Gascoigne may have been right about skyrockets? Why bring Jones and the Republic into the conversation, as I have not alluded to any of that. I am clearly going off what Arthur stated and the fact a train engine could not emit sparks that could possibly be mistaken for skyrockets. Why the skyrockets were set off is another topic all together.
Critical Thinker
CT, you are again ignoring the facts about sparks from train engines that have been posted in this discussion. David D posted several links to Trove articles. One of them from 1884 concerning Victorian trains says, “Sir, do you not think that the new commissioners of railway management might with advantage to the country make some inquiries into the subject of spark catchers before too much money has been spent on worthless articles, which has been the case for years”, https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/198554327
Another from 1905 says, “Better spark arresters than those now in use are imperative, in order that even the largest pieces likely to escape may still be small enough to become extinguished before reaching the ground”, https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-539790913/view?partId=nla.obj-539813390
You have found one article from 1879 in which a “locomotive superintendent … stated that the material that would pass through the SPARK-ARRESTER on the contractors’ engine would be about the size of a pin’s head. In his opinion, this material would not set fire to grass, as it would be black before it reached the ground, having to pass through a long funnel.” You ignored a sentence a little further in the same article where in that court case ” the witness Selby had stated that two weeks after the
fire a spark from the engine had burned his hand, thus proving the escape of sparks,
even when the spark-arrester was in the engine.” You are doing a Jones, selectively quoting bits of articles that suit you while deliberately ignoring things from the same source that don’t. Then you say the discussion on this page is not being objective!
It is abundantly clear that as the 1900 article I posted discussed, spark arresters even 20 years after Glenrowan did not stop sparks. sufficient to cause fires, as did all of the Trove articles that David D linked to.
Stuart, nothing in those articles mention anything about sparks being emitted that could be mistaken for skyrockets. They are all about sparks causing fires, which is totally irrelevant to appearing like skyrockets, as I pointed out to David D if you had cared to read that comment.
My reference to spark arresters in the 1870 newspaper article, was to point out to you and others that you were ‘completely wrong’, claiming spark arrester were not in use until 1900, something you still can’t admit to! I have never said that spark arresters stopped all sparks from escaping, in fact the opposite. So why do you allude that I did? I also stated that spark arrester were not adequate and were continually evolving, meaning that new and supposedly more efficient ones were continually being designed to try and eliminate sparks escaping and causing fires to the surrounding grass.
I will repeat, I posted that 1879 article to prove you were ‘WRONG’, by either lazy or sloppy research, or deliberately posting a misleading article, trying to prove me wrong. I did only quote part of the article, the part that proved you wrong, although I did provide the link, so the whole article could be read. So, I was not hiding anything!
Critical Thinker
CT, I said spark arresters were not a thing until 1900, I.e., not effective, which is what that article I posted as an attachment says, not that they didn’t exist. What I said is correct.
The part of the 1879 article you posted gave a particular engineer’s opinion that the spark arrester fitted to a particular engine with a particular shape of funnel couldn’t let particles escape that were large enough to cause a fire. The part that you didn’t acknowledge was evidence that that was not correct; the same as the several articles that David D posted show.
If you want to go on with speculations about what sort of spark trails an 1880 skyrocket that you can’t possibly identify may or may not have had, and further speculate on what Arthur may or may not have seen, and compare this with what you think sparks from a train engine may or may not have looked like, and which you are now denying after claiming that a spark arrester would have stopped any, and comparing all this with memories of childhood bonfires and skyrockets, then go ahead and enjoy yourself. I couldn’t care less either way! The facts are that other people on the ground at the station and McDonnell’s, plus other police at the front end of things including the black trackers at the embankment, saw no skyrockets and no one lighting any skyrockets, in a situation where they would necessarily be looking around regularly to ensure their own safety in the middle of that night time conflict.
I can’t see that you have any evidence for believing in skyrockets at all apart from Arthur’s speculative comments. Of course the police were concerned about the possibility of sympathisers at Glenrowan; they were after an armed gang that had murdered police and had some known dangerous sympathisers. Arthur may have been panicked, who knows. But you have nothing to reject David D’s solution of sparks from a shunting engine except an unshakable belief that that particular engine had a spark arrester that worked so well that no sparks were emitted, regardless that a whole bunch of articles show that spark arresters often did not stop sparks escaping of sufficient power and heat to start fires. 🔥
Stuart, you and the two Davids are going on about sparks causing fires, which is not in dispute. The topic is, could sparks from a train engine, imitate, or resemble in any way, a skyrocket that goes very high into the air and has a single trail behind it. Have you ever witnessed a skyrocket in flight? Your extremely long post is irrelevant as it does not address the topic.
Stuart, you said.
“Hi David D., the crown of victory is ours!! As a chap I spoke to a while back and who is a Puffing Billy volunteer told me, and which I posted on this very blog when Critical Thinker was having a nap, Victorian trains back in the day burned a lot of wood in their engines because it was cheap. And wood is much sparkier than coal.”
In the above post, you are crowing that you have won. Once again, you have gone in the wrong direction. One, we don’t know what fuel the police special was using that day and two, you have produced nothing to prove sparks from an engine can go as high as and resemble a skyrocket, what we are discussing. THE SUBJECT IS NOT WHETHER SPARKS CAN CAUSE A FIRE IN GRASS!
Stuart, you said.
“Now the jewel in the crown: spark arresters were not a thing before around 1900 in Australia.”
After crowing victory, you then make this statement above. I and most normal people would take this sentence to mean were not in existence, yet the article you quote, says they were but not effective enough. Effectiveness is not in question, it’s whether sparks from an engine could go high enough into the sky and appear like a skyrocket.
The piece you posted also said this.
“For years past the minds of eminent locomotive engineers have been engaged in the task of devising some scheme for effectively dealing with the matter, but only partial success has attended their efforts, and a perfect spark-arrester is yet an invention of the future. …”
So the problem had not been rectified, as you falsely claim!
Skyrockets have been used in China for around a thousand years, so we have some idea of what those fireworks would have looked like, a mere 144 years ago.
Stuart, the subject is about sparks and skyrockets, so please move away from sparks lighting fires and address the subject at hand. If you are unable to produce any evidence that sparks from a steam train engine could go high enough into the sky and appear like a skyrocket, just admit it and stop changing the subject and misrepresenting what I have said. So far, Critical Thinker 10, Stuart 0.
Critical Thinker
CT, you are missing the point. Arthur said nothing about sparks, or height for that matter. You are obsessively inserting your own imaginary vision of “a skyrocket that goes very high into the air and has a single trail behind it” into Arthur’s statement that said no such thing. Just like Jones inserted an imaginary reference to a sympathiser army into his “quote” from the Second Progress Report, where nothing of the kind was in the document.
Instead of accepting the fact that Arthur claimed not just one, but two, rockets, which you are imagining as each being “a skyrocket that goes very high into the air and has a single trail behind it”, yet which nobody else of the many there saw, and seeing that Arthur’s claim is for that reason obviously mistaken, you are continuing to lambast me with irrelevant trivia about rocket trails. The fact is that Arthur was clearly mistaken and no such rockets existed.
No Stuart, you are missing the point and are clutching at straws because of your inability to see things from another perspective than your own. The Chinese have had skyrockets for a 1,000 odd years. They omit a tail of sparks from the propulsion that sends them into the air. Authur probably felt he did not have to describe a skyrocket’s ascent, as he probably thought the Commissioners would know what a skyrocket in flight looks like. Would you have wanted Arthur to also describe what colour the trail of the skyrocket was? It is extremely frustrating try to debate with you, as you duck and weave, go off on irrelevant tangents and accuse me of saying things I did not!
When a skyrocket is ascending into the air, the tail of sparks fall downwards towards the earth. The sparks from a train engine would go in the opposite direction.
I have already covered the crowd. The skyrockets were set off in the very early part of the siege, so nobody would be wandering around willy nilly, they would all be watching the gunbattle that was unfolding. For anyone else that might have seen the skyrockets, where was their opportunity to express this to the world.
Stuart, I am not lambasting you with irrelevant trivia, that is just another deflection tactic by you. What I have delivered for you information is facts, nothing but the facts and it is up to you as to whether you can take on board those facts. You have made some truly inane and poorly thought out comments that have no bases in fact. I suggest you stick to what you know best, whatever that is!
Critical Thinker.
CT, you are getting things further wrong with every post. This time you’re asserting that “The skyrockets were set off in the very early part of the siege”. This is hopelessly wrong. Arthur says,
“After we were firing the second volley, there was a man came out from the yard“. That’s the late part of the siege, when firing ceased after the second volley. “Firing ceased about 25 minutes after the first shot”, after both first and second volleys, Rawlings, Reward Board, Q.75.
You’re a long way from sticking to the known facts even in the passages you are allegedly quoting from! I think you should stick to what you do best, which is writing historical fiction.
There’s a good timeline of the Glenrowan siege here; many of the events are :
https://kellygang.asn.au/wiki/Glenrowan_Siege
In keeping with many mainstream accounts, it says “Jack Lloyd fired 2 signal rockets”, whereas clearly some of us don’t think that they were signal rockets, but engine sparks. But even so, it’s a detailed, useful compilation of events.
According to the timeline, the rockets were seen at 3.10 am.
CT, it seems to be yourself that is incapable of seeing beyond the Jones narrative. I and others have broken free of it. Suppose for a minute that there were two rockets let off. To what end? The firing at Glenrowan could be heard nearly as far as Wangaratta (Steele). That’s further than a skyrocket could be seen. Why would they not be let off from up the rear mountain? Why would someone let off skyrockets from ground between the station and McDonnell’s, where they would risk being immediately shot or arrested? The whole skyrocket idea is nonsense.
Stuart, you appear to let your dislike for Ian Jones cloud your judgement and make assertions about my comments that are completely unfounded. Not once have I referenced Jones, a sympathiser army, or thoughts of a republic. Also, I have not given any opinion on why the skyrockets were fired as you nefariously allude to. What I have based my opinions on, are that of two eye witnesses, compared to the unsubstantiated and implausible theory of David Dufty, that sparks from a steam train engine stack, could be mistaken for skyrockets. As I believe you are a historian, I find it highly unusual, that you so easily dismiss eye witness accounts, one of which was made under oath.
Superintendent Hare’s Report.
URL removed as it stopped this post from going up.
A continuous fire was kept up on both sides. I was struck by the first shot, and my left arm dropped helpless beside me. THE FIRING WAS CONTINUED on both sides with great determination FOR ABOUT FIVE MINUTES, when it ceased from the verandah, and screams of men, women, and children came from the inside of the house. I at once called on my men to cease firing, which they did.
SECOND VOLLEY
James Reardon at Royal Commission.
7646. There was none hurt the first volley?—Yes; the SECOND VOLLEY Jones’s boy was hurt.
7703. Can you fix about the time it was by any circumstance?—About the SECOND VOLLEY fired by the police.
7707. The point is this: the SECOND VOLLEY the police fired was fired within TEN MINUTES AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT?—Yes, and less.
7709. The SECOND VOLLEY was the time that Mrs. Jones’s child was shot?—Yes.
James Arthur at Royal Commission.
11114. Where were you stationed?—At different places. First when I went there I was stationed alongside of Mr. Hare, through the gate. He was partly through the wicket-gate when the first shot was fired—just going through. When the first volley went he was clear; he was struck on the SECOND VOLLEY.
11190. You do not know anything about how he got out?—No. After we were firing the SECOND VOLLEY, there was a man came out from the yard, and as he came out there were two rockets let up between the railway station and McDonald’s, and I was looking round to where they went off, and there was some firing went on then, and as I turned round I saw this man going out. I do not know whether it was Ned Kelly.
Stuart, please note;
7707. The point is this: the SECOND VOLLEY the police fired was fired within TEN MINUTES AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT?—Yes, and less.
Stuart, the second volley was fired 10 minutes, or less (according to James Reardon Q. 7707), and Hare said the first volley lasts 5 minutes. This would indicate to me that the skyrockets were set off early in the siege and much earlier that the shunting of train engines to take Hare back to Benalla.
Rawlings’ statement is at odds with all the other evidence. His claim that the second volley (gunfire), was at the late part of the siege is completely at odds with other statements.
Critical Thinker.
CT, first, I do not dislike Ian Jones, I just think he was wildly and demonstrably wrong in many of his Kelly claims. I have maintained throughout that he was a very talented film-maker and TV producer, and I continue to enjoy the Last Outlaw DVD series every year or two. It’s hugely entertaining; but it’s also historically nonsense. As are the major pillars of his Kelly history – Fitzpatrick and the Republic tale in particular, but also his wrong-headed claims about SBC and his extraordinary manipulation of evidence to claim from 1967 onwards that McIntyre and subsequently Sadleir were both guilty of wilful perjury about McIntyre’s statements. He seems to have thought he was the first to see the true narrative of the Kelly gang; but much of what he wrote in Short Life is heavily romanticised fiction.
Arthur RC Q. 11114 is in error. The Q&A are, “Where were you stationed?”—“At different places. First when I went there I was stationed alongside of Mr. Hare, through the gate. He was partly through the wicket-gate when the first shot was fired—just going through. When the first volley went he was clear; he was struck on the second volley.”
Hare was not struck on the second volley. Arthur may have confused Hare’s return to the front line at 3:20am after his wrist had been bandaged at the station with Hare being wounded then. If not, then Arthur’s recollection of when Hare was wounded was simply wrong as several sources including hare say he was wounded in the first shot fired, which was before the rest of the police had run up to fire the first volley.
By the time the second volley was fired, Arthur was pushing further around the Inn with Snr-Const. Kelly’s other men, endeavouring to surround it as best they could with their sparse resources. Ned Kelly escaped from the Inn around 3:27-3:28am, only two or three minutes before the police had surrounded the Inn.
Arthur was somewhere towards the back of the Inn when Ned Kelly escaped from the rear of the Inn yard. He and Snr-Const. Kelly found Ned Kelly’s rifle and cap some 100 yards from the Inn at 3:30am. That is on the far side, away from the station side. Arthur was already somewhere around there in order to be able to go with Snr-Const Kelly and discover Ned Kelly’s rifle and cap so quickly. He was nowhere near the front of the Inn when he claimed to have seen rockets being let off “between the railway station and McDonald’s”. That is clearly a guess from his position at the time which was well back from the front of the Inn and somewhere to its north east or northerly side.
Here is part of the time line, from the back of my Republic Myth book, compiled from multiple sources footnoted in the book:
3:12 Outlaws waiting under shadow of veranda; fire at arriving police; Hare shot in wrist in first fire.
Police still on the platform grab their guns at the sound of shots, and rush towards the Inn.
3:12-3 The police with Hare, between 20 to 30 yards away (Q.8065 Kelly), scramble for cover; fire back.
3:13 The additional police rush up and fire back; all are still unaware of any prisoners being held in Inn.
3:15am “First police volley”. It effectively began when they began to return fire about 3:12-13 am.
3:13-17 Warm fire exchanged “for a few minutes”; “perhaps 5 mins without intermission”.
3:17-18 Gang retire inside Inn; Hare orders cease-fire; an outlaw challenges the police to “fire away”.
Cease fire at “about 10 mins perhaps – very soon after we took our positions”, Q.7376-7 Barry.
3:18 Cries of women heard from within the Inn. Hare orders men to fire high (= 6 feet, Q.7438 Barry); see further notes on p. 33. McWhirter heard of the fire high order when police came for ammunition, RC Q.10333 McWhirter, and he places that order “in the first rush” (Q.10331), consistent with the above.
3:18 Police continue to move around seeking better positions with shelter.
3:18 Hare leaves, bleeding from artery wound, to return to station. Max time, RC Q.10036 Carrington.
3:19 Hare arrives at station, “8-10 mins after leaving it”.
3:20 Hare’s wrist is bandaged by reporters and he immediately returns to the police line.
3:22-3 Hare cannot continue; rests; tells O’Connor and S/C Kelly to surround Inn; goes back to station.
Desultory fire; Martin Cherry hit by police bullet between the 2 main volleys [??] (Jones, SL, 223).
3:22-3 S/C Kelly starts to push his men around the Inn, “5 or 6 mins” after first volley ended.
3:23 Const. Phillips hears Kelly and Byrne talking at back of Inn, “about 10 mins after first encounter”.
3:24 Kelly walks out, shoots at police, then exchanges 3-4 shots with Gascoigne.
3:25 Hare arrives back on station platform, “all in about 5 minutes” from his previous return.
3:25 Second police volley begins “about 7 mins after the first” ended, likely triggered by Kelly’s moves.
Jack and Jane Jones both struck by police bullets at time of second volley, RC Q.7703 Reardon.
Reporter hears policeman in drain, before 3:30am, calling police to fire high, RC Q.10790-8 Allen.
3:26-7 Kelly disappears around corner of Inn in thick smoke from second police volley.
3:27-8 Kelly gets away out the back behind the Inn, limping from bullet wound in foot.
McHugh carries Jack Jones out; “a few minutes after” he was shot; “that would be within 20 mins after police began to shoot” (RC Q.7703, 10-11 Reardon).
“A man” comes out the rear yard of Inn; rockets fired between station and McDonnell’s Hotel.
“Firing ceased about 25 mins from first shot”, Reward Board, Q.75 Rawlins (3:12-3 to 3:27-8am).
3:30am S/C Kelly and Const. Arthur find Kelly’s rifle and cap 100 yards from the Inn. Hare to Benalla.
The “rockets” were a lively stretch of Arthur’s (and maybe Gascoigne’s) imagination.
Stuart, I have problems with your timeline, specifically the times stated, as there are many conflicting time estimates, given by those who were questioned. However, I still maintain that the skyrockets were set of early (how do you define early), in the siege and by your timeline, within the first 20 minutes. You disagree, as you are entitled to.
We are however, getting away from the main aspect of this topic and that is how sparks from a steam train engine could possibly be mistaken by two policemen as skyrockets! So far, no reasonable explanation has been forthcoming, apart from the claim, Arthur and Gascoigne were mistaken. Given the stark differences between engine sparks and skyrockets, the weight of evidence (in my opinion), falls heavily in favour of skyrockets.
Critical Thinker
CT, the problem remains that there is no evidence at all for rockets. We don’t know what Arthur/Gadcoigne saw or thought they saw; but whatever it was, it wasn’t skyrockets let off “between the railway station and McDonald’s”, as there were other people around the station and McDonnell’s, including four journalists eager for stories, and no one saw any skyrockets or someone lighting skyrockets between the station and McDonnell’s.
David D’s suggestion of engine sparks at around the time one of the engines was readying to take Hare to Benalla with sparks being mistaken for rocket trails, one large one faint, from a distance has plausibility.
The discussion of what may or may not constitute a skyrocket trail is itself hypothetical as it all depends on the size and manufacture. I remember some with lively sparky trails, some with very little; some fairly large like 3”, some little 1.5 inches; then other much bigger ones that we couldn’t afford… But that is all irrelevant as no one saw anything of skyrockets, because there were none.
Stuart, there is no evidence for train engine sparks, yet there is evidence for skyrockets in Arthur’s sworn statement. You have thing around the wrong way. “Four journalists eager for stories”, would have been on or around the station watching the gunbattle, with the backs to McDonnell’s hotel. Anyone else milling around McDonnell’s hotel that was not a sympathiser, had no reason to tell police or journalists (both who would have made some record of rockets if told), if they saw rockets. What is the likelihood of any of the bystanders had been at the station at night and seen a train shunting with a copious amount of sparks being omitted from the engine? To say this would have been a common sight is once again, clutching at straws!
“David D’s suggestion (and that’s all it is), of engine sparks at around the time one of the engines was readying to take Hare to Benalla (Hare decided he could go on well after rockets were fired), with sparks being mistaken for rocket trails, one large one faint, from a distance has plausibility”.
It is not plausible at all, as the operation of sparks from an engine are completely different to that of a skyrocket in flight, as I have endeavoured to point out many times. I see you also left out of your timeline; the time Hare left Benalla.
Critical Thinker
I see that in my Republic Myth book p. 39, after discussing Jones’s, Molony’s, and other comments on rockets all based solely on Constable Arthur’s couple of sentences in the Royal Commission, I wrote: “The meaning of the rockets is unknown. If they were meant to signify victory or distress, no-one rallied in response.”
That was almost 6 years ago. After further reflection triggered by these blog discussions, I woud no longer simply accept Arthur’s statement that he saw a couple of rockets, regardless that their purpose was unknown. I would reject it for the reasons presented here:
1) He was somewhere to the side of the Inn and away from the station, such that he could see a man coming out of the yard at the rear of the Inn;
2) His view of the area between the station and McDonnell’s was obscured by any combination of the long station building, the train and the second (pilot) engine, along with any trees behind some of which he and other police were sheltering;
3) Other people including four journalists eager to record the saga were around at the station, at McDonnell’s, and randomly wandering about, and no-one saw any rockets, or mentioned anyone lighting rockets.
Jones decided that the alleged rockets were Chinese (SL 2008: 280); that they would be a signal to sympathisers to rally when 14 year old Jack Lloyd fired them to signal the wrecking oif the train (SL 2008: 290); and that little Jack was waiting with the rockets “across the railway line in front of McDonnell’s” and fired them at the second police volley, and “sent the two rockets streaking up into the sky, scattering falling stars with dull, delayed thumps. Two policement, Arthur and Gascoigne, saw the rocket bursts and wondered what they meant” (SL 2008, 306).
Notice how all this has been creatively fabricated from RC Q, 11190-91 Arthur, “a man came out from the yard, and as he came out there were two rockets let up between the railway station and McDonald’s”; “One was very faint, and the other was a large one.”
There is nothing about Chinese rockets; nothing about Jack Llloyd Jr being involved; nothing about the rocketsd being lit specifically “across the railway line in front of McDonnell’s” instead of the statement of somewhere “between the railway station and McDonald’s”; nothing about “ockets streaking up into the sky, scattering falling stars with dull, delayed thumps”; and nothing about Arthur or Gascoigne seeing “the rocket bursts”. It is entirely creative fiction.
Stuart, you reject Arthur’s sworn statement at the Royal Commission, yet you accept Dufty’s unfounded and unsubstantiated and implausible claim of engine sparks. You, along with the two David’s appear to be hell bent on discrediting Jones. I have not referenced Jones or his theories and based my conclusions, purely on the evidence.
“2) His view of the area between the station and McDonnell’s was obscured by any combination of the long station building, the train and the second (pilot) engine, along with any trees behind some of which he and other police were sheltering;”
No his view was not obscured as I have pointed out in the aerial photo. It is my opinion, based on the evidence that the claim of engine sparks, is the creative fiction. Your other points were answered in my reply above.
Critical Thinker
CT, you are not thinking critically. I do not reject Arthur’s sworn testimony. He testified to what he believed that he saw. The fact that he truly believed it doesn’t make it right.
Jones by contrast rejected McIntyre’s multiple sworn evidence about Lonigan’s death at SBC and accused both him and Sadleir of perjury on the basis of a demonstrably wrong recollection by Sadleir some 35 years after the event. I’m not interested in whether you are or aren’t referencing Jones in relation to Glenrowan and the rockets. His elevation of Arthur’s statements into the primary narrative of Glenrowan since 1967 is relevant to my analysis and is it silly to tell me not to include it. If you don’t want to mention it, feel free not to.
I continue to think based on a fresh review of the evidence through this discussion that David D’s suggestion of some sparks from the train engine being mistaken by Arthur and apparently Gascoigne for rockets does explain their erroneous belief. The only diffrence between what David D and me put forward here is that he favours sparks released from stoking the engine while I am inclined to favour sparks that got through the spark arrester as a viable alternative; but I am certainly not rejecting that it couid equally be sparks from stoking.
Your aerial photo from 1935 is useless as evidence for there being a clear view of the area under discussion, as the trees evident in the 1880 Bird’s Eye View of Glenrowan sketch have all been cleared away. It is no more useful than a photo of the moon would be.
Stuart, there you go again referencing Jones and now you have brought McIntire and Sadleir into the equation! Please Stuart, stay on topic!
Stuart, a little education goes a long way. I can understand what David D meant, that is by ‘stoking’ the engine, it caused sparks to pass through the chimney stack. At least I hope that is what he meant, but YOU did state the sparks came through the door of the firebox though.
It is very observant of you to notice the trees in the 1935 photo have been cleared away, however it is a matter of perspective. If you compare where the trees were in the earlier drawing you posted and place them in the 1935 aerial photo, you will be able to see that Arthur had a clear view towards McDonnell’s hotel and where the rockets were fired from. It’s not that difficult to understand. Would you like me to add trees to the 1935 photo to help you comprehend perspective?
CT, you aren’t being a critical thinker at all! You have carried on about my pride, my lack of comprehension, my twisting things, my introducing things that you for whatever reason think are irrelevant, etc. Now you’re telling me that David D was talking about stoked sparks going up through the chimney stack! You haven’t even read his book and you’re on here raving on without even knowing what he said; which by the way I quoted in an earlier post for you and other’s benefit. All you’ve achieved is embarrassing yourself by throwing half baked insults at me. You still have no evidence for skyrockets other than the two sentences from Arthur at the Royal Commission. Everything else you have put forward assumes there were actually skyrockets, but there weren’t, as the total absence of any corroboration of such a remarkable thing as you are claiming would warrant. He might well have seen a few sparks above the train and thought of what it might have been, but there is nothing to suggest anything about big trails from skyrockets, most especially since he said one was faint. Sparks; that’s all, and not much of them.
As for the 1935 photo, you are now offering to alter it by adding trees to try and prop up your non-existent case for a clear view. OK, go ahead; and add darkening over the whole thing to approximate 3:30am at night time. I won’t pay any attention to it, however, as it would be just an irrelevant interpretative distraction from the landscape as it was in 1880 as seen in the sketch done at the time.
All that is going on here is that you are stuck in a narrative of rockets and you won’t change your mind for whatever reason. I and others by contrast have reviewed the evidence for and against and rejected rockets as a blunder made in the heat of the moment. It may be as David D said, that Arthur was a bit of a dill. I think he was likely caught up in the excitement of the moment. Either way, he just invented rockets.
Have I been blocked from posting? I have tried 4 times and nothing showing up. If I have been blocked can you tell me why.
Critical Thinker.
Being blocked here is just not cricket! I thought robust debate was encouraged here, not tow the line or be blocked from commenting. What a shame, as I believed we were getting somewhere, but obviously not in the direction you wanted. Why is this comment and mine above allowed, but not my replies to Stuart?
Critical Thinker.
CT, you are not blocked or these two posts wouldn’t appear either. Does your reply contain URL links or attached images? You’ll see earlier in this series David D had a post with links not come through. This happens to me too, often if I try to post from my computer, less often from my phone. It’s just a matter of waiting until David checks his email inbox and retrieves the posts from junk mail. Maybe he’s away and not checking emails, who knows. It’s frustrating but it happens to all of us. Something to do with WordPress or whatever this blog is on.
Thank you Stuart, these is a URL attached, so I’ll remove it and try again.
Critical Thinker.
Hello Anonymous …I apologise for the holdup of your posts – I have been off the grid for most of the weekend and so if Word Press doesnt let a Comment through, it waits until I can get a chance to read it. It does seem to be Comments with attachments/links that get held up. This seems to be a new policy from Word Press that I have no control over.
Better give WordPress a rocket 🚀 😂😂
Thank you David. I see some attempts to post have now passed Word Press and are slightly different to my last attempt. To save confusion, do you want to deleted these two posts and any more that might pop up via Word Press.
31/08/2024 at 11:23 am
01/09/2024 at 7:42 am PART 1.
Critical Thinker.
OK Ive removed those two.
And now a comment in response to your latest post: the ‘reasonable explanation” that you seek for Arthur being wrong ( and please dont include Gascoigne as a witness because he never mentioned them ) is that a he was human. People DO get things wrong and given his obscured view of what he saw, and the resemblance of showers of sparks launched skyward from an engine to aspects of what a rocket launch could look like, its entirely plausible and reasonable to accept he most certainly could have been wrong.
Add to that all the OTHER reasons he could have got it wrong – such as nobody else ever seeing rockets, such as nobody else ever hearing about rockets, such as nobody else ever claiming to have fired rockets, such as with the realisation that there wasnt a sympathiser army there was no known purpose to launching rockets, such as the fact that these ‘rockerts’ appeared from precisely where the train was, such as the fact that from other aspects of his testimony he seemed to be a man who saw and heard things nobody else saw that night…..there is almost no case for rockets.
And of course, if they WERE engine sparks, others would CERTAINLY have seen them, recognised them for what they were and being commonplace would have ignored them, and never felt the need to mention them to anyone. Sky rockets on the other hand….THEY would have sparked intense curiosity……(pardon the pun)
Why would Arthur mention Gascoigne, if Gascoigne had not said he also saw them? Author would have been totally discredited, had the Commissioners asked Gascoigne if he had seen rockets and he said no. So the comment of Arthur’s has to be accepted, as he was under oath and would have faced at least perjury charges if he was lying.
Without a spark arrester fitted to the train engine that allowed a massive and dangerous amount of sparks to be forced into the air, the sparks go upwards and only the largest of these sparks would stay alight long enough to fall back to the ground, creating a “shower”. Arthur did not describe a shower and sparks from an engine go upwards, not downs as in a shower. However, spark arresters were fitted to the trains of that era and although they were not perfect (they still aren’t to this day), the spark arrester would have prohibited anything resembling the amount of sparks alluded to here and in Dufty’s book. FYO, Puffing Billy does not run on total fire ban, or extreme weather days, indicating spark arresters are still not perfect.
“nobody else ever claiming to have fired rockets”.
Was anyone at all asked about rockets? The Commissioners didn’t even ask Gascoigne! Was there any reason for anyone to say they saw rockets, other than police or newspaper reporters, who would make reports on what they witnesses at the siege?
“these ‘rockerts’ appeared from precisely where the train was”.
No, they appeared to be between the station and McDonnell’s hotel. That is a large area, with the engines being closer to the station.
The times given for various events during the siege vary greatly in some cases, which is understandable. Some reports say the firing commenced about 3:00 a.m., others say 3:10 a.m. The timeline at Kellygang asn that David Dufty referenced says:
3:00 a.m. – Police started for the Inn and firing commenced.
3:10 a.m. – Jack Lloyde fired 2 signal rockets.
3:20 a.m. – Hare made his way back to Platform to have wound bound.
Time unknown and not stated in this timeline. – Hare states he returned to the battle for a short period.
3:50 a.m. – Hare left Glenrowan on a train for Benalla.
The shunting of the trains would most likely have occurred after Hare decided to go back to Benalla. Say that decision was made 10 minutes before he left, this would mean the shunting was done about 30 minutes after the rockets were released.
It is reasonable to assume that the engine driver, fireman and guard, after maintaining the train was fully unloaded, would have had a look at what was going on at Ann Jones’ Inn.
“Sky rockets on the other hand….THEY would have sparked intense curiosity”. I very much doubt that claim! If you care to read through TROVE newspapers, you will see that Skyrockets were not an anomaly, they were used frequently and there was even a racehorse named Skyrocket.
Arthur said “rockets” not fireworks. Certain fireworks at ground level, may in some way imitate sparks from an engine stack, heading upwards, but it is the rocket that goes high into the sky and leaves a trail of sparks behind it that only last for a few seconds as they fall downwards towards the earth. Sparks from an engine stack go in the reverse, shooting into the sky before the majority of sparks die out.
Engine sparks and skyrockets cannot be even remotely compared, so there is no case for Engine sparks being mistaken for skyrockets.
Critical Thinker
In answer to Critical Thinkers latest comments :
ONE : Arthur wouldnt be discredited or be accused of perjury if Gascoigne said no, I didnt see rockets. All Arthur would need to say then is well I was wrong – I thought Gascoigne saw them too! No big deal. Was Arthur accused of perjury when he claimed to have heard Steele say things that he denied saying and that nobody else ever heard? No!
TWO What I meant was that the ‘rockets’ appeared from precisely in the direction where the train was. Unfortunately nobody else saw them, but if they WERE sparks from the train, then that would fit perfectly well with Arthurs description of where he thought they came from.
THREE Your denial that rockets would have sparked curiosity is disproven by the fact that even NOW when all of us have seen many more rockets than they would have in 1880, everyone turns to look at one if it goes up. For one thing, there would have been the noise it made that would draw people attention to it even if it went up behind them…so …the lack of reports is telling.
FOUR It is simply absurd to say sparks from an engine and sky rockets “cannot be even remotely compared”. They can be and we are, especially because Arthur didn’t describe exactly what he saw, what he reported was that he believed that what he saw were rockets.
Further to (1), Arthur said to the RC, Q.11191: “We never heard of rockets?”—”Constable Gascoigne can tell about that. I think it was some sympathizers letting them know they were attacked by the police. One was very faint, and the other was a large one.” We have established that Arthur could not see the area that he held was where the rockets were lit from, as he was positioned somewhere well away from the station where he could see a man leaving out the back of the Inn’s rear yard. It is logical that Gascoigne was with him or in close proximity and likewise could not see the place from which the alleged rockets were fired. any more than Arthur could, or he would have indentified it in his discussion with Arthur about what they thought they’d seen.
The Kellygang.asn wiki website you mentioned in respect of a timeline, which is here, https://www.kellygang.asn.au/wiki/Glenrowan_Siege, has a search function. Searching for Gascoigne, we land here, https://kellygang.asn.au/wiki/Gascoigne
That Gascoigne page has a comment that “When SConst Kelly first made his rounds after we had been told to spead out, I was near Consts Arthur and Phillip on the Benalla side. (RC8143) (RC6640) (See also RC7774.7375)”, confirming that these constables were in proximity and on the Benalla side of the Inn.
CT mentioned this Kellygang.asn wiki as apparently David D referenced its timetable. CT says, “The times given for various events during the siege vary greatly in some cases, which is understandable.” That’s all very well, but that wiki was last modified on 20 November 2015 (see bottom left of pages). My timeline for the relevant half hour of the seige in the back of my 2018 Republic Myth book was built from scratch and is far more detailed and fully referenced, so I give no weight at all to the wiki timeline regardless that it was clearly a labour of love.
“We have established that Arthur could not see the area that he held was where the rockets were lit from,”
No Stuart, ‘we’ have not established that, though you may believe you have.
“I was near Consts Arthur and Phillip on the Benalla side.”
If you look at the aerial photo I sup[plied, you will see there is a clear view of McDonnell’s from where the tree would have been, on the Benalla side of the Inn. Also check drawing you supplied to see where police were supposedly located. You will also notice Gascoigne, said; ‘At this time a woman came out of the hotel at the back (RC9674)’. Was this figure the same one Arthur saw come out the back door?
Stuart, so your timeline differs from Kellygang asn. Who is to say your timeline is more accurate? That is irrelevant. All these evasive tactics, does not prove that sparks from a train engine could be mistaken for a skyrocket, even if there was no spark arrester fitted to the engine! And as train engines of that era had spark arresters, it makes it even more fanciful. FYI, train wheels emitted sparks too, which were also blames for starting grass fires, so even if a spark arrester was 100% effective, there was still the problem of train wheels!
CT, if you have a look at the Glenrowan 1880 photo you will see a long line of trees with several spots marked with the circled number 7 indicating positions taken by the police. Not the treeless desert of your 1935 photo.
Arthur saw a man, presumably wearing pants. Gascoigne saw a woman, presumably wearing a dress. So no, not the same person.
If you check RC Q.8157, Sen-Const Kelly says Arthur was at the back with Phillips and Gascoigne, and he took Arthur further back.
Phillips saw no rockets, because there weren’t any to see. You are trying hard to wish them into being, but there is no evidence for them at all beyond Arthur’s clearly mistaken notion, apparently shared by Gascoigne but not by Phillips; and a lot of evidence aganist them in the form of a total absence of confirmation from anyone else in the area in what would have been in your account a significant and noticable thing.
In your post of 27/08/2024 at 7:17 am you said, “Rockets go very high into the air, single file”. That, plus someone setting and lighting two rockets in the open ground between the station and McDonnells, with people coming and going, sorting ammunition etc., would not go unnoticed. Arthur was wrong.
CT, you said above that “Gascoigne, said; ‘At this time a woman came out of the hotel at the back (RC9674)’, and asked, “Was this figure the same one Arthur saw come out the back door?”. If you read the whole of that answer, and the next Q.9675, you would know that Gascoine saw the woman come out at about ten minutes past three am. By contrast, Arthur saw a man going out of the rear yard at around 3:30am. Two totally different times and people.
The bulk of your argument relies on differences claimed between skyrocket trails and sparks escaping through a spark arrester. You are welcome to explore these differences for as many posts as you like; but as there were no skyrockets, the only plausible source of rising sparks is the train engine.
You have also misrepresented what Dufty said. In Nabbing Ned Kelly p. 315 he says the two engines were still sizzling hot from the journey: “A burst of sparks broke free from one of the locomotives, perhaps as the engineer opened the door or stoked the coals with a shovel.” In fact, you have completely derailed the whole discussion with comments such as “David Dufty didn’t solve the problem of the rockets, as there is no way sparks from a train engine stack could be mistaken for skyrockets!” You have been obsessively arguing about spark arresters when David D was suggesting a burst of sparks from a train’s firebox door, which remains plausible. So too does my support for some sparks from the engine stack getting through the spark arrester which, as a number of references cited above show, was something that happened.
You appear to be arguing that sparks from a skyrocket couldn’t possibly be mistaken for sparks from a train. No-one is claiming that they have to look the same. All we have is two sentences from Arthur: “there were two rockets let up between the railway station and McDonald’s…. One was very faint, and the other was a large one.” As we have discussed, there is nothing there about sparks, or any description at all, to demolish David D’s conclusion that Arthur from a distance mistook some sparks for rockets.
Stuart, in the aerial photo I posted, try to envisage where the tree in your picture would be in the aerial photo. If you are able to do that, you will see Arthur had an unobstructed view to McDonnell’s hotel and the area between there and the station. He may have even had view of the train engines. NO SPARKS witnessed by anyone, two witnesses to Skyrockets, case closed. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see!
END of STORY!
Critical Thinker.
CT, pop your specs on. Look at the four police positions mrked witn a figure 7 in the top left hand corner of the 1800 Glenrowan sketch. They are lettered just to the right of trees so the numbers can be read; but the police in each case were behind their trees, not in front of them. Arthur was positioned somewhere up there, and certainly his view was obscured when looking in the direction of the area “between the railway station and McDonald’s”.
Stuart, I cannot believe you said that, you are totally disorientated. Behind the trees would obscure their view of the Inn (until popping head out to see) and stop bullets from the Inn hitting them. Being behind the trees in that location, if Arthur turned his head to the right, he would have had a clear view towards McDonnell’s hotel.
P.S. Wrong Way Stuart, remind me never to take direction from you, as there is no telling where I’d end up!
No, I’ve had another look at the sketch and you’re wrong. You can see the same thing in the Glenrowan 1880 sketch map that Jones had commissioned for the inside cover of his Short Life. There is no obvious clear view of the area between the station and McDonnell’s from up among the trees opposite and north of the Inn.
You are determined to believe in rockets from a two sentence comment that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, apparently from an obscure conviction that because someone swore that they saw something, that it must be true. Plenty of people have sworn the saw the Loch Ness Monster; but it is not true. If you wish to believe that Arthur saw rockets, one faint and one large, you are free to do so, as are the multitude of others who have swallowed Arthur’s story. I don’t care what you believe; others of us however have used our critical thinking skills and demolished it. You have no evidence beyond what Arthur said. And he was clearly mistaken.
Thanks Stuart.
And with that, the case is closed.
Theres a new Blog Post up that CT can apply his intellect to, and let us know what he thinks of the Two Huts site…
Another point: CT says, “It is reasonable to assume that the engine driver, fireman and guard, after maintaining the train was fully unloaded, would have had a look at what was going on at Ann Jones’ Inn”. That sounds more like what a modern Kelly enthusiast would do! The train crews, which counted at least 5 men between the train and the pilot engine, apparently kept well back around the station due to sensible concern about stray bullets. Guard Dowsett got about later; the rest are unmentioned as going anywhere near the Inn.
Stuart, it is natural human curiosity that the train crew would have had at least, A squiz at the gunbattle going on. This is the biggest even they will most probably come across in their life. No doubt they did keep well back, from a vantage point at the station, watching with eager fascination the shootout between police and the Kelly Gang.
And from that vantage point no-one saw any rockets… Or anyone lighting any rockets…
Not at all Stuart. Are you having a lend of me, tacking the p…s, so to speak? As the reporters would have been the only ones writing for the newspapers now on TROVE, they would have been watching the affray and had their backs to where the rockets were fired from, don’t you think?
Critical Thinker
No, CT, read their reports.
Further to (3), David is obviously correct in rejecting CY’s theory that skyrockets would not have aroused interest and curiosity. I searched Trove last week for the words “skyrocket” and “Glenrowan” in any publication between 1 June 1880 and 31 December 1885, and there is nothing with those two words in the same article on the same page. I repeated the search with the words “horse”, “turf”, “filly”, excluded which reduced the page count considerably! Poor Skyrocket the filly, not a star in the Kelly hunt at all!
Stuart, what is your point regarding a search for “skyrocket” and “Glenrowan”? If you think you are discrediting me with that red herring, you are way off course!
CT, fairly obviously, it was to see if anyone else was reported to have said anything about rockets at Glenrowan. It is not a trick. It is a basic bit of checking.
Stuart, perhaps you should have done the TROVE search before you ever commented as I did. There was also NO reports of a massive amount of sparks from a train engine. Even if there was, it would not have been a common occurrence. The train hit the steel gates at Broadmeadows (I think it was), it lost brakes and would have slowed down after the engine driver realised this. Just when he realised this is uncertain. The train was going slow enough when it reached Benalla to stop at the platform. After loading horses, police and press, the engines were changed and the damaged one used as a pilot, in from of the train with carriages. They progressed slowly from Benalla to Glenrowan. The boilers were NOT red hot and if the amount of sparks flew out the door of the firebox when opened to shovel in more fuel, the man doing so would have been seriously injured, if not set alight.
No matter how you try and twist things, you are wrong on every count.
Critical Thinker.
CT, you are the only one twisting things on this page, from a fanatical desire to have other people believe that Arthur and Gascoigne really did see two skyrockets launched “between the railway station and McDonald’s”. I accept that he saw something that he was convinced was two rockets, “one faint and one large”. A review of the evidence pro and contra shows that he was mistaken. Perhaps he had too deep a swig from Rawlin’s brandy bottle, or whoever it was that took the bottle around. Perhaps his nerves were stretched after the second volley. Perhaps he saw some sparks in the distance and thought they were two rockets. Who knows?
You have produced no evidence whatsoever to back up his statement that he saw two rockets set off “between the railway station and McDonald’s… One faint and one large”. That’s all there is to go on. Others including me and David D have put up counter explanations as to what Arthur might have seen that he interpreted as rockets. As well as that, we have put up solid evidence against any rockets being lit, in the form of a total lack of mention of any rockets by other people there on the ground at the time. All you can come up with it that all of them were looking the other way, and incidentally that none of them happened to notice two skyrockets flying up high in the sky with spark trails, fired off from clear open ground by someone that no-one ever saw doing so. The more one looks at it, the more preposterous it gets. Next you’ll be telling us to believe in the tooth fairy.
Yes Stuart I was attempting to leave , but the mistruths you promote about me need to be addressed, as I have produced factual evidence as to why sparks could not have happened in the magnitude to resemble a rocket, yet you refuse to accept factual evidence and cling to a theory that has no basis. You HAVE NOT countered these factual elements, so stop being dishonest!
Where people were looking is virtually irrelevant, as it was impossible for the sparks to happen as you claim, like your remarks about the sparks coming out of the firebox when it was opened (engine staff burned to death, hmm!). That is preposterous statement, as I have already addressed! You are a historian is that correct? If so, you have broken the golden rule, ignoring factual evidence, for a fanciful theory, that has been dismissed by genuine evidence.
As I have said elsewhere, I believe your pride and dislike for Jones, cannot allow you to see the truth. Train engine was not running at full speed after hitting the steel gate at a crossing, and travelled even slower after it stopped at Benalla to load police, their horses, reporters and a couple of other people. So the engine was not red hot to cause the sparks you believe were emitted, from an engine fitted with a spark arrester to stop such an event. That for a start, negates the train engine sparks completely! You have not addressed any of the factual points I have raised, you have just tried to save face by throwing up red herrings that have nothing what-so-ever to do with sparks coming from a train engine. Stuart, you are not doing your credentials any favour by refusing to admit the obvious. Pride can be detrimental to one’s reputation, if one has a credible reputation to start with and raises doubt about anything you write!
In this discussion, I have dealt with facts in relation to sparks v rockets, whilst you have dealt with a fanciful and unfounded theory, that sits better with the Tooth Fairy than with a serious debate.
Critical Thinker.
CT, you are now carrying on about David D’s suggestion that it might have been sparks from the engine firebox and about the temperature of the engine, and blaming me for it…
I haven’t promoted any mistruths about you, and indeed couldn’t if I wanted to, as you are anonymous. I’ve answered your various attempts at an argument and given too reasons why they don’t work.
Sparks do fly out of fireboxes and I have seen it myself with boilers. They don’t explode all over the place and incinerate the operator!! But caution is needed.
You have carried on endlessly about the difference between sparks from a train and sparks from a skyrocket, overlooking the evidence that Arthur was mistaken in his belief that he saw a couple of skyrockets. There weren’t any rockets.
As I have said several times, we don’t know what Arthur saw that led him to think that two rockets were let off between the station and McDonnell’s; but there were plenty of people closer to there than he was, and no one saw any rockets or anyone setting rockets off. As the Royal Commission said, that was the first they heard of rockets. Case over.
ONE: Perjury is a serious offense. Steele did not have a witness to state categorically that Arthur lied, so different scenario.
TWO: “What I meant was that the ‘rockets’ appeared from precisely in the direction where the train was.”
But that is not what you said! What you said was, “these ‘rockerts’ appeared from precisely where the train was”.
THREE: People turn to see skyrockets when they hear the noise to see what it is, the whoosh that is, before the bang. Arthur said he didn’t hear the rockets, but he didn’t hear the train engines either. Maybe the sound of the gunfire blocked the sound out.
FOUR: “It is simply absurd to say sparks from an engine and sky rockets “cannot be even remotely compared”.
That is you assumption because you cannot understand the difference between skyrockets and imaginary sparks from a train engine fitted with a spark arrester. So Arthur DID describe what he saw, he saw ROCKETS!!!
ONE : Offering an opinion is not perjury if it turns out to be wrong.
TWO : A typo – and thats something you find necessary to make an issue of?
THREE: Nobody saw and Nobody heard rockets….but still you insist there were rockets….
FOUR : You just dont get it – Arthur did not DESCRIBE what he saw – what he did was label what he saw as ‘rockets’. Arthur claims to have seen something that he said were rockets – but what did he actually see, do you know? A narrow streaking line of sparks extending up into the sky? The Burst of the rocket up in the sky? The actual ‘rocket’ itself, the stick and the spent cartridge?
You CANNOT explain why not ONE of the scores of other people there reported ever seeing or hearing anything like a rocket, and that is the most damaging fact about Arthurs claim. The other damaging things are his record for reporting other things nobody saw or heard, the absence of any reason for anyone to fire rockets and the fact that in the very same area where Arthur said the rockets came from was a steam train with the very real potential to emit showers of sparks skyward, which could plausibly have been misinterpreted as being caused by rockets.
The ‘sparks’ theory cannot be discounted, because it answers many more of the uncertainties about what happened than does the ‘rockets’ theory.
But CT, believe the least plausible explanation if you want to. Thats your right. Go ahead.
“ONE : DAVID – “Offering an opinion is not perjury if it turns out to be wrong.”
REPLY: Wrong again David. It was not an opinion, it was a ‘statement’ under oath. Big difference!
TWO: DAVID – “A typo – and thats something you find necessary to make an issue of?”
REPLY: No David, it was not a typo, you made a statement and I was just pointing out your mistake.
THREE: DAVID – “Nobody saw and Nobody heard rockets….but still you insist there were rockets….”
REPLY: Wrong again David. Arthur and Gascoigne saw the rockets, although Arthur states he did not hear them, most likely because of gunfire, too far away to hear them, or just distracted by what was going on in all the excitement and commotion.
FOUR : DAVID – “You just dont get it – Arthur did not DESCRIBE what he saw – what he did was label what he saw as ‘rockets’.
REPLY: Wrong again David. I’m afraid you don’t get it! Arthur did describe what he saw, ROCKETS! Did you expect him to describe the colour of the trails behind the rockets, how high they flew, how long they were in the air for and where the spent rockets landed? That is a disingenuous statement! Nobody saw the imaginary sparks from the train engine either. How often do you think country people saw a train engine at night spewing forth large amounts of sparks? Then add the fact the engine was not glowing hot (I’ve already explained why) and it had a spark arrester fitted, to stop such an event. Granted some sparks could still escape, but not to create the spectacle you claim. Country people would be more in awe of such an event than seeing skyrockets, as skyrockets had been around for a long time and used at big events.
DAVID – “You CANNOT explain why not ONE of the scores of other people there reported ever seeing or hearing anything like a rocket, and that is the most damaging fact about Arthurs claim. ”
REPLY: Once again you are being disingenuous. I have given several reasons and repeated them when they have fallen on deaf ears. Just as I have as to why the engines did not omit sparks of +such a magnitude and reaching such a height, as to be mistaken for skyrockets. Please don’t be dishonest with such false statements.
DAVID – “The ‘sparks’ theory cannot be discounted, because it answers many more of the uncertainties about what happened than does the ‘rockets’ theory.”
REPLY: Wrong again David. The ‘sparks’ theory (and that’s all it is), has been totally discredited, whether you and Stuart accept it or not. There is not one iota of evidence to support the sparks theory, apart from conjecture, yet the evidence against is overwhelming! You both keep referencing Ian Jones’ theory, something I have not bought into, in what appears to be just an attempt to discredit him. My view of the rockets is based purely on the evidence that they were fired, not why, as that is another topic all together.
As I said previously, I have wasted my time here and will not waste any more of it, because here, a very thin theory, is believed over hard evidence. There have been enough straws clutched at here, to feed a heard of cattle!
Critical Thinker.
CT, here you are at 5:16 totally misunderstanding perjury (which is knowingly making a false statement under oath, versus someone making a statement under oath that they believe to be true, and which both David and I agree that Arthur did, which is not perjury), and other misreadings, and declaring that you will not waste any more of your time here; and (no surprise) you are back 10 minutes later with another comment!
This is like all those people who swear they are leaving Twitter/X forever and are back the next morning. You’ll be back too, as you are stuck in a strange belief that just because someone swore they saw something, that something was necessarily true. Plenty of people have sworn they saw flying saucers; they saw something; but it wasn’t a flying saucer. Arthur saw something; but it wasn’t skyrockets for the several reasons put forward by people here.
Hi David, I think that sums it up nicely. CT can believe whatever he or she wants, but every argument counts more against skyrockets the more one looks at it. Rockets has been the dominant narrative ever since Jones made a thing of it in 1967. I even accepted Arthur’s statement that there were rockets without questiong it in my Republic Myth book. Re-evaluation in the wake of David D’s solution has shown it’s wrong. C’est la vie. Out with the old historical error, and cheerfully onwards with the new corrected history.
Stuart, it appears you are crowing again. Your dislike of Jones has led you to believe theory over evidence. If you are unable to evaluate all factual evidence I have produced, either through pride or blind support for a theory shared with you before it was published, is questionable, but one thing is certain and that is you must be smart enough to know you backed the wrong horse by the evidence I have produced, even if you can’t admit it, so gloat away!
Critical Thinker (unlike some).
CT, here you are again 10 minutes after you said you were wasting your time and wouldn’t be back! I have replied to all your posts, presented factual reasons, arguments and evidence why you are wrong, and you can’t counter any of it except by repeating the two sentences from Arthur that don’t say anything to support your claims beyond his belief that he saw skyrockets. It’s clear from the analysis that he didn’t. We don’t know what he saw to decide it was skyrockets launched between the station and McDonnell’s, but it clearly wasn’t skyrockets. None of your “evidence” stands up to analysis. A lot of it is not evidence but repeated assertions of belief. The evidence is against it.
Arthur’s song:
Started out this morning feeling so polite
I always though a fish could not be caught who wouldn’t bite
But you’ve got some bait a waitin’ and I think I might try nibbling
A little afternoon delight
Sky rockets in flight
Afternoon delight
Afternoon delight
Afternoon delight
Please be waiting for me, Neddy, when I come around
We could do a lot of shootin’ ‘for the sun goes down
Thinkin’ of you’s workin’ up my appetite
Looking forward to a little afternoon delight
Rubbin’ tar and feathers makes the sparks ingite
And the thought of shootin’ you is getting so exciting
Sky rockets in flight
Afternoon delight
Afternoon delight
Afternoon delight
Stuart, my reply to your comment 07/09/2024 at 3:58 pm that once again, conveniently has no reply link. So let us look at your last response.
“Your argument is this:”
1) “Arthur said he saw rockets.”
THAT’S WHAT HE SAID UNDER OATH! DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
2) “You know what rockets look like.”
YES I DO AND YOU OBVIOUSLY DON’T. IT’S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE (excuse the pun).
3) “Therefore you know what Arthur saw.”
I HAVE NEVER STATED THAT, I HAVE CONCENTRATED ON AND DEMOLISHED THE ENGINE SPARKS THEORY. ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE BEING VERY DISHONEST!
4) “Arthur could not have been mistaken.”
I HAVE NEVER STATED THAT, I HAVE CONCENTRATED ON AND DEMOLISHED THE ENGINE SPARKS THEORY. ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE BEING VERY DISHONEST!
Stuart, you can call me anything you like, it doesn’t bother me. You may think are someone special or superior, but your inability to comprehend the data I have provided, shows that you are far from it. Whether you are stupid of just trying to wind me up I am uncertain, but now you sound like a child throwing a tantrum and stomping their foot when told they can’t have a lolly. So go ahead with your threat and pronounce me as a coward, but anyone reading this debate (other than the two David’s), will probably pronounce you as an arrogant fool.