Updated July 5, 2002

This section reviews the accepted history and checks it for accuracy and consistency. We expose some of the contradictions and consider how these might have come about.

Ned Kelly home
Ned Kelly Quick History
Ned Kelly history
Ned Kelly News
Ned Kelly Editorial
Ned Kelly Books Movies
Ned Kelly Links
Ned Kelly feedback



Ned Kelly "enforced outlaw"

The Felons' Apprehension Act was not enough in its own right to outlaw an individual, but was used in conjunction with bench warrants, and a declaration of specifically named outlaw/s. In November 1878, it was enacted against all four members of the newly formed 'Kelly gang' (Ned and Dan Kelly, Steve Hart and Joseph Byrne). It was speedily passed through the Victorian parliament in response to the shooting of three police at Stringybark Creek on the 26th of October 1878.

i. The Felons' Apprehension Act
ii. Its main purpose
iii. Kelly gang become outlaws - how and when? (incl.Timeline)
iv. Why did the government make the gang outlaws?
v. The rights of an outlaw. What did it mean to be an outlaw?
vi. Sympathisers
vii. How long were the gang outlaws? (Nedkellybushranger exclusive)
viii. Were they aware of when it ended?
ix. Was the Act justified by the Government?
x. What was the gangs' reaction to being made outlaws?
xi. Did it work?
xii. Sources Consulted

What is the Felons' Apprehension Act?

The Victorian 'Felons' Apprehension Act' was a modification of the 'Outlawry Act' used by the New South Wales government against Ben Hall and his gang in 1865. The Outlawing of Ben Hall was perceived to be expedient, and so a quickly drafted Bill (which was an amended version of the NSW Act), was presented to and passed, by both houses of the Victorian parliament, in the hope of an efficient capture of the Kelly gang.
Be it from ineffectiveness, or the appearance of barbarity, this type of Act had been unused in Britain for many centuries. So it was surprisingly archaic that as recently as the latter half of the 19th century, the Victorian and New South Welsh Governments revived this implacable and obdurate law.

It was the most serious law any parliament could enact against an individual. (Notably it was a law that was not necessarily supported in every respect by all parliamentarians). Normal rights under the law, including 'assumption of innocence', were revoked for those persons named by a Supreme Court warrant under the Act. The offenders were legally considered guilty without the usual pre-requisite of a trial, and in 1878 the crime of murder was punishable by execution. Therefore the lives of an 'outlaw' were considered forfeited, and so once the Act was in force against an individual, killing that person became a 'legal' action. There were 10 clauses within the Act, one of the most significant being clause 5, which effectively made a criminal of any person providing any form of assistance to the gang.


Although not part of the Act, along with the status of outlaw, a large sum of reward money was placed on the gang member's heads, dead or alive, starting at £200 each, and eventually reaching 10 times that amount. Despite such a large sum the gang eluded police until capture at Glenrowan, 20 months after the incident had occurred by which they were proclaimed outlaws.

What was the main purpose of the Act?

In an address to the Legislative Council on the 31st of October, the Hon. H. Cuthbert implored that the Bill be passed that evening. He explained, "…The Bill is framed for the purpose of enabling the ends of justice to be carried into effect against a gang of ruffians that have committed grave and serious outrages during the last few days… sometimes occasions arise - and the outrages lately committed form one - in which we may fairly assume from the facts revealed that the accused is guilty and we may come to that conclusion even before conviction…Now this Bill is to enable every well-disposed subject of Her Majesty, whether a police officer or civilian, to take and apprehend these men - to take them alive or dead."
Sir B. O'Loghlen had, the previous day in the Legislative Assembly, moved that the Bill be introduced, in order "to facilitate the taking or apprehending of persons charged with certain felonies, and the punishment of those by whom they are harboured."

So at its most basic, the Act was a reversal of the assumption of innocence for the outlaws - markedly it was also a reversal of an assumption of innocence of those assisting, or even suspected of assisting, the outlaws.
It enabled a member of the police force, or indeed any civilian, to capture or kill the outlaw/s within the limits of the Colony, without fear of being held legally accountable for the method used in the apprehension or death, of said outlaw/s. The use of any deadly weapon was permitted against the outlaws without its use being preceded by a warning, (such as demand for surrender).
Those with warrants issued against them under the provisions of the Act, were treated as though they had already been found guilty. It was presumed that apprehension would be made easier by removing the normal laws of protection, and thus increasing the odds by allowing anyone to capture or kill the outlaws, by any means. By placing the gang outside the pale of the law, it was also presumed they could be captured in such a way that would minimize the risk of further loss of police or civilian lives.

The objective of the Act was to make evasion of the law for the Kelly's more difficult, and to facilitate their pursuers in their capture.

How and when did the Kelly gang become outlaws?

Parliament was in session at the time the news of the Stringybark killings was made public. The outrage of the general public didn't take long to filter through to the government. Thereafter it was a relatively simple matter of presenting the Felons' Apprehension Bill to the Legislative Assembly for parliamentary debate, 3 readings of the Bill and tabling a vote. The Bill was passed the day it was presented. The following day the same process was repeated through the Legislative Council. The day after it was passed the Bill became an Act of parliament, when it received assent from the Governor of the Colony, Sir George Ferguson Bowen.
The Bill, although urgent, was thought by some to have been passed with incongruous haste considering it was such serious and punitive legislation. Regardless of the opposition or uncertainty by some MP's, the act was passed in both houses and assent received, all within 3 days. The shootings had occurred only one week prior.

Frequently provisions would not come into effect until they were proclaimed. Proclamations were made by the Governor, specifying the date or dates of operation, and were published in the Government Gazette. A number of proclamations may have been given over a period of time for just one Act, with different sections commencing at different times. This was the case for the Felons' Apprehension Act 612 of 1878. This Act required the issuing of a bench warrant, a public demand for surrender by a certain date, after which, if the demand was not complied with the second part of the Act would be made active, and those with warrant issued against them would be declared outlaws.

Time Line:


26th October - Stringybark Creek shootings.
29th October - Notice of reward for murders was distributed amongst local police stations. The reward of £800 was to be offered by the government for the arrest and conviction of the accused, (at £200 each).
Prison photos of Ned and Dan were distributed to various police stations (including Adelaide and Sydney).
30th October - Felons' Apprehension Bill introduced, and passed by Legislative Assembly.
31st October - Felons' Apprehension Bill introduced, and passed by Legislative Council.
1st November - Felons' Apprehension Bill given assent by Victorian Governor Sir George Ferguson Bowen. The Governor's formal assent translated the Bill into an Act of Parliament.
4th November - Bench warrants issued and gazetted.
On the testimony of the witness Constable McIntyre, the Crown Solicitor made an application to Chief Justice Stawell, who then issued bench warrants under the Felons' Apprehension Act, and ordered a summons to be inserted in the Government Gazette calling upon Edward Kelly and Daniel Kelly to surrender themselves to be tried for murder. Similar warrants were issued against two men whose names were unknown, but were supposed to be 'identical' to Charlie Brown and Billy King. Notice was given that if the 4 accused did not surrender on or before 12th November 1878, they would be proclaimed outlaws.
The reward was increased at this time to £2,000, (at £500 for each offender).
12th November - Deadline for surrender.
A telegram was sent to Sub-Inspector J.Pewtress, from Superintendent Sadlier, informing him that the gang had not capitulated. "The Mansfield Police court was open from 9am till 11 pm this day and I was in attendance during the time and the men mentioned in the annexed notices did not surrender."
15th November - Act enabled fully. Under its provisions, the Kellys were proclaimed outlaws from this date.
(*Clause 9 provided that the Act should continue in force 'until the end of the next session of parliament'.) Joe Byrne's identity known by police.
10th December - Euroa bank robbery. Steve Hart formally identified as the forth member of the gang.
12th December - Telegram sent by Sergeant Burland to various police stations with correct names, and detailed descriptions of all 4 members of the Kelly gang.
13th December - Reward published in Government Gazette at £2,500 total.


10th February - Jerilderie bank hold up.
15th February - NSW issue reward totaling £4,000, (or £1,000 for each outlaw). The Victorian Government increase its reward to match. With the inclusion of the NSW reward the combined total increased to £8,000.00, (or £2,000.00 per outlaw), which was an astronomical sum at the time.
18th February - New South Wales Government Gazette proclamation of reward. The Victorian warrants had been endorsed in NSW. Along with the gazetting of the reward, the New South Welsh government proclaimed the Felons Apprehension Act to have force in the colony of NSW.
20th December - 'The Expiring Laws Continuance Act 1879', Act 648, was passed. This Act included, amongst others, Act 612 (The Felons' Apprehension Act), which would otherwise expire. Act 612 therefore continued, "in full force and effect until the end of the next session of Parliament", (i.e. June 1880).


20th April - 'Notice of Withdrawal of Reward' posted by Government. It stated that after 20th July 1880 the Government would "absolutely cancel and withdraw the offer for the reward".
26th June - Prorogation of winter parliamentary session resulting in the expiry of the Felons' Apprehension Act 612. The gang's outlaw status is no longer in effect after the prorogation.* Aaron Sherritt murdered.
27th - 28th June - Glenrowan Siege. Death of Joe Byrne, Dan Kelly and Steve Hart. Ned Kelly captured.

On what basis did the Government place the Kelly gang outside the law?

To use such a severe law, a major felony needed to have been perpetrated, or believed to have been perpetrated. During the period that Ben Hall's Gang had operated in NSW during 1865, The Outlawry Act had been passed by the NSW legislature. Its use was seen to be effective and so the Victorian administration was quick to pass an Act modeled along similar lines in Victoria against the Kelly gang. Parliament believed that the general outrage felt by Victorians required a dramatic and forceful supportive response. The Felons' Apprehension Act of 1878 was certainly that.

In the case of The Kelly Gang, the Act was enabled as a result of eyewitness testimony before a justice of the peace, from Constable McIntyre, regarding the shooting deaths of three police at Stringy Bark Creek, (Sergeant Kennedy, and Constables Lonigan and Scanlon). McIntyre was a credible witness, three police were dead, and the general public wanted justice and protection.

What rights did an outlaw have?

Initially the criminal was offered the right to surrender in order to be tried. If they did not surrender by a given date, then they would be declared outlaw and 'normal' rights as a citizen were then removed.
An outlaw was an individual specifically declared by an act of parliament to be 'outside the law'. Laws that normally protected a citizen no longer applied, effectively making the subject named in a bench warrant to be considered and treated separately to other citizens. Once a person was officially declared an outlaw, in the eyes of the law their lives were 'forfeited' and thus they could be killed without challenge.

During Victorian Parliamentary debates of 1878 MP Dr. Madden was recorded as saying, "…Under this Bill a person may stalk them; he may steal upon them, and shoot them down as he would shoot kangaroo."
The Age Newspaper (issue 16/11/1878) explained to its readers, "An Outlaw may be shot down whenever and wherever found within the limits of the Colony." In other words, shot on sight by anyone who cared to do so, without that person being subject to prosecution in any way for the killing.
Thus with the outlaw status imposed upon them, Ned and his gang were subject to the very real possibility of being killed at any time by anyone, without demand for surrender or any process of arrest or trial.

One right, however, that was not affected under the provisions of the Act, was the subject's right to self-defence as it applied to accused persons, (Judge Barry acknowledged this in a ruling he made during Ned's trial in 1880).

How were Kelly gang 'sympathisers' held under the Felons' Apprehension Act?

One important and deliberate part of the Act was that any person harboring the outlaws, or aiding them with information or supplies, or withholding or giving false information to the police, made him or her susceptible to a heavy prison sentence.
During the Parliamentary debate 31st October 1878, it was explained that Clause 5 provided that "…if any person shall voluntarily or knowingly harbour, conceal, or receive, or give any aid, shelter, or sustenance to such outlaw, or provide him with fire-arms or any other weapon, or with ammunition, or any horse, equipment, or other assistance…" or directly or indirectly give information to enable to him to commit further crime or to escape from justice, shall be liable to imprisonment "for a term not exceeding 15 years, as the court shall determine."
(It goes on to say, "But there is a safeguard. If any person has been compelled to harbour, conceal, or to give assistance to the outlaw, as soon as the compulsion is removed, he can clear himself from the consequences of his act, by going to a justice of the peace or a police officer and detailing the facts.")

The Kelly gang had many sympathisers and a very effective 'bush telegraph'. They were supplied with information and provisions, and in return paid their supporters from the proceeds of their bank robberies. The Government had to find a way to cut this supply of information and food. They attempted to use a loose interpretation of clause 5 of the Act to break this supply.
Beginning on 2nd January 1879, the police arrested 30 'suspected' Kelly sympathisers and detained them in Beechworth gaol. 23 were subsequently charged, and over the next four months many of them were repeatedly remanded in custody while the court awaited the presentation of police evidence against them. By 22 April, eleven men were still inside the gaol without having a police case laid against them, or an opportunity to defend themselves.
The suspected sympathisers were farmers and incarcerated at a time when crops needed harvesting. However the Police disregarded such concerns in the belief that the higher priority was to capture the gang, and they believed they had arrested the gang's essential resource suppliers. It was thought that by breaking their supply line, the gang would need to find alternate sources, and that in doing this they would need to come out of hiding. Undoubtedly the police were also mindful of the example they were making for any other persons who might have been considering giving assistance to the gang.

Neither of these objectives appeared to have worked. It did not take long for the injustice of remanding prisoners without evidence, to be publicly questioned. The action gave the impression to the general public that law and its usage was not always fair and equitable. In fact the police and government's perceived misuse of the power given to them by the Act, ultimately managed to influence public opinion against them. Thus by default, sympathy was increased for the gang, including from people who might otherwise not have been supportive.

Clause 5, however, did leave the gang in somewhat of a quandary. They knew that they put at risk anyone whose assistance they accepted, and would almost certainly have made the gang somewhat more cautious about whom they approached. For the gang however, receiving help was a matter of basic survival, and fortunately for them they had enough supporters who disregarded the personal risk.
Overall the measure was therefore wholly ineffective, as not only did public opinion alter, but also the action did not inhibit the gang's supply of information or provisions.

If assistance were provided to the gang after the Act expired (26/06/1880), prosecuting a person under section 5 of the Act was not actually legally plausible. Interestingly, the day Ned was executed, Mrs. Jones (proprietor of the Glenrowan Inn) was arrested and charged under clause 5 with aiding and abetting the outlaws. This was the last time that the provision was used, and ultimately she was discharged.

When did their outlaw status cease?

The gangs outlaw status ceased at the same time as the Felons' Apprehension Act.

As previously indicated, the status of 'outlaw' was not indefinite. Initially when passed, the duration of the Act was approximately one year. Clause 10 held that the Act was effective until the prorogation of the following sitting of parliament. No doubt the idea that the Kelly gang would evade capture for any longer than a year was not thought likely, however the option to extend the Act was considered. If found advantageous the Act could be either continued by a further Act of Parliament, or allowed to expire. It was continued by another Act (648) in December 1879, 'until the end of the next sitting of parliament'. The prorogation of the sitting of parliament referred to, was June 26th 1880.

In the case of the Kelly gang, J.J. Kenneally argued that because of the dissolution of the Berry government in February 1880, the Act and outlaw status lapsed. There was no provision for such a circumstance in the Act however and so this is incorrect. From the Parliamentary papers of December 1879, we can see the Act was still in force, and further extended until the end of the next session of Parliament.
Frances Hare was therefore more correct in his belief that the gangs' outlawry status lapsed from the prorogation on Saturday the 26th June 1880, (that evening Sherritt was shot). He told the commission board of his understanding that the Felons' Apprehension Act became inoperative as soon as the parliament dissolved. (The Governor gave the dissolution on the Saturday, and on the Monday morning all 4 outlaws were captured or killed.) The majority of the police engaged in the Kelly pursuit therefore presumably also held the same belief as Hare, that the gang we no longer outlaws at the time of the siege.

Were Ned and the gang aware of when the Act was due to expire?

This is a question that is impossible to answer definitively. The behavior of the gang tends to indicate that they did not know when, or even if, their outlawry expired. It is unlikely that they would have paid intimate attention to the details of Parliamentary debates, particularly if they believed that their outlawry was not likely to alter. Yet, it is of course possible that they were aware that by Glenrowan they were no longer legally outlaws, however their behavior around this time does not reflect this.

If perhaps the Kelly's, and their sympathisers, as well as the police, were all aware that the gang were no longer outlaws - it would have been reasonable for the gang to assume that they were still in danger from members of the general public and bounty hunters, who most likely would not have been aware of the Act's expiration. Notably along with the Act their bench warrants would have expired. Ned and Dan still had prior warrants issued for their arrest for attempted murder of Fitzpatrick, although technically Steve and Joe did not. It is reasonable to assume however, that the police would have promptly issued further warrants for them. So for all intents and purposes the gang remained hunted outlaws, regardless of their resumed legal status of protected citizen under the law.
John McQuilton suggests evidence that the gang knew nothing about the expiry of the bench warrants, "With the reward and the Felons Apprehension Act due to expire in July (if the latter had not already done so), the gang's emergence from hiding in June 1880 is something of a mystery."

Were the Government justified in declaring the Kelly gang outlaws?

It has been argued that the Act was an admission of the inefficiency of the police, who theoretically should have been able to apprehend four young criminals, without the need for such excessive proclamations.
In response to this assertion, one needs to consider a number of factors. It was suggested during the reading of the Bill to the Legislative Assembly, that the "haunt" of the murderers was mountainous, rugged, inaccessible and thinly populated. The degree of difficulty in apprehending them was therefore increased and therefore despite the Bill being a "very stringent one", the government would not have been "justified in neglecting any conceivable means of putting an end to the outrages…"
Also, where information had been made under oath that a felony punishable by the law of the day with death had been committed, it was presumed that person would resist all normal methods of arrest, and the Act would therefore allow more drastic measures for apprehension.
The Victorian government had the example of that same course of action being seen to be effective in NSW only 13 years earlier. The public's outraged reaction to the police shootings, their subsequent fear, anxiety, and impatience for the gang to be apprehended, would have put added pressure on the authorities. The basic intention of the Act was to capture the criminals as quickly as possible, while limiting the chance of further loss of police and civilian lives.
The act of multiple homicide at Stringybark Creek of police officers no less (only later argued to be self-defence), certainly gave apparent justification to the Government's decision to evoke the penalty of 'outlaw' against the four perpetrators. It was a harsh law, but was designed to capture them quickly and stop the assistance they received. In the line of duty three police were killed at Stringy Bark Creek and a credible witness had testified to the gangs guilt, leading the Government to Outlaw the gang. When taking all these factors into consideration, and viewing the situation through 19th century eyes, it could be fair to say that they were in fact justified in evoking the Act and declaring the gang outlaws.

However, the counter argument that has also been put forth, that the Act and proclamations were made without appropriate regard to the possibly dangerous repercussions of choosing such a zealous course, has considerable merit.
It would be fair to claim that all possible repercussions and alternatives were not considered thoroughly. Certainly the Bill was passed with unnecessarily haste. A clear indication of this premature action was that the identities of two of the four men accused were still unknown, with only vague descriptions given. In concrete terms what this meant was that, at the time of the gang's outlawing, it was more or less 'legal' to shoot dead anyone simply seen with, or known to Ned and Dan. In other words anyone who was merely 'suspected' of being their accomplices was at serious risk. The actual fact was that such persons might have been entirely innocent with no evidence against them.
Additionally, as it was not apparently effective, more consideration could have been given to the extension of the Act in December 1879.

What reaction did Ned and the gang have to being made outlaws?

In 1929 J.J. Kenneally argued that the Felons' Apprehension Act was a declaration of war against the gang. Something to consider about this argument is that much of Kenneally's opinions were formed from information he obtained from Thomas Lloyd, so it is plausible that the gang and their active sympathisers did see the Felons' Apprehension Act as an Act of war.
Following this line of reasoning, the actions of the gang become better understood. In order to survive and fight this 'war', the gang required funds. What the gang could do to survive was limited by the Act by clause 5. Anytime they accepted funds or supplies from friends or sympathisers, they put those who helped them at risk from harsh punishment by law. So the subsequent bank robberies at Euroa and Jerilderie, could therefore be justified as necessities of war. In addition the gangs' failed plans for June 1880, as we understand them, are therefore made clearer, as 'war' would mean that Glenrowan was a deliberately chosen battle site.

Although we have no documentation to determine how the other members of the gang reacted, Ned clearly resented being outlawed. In the Cameron letter in December 1878, he said, "…I was outlawed without any cause and cannot be no worse and have but once to die." This statement indicates he considered himself to have been judged unfairly, and that the only outcome he could foresee was that of his own death. Then expressing his desperation and obvious belief that he had nothing further to loose, he goes on to warn, "…If the public do not see justice done I will seek revenge for the name and character which has been given to me and my relations…"
A month later, in a letter to Chief Secretary supposedly written by Ned it states, "Beware, for we are now desperate men."
Then in March 1879, the New South Welsh Premier Sir Henry Parkes, received a letter written by Ned. In it he declares, "I do not intend to be taken alive".
The reaction Ned particularly had to being made an outlaw was predominantly one of anger. No doubt it was a rancor intermingled with a certain amount of understandable fear. However, they were not the first Bushrangers to have been made outlaws in Australia. So after the homicide of three policemen, although not welcoming the government's decision, even Ned would not have been entirely surprised by the enabling of the Act.

Did the Act achieve its objectives? Was declaring the gang outlaws effective?

Considering the gang were not caught until what was arguably by their own error, some 19 ½ months after being made outlaws, it would be fair to suggest that the Felons' Apprehension Act did nothing to shorten their freedom. Notably the gang's destruction was in fact after the Act was no longer in effect. Additionally the loss of lives at Glenrowan belied the assumption that the Act's instigation would reduce the chance of further loss of innocent civilian lives.

The Act pre-determined the fate of the outlaws, giving them all death sentences before any jury could consider their circumstances, and in this way, the outlaw status effectively put them immediately in a position of desperation. Had the gang actually been the cowardly murderers they were believed to be, by making them outlaws the government could have provoked them into a disastrous retaliation. After all, after being made outlaws, nothing they could have done would have made their positions any worse.
We do not have details of their plans of Glenrowan, but it would be fair to assume that they would not necessarily have chosen attack as their best form of defence, had they felt they had any other option than that of death, which was placed on them by their outlaw status. If one assumes that if the plan for Glenrowan had been successful, it could have resulted in great loss of lives, then one must also consider whether or not the gang would have chosen that course of action had they not been hunted outlaws. The bottom line was that, assuming they managed to protect their families and friends, once made outlaws, Ned, Joe, Dan and Steve personally had nothing further to loose by their choice of actions thereafter.
In the book 'Kelly Hunters', Frank Clune eloquently said of the Act, "If they were outlawed their position could not be any worse than it was… The legal rigmarole had no reality for them. A man who is proclaimed an outlaw with a price on his head, dead or alive, can only be made more desperate by that proclamation than he was before."

The Felons' Apprehension Act was meant to make pursuing the Kelly gang easier by empowering their pursuers who were not required to consider that gang member's legal or humane treatment. This presumably gave the pursuers the advantage, however, the concept that the gang had nothing to loose was not lost on the police. The perceived danger from the gang would have therefore been increased, effectively managing to disempower the pursuers, particularly as the gang's legend grew over time.
The main objective of the Act was to make circumstances more difficult for the Kelly's, and in addition make conditions easier for their pursuers. Therefore considering all these factors, it would be fair to say that not only was declaring the gang outlaws not effective, it was ultimately detrimental.

* I am happy to have provided the first in-depth clarification of this issue.

Sources Consulted:


Victorian Government Parliamentary Papers 1878 - 1881
Victorian Acts of Parliament 1878 - 1880

The Royal Commission into the Victorian Police 1881

Documents Online:

http:// nedonline.imagineering.net.au/main.htm
http:// www.parliament.vic.gov.au


Carroll, Brian 'Ned Kelly Bushranger' Landsdowne Press 1980
Clune, Frank 'The Kelly Hunters' Angus and Robertson 1955
Dean, Gary & Balcarek, Dagmar 'Ned and the others' Glen Rowan Cobb & Co.Pty.Ltd. 1995
Kenneally, J.J. 'The Inner History of The Kelly Gang' Kelly Gang publishing 1969
Malony, John 'I am Ned Kelly' Penguin Books 1980
McMenomy, Keith 'Ned Kelly The Authentic Illustrated Story' Currey O'Neil Ross Pty Ltd 1984
McQuilton, John 'The Kelly Outbreak 1878-1880' Melbourne University Press 1987
Meredith, John & Scott, Bill 'Ned Kelly After a Century of Acrimony' Landsdowne Press 1980
Nunn, Wannan & Prior 'A Pictorial History of Bushrangers' Landsdowne Press 1966
Phillips, John H 'The Trial of Ned Kelly' The Law Book Company Ltd. 1987
Seal, Graham 'The Outlaw Legend' Cambridge Press 1996
White, Charles 'The History of Bushranging' Lloyd O'Neil Pty.Ltd. 1970

Archived Newspapers:

The Age
The Argus
The Herald

Researched by N. Cowie (additional directed research assistance from D.White)
Data compiled, analysed, written and presented by N.Cowie


First Published July 5th 2002

Return to Top of Page>>

Home | Quick History | Time Line | Gang Details | Assorted Facts & Glossary | History in Detail | Armour | Outlaws | Ned's Grave | Hanged | Married | Studying History | Oral History | Editorial & Opinion | Books | News and Events | Movies | Kelly Documentaries | Links | Contact us | Copyright


Copyright and conditions of Use