by Tracie Griffith
Dick the bushranger was shot and killed by Constable Richard Wigmore on 12th February 1859, near St. Patrick’s Church on the Port Fairy/Yambuk road (now the Princes Highway).
The shooting was controversial at the time and when local historian Pat Glover (now deceased) located the bushranger’s gravesite at the Port Fairy Cemetery in the 1990s, he had the following question inscribed on the headstone:
DID HE DESERVE THIS?
It is worth reviewing the available evidence to determine whether the question is justified.
We will start with the inquest record, which provides the most trustworthy version of events.
The Superintendent of Police at Belfast, Charles Pitfield Lydiard, testified that he received a telegram from Portland on 10th February, informing him of the highway robbery of two men named Michael Carrol (grave digger, residing at Portland) and Patrick Griffiths (labourer, also residing at Portland).
A description was provided of the two armed robbers. The first man was 25 years of age, five feet seven inches high, light hair and whiskers, an ‘Irishman’. The second man was 45 to 50 years of age, five feet seven inches high, short build, dark complexion, an ‘old hand’ (meaning a former convict).
The telegram listed the stolen property as: two five pound notes; six and sixpence in silver; and a silver hunting watch with a cracked dial, number 6494.
Lydiard sent police on the road leading to Portland, in search of the armed robbers. Wigmore returned the afternoon of the 12th and reported that two men answering the robbers’ descriptions had been at Yambuk the previous night. Lydiard ordered Wigmore to return on the same road and to wear plain clothes so he didn’t frighten the suspects into concealing themselves in the scrub.
Wigmore testified that he encountered the men at around half past four in the afternoon, about two miles from Belfast. He recognised them from the reported descriptions and asked where they had stayed the previous night. The suspects answered ‘Kelly at Yambuck’ (the local inn). Wigmore then said they should consider themselves his prisoners and advised that he would shoot if they refused to walk in front of his horse or attempted to escape.
The men complied with Wigmore’s directions until the group arrived at the new Catholic Church. The deceased then protested that he wanted to go and see his friends. Wigmore announced that the two men were being apprehended on suspicion of highway robbery and must go with him via the most direct road to the barracks. The deceased refused and tried to escape. Wigmore attempted to stop him with his horse and the deceased flapped his coat in an effort to frighten the Constable’s mount. The younger man also began to move off.
Wigmore drew his pistol, but did not point it at either of the men. He warned that he would have to resort to extreme measures if they did not comply with his directions. Wigmore subsequently caught the deceased in the act of levelling a pistol at him and did not hesitate in firing. The deceased dropped to the ground and did not rise again. Wigmore could not say if the deceased’s pistol was cocked.
On cross-examination, Wigmore said it had not been safe enough to search the two suspects before the shooting took place. He also admitted telling the men they were his prisoners, but not revealing he was a police officer.
The other accused, William Darcy, testified that he was a labourer and had only known the deceased by the name of ‘Dick.’ On cross examination, Darcy agreed with the order of events: Wigmore announced the charge on which they were being detained; the deceased drew his pistol; Wigmore shot the deceased. As a further clarification, Darcy admitted that he did not see the pistol in the deceased’s hand until after Wigmore had shot him.
A local farmer, James Harman, testified that he arrived on the scene soon after the shooting and at Wigmore’s direction, turned the deceased over. The deceased had a pistol in his right hand and it was capped and cocked. Harman’s testimony was interrupted so the Superintendent of Police could examine the pistol in the presence of the jury. It was found to have a ball and powder in it. When Harman’s testimony continued, he stated that Wigmore subsequently alighted from his horse and handcuffed the other prisoner (Darcy).
Sergeant of Police Belfast, Theodore Tabor, testified that he searched the deceased when he was brought into the barracks and found the following:
- a silver watch number 6494, with cracked dial plate
- two five pound notes
- three one pound notes
- one sovereign in gold
- 22 shillings in silver
- a razor and case
- three knives
- a powder flask containing powder
- one bag containing caps.
The inquest was conducted on the day of the bushranger’s death and the jury’s verdict was:
The deceased the name of Dick came by his death by a pistol wound inflicted by Constable “Whigmore” in the proper discharge of his duty.
While Wigmore successfully apprehended the men responsible for the highway robbery, the inquest record does raise serious questions. The informal notes on the front page of the inquest reflect the disagreement over the actions of the police. One note questions the wisdom of sending only one constable to arrest two highway robbers. Another note says the Constable appears to have acted very properly, as supported by the jury’s verdict.
Also, a formal letter at the start of the inquest record from the Coroner to the Attorney General states that a coat belonging to the deceased was found after the inquest with a six barrel pistol in one of the pockets, two barrels loaded. This was a separate pistol to the one confiscated at the scene of the shooting and examined in the presence of the jury.
Would Dick the bushranger have survived if he had been apprehended by more than one police officer? How many guns did Dick have in his possession when he was apprehended? Why wasn’t the second gun found during the initial search of the deceased at the barracks?
Several newspaper articles addressed the ‘indiscriminate censure’ of police actions. The Banner of Belfast on 19th February 1859 reported (reprinted in The Geelong Advertiser on 23rd February 1859 and The Age on 24th February 1859):
Various rumors were afloat as to the circumstances connected with the tragic affair, and at the impulse of the moment, and without a correct knowledge of the facts, indiscriminate censure was heaped on the police authorities in general, and Constable Wigmore in particular. However the facts elicited at the inquest prove that, instead of blame being attached to either they deserve praise for their promptitude in capturing the offenders whose liberty was dangerous to the lives and property of the public. Had Constable Wigmore showed a moment’s indecision, his life would have paid the penalty, and a desperate ruffian would perhaps have been again let loose on society; probably to sacrifice many more lives before his career of crime was brought to a termination. The verdict of the jury amply vindicates Constable Wigmore; so far it is but justice to him; possibly it might have gone further, and applauded his courage in the discharge of his duty. The only ground of reasonable complaint we have heard, is, that the capture of two bushranger should be entrusted to one man, but in Belfast there are but three mounted constables, and this scanty force was necessarily divided to watch the various approaches to the town, but for which precaution the prisoners might have escaped justice altogether, for there were several roads by which they could have travelled. This disposition of the forces by Mr. Lydiard, the superintendent, was therefore the best possible method which could be adopted to secure the prisoners, considering the limited force at his disposal.
Despite the support in the newspapers, the censure must have been significant. On 26th February 1859, The Banner of Belfast published a letter from the jury commending Wigmore’s actions:
[The following letter has been addressed to Mr. Lydiard, Superintendent of Police, approving of the conduct of Constable Wigmore, on the occasion of his defending himself against the murderous attack of the bushranger, and recommending his promotion, by the jury who sat on the inquest.]
Belfast, 15th February, 1859.
SIR,–We, the jurors called in to act at the inquest held here on Saturday evening inst, on the body of the man shot by mounted constable Wigmore in the discharge of his duty; beg to express our unqualified approbation of the coolness, forbearance, and firmness, displayed by him on that melancholy occasion.
We beg to request that you will be good enough to bring this letter under the notice of the Chief Commissioner of Police, in the hope that such conduct may be rewarded by the promotion of Wigmore, in the service of which he is so valuable a member.
We would have attached a rider to our verdict to this effect, but thought it better not to do so on that occasion.
Patrick Gleeson, W. H. Howlett, J. Sutherland, John Buist, C. Norman, A. Hutchison, David Laidlaw, Henry Webb, D. Hourigan, T. Southcombe, Wm. Webb, J. S. Spears.
To C. J. P. Lydiard sq. J. P. Superintendent of Police, Belfast.
There is no disputing that Wigmore was entitled to defend himself in the line of duty, but his obvious vulnerability in the situation and the subterfuge employed in his tactics (plain clothes; not declaring himself a police officer; not searching the suspects and confiscating their guns) placed him at great risk and undoubtedly contributed to the bushranger’s untimely death. It is impossible to say whether Dick would have robbed again at gunpoint or possibly killed an innocent victim. The justification for his death remains the threat he posed to Wigmore at the time of his shooting, as per the testimonies provided at the inquest.
What do you think about the epitaph on Dick’s headstone? Did the bushranger deserve his fate?
For more information on this story, check out the blog What was the fate of Dick the Bushranger’s accomplice?