Montfort and Montiford: A Confusion of Names [Sharon Hollingsworth]

I wonder if anyone else is as confused as I am when it comes to the players in the Kelly saga by the names of Montfort and Montiford? It should be simple enough to differentiate between the two as one was in the force for 50 years and was a police Inspector at the time of the Kelly outbreak. Back in 1870 he had been in on the capture of Harry Power along with Hare and Nicolson. While he was not directly in the hunt for the Kellys, he was in charge of the Russell Street Barracks for a while and was on the scene and in charge when Ned Kelly was taken off the train in Melbourne after leaving Benalla just after the siege. He later was assigned Sadleir's position in the NE of Victoria. In that capacity he was along the day that the Royal Commissioners visited the Kelly homestead. All except Montfort (who was on horseback) rode in wagons causing Mrs. Kelly to quip: "I didn't know who you all could be; I thought it was a circus parade."

The other person in question was a mounted constable based in Wangaratta who arrived at the siege with Sgt. Steele's contingent and who received part of the reward money. In Constable Dwyer's piece for Life magazine in 1910 that Brian Stevenson had previously blogged about, Dwyer related that:

Ned walked a couple of hundred yards away from the hotel, and lay down under a large fallen log. Just then Mounted-Constables Montiford, Cawsey, Moore, and Dixon, of the Wangaratta contingent, were walking up to the back of the hotel from the railway line. Ned's armour, which he had on, rattled, which caused the police to stand, Moore asking, 'What noise was that?' 'Oh, it must be the noise of the horse's hobbles,' Montiford replied.
"Ned Kelly, in relating this incident to Superintendent Sadleir and myself, as he lay on the couch in Mr. Stanistreet's office, afterwards laughed, saying that he could have pinched Montiford's leg at the time.

Montiford was also the constable that told Maggie Skillion, upon her arrival on horseback at the siege, to "go back....you cannot come in here."



I guess that it was when people heard the two names pronounced that is when the confusion set in. For example, in the Royal Commission's Minutes of Evidence in 1881, W.B. Montfort gave evidence. He was also referred to by other witnesses. In some of those instances his name was given as Montfort. In several other instances his name was given as Montford, including in the list of witnesses!

Things got really interesting when Constable John Montiford was referred to by witnesses. His name was given correctly in a few places but his name was given as Montford in a few other places and then given as Montfort more than half a dozen times! There was no confusing who they were talking about when they gave the name as Montfort, as it was clearly talking about the constable at Glenrowan and his actions. Inspector W.B. Montfort was not at the siege at all, so it wasn't him. When the names are given of constables later in the Royal Commission, Constable Montiford's name is given correctly there, along with his number (2697).

Then there was the confusion of names in other sources. Kenneally has Inspector Montfort listed and then later in the text has it as Mountford and Ian Jones has Constable Mountiford instead of Constable Montiford.

But if you really want confusion, in Corfield's Ned Kelly Encyclopaedia he states that John Montiford's family added O'Brien to the the family name in the 1890s, making him John Montiford-O'Brien!

If anyone was researching these men, they would do well to make sure which one did what and when before using the information!

And don't get me started on how Charles Hope Nicolson's last name is often misspelled Nicholson. Odd how Dr. John Nicholson's name is never given as Nicolson, though! And not forgetting how Sadleir is often misspelled Sadlier, and the Old Melbourne Gaol is often given online as the Old Melbourne Goal! Trust me, gaol is never an outlaw's goal!!!! One good thing about the internet is if one makes a spelling (or fact) booboo it can be easily fixed...try that with a printed book! Moral of the story: choose your editor wisely! I remember getting started out with reading Australian websites and being struck by their use of s instead of z in words like realize. They have rubbed off on me and now I use the bits like neighbour and colour instead of neighbor and color when writing for the blog, but when I do things in the real world I have to remember to revert back to the American usage!  Ok, mini-rant over, I will take off my "spelling police" hat now!

Oh, yeah, before I close, there is an oddly interesting aside regarding Inspector Montfort that I came across in an 1889 paper:

 "It is represented that in 1883, Inspector Montfort, with the approval of the higher authorities in the force, refused to sanction the marriage of certain constables in the North-eastern district for no other reason than that "too many" were applying for permission to marry."

Then just after seeing that I saw in the Royal Commission (from 1881) where he said that:

3321. What difference is made between the single and the married men in appointments?—I never knew any difference. If a man is thought suitable he is sent to a certain place; of course at some stations it would be necessary to station a married man; in some stations the man’s wife cooks for the station. In some there are quarters only for married men.
3322. Would that do in the North-Eastern district?—I have a great dislike to married men myself, but my opinion is not shared by every officer in the force.


Tragically, on a personal note, Montfort's first wife died at age 29 in 1882 during childbirth. The child died 3 days later. He remarried within a couple of years and started a new family. I do wonder why did he not wish for other men to take wives?