Election & Murder in Dungarvan

The Square

I have been interested for sometime now about the murder’s that took place on Dungarvan Quay back in 1886. It was the time of elections, and as was the habit or practice back then Voters were usually escorted to the polling stations by the Military. This was an obvious sign of rigged voting. As I discover more information on the subject, I will add it to the Blog. I have added photos from the Edmond Keohan collection to add a little atmosphere to the piece, they were taken some fifty years or more after the event, but not too much had changed during that time.The Quay

It was Friday December 28th, 1866 during the election of a member to represent County Waterford in the British House of Commons. The Candidates in the election at that time were the liberal candidate De La Poer, and the Tory candidate was Captain Talbot. Great crowds had gathered in the square prior to the elections and fever was running high. There was around two and a half thousand voters and for various reasons they were being coerced to vote for Talbot. Trouble quickly broke out and clashes with the military were inevitable. A mounted charge was ordered and the 12th lancers who were at that time stationed in Dungarvan charged the crowd driving them towards the quay. Reports of the incident went as follows. ‘At around one PM on the day in question a party of the 12th lancers and the 67thinfintary was attacked with stones in the square. The Lancers responded by charging a number of people who ran down the Quay. One man, William O’Brien was struck on the head by the butt of a lance and as he fell his attackers and others rode over him and he was killed. Captain Bartholomew Kiely, Harbour master who then lived in the old house - pictured here, you can also see the archway -having heard the noise and commotion on the quay went to investigate and as he opened the gate of the archway leading into the yard he was impaled on a lance and subsequently died of his wounds. An Inquest was subsequently held and a jury found that William O’Brien had been killed by the Lancers in an unlawful charge while in the case of Captain Kiely a verdict of wilful murder by the Lancers was returned.The Square

Mr Lawson said, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he has taken any steps to investigate the two cases of Homicide which occurred at Dungarvan, and which formed the subject of the Coroner's Inquests held there; and, whether his attention has been called to the observations of Mr. Justice O'Hagan to the Grand Jury of Waterford upon that subject?

Mr. Morris, the attorney General for Ireland said, in reply, that two inquests were held at Dungarvan upon the bodies of two persons who mot their deaths at the county of Waterford election. Those inquests were returned to the Crown Office and through that office to the Crown solicitor of that circuit. On the 5th of February the depositions and the finding of the jury were laid before him, and on the 16th of February he gave instructions to the Crown Solicitor to the following purport:— Without coming to any conclusion as to the legal character of the homicides, I think every inquiry should be directed to ascertain by whom the homicides, or either of them, were caused, and of identifying the individuals. The Crown Solicitor should communicate with the county inspector of constabulary to ascertain if any faith worthy person can depose as to identity; he should also apply to the military authorities for the names of the soldiers engaged at Dungarvan, and if any faith worthy person comes forward, or can be found, who can identify the individual soldier or soldiers alleged to have caused the death of O'Brien or Keily, a communication should be made to the colonel of the regiment to have the soldiers who were at Dungarvan paraded for the purpose of identification. He had received various communications from the Crown Solicitor subsequent to those instructions, and he felt satisfied that the Crown Solicitor had used every possible exertion to identify the individuals in question. With regard to the second branch of the question, Mr. Justice O'Hagan was reported in The Freeman's Journal newspaper to have said, in charging the grand jury on the 5th of March— There were two cases of homicide arising out of the late election, in one of which the jury had found a verdict of 'manslaughter,' and in the other a verdict of 'willful murder.' Bills could not be sent up to them at the present assizes in either of those cases, the occurrence of which he deeply deplored, and trusted that the cause of them would be made the subject of searching investigation. He thought it right to say that he attributed very little importance to the finding of the jury in one of these cases, in which they found a verdict of willful murder. Although the counsel for the next of kin to the deceased closed an excited and exciting speech by demanding the highest verdict of the law, which was manslaughter, the jury, with a feeling of liberality which the learned Gentleman could not have imagined, actually found a verdict of willful murder. The R.I.C, target practice on the Cunnigar