Pages

Thomas Kirwan; Hero of the Sea Horse Tragedy

Thomas Kirwan’s many acts of gallantry were recorded in contemporary newspapers and acknowledged by the officers and men of the 59th and by the ship’s Master James Gibbs and James Thompson, one of the two other surviving crew members. The Waterford Chronicle was silent on the issue of the affidavit, until an article was published on Saturday, 23rd March, 1816, which openly questioned the facts as drawn up in it and offered much evidence to refute it:
        On the 14th of last month, an advertisement appeared, purporting to be the affidavits of several persons, and detailing exertions made to preserve the lives of those who were on board the Seahorse Transport. To that document, the name of Thomas Kerevan was annexed. At the earliest solicitation, on the personal authority, and in the name of Thomas Kerevan, we have to inform the public, that there were statements in these affidavits to which he neither did nor could bear any testimony whatsoever, as the occurrences set forth in them did not come under his observation. He feels it to be a duty which he owes to himself and to the public to withdraw the sanction of his name, however humble his station in life may be, from matters of which he was utterly ignorant. Having said this much on the authority mentioned, we are bound to justice to state more particularly than we formerly did the services performed by T Kerevan and to which his affidavit, with very few exceptions, mostly refers. These services are substantiated by the unquestionable authority of the certificates of those who experienced the benefit of his exertions.
       Henry Hartford, Esq, Lieutenant in the 59th Regt. has certified “that Thomas Kerevan was the person who brought him on shore at Tramore Bay on the 30th January.” Alexander MacPherson, Esq, Lieutenant in the 59th Regt. Has certified “that the same person brought him on shore on the 30th of January” James Gibbs, late master of the Seahorse, has certified “that the same person gave him all the assistance in his power on the day of the wreck” James Thompson, seaman, has certified “that the same person brought him on shore and saved his life.” J Curtis, Serjeant of the 59th, has certified “that the same person saved one corporal, one woman, and five privates.” The names of these persons are affixed to the certificate.
      A statement of these facts has been drawn up and authenticated by Mr MacPherson, Mr Hartford, and Mr Curtis and by several Gentlemen of the highest respectability. Major Robart has borne the strongest testimony to the efforts of Kerevan in saving the crew and property of the Brig Apollonia, and also with respect to his exertion on behalf of those on board the Seahorse. Kerevan is a native of Tramore, served several years as a yeoman there, and has uniformly, in cases of wrecks, attended to the utmost of his power to the safety of crews and the preservation of property. On the 30th of January, he was often in the most imminent danger of losing his life. The Officers of the 59th offered him money, but he refused it, saying if he had any money, he would rather give it to them, than take anything from men in their situation. His means of subsistence are scanty and circumscribed, but there can be no doubt of the generosity of government being extended towards him, both on his own account, and on account of the wisdom and advantages of liberally rewarding such humane and brave actions. In doing justice to him, we do not mean, in the slightest degree, to detract from the merits of those services which were performed by others. To these we fully adverted at the time of the melancholy catastrophe. They were truly noble, and give their authors a well-founded claim to public esteem, and, where necessary, to the most solid proofs of the approbation of Government.[1]

        J.B. Trotter Esq also remarked that his conduct should not pass unnoticed by the government. Kirwan, a publican, was born circa 1788. He was about 28 years of age, at the time of the wreck in 1816. He was an expert swimmer, and was reported as having swum repeatedly from the shore to the wrecks and rescued eleven men including three officers. Mr Henry McDougal wrote to Sir Robert Peel, the Chief Secretary of Ireland from 1812 to 1818, to state that Kirwan was in ‘the utmost pecuniary distress’ and informed him that he had been actually in prison for some time after the wreck, over a debt of £6. McDougal, a Presbyterian and an able solicitor, procured his release, as he thought that it did not reflect well on the city of Waterford that such a man remained in prison. McDougal was held in great esteem by his contemporaries, ‘prized by the wise and beloved by the good.’[2] Kirwan eventually received £30 in total for all his efforts, but was said to grateful for the little which was done for him. 
      In 1818, Thomas Taylor, the clerk of the Chief Secretary’s Office, wrote a letter to Robert Grubb who was then the superintendent of the works at Dunmore Harbour, enquiring about the efforts of individuals to save shipwrecked men in Waterford. Grubb replied in a letter dated 3 October 1818, that
Perhaps the enquiry you want belongs to Tramore where I recollect one man was understood to be remarkably active and successful in saving many soldiers out of the Seahorse Transport which was lost there. I have satisfied my own recollection by reference to a confidential friend & I believe I have written all the information we can provide.[3]

       Kirwan’s plight was to make headlines when, Richard Lalor Sheil was accused of slandering Sir Robert Peel, during an aggregate meeting in Dublin in December 1824. Sheil, a lawyer and politician, was a fervent ally of Daniel O’Connell and was a co-founder of the Catholic Association in 1823. The affair revolved around Sheil repeating a remark of the late Henry McDougal, made at the Bar in Kilkenny, concerning the reward that Thomas Kirwan received, and that he had not been offered more on account of being a Catholic. McDougal, at that time, the Recorder for Waterford died in 1823; he had previously requested Sheil not to mention his remark in public, an obligation that Sheil considered to be released from on the death of the latter.[4]
       When the controversy about the affair first arose, Mr Nicholas Mason, a respectable merchant from Dublin corroborated what Sheil had publicly mentioned. The newspapers of the day thoroughly covered the affair:
At the late aggregate meeting in Dublin, Mr Sheil permitted himself to indulge in the following piece of malevolent romance: Mr Sheil said, a few years ago a transport with a number of soldiers on board was driven by a violent storm upon the coast of Waterford. The people, as is unfortunately usual, assembled rather for the purpose of depredation than of assistance. There was one individual among the crowd who exhibited an honourable contrast to his habitual indifference, and evinced an intrepidity which amounted to heroism in his efforts to save his fellow-men. The late Mr. McDougall, who mentioned the fact which I am about to relate, was deeply struck by the intrepidity of this humble hero, and after remunerating him as far as his individual means would allow, he determined to make an application to Government on his behalf.
          It was, sir, under the administration of the gentleman whose name has been engrafted upon the English language and gaining an equivocal perpetuity, has furnished the legacy of a familiar and permanent designation of the police. Mr. McDougall was not introduced to the great man, but presented to one of the external minions of the anti-chamber, to whom he communicated the details of this noble action. The gentleman, with the small nonchalance of office, stated that it should be conveyed to Mr. Peel, and retired into the penetralia of authority. After an interval of some time, he returned and said, “Mr. Peel presents his compliments to Mr. McDougall, and begs to know to what class the person in question belongs?”—“He is,” said Mr. McDougal “a poor fisherman upon the coast, and supports a large family by his laborious peril.” “That,” said the gentleman of the anti-chamber, “is not exactly what Mr. Secretary Peel means to inquire, you must understand me. To what particular class does he belong? I perceive that you do not apprehend me. To what particular—or, in one word, is he a Protestant?” Mr. McDougall it appears is dead. The primary evidence to contradict Mr. Sheil’s statement, therefore, no longer exists.[5]
The article then referred its readers to an extract from the Waterford Mail, as evidence of the falsehood of Mr Sheils statement, the full article of which reads:
Mr Sheil’s Story
       It appears from the report of the last ‘aggregate meeting,’ that Mr. Sheil commenced his speech with an anecdote, related as he affirmed, by the late esteemed and lamented Henry McDougal, of this city. The drift of the story is to show the alleged fatal distinction which the Government of this country has been in the habit of making, between Protestants and Roman Catholics.
         ‘The late Mr. McDougall, of Waterford’, said he, ‘on one occasion, when Mr. Peel was Secretary for Ireland, made an application at the Castle, on behalf of a poor fisherman with a large family, who had signalized himself in saving several unfortunate human beings from being shipwreck; but what, think you, was the answer to the application? Why the cold interrogatory, ‘is the man a Protestant?’ Mr. Sheil does not conclude the story, but the conclusion from such premises is not to be mistaken, "because the poor fisherman was not a Protestant, his services were disregarded, and the application was refused."
         It would be well for Mr. Sheil that Mr McDougal were alive to confirm the truth of this fact, for there is not a semblance of probability on the face of it. We shall, however, not indulge in comments, but proceed to lay before our readers some information, which we have collected from the most unquestionable sources, concerning this identical fisherman, and the present Right Hon. Secretary for the Home Department.
         At the melancholy shipwreck of the Sea-horse transport which occurred in the Bay of Tramore in 1816, the exertions of a man named Thomas Kerevan, in assisting the unfortunate people on board, attracted the particular attention of all who witnessed that distressing event.   Some gentlemen in this city afterwards interested themselves warmly in his behalf, and amongst them the late Mr McDougall.  A statement was drawn up setting forth the services of Kerevan, and this statement Mr. McDougal undertook to lay before Government, in full confidence that it would meet with due attention. We cannot say what precise steps Mr. McDougal took to bring this matter under the notice of Mr. Peel, but we can affirm, that shortly after Mr. McDougal had returned to Dublin, a letter was received from him by a gentleman in this city, stating, that he had attended to Kerevan's affair; that it had been most favourably entertained; that he had no doubt of his success; but that he would recommend the statement to be drawn up anew, and in such a form as would enable Kerevan to swear to it.  Mr McDougal’s recommendation was instantly followed; but before the second statement could have been made use of, Kerevan, (aided with funds by a gentleman in this city) proceeded to Dublin himself, and there, accompanied by Mr McDougal, Thomas Kerevan paid his respects at the Castle, obtained a most gracious reception, and a promise that his claims should be enquired into. Nor was this promise forgotten; for very shortly afterwards, the late Lieut. General Doyle, who then commanded in this district, received an order from Government to proceed from Clonmel, where he resided, to Tramore, and investigate the claims of persons, who had memorialed for compensation; and on that occasion not only was the claim of Kerevan enquired into, but allowed.
        As a reward for his services, he was offered his election either of a sum of money immediately, or to have his name entered for the first suitable situation that might become vacant. Kerevan preferred the former, and was accordingly paid a sum of money amounting to thirty-pounds; a sum which however trifling, we are rejoiced to say made Kerevan a happy man, and produced a most beneficial operation on his worldly prospects. Recommended by this affair, and the notice taken of him by Government, he was soon after appointed a Barony Constable. He has since been employed in various respectable situations, and at present resides in Carrick on Suir, in the neighbourhood of which town, we understand, he now rents a very large farm. He was a publican and not a fisherman, by the way, at the time of the occurrence in question, nor had he then a large family according to the embellishment in this story.
          So much for a new but correct version, and so much for the “fatal and disastrous question” of Mr Peel. We have only to add that none of the late Mr McDougal’s most intimate friends in this city, or of those who had the best right to be informed on the subject, ever heard him tell, hint, at, or allude to, such an occurrence as that which is represented to have taken place at the Castle in connection with the case of Thomas Kerevan.[6]
 It is noteworthy to relate that the account in The Waterford Mail omits to mention that Kirwan had spent time in the debtor’s prison in the city.
        The matter surfaced again when Sheil was cross examined by Viscount Palmerston in the House of Commons. Kirwan had stated to Sheil, that he and Mr McDougal had an interview with Mr Peel. Kirwan, 36 years of age at the time, asked for a minor position in revenue, but was told that he was too old. Sheil observed that Peel would not have said that as Kirwan was a very strong and healthy man and whoever said that must have been mocking him. Sheil described Kirwan as, a very decent man, who could both read and write, ‘I should call him a very intelligent man.’[7]
       When it was put to Sheil, that General Doyle, the commander of the district was responsible for the granting of monetary rewards, Sheil remarked that Kirwan had told him that he had a conversation with General Doyle and that General Doyle had given him the choice of whether he would take £30 or wait until he should get some small place, and that he preferred taking the £30. Kirwan then stated that his name was taken down at the castle in the list of promotion for some petty office, but that he had not been appointed, although some years had elapsed, and he requested Sheil to draw a memorial for him, calling the attention of the government to it. Major General William Doyle was in command of the Southern District in 1816. He was promoted to Lieutenant general prior to his death in Waterford on 12 June 1823. Prior to his appointment to the staff in Ireland, he held a Lieutenant Colonelcy in the 62nd Foot, part of which was saved from the wreck of the Lord Melville.
       Mr McDougal mentioned to Sheil, that when the question was put to him as to whether Kirwan was a Protestant or a Catholic, he answered, that ‘Kirwan did not ask whether the eleven persons whom he saved were Protestants at the time he was plunging into the sea.’[8] Sheil was particularly disgusted that the sum of £30 only was paid to a person who had saved eleven men in the employment of government. He considered such a sum to be an inadequate remuneration. Three officers were saved and eight soldiers at the same time as others were ‘committing acts of the greatest barbarity’:
       I believe that no individual whatever exerted himself to save the lives of the soldiers on board the two transports that were wrecked, except this individual; I believe the crowd on the sea coast assembled together for the purpose of plundering the wrecks, a practice not confined to Ireland, but which prevails as extensively on the coast of Cornwall; so far was their barbarity carried, that they actually cut the fingers of the dead bodies of some women for the purpose of obtaining rings.[9]

      Peel himself, later took the witness stand and explained the circumstances which induced him to order that Kirwan, receive a monetary reward instead of being employed in the revenue service. Peel recounted, having had a conversation concerning Kirwan with Mr Edward Courtenay, a Quaker from Waterford and produced a letter from him to the house. Courtenay remarked that Kirwan was:
An active, intelligent, steady fellow, but that he seemed to prefer a pecuniary reward, being about to settle himself at home. I also told thee that he was a Roman Catholic, that the population about Tramore consisted of that persuasion, and that I had a particular wish that this man should be noticed; to which thou answered smiling, “Mr Courtenay, you cannot imagine that the religious principles of the man can operate in the affair, or words to that effect.”
Peel also stated that no individual in Dublin Castle had been authorised to ask Kirwan what religion he was. With regards to the size of the reward, General Doyle, who commanded the district, had been instructed to examine into all the claims that had been preferred by persons who had been instrumental in saving lives from the Sea Horse. The whole case had been referred to General Doyle, who was instructed to report to the government, what sum he thought was a just remuneration to each individual respectively for the services they had performed and that the sum named by General Doyle was £30 and that £30 was presented to Kirwan as remuneration for his services:
Although the sum of £30 paid to Kierevan, may appear small, when his services are considered, yet it ought to be recollected, that there were many other persons who exerted themselves on the same occasion, and that the total sum paid by the government, in defraying local expenses incurred, in consequence of the shipwreck, and in rewarding persons named as deserving of remuneration, amounted, in the whole, to £340, Kierevan receiving a much larger portion of it than any other person in his class of life.[10]

      Sheil later related that it appeared by Peel’s own testimony that ‘Kirwan’s religion had been a matter of comment by a Quaker’ and that he had established a further charge against himself when he admitted that:
 Kirwan received no more than the wretched sum of £30. When I stated in the committee, that the government, at the head of which Mr Peel was placed, had given this despicable remuneration, and that Mr Peel had full cognizance of the fact, the members were astonished. They could hardly believe, though it is beyond dispute, that Mr Peel could have appraised heroism at such a price. Let Mr Peel argue the matter as he will, his web of sophistry will be without avail. He cannot get over the plain and most discreditable fact, that he paid for the lives of eleven soldiers at a less rate than £3 a head. It is idle for him to allege, that a certain quantity of the public money was allocated to the occasion, and that Kirwan got his share. Had he possessed one touch of generous sentiment, he would have thrown open his coffers, and flung a handful of his inglorious gold to the man whose courageous humanity was beyond all praise. Kirwan is to this day unremunerated; and if I may say, that I have done more for him that Mr Peel. I repeat it, Mr Peel is not a high-minded, nor is he a fair-minded man.[11]

      Despite the controversy, things appear to have worked out well for Kirwan, as he had a large family and was farming land around Clonmel, rented at £100 pa in 1824, which must have been a considerable sized property. The tradition of lifesaving was kept on in the family, when in September 1845, Thomas’s son Patrick, then about 20 years of age, dived into the river at high tide and rescued a child of five or six years of age that had fallen overboard the Rhadamanthus, which was lying at the Milford packet stage on Waterford Quay: ‘It is singular that this young man is son of Thomas Kirwan, who saved eleven lives of her Majesty’s troops on 30th January 1816, in Tramore, at the wreck of the Sea Horse transport.’[12]








[1] The Waterford Chronicle, 23 March 1816.
[2] Freeman’s Journal, 8 February 1826.
[3] Official Papers, 509/4, National Archives of Ireland.
[4] The Treble Almanac, 1822, findmypast.ie.
[5] London St James Chronicle and General Evening Post, 15 December 1824.
[6] Waterford Mail, 8 December 1824.
[7] Selection of Reports and Papers of the House of Commons, vol 8 State of Ireland, Pages 90-97
[8] Same.
[9] Same.
[10] Selection of Reports and Papers of the House of Commons, vol 8 State of Ireland, Page 548.
[11] John Cumming Editor, A collection of Speeches spoken by Daniel O’Connell and Richard Lalor Sheil on subjects connected with the Catholic Question, Dublin 1828, Pages 89-90.
[12] The Nation, 29 September 1845.

No comments:

Post a Comment