Chapter 8 — Letterfrack

Neglect

In 1941, the Visitor reported that many of the staff complained about the manner in which the food was served. They complained that the cabbage was cold, minced meat was served all the time, and the tea was served cold in unwashed cups. The Visitor accepted that this was all true but reported that the quantities served were reasonable. He further noted that the boys would not eat the cabbage because the kitchen Brother used the water trough, which was used for washing the cabbage, as a urinal. The Brother in question, Br Perryn, was a Domestic Brother and had been working in the kitchen in Letterfrack since the late 1920s. The Visitor described him as dirty, untidy and almost repulsive. The kitchen Brother was dismissed as a result of the discovery that he had been sexually abusing boys for many years.

The Visitor noted that there were 17 milch cows yielding only 14 gallons of milk per day. The boys got around seven gallons, the monastery around three, and three were sold to the village. In 1941, there were 160 boys in Letterfrack and nine Brothers, and yet the boys got barely more than double the allocation of milk for the Brothers, less than a third of a pint per day. Up to 50 of the boys were under nine years of age.

The Department Inspector does not seem to have engaged on the issue of food at all. She made no reference to the quantity of milk served, although this was an issue she raised in other schools. In 1943, she described the food as ‘an ample, well balanced and varied diet’.

In 1945 the Visitor remarked that the 10 Brothers in the monastery were catered for by two female cooks, whilst the boys, who numbered upwards of 165, were catered for by ‘an old man in the place of Br Lafayette who should be in the kitchen’ – Br Lafayette was ill for most of that year.

Practically all of the clothing worn by the boys was made in the tailor and knitting shops. In the 1940s and 1950s, the Department Inspector made frequent complaints about the quality of the boys’ clothing.

From 1943 until 1947, the clothing of the boys was described as fairly good but very patched and torn. She was told that boots were difficult to obtain and the boys wore wooden clogs attached to leather uppers. In 1948 the Inspector noted that the quality of the clothing was ‘fairly good’ but that it required a lot of improvement and that the Manager had promised to provide new coats. She did not inspect the School again until 1951. Any improvement in the clothing was not evident, as she again commented ‘a lot of the clothing is patched – I asked the Manager to provide new material for clothes’. Later that year, she found the ‘clothing had improved on the whole’. Clothing was described by the Inspector as ‘fairly good’ in the early 1950s, with no other comments.

One former resident in Letterfrack in the late 1940s complained that he did not have proper work clothes when he worked on the farm. He was dressed in short pants in freezing weather, working in a bog with no shelter. After his day’s work, there was no possibility of a change of clothes and he had to stay in wet, dirty clothes until the following Friday evening.

The dampness in the building was regularly commented on by the Visitors in the early 1940s. Neither the School nor the dormitories were centrally heated and, as a result, dampness was a major problem for the Institution. There was a plentiful supply of turf and this provided a heat source, albeit an inadequate one, in the monastery. However, there was not even this basic heating facility in the large, institutional dormitories or recreation areas.

A major problem that continued for over 20 years was the inadequate sanitary facilities for the boys. In a Visitation Report of 1942 the Visitor noted that: The lavatory accommodation in the dormitories is very inadequate. There are only two lavatories for the three dormitories. No provision is made for the Brothers or the two foremen who have also rooms off the dormitories. There are at present 170 boys in the Institution.

In 1948 the Visitor pointed out that the monastery had only two lavatories situated in the upper storey, with no provision for the kitchen and lay staff. The situation was worse in the School: Far more inadequate is the poor provision made for the boys of the institution. There are only two lavatories in the upper storey for the 153 boys and the three brothers and three laymen who sleep there at night. This is the only accommodation afforded in the whole institution apart from those situated in the schoolyard. This matter required immediate rectification. With slight modification which I discussed with the Br Superior, six or even eight apartments might be supplied in the positions occupied by the present two.

In 1950 the Visitor again commented on the need for more than two lavatories for 180 boys and four workmen in the dormitories. He was told that the Superior had bought the fittings for four more and they were soon to be erected.

Whatever happened to the four fittings bought in 1950 remains a mystery because, in 1953, once again the Visitor remarked that the night toilet accommodation for the boys was entirely inadequate. ‘Two W.C’s for the whole institution. It would not be very difficult or expensive to increase this to at least half a dozen and the Superior intends to do so in the near future’.

The Superior was written to in 1953 and told to get quotes for new toilets for the boys. It was 1961 before the new toilets were put into the Institution, almost 20 years after the Visitor described the sanitary accommodation as very inadequate.

The absence of adequate fire precautions and the slow response to criticism in the Visitor’s report about the fire escape was another problem.

In 1943, 35 children and one adult died in a fire in St Joseph’s Industrial School, Cavan and, as a result, fire prevention became a high priority for the Department. Between 1943 and 1952, however, the Inspector consistently described the School fire precautions as follows: ‘Fire drill practised regularly, adequate indoor fire exits, night watchman always on duty’. She was clearly incorrect in her assessment.