Chapter 10 — Newtownforbes

Physical abuse

In 1947, the report noted that ‘Junior Children receive a “Motherly slap” on their arm’. The 1948 report commented that ‘junior children receive a light slap or a caution’ or they could be ‘Brought before Superior and their good name gone’.

These reports indicate that the Sisters of Mercy were aware of proper standards of punishment. The wording of these reports is very similar and repetitive so their value is questionable.

A respondent witness, Sr Francesca, who worked in the Industrial School for nearly 20 years, gave evidence. The picture that emerged was that the large numbers in the School meant that discipline and control were important issues in the management of the School: Well, you had to be formal with them and strict. You had to be, not harsh with them, no, but I’d say formal with them.

She added that another way of being formal was to impose a rule of silence at night in the dormitories. She said slapping was always a last resort and that she would avoid slapping the children if she could. Treats were used as an enticement for the children to behave. When children had to be slapped, she conceded that she did slap them with a stick or a cane or a ruler on the hands. She also acknowledged that they would be placed in a small room, for a period of half an hour to an hour as punishment. One such room was known as St Rourke’s.

She said some children went through the School and were never slapped, and she disputed allegations that beatings were constant: ... if you take a 100 children, invariably somebody is going to be punished, but I wouldn’t say it was constant beating.

Sr Francesca attributed much of the blame to the Department and the medical profession, for not providing the nuns with better advice on how to deal with the problem of bed-wetting.

She added: ... in hindsight and from experience I really feel that slapping children was not the solution or the answer, and I am sorry I ever did it. I don’t think I would do it now or I wouldn’t do it now.

The other respondent witness, Sr Elena, said that corporal punishment was necessary at times. Corporal punishment was also a deterrent against bad behaviour: with the threat of punishment, the pupils were more likely to co-operate and behave in class. She admitted that she used corporal punishment in the class by slapping with a cane or ruler. She claimed that she was strict but fair, and worked in the best interests of furthering the education of the children. To this end, she agreed that discipline and corporal punishment were part of the regime and necessary. In evidence, she stated: ... They appreciated discipline in the class very, very much and they worked very favourably with me and we got on. There was a good rapport between us, even though I was strict, but they knew I worked for their good and that was my one aim, to help every child as possibly best I could.

However, she disputed that corporal punishment was something that was used on a daily basis. She said she had noticed a cane one day: and I said I will bring in this today, and if they see it in my hand it might keep them a bit quiet, they will sit down. They will know that I am on high today.

Further, she acknowledged that she treated the industrial school children differently: I know you would have to be strict, very strict with them because learning and school and books wasn’t their forte.

Sr Elena also admitted that she was exacting in her standards in the classroom, particularly with regard to homework, and if children did not have their homework done she would give them ‘a smack now and again’. She acknowledged that she was more exacting with the children from the Industrial School.

This evidence confirmed Sr Casey’s impression from her own recollection of national school that industrial school children were treated more harshly.

Thirteen witness statements were furnished to the Investigation Committee on behalf of the Sisters of Mercy. These 13 statements were from nuns who had taught in the primary school. Each of them stated that corporal punishment was used in the School but it was not ‘in any way constant or excessive’. All of their statements repeated the words: corporal punishment was used only as correction for misbehaviour. It was not administered for trivial reasons or for no reason at all.

Four of the 13 Sisters who submitted witness statements were in Newtownforbes serving as postulants in the early 1940s, the time when Dr Anna McCabe was highly critical of the Institution. Yet, each of these nuns claimed that the children were well cared for. It is impossible to reconcile these Sisters’ memories of Newtownforbes with the documented material. The repetition of the words ‘corporal punishment was used only as correction for misbehaviour’ was formulaic and defensive and tended to undermine the independence of the statements.

The witnesses who appeared before the Committee complained of severe physical abuse, including beatings. They claimed that such beatings were administered for bed-wetting, not knowing schoolwork, talking, and other behaviours. Bed-wetting