Chapter 10 — Newtownforbes

Neglect

The issue of falling numbers continued to be a preoccupation of the Resident Manager throughout the 1960s. Each year from 1960 to 1964 the General Inspection Reports noted that the School was ‘very well run’. Each category of inspection was noted as being ‘very good’, particularly food and diet, health, clothing and sanitation. Dr McCabe commented in 1964: The Resident Manager is very co-operative and kind and anxious to make all the improvements she can.

The final Inspection Report for the School was dated 28th July 1966 and was conducted by Dr Lysaght. Overall, he found that the School was well run in each area of inspection.

The Sisters of Mercy were unaware of the contents of the Department of Education records in respect of Newtownforbes until they were furnished to them by the Committee as part of the discovery process in 2004. They said that, before their discovery, they were unaware of such dreadful conditions existing in the School in the 1940s. Sr Casey at the Phase I public hearing acknowledged that, once they had seen the documents, they had become very concerned: We were deeply disturbed when we received the Department discovery of those documents between ’40 and ’45. I immediately set about meeting all who had worked at any stage in the orphanage to try and see could they help throw light on these documents, because that was the first time that we were aware, and that we had sight of those documents.

They asserted that their knowledge of conditions in the School was very limited as their Congregational archive did not reveal such neglect. The material consisted of medical records, school registers, education levels of the children, and very general information which did not in any way ‘corroborate the complaints that had been made by the complainants’. Apart from the lack of documentary material, their attempts to discover more about the School were hampered by the fact that many Sisters who had worked in the School had since died. In particular, all of the Resident Managers during the period under review were deceased. When the allegations of abuse came to light, it was a source of ‘shock’ to the Sisters of Mercy.

It was even more of a shock to the Sisters when the revelations were made in the ‘Dear Daughter’ programme shown on television in 1996 because: ... it did come as a shock to us at that time, particularly in view of the fact that up until then quite a few of the former residents would have been in the pattern of not only contacting different Sisters, but actually coming back and visiting the convent.

When questioned about the maltreatment of the children that appeared to have occurred, on the basis of these documents, Sr Casey accepted at the Phase III public hearing the negative reports of the Department and acknowledged: That was a difficult period in the time of the Institution and we deeply regret that, but from then on, I think written into the record again from the opening appearance at the Commission ... most of the reports showed a marked improvement.

Sr Casey was unable to provide any explanation for the bad management in the 1940s. She offered the view that a change in Resident Manager in 1947 seemed to bring about an improvement and, from then on, supervision became a central issue, which led to improved conditions. She was informed by one Sister who worked in the School at that time that ‘the supervision and all that became a big issue ... it was a huge issue, that you could never, you know, leave the children alone, that there would always have to be somebody there at meals or getting up or whatever’.

One of the Sisters, Sr Francesca, who gave evidence commented on this issue. She stressed that the Resident Manager was very insistent that the children should be supervised at all times, but she was unaware of the reason for it. This would indicate that Dr McCabe’s criticisms had been communicated to the management of Newtownforbes at the time, notwithstanding the lack of any documentary evidence of such communication. It was consistent with the hierarchical structure of the Sisters that the nuns working on the ground were not informed of the Departmental criticisms.

Dr McCabe’s first General Inspection report of 14th April 1939 was very positive about the food. She found it was ‘of very good quality’ and ‘plentiful’. However, by 1944, the food had deteriorated to being ‘fairly satisfactory’. In that year, she also noted that 13 children had lost weight, but this, it seemed, was attributed to their having been sick and having just returned from hospital. For the remainder of the 1940s, Dr McCabe consistently described the food as ‘satisfactory’ or ‘good’ in her reports, without providing any details.

Throughout the 1950s, the food was described by Dr McCabe as ‘very good’. Her reports during these years are repetitive, as they consistently referred to the food as being ‘well balanced’ and ‘attractively served’.

Again, in the 1960s, the food was described by her as ‘very good’. The General Inspection Report of 1964 contained a sample menu drawn up by the Resident Manager, which illustrated the type of food provided for one particular day. According to this menu, the children received bread and butter and either porridge and fried bread or sausages and black pudding or eggs for breakfast. Dinner consisted of soup or milk, roast beef or boiled meat, potatoes and vegetables in season, and a milk pudding or fruit pie dessert. Lunch consisted of tea with bread and butter, meat sandwich or summer salad, and a fruit cake or pastries, and supper was milk or cocoa with bread, butter and jam, and black pudding occasionally. Special mention was made of delicate children receiving an egg flip at 11am and cod liver oil at 4.30 pm. Dr Lysaght, who took over from Dr McCabe, also described the diet as ‘well balanced and varied’ in his 1966 report.

One of the nuns, Sr Francesca, who worked in the School from 1946 to 1963, gave evidence that the children received a hot breakfast in the winter time, which consisted of fried bread with either cocoa or tea and they also got porridge. In the evening, they received tea and bread and butter for their supper. She thought that the children received eggs twice a week as they had a farm with chickens and hens. She said that the children and the nuns received the food from the same source. She explained: we got the milk from the farm and they got milk from the farm, we got the bread from the bakery and they got the bread from the bakery. Meat was ordered from the one butcher, we got it in the convent and they got it. From my knowledge of the Sister in charge of the food in the dining room, she was very exact that they would have good food.

She was of the view that they received enough food, but that: children are always hungry, even in boarding schools, but, like, I can understand that they say that they were hungry, you know, but they got their regular meals and good meals.

She confirmed that children who were delicate or underweight were given an egg flip or cod liver oil in between meals by being taken out of school. Rachel also said, ‘I used to actually have to leave my class and go up for an egg flip and cod liver oil at 10.00 o’clock’.

Hannah, who was in the School between the mid-1940s and mid-1950s, recalled that she was constantly hungry during her time there: ‘I know we were always hungry, terrible hunger, hunger pains’.