Children Of The Poor Clares (8 page)

In his opening statement, Mr McLoughlin said that he would make no conjecture as to the cause of the fire, but then contradicted this by saying, ‘There would be evidence that there was something wrong with the lighting arrangements in the orphanage previous to the fire, and that it was because of this that the main switch in the convent and orphanage premises had been turned off on the night of the fire.’ In fact the electrical system was found, on technical grounds, not to have contributed to the disaster in any way. Furthermore, according to a nun’s evidence later, the turning off of the main switch was a routine procedure.

Mr McLoughlin then added: ‘Cavan Urban Council were not to blame because the modern fire equipment ordered from Britain had been refused’.
9
There had, he said, been a confused account of what happened inside the orphanage, ‘but one thing is clear, that from the time the alarm was given until assistance arrived, nothing more could have been done and no more children could have been rescued in the circumstances.’

This statement was later to be contradicted in the tribunal’s report where it was estimated that, in the first fifteen minutes after the discovery of the fire, the children could have been safely taken out. The tribunal was also to conclude that the building had not been adequately inspected as a fire hazard, and that the Department had not acted in a satisfactory manner in this regard. It did not comment on the fact that the children’s status as
de
facto
prisoners, a situation for which the State, and not the Order, was ultimately responsible, was in any way a contributory factor in their deaths.

*       *       *

The evidence of the nuns, eight of whom were called, was heard in the convent parlour. As an enclosed order, they were not allowed to leave the confines of St Joseph’s. They were treated with courtesy and consideration, and the tribunal expressed its sympathy to them for the disaster.

The essence of the case put forward on behalf of the Order by their Counsel, Mr. Roe was expressed in his summing up. ‘At the time of the fire the nuns were unfortunate in getting an unfavourable press and in a number of stories which were circulated.
10
There was some prejudice against the Order because it was enclosed. There was a great deal of talk as to whether such an Order was the proper one to have charge of an institution of that kind. The tribunal has seen the convent and the girls and the greatest testimony to the nuns was the affection between them and the girls. The nuns had also been subjected to a great deal of criticism in respect of things that had not happened at all.

‘There was a suggestion that the orphans had all been locked in their dormitories, as if they were in prison cells, and could not escape. That was untrue and again it was also untrue that the nuns had refused to open the door and admit people to help them, and that some of the children had fled from the town and taken refuge in farmers’ houses. The way my clients view the inquiry is that their function was not to find a scapegoat, but to make recommendations towards saving life in similar circumstances in the future. I hope that, in your report, no blame whatever would be attached to the nuns and I submit that there was no blame to be cast upon them.’

The Mother Abbess, according to Industrial School regulations, was the manager of the school and the legal guardian of the children. She was thus the person with the ultimate responsibility for them. Nevertheless, she made only one statement to the Inquiry, despite the fact that she was roused early during the fire with the request for the front door keys which were kept in her cell. Asked if she was manager of the school she replied that she was, but that she had appointed Sister Clare to look after the work for her. She was asked no further questions.

The first concern of the nuns that night had been the fetching and giving out of keys. Some handed out fire extinguishers, showed where water was to be found, tried to open doors to the street and, aided by older girls, brought to safety the babies and smallest children from the Infirmary, in the relatively unaffected wing of the orphanage building.

In their evidence they described their evening duties, in particular which doors were locked by whom and where the keys were kept. One nun told how she had charge of the keys after the portress locked the street doors, and would then take them to the Mother Abbess. A teaching nun said she locked the doors after classes, ‘including the emergency door from St Clare’s and the Sacred Heart on to the iron staircase and the door that leads from the classroom to the iron stairs. I hang the keys on the nail outside the Mother Abbess’s door.’

Another teaching nun, who had said the rosary with the children on the night of the fire, stated that: ‘All the dormitory doors were unlocked. All I would do at night was to turn off the light and lock the classroom doors out to the iron staircase.’ According to their evidence, several of the Sisters tried to go up the wooden stairs, but they never got past Our Lady’s dormitory on the first floor. Sister Clare, to whom had been delegated the role of acting manager of the orphanage, said that after she had given Mary Caffrey a bunch of keys, including the one to the fire escape door, she went back to her cell and dressed. After that she showed the rescuers where the fire extinguishers were kept and made her way towards the iron staircase. She said she heard Sister Felix calling out from higher up that it was smoky and then met two men coming down who said, ‘They are not there. Go back. They are being got out into Sullivan’s yard.’ And so she went down.

Sister Felix told the inquiry that, after she had got the front door keys from the Mother Abbess and given them to Mary Caffrey, she went up the wooden stairs to Our Lady’s Dormitory ‘to get the children out quickly, but I saw nobody there.’ Asked if she had gone up farther she replied, ‘No, I think Mary Caffrey called to me for the keys of the new building.’ Having got these keys for Mary, she explained that she then tried to go up the fire escape ‘but the smoke was very dark’ and, she added, ‘a man told me we could go up if we had gas masks.’

Several attempts were made during the course of the inquiry to get corroboration of these exchanges between the two Sisters and the men who had tried to rescue the children. Louis Blessing, in particular, was pressed on this issue, but none of the men could verify any meeting, despite repeated questioning. However, in their report the tribunal stated, ‘In view of the fact that they did go directly to Sullivan’s yard, we accept the Sisters’ recollection on this point.’

The issue of fire drill was given significance. Mr McLoughlin had earlier called both a Senior Inspector and Dr McCabe from the Department of Education to confirm that it had been carried out according to the regulations. During her evidence, Sister Clare explained the routine: ‘The children were told that if fire was anywhere in the basement they were to go out on the iron staircase, and if it was somewhere in the convent they were to go down the wooden staircase towards the laundry.’ The fire drill, she admitted, had never been held in the dark. She said she would ring a handbell and call, ‘Fire, rise, bathroom lobby exit, and then they marched out. The children did it very well.’ She added that Miss O’Reilly never took part in the instructions. This woman was a sister of the Mother Abbess and, as a lay teacher, slept in a cubicle off the Sacred Heart dormitory. ‘She knew nothing of the drill. The children knew.’ The Sister explained that the emergency door on to the fire escape was locked, but that it was a double door of the kind that could be opened directly by pulling down the bolts from the inside. She said that most of the older girls knew how to do this. ‘The pupils often opened the door at night to chase pigeons.’

Roe caught onto this last remark, and was to refer to it frequently in the following days when he cross-questioned the girls, in order to demonstrate that they were able to get out of the building at night. The evidence of the nuns was accepted largely without comment. Sister Clare was never asked for any explanation as to why this routine, practised four times a year according to her records, and, according to her, understood by the children, had not been followed on the night of the disaster. The children, however, were to be asked this question repeatedly when their turn came to give evidence.

None of the Counsel or members of the Tribunal asked any of the Sisters the most important question of all: why did they not immediately evacuate the children themselves from the building or give orders for this to be done?

*       *       *

Miss O’Reilly was then called to give evidence. She had gone down to Sister Felix’s cell, returned, ordered the children from the Sacred Heart into St Clare’s dormitory, and had then gone down the wooden stairs to safety. In her evidence, she disclaimed any responsibility for the children in the dormitories, insisting that she was not ‘in charge’, but only there ‘to keep order and give out aspirins’. She said she had never taken part in fire drill, but thought the fire escape door was the right way out during a fire. She could not, she maintained, have brought the children down the stairs at any stage; she knew the door to the fire escape was locked, but did not know it could be opened without a key.

She said that after she told the girls in the Sacred Heart dormitory to go into St. Clare’s ‘until we get the doors open and things fixed up’, she went down the wooden stairs, and gave a man some fire extinguishers hanging on a wall in the refectory. ‘Then, I got a shock because the smoke was on the stairs… something snapped in my head and I could not remember where I was then.’ When pressed for an explanation of her conduct, she said, ‘I don’t know’, or, ‘My mind is gone odd’, or ‘My memory is gone in parts.’ At no point was she asked whether she had been given any instructions to get the children out of the building when she had gone first to Sister Felix’s cell.

Miss O’Reilly was later recalled by the chairman and asked her age. He suggested fifty before she could reply, but she said that she was forty-six. She could not remember how long she had been in the orphanage, but thought that it was about ten years. Before that, she had taught in another Industrial School.

Chairman:
  ‘It may be an excusable error on your part, but, looking back on it, hadn’t you a good reason for going back and getting those children out?’

Miss
O’Reilly:
  ‘I don’t exactly know.’

Chairman:
  ‘Were you not worried about them when you went downstairs for the second time?

Miss
O’Reilly:
  ‘I was quite happy about them being out of the smoke in St Clare’s.’

This, however, did not accord with the memory of a survivor whom we met: ‘That Miss O’Reilly saw me trying to get over to the window. “Get down on your knees and pray” she said. “Say an Act of Contrition.” If true, this would mean that Miss O’Reilly may have left the children in St. Clare’s when conditions inside it were already intolerable.

*       *       *

The stated purpose of the inquiry was to establish the reasons that led to the deaths of thirty-five children. Yet by any reading of its proceedings, the conclusion has to be reached that it was not the interests of the children of St. Joseph’s, alive or dead, which were being represented or protected, either by the tribunal or by any of the counsel. In effect they had no legal representation. The thirteen girls called by Mr Roe, Counsel for the Order, appeared on behalf of the nuns, in whose care they and their dead friends had been. A lawyer did represent the General Solicitor for the Wards of Court, yet he played no part in the proceedings. Neither did the solicitors representing the next-of-kin, including Mrs. Cassidy, of six dead children. Not a word was recorded from any of them.

The Inquiry took place less than two months after the fire. Two of the girls called to give evidence had been injured. Each girl gave her age and, if over fifteen, her occupation in the orphanage: portress, cook, laundress, maid or needleworker. Their questioning was thorough, persistent and heartless. A thirteen-year-old fainted the first time she was put on the witness stand, and was brought back the next day though she begged not to have to return.

The question of fire drill arose almost immediately. One fifteen-year-old was asked by Mr O’Higgins, counsel for the ESB, ‘When you left the dormitory you did not go out to the emergency door?’ There was no reply.

Chairman:
  ou have done fire drill?’

Answer:
  ‘Yes, sir.’

Chairman:
  ‘Did you know from the fire drill the way to go out on to the iron staircase?’

Answer:
  ‘Yes.’

Chairman:
  ‘Why didn’t you go out on to it?’

Answer
:   ‘I did not think of going that way.’

Pressed further on this point, ‘No reply’ is recorded several times. Questioned by Mr Roe, another fifteen-year-old agreed that she had done fire drill. She said she did not think of using it that night and she did not know that the fire escape door could be opened without a key. A sixteen-year-old said she had been in St Clare’s dormitory for over a year but, during that time, she had not taken part in fire drill.

Mr
McLoughlin:
  ‘Did Sister Clare take you for fire drill?’

Answer:
  ‘No’

Mr
McLoughlin:
  ‘Who did?’

The
Chairman
intervened
:   ‘Who gave the fire drill in St Clare’s for the past twelve months?’

Answer:
  ‘Sister Clare.’

Mr
McLoughlin:
  ‘Did you know how to get out on the fire escape?’