Sir, – Michael Parsons wrote that the burning of the Ballyconree Boys Orphanage on June 30th, 1922 by anti-Treaty forces during the Civil War was “for allegedly teaching the boys to be “pro-British”. (“Names of boys burned out of care home released”, Home News, February 20th). There was more to it than that unattributed assertion, as indicated previously (Letters January 13th 20th).
British archives contain a copy of an instruction from Lionel Curtis in the British colonial office to telegram the Irish government, and a report from the master of the orphanage, Chas. G Purkiss.
The telegram should have stated that the orphanage was, “burnt . . . as reprisal for inmates’ loyalty, no immediate danger to lives”. The last five words (from an Admiralty report) were struck out. Inclusion might have led to opposition to “evacuation” to Britain of 33 boys aged seven to 18 (not 16) and erosion of its propaganda value. The file contains no reference to the removal of girls from another orphanage three miles away. They left for England afterwards but were conjoined in propaganda on the burning.
Purkiss reported this conversation between his daughter and the IRA “C.O.” who, “stated that Ballyconree Orphanage had been destroyed because it had been used as a training school for boys to serve in the British Army, with whom they . . . were at war and through whom they . . . were fighting the Free State Provisional Government. Further, the C.O. alleged that the irregulars were in possession of evidence which proved that the Ballyconree Boy Scouts had been guilty of espionage, and that the establishment at Ballyconree had been used for the entertainment of British forces, all of which charges were more or less true.” Purkiss said the republicans searched for two “senior patrol leaders” and for someone “who had been heard to give military orders to the scouts”. Purkiss denied such orders were given or that the orphanage was a military “training school”, but asked, “if it were a crime for an English family, living under the British flag to train their boys to be loyal to King and Empire”.
The Irish Church Missions to Roman Catholics (ICM, a Church of Ireland body with a London HQ) ran a number of such institutions designed to “bring blessings to England” by changing the Christian denomination and the national identity of most of the Irish. It was a sectarian colonial endeavour, illustrated by the ICM later characterising the boys’ role as servants of the empire.
Michael Parsons’s report that Barnardo’s facilitated the subsequent removal of 21 boys to Australia is not surprising. Of approximately 130,000 children transported from Britain, Barnardo’s transported most (and the last in 1967). Many were not orphans at all. This effective kidnapping occurred for numerous reasons: economic – it was relatively cheap and the children became cheap labour; racist “Empire building” – part of a “white Australia” policy; arrogant – the identity of the children and wishes of parents were not considered (see Empty Cradles by Margaret Humphreys, my Church State and the Bethany Home, and “Protestants were left as Orphans . . .”).
It is good news that Barnardo’s released the names of 21 transported children but a pity that the names of 12 boys and all the girls’ names are unknown. Perhaps Barnardo’s might also reveal the names and fate of children sent to them from Dublin’s Bethany Home. – Yours, etc,