Chapter 10 — Carriglea

Emotional abuse and neglect

According to this witness, dinner consisted of mincemeat and potatoes, which he described as being like ‘hospital food’. In the evening time, he said that they received bread and butter. This witness never recalled receiving milk.

Visitors were generally uncritical of the food provided, and one Visitor in 1944 described the food supplied to the boys as being ‘sufficient and suitable’. The report stated that they got tea, bread and dripping for breakfast, meat four times a week, soup twice a week, with vegetables served at dinner. On Fridays, the dinner consisted of bread, jam and cocoa. Supper was served each evening to the boys, which consisted of bread, jam and cocoa. The report also stated that a lunch of milk and bread was supplied to the smaller and more delicate boys at midday.

The Visitor’s account of the food was not dissimilar to that of the boys, except that the boys were quite clear that the food was not ‘sufficient’ for their needs.

Overcrowding, lack of cleanliness and hygiene were major criticisms in the 1930s and 1940s, as well as the dilapidated and run-down condition of the buildings.

Bad management was identified by Visitors throughout the mid-1930s and early 1940s, and in particular the unwillingness of the majority of the Brothers who were living in the School to engage with it. One Superior General suggested that, if these Brothers could be employed in cleaning up the School, ‘The work will do them good as well as the apartments cleaned by their exertions’.

Furthermore, the Superior General, whilst pleased with the physical condition of the boys, felt that more could be done to improve their social skills by introducing them to music, drama, dancing or elocution classes, and suggested that these be introduced into the School.

The depiction of Carriglea in the early 1940s was of a very run-down and dilapidated place. The main issues centred on the deterioration of the l buildings of the Institution itself, the lack of cleanliness and hygiene, both of the School and the boys, and the poor-quality clothing of the children. From the various reports, there was a divergence of views on the issue of clothing. Throughout the 1940s, the Department of Education Inspector, Dr Anna McCabe, commented on the fact that the boys were in patched clothing, whereas the Visitation Reports only referred to this on one occasion. Despite its being wartime, the care of the boys was praised by the Visitors throughout the 1940s, although Dr McCabe only rated the food, clothing and accommodation as ‘fair’ or ‘satisfactory’. The only direct criticism with regard to food was in 1946, when Dr McCabe felt that the children were not receiving adequate supplies of milk and butter.

Another criticism was the inadequate sanitation facilities for the boys. Many of the toilets were not in working condition, and the low water pressure in Carriglea was blamed for the plumbing problems. Deterioration in the outbuildings was evident, particularly around the trade shops, with fences missing and paintwork peeling off in the chapel and sanctuary, and general decay in the farmyard.

When the Visitor called on Carriglea in 1943, he noticed that the wire fences near the trade shops were down and a little boy was sitting at a gap in the fence to keep the cows from trespassing. The Visitor was not impressed with this state of affairs, as he felt that the young boy should have been with his companions in class, at work or at play. He further commented that serious efforts should be made to keep the fences in a state of repair. Using a small boy to keep cows in because of a broken fence was a serious indictment of the way the School was run.

By 1947, the Visitor recorded that the Superior had undertaken a comprehensive scheme of renovation, in particular the painting of the walls and the restoration of the woodwork. The result of this upgrading was exemplified by the following remark that ‘the dining hall would now do credit to any flourishing College’. The dormitories were found to be clean, bright and well ventilated. The main criticism was the inadequacy in the number of baths provided.

In 1948 and 1949, the Visitation Reports considered the School to be generally well cared for, requiring just a few minor repairs. The farm was said to be working well and had enough cows to supply milk. It also had sufficient poultry to supply eggs for the Brothers but there was no mention of supplying eggs to the boys.

In the 1953 Visitation Report, the views of the Brothers were recorded and noted that none of them spoke highly of the boys. The boys were recorded as being ‘tough’ and ‘secretive and to require a firm hand’. However, discipline was generally perceived as good. The Visitor found all departments of the School clean and well maintained.

The final inspection of the School by Dr McCabe took place in January 1954, as the school closed in June of that year. On her last visit to the School, Dr McCabe spoke highly of the new Resident Manager and, in particular, of the improvements he had made. She commented that he had spent £2,000 on these. She noted that additional indoor games had been introduced, electric lights were added to the dormitories, and all mattresses and beds were restored and re-sprung. Food, diet and sanitation were found to be very good. Again, whilst noting that the clothing had improved, Dr McCabe was of the opinion that more needed to be done in that area.

For much of the review period, Carriglea was a dilapidated and run-down institution, with poor sanitary conditions and a lack of hygiene and cleanliness, both of the boys themselves and the premises. The boys were not properly clothed and went barefoot during the summer, despite the availability of adequate funds. The improvements noted by Dr McCabe took place within months of the Institution closing as an industrial school and reopening as a juniorate. The boys in care did not enjoy the benefit of these improvements.

The Christian Brothers in their Submission asserted that the standard of primary education in Carriglea was ‘very good considering the standard of the pupils at intake which was very weak’.