Chapter 10 — Carriglea

Emotional abuse and neglect

Br Rene then proceeded to defend the way he was running the School. He said that he prioritised literary studies over everything else and that domestic ‘charges’ suffered as a result. He defended this by saying that a shiny dormitory floor achieved at the cost of the boys’ schooling or leisure time would not be appreciated by them. He pointed to the success the School had achieved in open examinations that year for the Post Office, and to one pupil who was applying for a University scholarship: then proceeded to defend the way he was running the School. He said that he prioritised literary studies over everything else and that domestic ‘charges’ suffered as a result. He defended this by saying that a shiny dormitory floor achieved at the cost of the boys’ schooling or leisure time would not be appreciated by them. He pointed to the success the School had achieved in open examinations that year for the Post Office, and to one pupil who was applying for a University scholarship: It has meant grave financial embarrassment for me, but I am still – like a few Managers in other schools – living in hopes of the Minister’s many promises to us being fulfilled. So far his only contribution that I am aware of is the worry and trouble in hand at the moment.

He appended menus of food served in the School, adding, ‘I wish to know if it meets with your approval’.

Br Rene’s stress in coping with life in Carriglea was outlined earlier in this chapter and much of it could be attributed to the poor management systems in the school. The fact that Br Rene was obviously operating under severe strain was unfair on him, but it was equally unfair on the children who depended on him for their care. The blame must be borne by the Christian Brothers’ Provincialate, who allowed an impossible situation to develop and who failed to address it until it had reached crisis proportions.

The witnesses who gave evidence to the Investigation Committee said that the food was inadequate and that they were hungry in Carriglea.

One witness, who had been resident in Carriglea from the mid-1940s to the early 1950s, complained of hunger, saying that he was ‘starving’ when in the School. He detailed the type and quality of food that he received. For breakfast, he stated that they got a quarter of a loaf of bread, which amounted to two slices, together with dripping or margarine. This was also the staple diet in the evening. This witness also spoke about the dinners consisting of black potatoes with meat and cabbage. He informed the Committee that they received an egg at Easter only.

This witness recounted how the boys ate the pig swill. The left-over food from the Brothers’ kitchen was put into a bucket, which was brought down to the pigs for them to eat. One of the boys was entrusted with the task of bringing the swill bucket down to the pigs, and the other boys would intercept him on his journey and ‘dive on the bucket’. He recalled that ‘there would be rice in it and tea leaves in and you would put your hand in and take two handfuls out and eat the thing there’.

Another witness who was resident in Carriglea in the early 1950s spoke of the food as being ‘absolutely horrible’. This witness recalled only receiving three meals a day, and not four as stated in the Visitation Reports. His description of the food served was very similar to the above witness. He also complained of not receiving enough food during his time in Carriglea and, consequently, having to resort to the pig swill to supplement his diet.

A third witness also complained of not receiving enough food in Carriglea during the period of his residence from the late 1940s to the mid-1950s. He recalled that breakfast consisted of a loaf of bread known as ‘Boland’s loaf’, divided between four boys, together with hot dripping. He recounted to the Committee the manner in which the loaf of bread was divided between the four boys: On our table sometimes if you had four fellows you had to spin a knife and whoever the knife pointed at he cut the bread up and if I didn’t like you I would only give you a quarter of it but it worked vice versa so that’s the way we worked it.

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.