Chapter 11 — Glin

Physical abuse

The Department was somehow informed of the identity of the perpetrator, as the next letter was from Br Marceau to the Department, in which he referred to a recent interview in Tralee with a Department official. He was outraged that such an allegation could have been made and stated: I emphatically deny that I struck this boy on the face for a very insulting remark he made about me. I fail to understand how this false charge has been made against me. Therefore I have nothing to add to our recent conversation in St Joseph’s Tralee ...

Despite the gaps in the documents it is clear that: (1)The Department was aware that a boy in Glin was injured so severely that his jaw was fractured and he was hospitalised. (2)Br Marceau was the most likely perpetrator of the injury, despite his denial. (3)The Provincial Council saw fit to have him transferred from the School as a result of the incident to another residential school. (4)Br Marceau’s violence was documented in Congregation records. (5)The Congregation was in dereliction of its duty of care by sending Br Marceau to Glin, and then transferring him back to Tralee, despite his violent treatment of boys. (6)The Department was also in dereliction of duty, as it did not voice any concerns regarding the incident and was content to let the matter lie.

The Congregation asked surviving Brothers who had worked in residential institutions to complete questionnaires in relation to their views of life in industrial schools. Br Marceau completed one such questionnaire in 1999. In it, he stated that it was more difficult to mould industrial schoolboys because they lacked character. There was no written code of discipline; there was instead a code of practice which was passed from one Brother to another. His mentor advised him not to become too friendly with the boys. Each Brother was expected to handle his own discipline problems. He stated that he was humane in his treatment of the boys, but accepted that he also used the ‘lamh laidir’.23 In addition, he used competition between the boys and a rewards system to maintain control.

In his view, most of the allegations of abuse made against Brothers were false. He thought that there were too many Brothers accused for the matter to make sense. He denied all allegations of abuse made against him. 1.Glin had a severe, systemic regime of corporal punishment. 2.Brothers with a known propensity for physically abusive behaviour were sent to Glin.

Sexual abuse

Br Buiron spent almost seven years in Glin in the early 1940s. Prior to this, while resident in Artane, he confessed to the Superior that he had sexually abused a boy in the infirmary, where he was working. It appears from minutes of a General Council Meeting held at that time that there was a number of incidents. Br Buiron was called before the Superior General and admitted the offences. The Superior General wrote to the Provincial: I sent for Br B today and told him of the risk we ran in retaining him in the Congregation and gave him until tomorrow morning at ten o’clock to consider if he would apply for a dispensation or stand trial. I will let you know the result. He is a great danger to us. Two Brothers were hanged in Canada within the past two years for murder of their victims after such offence. A Brother of a community in charge of an industrial school in Rome awaits his trial for the murder of a boy in the school who told of his offence to his Superior. The school is closed and the community disbanded.

Br Buiron refused to apply for a dispensation and appeared before the General Council. A vote was taken but, instead of sending him for trial as predicted by the Superior General, it was unanimously agreed that Br Buiron should be retained in the Congregation. He was given ‘... the first canonical warning, threatened with expulsion and given a penance. The daily recital of the Miserere’. The Superior General wrote to the Provincial informing him of the outcome of the vote, which was taken ’after very mature deliberation’. He continued: I told him that you would send him the official warning when writing to him and giving him his location (which will be very difficult I fear.) He shows signs of the greatest repentance. He told us he was not sure [of the boy’s name] and that he told him after the first offence that he (Br B) would now have to leave the Brothers.

Br Buiron was immediately moved to Cork, where he remained until he was transferred to Glin.

Br Piperel taught in Glin for six years during the 1940s. He had previously served in Letterfrack and Tralee. Following his time in Glin, he was transferred to Salthill.In Letterfrack, he was the subject of a serious complaint that he was sexually interfering with boys. A full account of the case is contained in the chapter on Letterfrack. An allegation against him was investigated, but only to the extent that he was asked about it by a Visitor, and subsequently gave a lengthy written account by way of letter. The explanation offered by the Brother ought to have given rise to increased unease rather than to have allayed suspicion. He later taught in Cork, where his conduct in relation to young girls caused him to be removed urgently and relocated in retirement in the Midlands.

These Brothers were sent to Glin after complaints or suspicions of sexual abuse in other industrial schools. Given the risk of such behaviour being repeated, it was reckless to transfer them to a residential school, where the children were particularly vulnerable as they had no recourse to their families.

Neglect and emotional abuse

In 1938, the Visitor commented on the boys’ appearance: Nobody can fail to remark the contrast between an Industrial School boy in his everyday rig and the appearance of even the poorest boys attending our Day Schools. The Industrial School boy seems to have no appreciation of personal cleanliness and tidiness of dress.

The following year, the Visitor recorded that the School had received a favourable report from the Department Inspector, but he found the top class weak in arithmetic, handwriting and letter writing. In addition, the Brother in charge of this class had unilaterally decided to abandon the teaching of Irish. The Visitor remarked that he ‘ought show more zeal for their welfare’. He noted that one of the other two teaching Brothers was also a poor teacher. The Visitor was critical of the boys’ clothing, some of which was simply unfit for use and should be discarded. He complained about the heavy boots the boys wore, which were badly repaired, making them ‘unsightly, unwieldy things’. He was pleased to see that the boys now had good shoes for Sunday.

In June 1940, the Visitor said that the yard was surfaced in coarse gravel which made it unsuitable as a play area. He found only one of the teachers, out of a complement of five, satisfactory. He observed, ‘the teaching staff here, as in the other industrial schools I visited this year, is weak. The type of boy in the industrial schools needs to have devoted, zealous and self-sacrificing teachers’. The treacherous condition of the schoolyard continued to receive mention in the Visitation Reports and Department Inspection Reports, but it was not until 1955 that the necessary work was undertaken.

The 1941 Visitation Report listed repairs and improvements that were necessary, including the faulty hot water and heating system, the play hall was ‘cold, unsightly and dilapidated’ and needed to be replaced. The teachers, once again, came in for criticism, with only one of them regarded as satisfactory. Br Young was not impressed by the standard of work in the two trades being taught, namely boot-making and tailoring. The workshops were unsuitable and, in some instances, dangerous.

In 1942, the Visitor approved of the new spacious play hall which had been built for the boys. Water pipes continued to present problems, resulting in an insufficiency of water to the boys’ lavatories. The teacher in charge of the two junior classes had 59 pupils in his class, which made it very difficult to teach effectively.

Two years later, the Visitor found that ‘the literary side of the boys’ education is somewhat over emphasised to the neglect of practical work’. He drew attention to the fact that the only trades taught were tailoring and shoemaking. He noted that the boys’ sanitary facilities were ‘entirely inadequate’ and he was also critical of the laundry which required renovations.