Chapter 11 — Glin

Religious Congregations’ evidence

Mr Dunleavy in his report on Glin stated: I encountered very little evidence of what one might term proper systems and methods in Glin Industrial School. There is no indication either in the archives or from the memoirs of Christian Brothers who formerly worked at Glin that any proper staff or community meetings were held in the school.

The move to Glin

Mr Dunleavy in his report on Glin stated: I encountered very little evidence of what one might term proper systems and methods in Glin Industrial School. There is no indication either in the archives or from the memoirs of Christian Brothers who formerly worked at Glin that any proper staff or community meetings were held in the school.

He also added: While the Brother Superior was ultimately obliged to take responsibility for the pupils at Glin, there is no evidence of any formal management structures at the School.

He also added: While the Brother Superior was ultimately obliged to take responsibility for the pupils at Glin, there is no evidence of any formal management structures at the School.

In his report on Glin, Br McCormack stated that from the mid-1960s the grant paid by the State was insufficient to meet the needs of the Institution. He concluded: That this was the state of the School’s finances in the last two years of its existence speaks volumes for the inadequacy of Government funding over the years.

In his report on Glin, Br McCormack stated that from the mid-1960s the grant paid by the State was insufficient to meet the needs of the Institution. He concluded: That this was the state of the School’s finances in the last two years of its existence speaks volumes for the inadequacy of Government funding over the years.

By 1963, numbers in Glin had fallen dramatically: in 1966 when it closed, there were only 48 boys in residence. Because State grants were paid on a per capita basis, a fall in numbers had an inevitable impact on finances, and the Brothers were left with no alternative but to close down schools once they became uneconomical to run.

By 1963, numbers in Glin had fallen dramatically: in 1966 when it closed, there were only 48 boys in residence. Because State grants were paid on a per capita basis, a fall in numbers had an inevitable impact on finances, and the Brothers were left with no alternative but to close down schools once they became uneconomical to run.

Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, however, numbers were sufficiently high to ensure an adequate income for the Institution, and this was particularly so after 1944 when the State grants were made payable on the accommodation limit of the School rather than the certified limit. For Glin, this meant an increase of per capita payments from 140 to 214. During this period, conditions for the boys in Glin were poor and in no respect reflected the funding that was available to the Institution.

Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, however, numbers were sufficiently high to ensure an adequate income for the Institution, and this was particularly so after 1944 when the State grants were made payable on the accommodation limit of the School rather than the certified limit. For Glin, this meant an increase of per capita payments from 140 to 214. During this period, conditions for the boys in Glin were poor and in no respect reflected the funding that was available to the Institution.

The Visitation Reports for the period were not consistent in respect of financial information. The 1941 Report recorded a payment of £330 to the Manager, £200 to the Sub-Manager, and £120 to each of the five other Brothers working in the School. This represented approximately 25% of the State funding, which amounted to £5,014. It reflected a pattern seen in other industrial schools, where substantial sums were paid to the Community account for the maintenance of Brothers and of the Congregation. The figures for 1940 were unusually high and there is no explanation as to why. Subsequent Visitation Reports recorded sums paid into the Building Fund and, by the time the School closed, it had £7,000 invested in the Building Fund and a credit balance of £2,427 in the bank. The sums invested in the Building Fund were ‘excess funds’ from the Institution.

The Visitation Reports for the period were not consistent in respect of financial information. The 1941 Report recorded a payment of £330 to the Manager, £200 to the Sub-Manager, and £120 to each of the five other Brothers working in the School. This represented approximately 25% of the State funding, which amounted to £5,014. It reflected a pattern seen in other industrial schools, where substantial sums were paid to the Community account for the maintenance of Brothers and of the Congregation. The figures for 1940 were unusually high and there is no explanation as to why. Subsequent Visitation Reports recorded sums paid into the Building Fund and, by the time the School closed, it had £7,000 invested in the Building Fund and a credit balance of £2,427 in the bank. The sums invested in the Building Fund were ‘excess funds’ from the Institution.

Physical abuse

The basic stance of the Christian Brothers is that their institutions were not abusive and provided a positive experience for the boys who lived in them. They concede that, at certain times, some Brothers may have overstepped the mark and used excessive corporal punishment but, in the main, they contend that rules and regulations were complied with..

The basic stance of the Christian Brothers is that their institutions were not abusive and provided a positive experience for the boys who lived in them. They concede that, at certain times, some Brothers may have overstepped the mark and used excessive corporal punishment but, in the main, they contend that rules and regulations were complied with..

The Christian Brothers also contend that, where serious breaches of the rules occurred, the matter was dealt with promptly and appropriately by the authorities.