Chapter 11 — Glin

Physical abuse

The Visitor sent his report to the Provincial, who responded that: It is a pity that the school has not a better reputation for kindness and consideration for the poor boys. Nothing should be left undone to secure kinder treatment of the boys and a happier and brighter feeling among them. This is not only possible but easy to secure if the Brothers have the correct feeling for them.

Evidence from representatives of the survivor groups

This reply was significant. The Provincial regretted that the School had not a better reputation ‘for kindness and consideration’ for the boys in its care. He did not only criticise Br Serge, but all the Brothers for not having ‘the correct feeling’ for the children. It expressed unease about how boys in general were treated in Glin.

This reply was significant. The Provincial regretted that the School had not a better reputation ‘for kindness and consideration’ for the boys in its care. He did not only criticise Br Serge, but all the Brothers for not having ‘the correct feeling’ for the children. It expressed unease about how boys in general were treated in Glin.

Five Brothers referred to Br Serge in internal Christian Brothers interviews. Their comments on him were illuminating. One Brother, (Br Coyan) who went to Glin in the early 1950s and who was clearly referring to Br Serge, said: ... there was one there before I went there and he was very cruel. He left the Brothers. There was a big inquisition from either the Department or the Health Board his name won’t come to me just now. He was sent out of Glin and the kids were complaining about them continually and you daren’t mention his name. They hated the thought of him but he was sent down to the Brothers and he was sent down to the place but we followed his career afterwards, he became a principal outside and a parish priest was in trouble but that’s the only case and that was before my time.

Five Brothers referred to Br Serge in internal Christian Brothers interviews. Their comments on him were illuminating. One Brother, (Br Coyan) who went to Glin in the early 1950s and who was clearly referring to Br Serge, said: ... there was one there before I went there and he was very cruel. He left the Brothers. There was a big inquisition from either the Department or the Health Board his name won’t come to me just now. He was sent out of Glin and the kids were complaining about them continually and you daren’t mention his name. They hated the thought of him but he was sent down to the Brothers and he was sent down to the place but we followed his career afterwards, he became a principal outside and a parish priest was in trouble but that’s the only case and that was before my time.

He then added: I have often heard it from the lads themselves about this man. He could be dead by now for all I know, he was a bastard as they say and the kids hated the sight of him and he was a man who should never have been sent to Glin. To be sent to a place like that you have to have great rapport with the kids like. You are living with them as much as you would if you were in a family at home and you have to coax them along ... You are the only one that they can rely on ...

He then added: I have often heard it from the lads themselves about this man. He could be dead by now for all I know, he was a bastard as they say and the kids hated the sight of him and he was a man who should never have been sent to Glin. To be sent to a place like that you have to have great rapport with the kids like. You are living with them as much as you would if you were in a family at home and you have to coax them along ... You are the only one that they can rely on ...

Br Hardouin,12 who was in Glin in the 1940s, also recalled the man: I can recall when the Department Inspector called to Glin to investigate a complaint made by a retired Brother against a member of the teaching staff who was accused of being too severe. The Brother accused was removed to a day school and the following Christmas was expelled from the Order. I imagine that the complaint may have been a contributory factor in his expulsion although he had previous problems during second year training.

Br Hardouin,12 who was in Glin in the 1940s, also recalled the man: I can recall when the Department Inspector called to Glin to investigate a complaint made by a retired Brother against a member of the teaching staff who was accused of being too severe. The Brother accused was removed to a day school and the following Christmas was expelled from the Order. I imagine that the complaint may have been a contributory factor in his expulsion although he had previous problems during second year training.

Br Zacharie,13 who replaced Br Serge, said: I came there from Monaghan to replace a Brother who had been moved out because he was over severe ... I was advised to be nice to the kids and not to worry about examination results.

Br Zacharie,13 who replaced Br Serge, said: I came there from Monaghan to replace a Brother who had been moved out because he was over severe ... I was advised to be nice to the kids and not to worry about examination results.

Br Gaston, who was resident in Glin during the 1950s, recalled talk about this Brother being investigated. He said: I cannot recall any situation where a formal complaint against the school was investigated by an outside group or individual, though I believe that there was such a situation in the School within three or four years prior to my coming.

Br Gaston, who was resident in Glin during the 1950s, recalled talk about this Brother being investigated. He said: I cannot recall any situation where a formal complaint against the school was investigated by an outside group or individual, though I believe that there was such a situation in the School within three or four years prior to my coming.

A contemporary of Br Serge, Br Amaury,14 gave more details: The procedure for dealing with complaints would be that if any staff member or child in the school had a complaint he could bring that problem to the Superior/Manager, the sub superior, the school principal, the disciplinarian, or to the provincial or any one of his council. One such complaint was made during my year in Glin. It was made against one of the Brothers on the school staff. I do not know to what outside group or individual the complaint was made but the nature of it was that the man in question was over severe in having recourse to corporal punishment. None of the details of this complaint were made available to the community or staff in Glin. The boy who was named as the one who made the complaint was personally known to me and my impression of him was that he was a boy who would be very unlikely to do anything serious enough to merit severe corporal punishment. He was known to have been a close friend – a “masters pet” – one of the men who regularly did supervision in the school yard during recreation time. This does add more than a little likelihood to an opinion circulating at the time; that it was the “master” and not really the “pet” who caused the complaint to be made.

A contemporary of Br Serge, Br Amaury,14 gave more details: The procedure for dealing with complaints would be that if any staff member or child in the school had a complaint he could bring that problem to the Superior/Manager, the sub superior, the school principal, the disciplinarian, or to the provincial or any one of his council. One such complaint was made during my year in Glin. It was made against one of the Brothers on the school staff. I do not know to what outside group or individual the complaint was made but the nature of it was that the man in question was over severe in having recourse to corporal punishment. None of the details of this complaint were made available to the community or staff in Glin. The boy who was named as the one who made the complaint was personally known to me and my impression of him was that he was a boy who would be very unlikely to do anything serious enough to merit severe corporal punishment. He was known to have been a close friend – a “masters pet” – one of the men who regularly did supervision in the school yard during recreation time. This does add more than a little likelihood to an opinion circulating at the time; that it was the “master” and not really the “pet” who caused the complaint to be made.