Chapter 16 — Marlborough House

Introduction

By February 1972, the staff numbered 24, comprising one attendant in charge, one matron, 20 attendants and 2 female assistants. At that time, there were seven boys in detention. One Superintendent, a former Garda, held the position for over a decade. His wife, who was a trained nurse, was appointed matron. They lived on the premises. A part-time medical officer was employed to examine each child on admission and to attend as required.

The calibre of the staff was problematic from the very beginning, as they were recruited from the local Unemployment Exchange. Potential candidates were interviewed by the Superintendent, who then made a recommendation to the Department of Education for the appointment of the staff member. It is not clear what criteria the Superintendent applied in making these appointments. The staff were mainly male and had no childcare experience as this was not a requirement for the job at the time.

An Inter-Departmental memorandum of 15th March 1944 from the Department of Education to the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Finance, written two weeks before Marlborough House opened, indicated a high level of awareness as to the problems in Marlborough House: This circumstance has again set me thinking of the unsatisfactory nature of the present management of the Place of Detention. It is staffed by the lowest paid labour known to the Civil Service ... To speak with brutal candour, I view with alarm the impression they will make on visitors to the New Place of Detention.

He added: A direct result of the low calibre of the staff is that practically nothing is done for boys committed to the Place of Detention except to feed them and ensure that they do not escape. When one remembers that the Institution is run directly by this Department of State, that is an inexcusably low standard to be content with.

The memorandum concluded with the suggestion that the Department entrust the day-to-day management of Marlborough House to a religious Order, in particular the Hospitaller Order of St John of God. It calculated that the cost to the State of such a move would be the same as the present running costs, but the service provided would be better: The advantages are obvious. The whole tone of the establishment would be raised to a very high level. At the worst the boys’ would be catered for, both spiritually and physically, in a far better manner than at present. At the best, the Order might send one of its trained Psychiatrists to take charge.

The Department memorandum added: The Department would have disposed satisfactorily of responsibilities which, in my opinion it should never have undertaken and is, in the nature of things, unable to discharge satisfactorily.

In a subsequent letter to the Department of Finance dated 30th March 1944, the Department of Education referred again to the poor quality of staff: I am directed by the Minister for Education to inform you that the method of running the Place of Detention, formerly located at Summerhill and recently transferred to Marlborough House, Glasnevin, has never been regarded as satisfactory. The management is in the hands of a Superintendent (£50 per annum plus quarters) a Matron, the Superintendent’s wife, (£30 per annum) and three Attendants who receive, approximately, the same pay as messengers in Government Offices. With a staff of this calibre the maximum that can be expected is that the fundamental human needs of the youths detained there should be attended to and that they should be prevented from escaping. No personal reflection is intended on the present staff who are the best we have been able to get for the wages and conditions of service offered ... The Minister for Education is satisfied that this standard is inexcusably low for an Institution of its type which is managed directly by this Department. Public interest in juvenile delinquency and its associated problems has shown a marked increase in recent years. In England and elsewhere young offenders are subjected to observation and treatment by Psychiatrists in special clinics. There is in this country an ever-growing interest in this method of dealing with the problem. The growth of enlightened public interest has thrown into stark relief the already well known shortcomings of the Place of Detention and the Minister is satisfied that the present system cannot be allowed to continue any longer.

They sought sanction from the Department of Finance on 30th March 1944 for their proposal, citing that: After a careful examination of all aspects of the problem it has been decided that the best solution would be to hand the Place of Detention over to a suitably qualified Religious Order.

The Department of Finance, in a replying letter of 12th May 1944, stated there was no justification for transferring the management to a religious Order, as the only criticism against the place of detention was its location: That defect has been remedied by the transfer to Marlborough House, and until you have some experience of the system in new surroundings it seems to be somewhat premature to suggest a change in the manner of management which must, I feel, inevitably entail additional cost to the State.

The Department of Finance believed such an arrangement, could only be economical ‘... if the Place of Detention were grafted on to a larger institution’.

Not to be deterred, the Department of Education wrote again to the Department of Finance on 31st May 1944, setting out detailed reasons for their proposal. In particular, they asserted that ‘The chief consideration is that the Institution should have the best possible influence for reform on the young people who are detained there’. In this regard, they felt that, ‘a few days detention under the right guidance might prevent a subsequent career of law breaking’, which they felt could only be achieved by a religious Order, such as the Hospitaller Order of St John of God. They went on: Regarding your suggestion of grafting the place of detention onto an existing institution for boys conducted by a religious order the only suitable institutions of the kind are the industrial schools at Artane and Carriglea. We have tried repeatedly in the past ten years to get the managers of these schools to take charge of boys under detention or to set aside a small section of their premises for the purpose, but they definitely refuse to do so. I understand that Artane did make an arrangement of the kind many years ago and their experience of the difficulties and trouble involved has decided them against ever touching the matter again.

They concluded that ‘... it is a general experience that for an institution of the kind management by a religious order is more economical than lay management’. On 15th June 1944, the Department of Finance sanctioned ‘in principle’ the proposal to entrust the management of the Institution to a religious Order, but no commitment was to be entered into without the approval of the Department. The Minister of Education wrote to the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr McQuaid, on 4th July 1944, seeking his advice and approval for the proposal: I feel that the time the boys spend in this institution could be turned to much greater advantage if its management could be entrusted to a religious community, whose training could enable them to face the problem presented by the juvenile delinquent.

Archbishop McQuaid replied on 5th July 1944: I shall have the matter examined at once, but you will readily understand that some time will be required, especially at this season, when many persons are absent from the City, before I can give you a completely helpful answer.

No reply was received from the Archbishop, and the Department decided against sending a written reminder to him ‘as it was felt that it would be better to raise the matter verbally with His Grace if opportunity offered’.

It took a decade for the opportunity to present itself again.