Chapter 16 — Marlborough House

Introduction

An Assistant Secretary with the Department of Education wrote to the Department of Justice on 23rd July 1969, seeking to transfer the place of detention at Marlborough House temporarily to a prefabricated building at the open prison at Shanganagh Castle, pending the completion of the remand centre in Finglas. The Department of Justice rejected this proposal outright.

The building was not vacated, and conditions deteriorated even further. A photograph of Marlborough House in early 1971 is inserted below: On 20th June 1971, nine attendants resigned without warning, in protest against the poor conditions. Staff from both the Department of Education and the Department of Justice were drafted in temporarily. A week later, it was reported in both the Sunday Independent and Sunday Press newspapers that a riot had occurred at Marlborough House on 26th June 1971, when 17 boys went on a two-hour rampage, smashing windows and breaking furniture. The Gardaí were called, and eventually the situation was brought under control.

A Garda Superintendent who had been called to the premises stated: ‘The conditions are bad and are in my opinion such as to cause discontent and unrest among the inmates’. A Garda who attended after the incident reported that the problem lay with the ageing attendants not being able to control the boys and ‘that all the boys are kept in a large detention room with no form of amusement, with the exception of a T.V., for the most part of the day and they have nothing to do except fight with the attendants and each other’.

Three days later, the Evening Herald newspaper reported that another riot had taken place when two boys escaped. Again, the Gardaí were called in to restore order.

Throughout 1971, senior officials from the Department of Education and the Department of Justice held meetings to discuss the closure of Marlborough House, the finding of alternative premises and, the opening of the centre at Finglas. At each meeting, it was agreed that Marlborough House should be closed, but there were delays in completing the construction of the centre at Finglas, which was compounded by the fact that the De La Salle Order did not want to take remand cases, all of which resulted in no action, and Marlborough House remained open.

A conference was held in Leinster House on 8th July 1971 which was attended by both the Ministers for Education and Justice, together with their officials. The Minister for Justice was very critical of the Department of Education’s handling of Marlborough House: ‘... there had been total neglect of the Marlboro House establishment: staffing had been obtained from among Labour Exchange undesirables: young children were left in their care when it was known that they indulged in brutality: he himself had inspected the place and had been appalled at conditions ...’. He added: ‘... it was very late in the day for the Department of Education to look for any sharing of responsibility in the operation of the establishment’. Following this conference, an official in the Department of Education contacted the Department of Justice with a view to setting up a Working Party in relation to Marlborough House. An internal Department of Justice memorandum informed the Department of Education unequivocally that there would be no Working Party and that ‘Marlborough House is not a matter for the Minister for Justice nor one in which he can be involved’. He added: ‘I felt that I should make it plain to him that in this Department it is believed that the Department of Education is endeavouring to involve this Department in something which is not its concern’. Mr James Martin, Assistant Secretary with the Department of Justice, at the Phase III hearing, said: ‘... they had views that the Department of Education should be more active but they were not going to take over that role themselves’.

The Minister for Education then wrote to the Minister for Justice on 5th August 1971, and pointed out that: In accordance with the terms of the Children Act the provision of places of detention is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice and your Department must be involved in any alternative arrangements to be made consequent on Marlborough House ceasing to exist. It is necessary that the relevant discussions in this regard take place and that some satisfactory solution is found to get us out of the present impasse.

Matters reached a critical level when, on 6th September 1971, the OPW informed the Department of Education, the Department of Justice and the Department of Finance that Marlborough House was on the verge of collapsing: Our Architect has inspected these premises and reports a possibility of imminent collapse of the building, due to dry rot and defective floors. It is imperative that the building be vacated immediately.

On the same day, the Office of Public Works issued another warning letter: ... the building has been inspected today by our Principal Architect who agrees that there is danger of collapse and advises that the premises be evacuated without delay.

A meeting was held four days later, on 10th September 1971, with officials from the Departments of Education and Justice and the Office of Public Works. An architect from the Office of Public Works informed them that: ‘the dangerous part of Marlborough House is the front portion where floors are in danger of giving way. The building might last for years but then again it might come down in a gale’. The decision was taken to immediately seek alternative accommodation for the boys. However, the boys remained there until the closure of the Institution some 11 months later, on 1st August 1972.

A retired High Court Judge, Mr Justice Kingsmill-Moore, visited Marlborough House in October 1971. Initially, the Department of Education were reluctant to allow this, as they thought ‘that no useful purpose would be served by his visit’. They re-considered the matter and gave him permission, but felt that ‘an officer of the Department should accompany him to explain matters. It would not be wise that he should get his explanations from the people now in charge of Marlborough House’. Mr Justice Kingsmill-Moore reported his observations on Marlborough House to the Minister for Education in a letter of 27th October 1971. He said: ... Marlborough House is frankly, appalling. If you could spare ten minutes of your time to visit it, I am sure you would be deeply shocked. For the moment I will only say that owing to the covering of the windows by various materials, including a kind of brown glaze, and quite inadequate electrical lighting, the boys are in an atmosphere of gloom which must be physically and psychologically damaging; that their only seating accommodation is forms, of which there are not enough to provide seats for all the boys; and that there is no form of occupation except watching television in the evening. The general condition of the place can only be appreciated by a personal inspection.

He had also visited the new, unoccupied remand centre at Finglas, which was built in 1970, and praised it and asked the Minister to ‘expedite’ the move from Marlborough House.

He followed up this letter by calling personally to the Department with his wife on 24th November 1971, to explain the situation. He did not let the matter drop and followed with a letter to the Irish Times two months later, on 27th January 1972, which elaborated further the poor conditions. His description was of a desolate, Dickensian house where the boys spent the day in a large hall which was the ‘only living accommodation in the building for “an average of 26 and on occasion up to 36 boys of all ages”, summer and winter’. This room he described as: ... a single enormous hall comparable only to a disused garage. The walls were rough plaster, some falling from damp, exposing the bricks behind. At each end was a small black stove, each with a few red embers at the bottom. The sole furniture consisted of two tables and a few backless forms ... to seat the number of boys incarcerated. Each tall window was blocked by brownish material and covered with wire-netting, a little light coming through part of the upper panes. Hanging from the high ceilings were three or four low-wattage bulbs, one broken.

He went on to point out that the boys had no recreation facilities there. The upstairs comprised a similar room, used as a dormitory, where the ‘blankets were thin and insufficient for winter: again half the windows were blocked’. The only outside facility was a yard which was ‘part rough grass, part earth, where a ball can be kicked about; there is no room for organised football and no equipment for anything else’. In comparison, he found the building at Finglas a ‘triumph of planning, flooded with light and filled with colour ...’.

His fear for the boys in Marlborough House was ‘the possibility of worse injury, physical, mental and moral, in a community so composed, kept in the conditions we saw, without occupation’. The following month, on 21st February 1972, Mr Justice Kingsmill-Moore wrote an article in the Irish Independent decrying the conditions and seeking the transfer of boys to Finglas or, in the alternative, alterations to the physical accommodation.