Chapter 9 — Tralee

Physical abuse

In the late 1940s, the Department’s Inspector made the following comment: Generally well run school ... I also stressed the necessity for just corporal punishment and told him of the complaint in the Remand House and the boy who had been whacked with a shovel in the turnip field.

It is not clear what this reference was and it did not appear to give rise to any follow-up letter from the Department. It was similar to an incident described by a complainant who also told of being hit with a spade across the back by a Brother in the mid-1940s. The farm Brother at the time was Br Raynard. This complainant explained that he was hit with the spade when he was working on the farm. He was untacking a horse and forgot to open one side. The horse got a bit flighty and did some damage to the cart. The farm Brother lost his temper and hit him with the spade. He said that he did not hold it against the Brother, however, because he should have been a bit more careful with the horse. This same complainant said that this farm Brother and the two other farm Brothers, Br Madelon and Br Sauville, could be quite severe but fair as well.

Br Raynard was granted a dispensation in the mid-1950s, although it was not clear why this was granted.

The letters from the mid to late 1930s to the newly professed Brothers indicate a concern on the part of the Provincial at the time to ensure that excessive punishment would be avoided, but it was not a systematic approach and does not appear to have been continued by his successors. Restraint could have been achieved by the application of the Rules and Regulations for Industrial Schools, including use of the punishment book. The Congregation’s own Rules set down clear guidelines for the use of corporal punishment, and a proper adherence to these would also have controlled excesses. The Brothers referred to in these letters were unsuitable for work in an industrial school where the duties and responsibilities of caring for the children were more onerous than in a day school.

Contrary to the Department’s regulations, no punishment book was maintained in Tralee. To explain this fact, Br Seamus Nolan told the Investigation Committee during the Phase I public hearing: There was an understanding that a punishment book was for special punishments where the so called crime was very severe and it needed a special punishment, but for whatever the reason there wasn’t a punishment book.

He acknowledged that it was a requirement but, he said, it was one that ‘went into disuse I am sorry to say’.

In the Phase III hearing, Br Nolan accepted that there was no record of a punishment book ever having existed in Tralee. He added that, if the Department had brought up the question of a punishment book, it would have ‘got a result’. He said, ‘apparently the impetus just didn’t arrive, to undo the situation that was there’.

It was clear from the 1937 Visitation Report that no punishment book existed at that stage. The Visitor appended a list of points given to the Resident Manager that included the following: Get a punishment book and enter therein punishment given ... If a boy misconducts himself he should be punished by the Sup. or the Br. in charge of the discipline and the punishment recorded in the punishment book.

This comment made it clear that the punishment book was not just a requirement of the Department. The Visitor felt the need of a record of what punishments were given, and for what reason. He wanted to check whether punishments met with the regulations governing them. Even though their Visitor had requested one, there was no documentary evidence of any attempt to comply with his recommendation. The Visitation Reports for subsequent years did not record whether a punishment book existed or not, suggesting the issue just died away.

There was no evidence that the Department asked to see the School’s punishment book, or complained about the fact that one did not exist. Without it, the Department had no way of ensuring that the rules and regulations to restrict the use of corporal punishment were being complied with. Complainant evidence regarding Br Ansel, Disciplinarian

A Visitation Report in the early 1940s referred to a complaint by the Resident Manager that the existing Disciplinarian, Br Piperel, was ‘not sufficiently strict as disciplinarian’ and making a ‘strong appeal’ to have him changed. He left in the early 1940s and, 12 months later, Br Ansel was sent from Artane to take over the role.

The Committee heard from two witnesses who gave detailed evidence about Br Ansel’s harshness during his time as Disciplinarian.

The first witness, referring to Br Ansel, told the Investigation Committee: He was absolutely terrible, that man. That man put the fear of God in me. Rather than meet that man I would hide. If I saw that man or I thought that man was going to come into the schoolyard I would disappear. That man was unbelievable ... He absolutely frightened me. Whenever you would meet him it was always a beating. It was always a clip across the side of the head with the baton. He just seemed to – as you look back on it in later years he didn’t like me for some reason or another, I don’t know what.

The ‘baton’ was different to the leather. He explained that it was ‘made of several pieces of leather stitched together as they would stitch leather in a shoe’. It was shorter and stiffer than the leather. He said that they used to say that there was a lump of lead in the end of it, but he had no direct knowledge of that.

He also recalled being beaten on his feet by Br Ansel with this ‘baton’, after Br Ansel asked him to put his feet out from under the sheets. This happened to him one night when a boil on his bottom burst and his sheets were covered in blood. He was not given any explanation for the punishment and, although he had difficulty walking afterwards, no Brother asked him what was wrong with him. He never discussed it with anyone.