Chapter 9 — Tralee

Physical abuse

Although the Department of Education addressed this incident in its Phase III Submission, it did not clarify the nature of the investigation that resulted in the exoneration of the Brother.

It was accepted by Br Seamus Nolan during the Phase III hearing that the punishment meted out to this boy was an impermissible punishment. He did, however, point out that it was partly within the rule, insofar as the punishment was administered in the presence of a witness.

The question was also raised at the hearing as to why the person entrusted with the investigation of the matter was the person against whom the accusation had been made. Br Seamus Nolan said that the matter may have been dealt with by him so as not to leave a ‘nasty job’ for his ‘successor’. In fact, the ‘successor’ had been in office at the time of the incident. Br Nolan further said that this individual had been appointed Resident Manager and after a short while resigned, and it ‘could well be on account of this, that he resigned from that appointment, though he remained on in the staff as assistant manager’.12 Again, this explanation does not accord with the dates in the documentation.

There has been no documentation furnished to the Committee by the Christian Brothers that would shed light on whether there was any investigation within the Christian Brothers into the matter. Br Nolan acknowledged that it was a pity that the allegation did not go directly to the Provincial, to be dealt with as a ‘completely outside matter’. He said that it was clear that the School at the time felt that it was satisfactory to deal with the matter in this way.

The boy at the centre of this allegation was transferred to another industrial school early the following year.

The correspondence was dealt with by Br Millard, who was the Sub-Superior and the person who had inflicted the punishment. The Department should have questioned the propriety of such a response because of conflict of interest. The Department did not question the unapologetic response of the Brother about his flagrant breach of their regulations. He showed no concern about confessing to such a breach. Where rules for the protection of children in care could be flouted, it is not surprising that abuses occurred. This incident illustrated the difficulty in making complaints about corporal punishment. When regulations were ignored, there was no objective standard by which harshness could be judged and so no behaviour could be criticised or condemned. Documented cases of physical abuse: Br Raynard

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.