Chapter 2 — Upton

Physical abuse

Many of the witnesses described the fear they felt when they had to wait outside the office for punishment. One witness said the fear and the waiting remained a more vivid memory than being struck with the leather. Documentary evidence – the punishment books

The main documentary sources dealing with corporal punishment in Upton are two punishment books, the first covering the years from 1889 to 1893, and the second relating to the period 1952 to 1963.

The obligation to maintain a record of punishments went back to the beginning of industrial schools in the late 19th Century, and this was re-reiterated in Rule 12 of the 1933 Rules and Regulations. This rule required all industrial schools to maintain a punishment book for serious misdemeanours, and also stipulated that it was to be shown to the Inspector of the Department of Education when he visited: All serious misconduct, and the Punishments inflicted for it, shall be entered in a book to be kept for that purpose, which shall be laid before the Inspector when he visits.5

However, out of all of the industrial schools examined by the Investigation Committee, only Upton and St. Joseph’s Industrial School, Dundalk, were able to produce punishment books, and then only for some of the period under investigation.

The Upton books are leather-bound volumes, with double pages of entries set out in tabular form and divided into six columns, giving spaces for: the date of the offence, name of offender, nature of offence, by whom reported, the punishment given and remarks on the case.

The first book for Upton spans the period 1889 to 1893, and has 87 pages of details of punishments. The later book, for the period 1952 to 1963, consists of only 18 double pages of entries. While the earlier book is of interest by way of comparison and is a valuable historical source, the later volume, covering years relevant to this inquiry, is of real importance. There are, unfortunately, serious deficiencies in the record keeping in this later book, but the contents are highly significant.

The first problem with this punishment book is that it is nothing like a complete record for the period between the first entry and the last. There are long gaps in time between dates and entries appear out of chronological sequence. It is obvious that the book was not kept up to date and that it was not filled in carefully or systematically.

Another problem is inconsistency in the breaches of rules that are recorded in the punishment book. Between 1952 and 1954, there was almost no entry for punishment of immorality, yet from September 1954 onwards it was almost the sole reason for punishment. Given the frequency of punishments for immorality, it would be expected that there would have been some record of punishment for it in the first period, and, in the second period, there must have been some occasions when boys were punished for reasons other than immorality.

There is a gap at the front of the book where pages appear to be missing. There is nothing to indicate the reason for removing them.

The offences listed between 1952 and 1954 include stealing, disobedience, giving cheek, absconding, lying, laziness, smoking, talking at Mass, wasting food, horseplay, rough play, missing from yard, and being out of bounds. Also listed on a very small number of occasions was ‘immorality’ with other boys.

The recorded punishments varied according to the offence committed, and consisted of being hit with the leather strap on the hand or the buttocks. They were usually noted as being ‘over pants’, but on three dates in 1953 the book records that boys were punished by slaps ‘without pants’. Their offences were ‘run away, stole school property’, ‘run away’, ‘give cheek to a Brother’ and ‘destroying clothes’. The number of slaps with the leather strap on the bare bottom ranged from 6 to 15. These three dates in January and February 1953 are the only occasions when punishment was recorded as being given on the bare buttocks.

The following table provides some examples of offences and punishments for 1952 and 1953:

Date	Offence	Punishment
26Nov 1952	Giving cheek and being disobedient	6 over pants
20Dec 1952	Disobedience in continually playing soccer	6 over pants
20 Jan 1953	Run away, stole school property [3 boys committed this offence]	10 without pants [for one boy] and 15 without pants [for two boys]
22 Feb 1953	Give cheek to a Brother	12 without pants
23 Feb 1953	Destroying clothes [2 boys]	6 without pants [each]
22 April 1953	Disobedience, sulking, slothfulness	6 on pants
22 June 1953	Disobedience to Prefect	6 on hands
24 June 1953	Disrespect for teacher	6 on hands
25 June 1953	Lying and helping himself to bread and butter in the pantry	Six on hands
5 July 1953	Fooling and talking at Mass	8 on hands
6 July 1953	In boiler house having a rest	5 over pants
9 July 1953	Destroying his coat	4 on hands
2 Sept 1953	Throwing good food away	5 on hands
5 Sept 1953	Neglect of religious duties	12 over pants
21 Sept 1953	Stealing and running away	6 over pants
28 Sept 1953	Smoking in W.C.	6 over pants
13 Oct 1953	Plotting against the Prefects – an enemy in the camp	10 over pants

The entry for 19th September 1954 marked the beginning of the period of intense concentration on immorality. The last entry recorded that 18 boys were punished for immorality. The first 10 of them were guilty of ‘wretched’ immorality, and each of them received 20 slaps over pants. The remaining eight boys were also found guilty of ‘wretched’ immorality but ‘yet not so frequently’. Despite this mitigating circumstance, these eight boys nevertheless received the same punishment of ‘20 over pants’. A simple calculation shows that, on this day, one Brother administered 360 strokes of the leather strap on the buttocks of 18 boys.

An entry in the book dated 17th November 1955 recorded punishment, for immorality with other boys, of ‘20 over pants’, and concluded with the comment: A coward when faced with the music. But when Arturo Toscanini took the baton in his hand, there was more music in Beethoven’s “Fifth” than one expected to find.

This was not explained in the book but it seems to be a self-congratulatory and pejorative reference to the cries that the beating produced. The Prefect, Br Alfonso,6 who made the entry gave evidence to the Investigation Committee, and denied that the reference to Beethoven in the context of being conducted by Toscanini had anything to do with striking the boys, but was to do with making them sing.