Chapter 2 — Upton

Physical abuse

A further entry dated 20th November 1955 recorded sexual offences by nine boys, including the same boy referred to in the above quotation. This time, the entry reads: Observe that these boys have repeated the same offence – they were up to their eyes in it any time they got a chance: their activities were confined to their own happy circle and no one else could enter – where angels fear to tread.

A comment about one of the boys displayed an awareness of peer sexual abuse, as distinct from immorality among consenting boys: A new offender interfered with many small boys.

Other examples of punishment in the latter part of the book, from 1954 to 1963, are set out in the following table:

Date	Offence	Punishment
19 Sept 1954	Immorality – wretched [18 boys]	20 over pants [each]
19 Sept 1955	Immorality – wretched, yet not too frequently [one boy]	20 over pants
19 Sept 1955	Immorality – not so extensive [one boy]	15 over pants
19 Sept 1955	Bad conduct – immorality [4 boys]	10 over pants [each]
19 Sept 1955	Immoral talk [2 boys]	3 over pants [each]
28 Sept 1956	Immorality [2 boys]	4 over pants and 6 over pants
31 Jan 1959	Immorality under the eyes of others in the billiard room [2 boys]	10 over pants [each]
26 Feb 1960	Immorality with others [6 boys]	10 over pants [for 5 boys] and 8 over pants [for one boy]
04 Mar 1960	Immorality with others	10 over pants
05 Mar 1960	Immorality with others [2 boys]	10 over pants each
08 Mar 1960	Immorality with others [2 boys]	10 over pants each
04 April 1960	Immorality with others	10 over pants
5 Jan 1962	Immorality in school giving bad example to small boys also going on with filthy talk	20 over pants
9 Jan 1962	Immorality with others while supposed to be working in sacristy	20 over pants

The first punishment book for Upton spanned the period 1889 to 1893. For most misdemeanours, the punishment ranged from three to eight slaps of the leather and, for the more serious offences such as immoral conduct, cursing, immodest language and absconding, the number of strokes ranged from 10 to 15. The highest number recorded in the book was 15, and this occurred only twice. The next highest number of slaps was 14, which also occurred twice.

Sexual acts amongst the boys did not seem to be a major problem at that time. A few instances were recorded in 1890 of immodest conduct and immodest language. A boy received 15 slaps on 5th April 1890 for immodest conduct. On 9th June 1890, nine boys were found guilty of immorality in the fields, and six were given 12 slaps, two received nine slaps of the leather, and one boy received no punishment. The only other example of immorality amongst boys is recorded on 11th December 1893, when five boys were found guilty and were stripped, and four received eight slaps and one received seven slaps of the leather.

The most striking difference between the two books is that the earlier book is systematic, with a chronological method of recording the information. These entries make it probable that it is a full account of punishments for serious misconduct during the period covered, as required by the rules. The later book compares unfavourably with it: it is not comprehensive, it is unmethodical, and is often not chronological. In addition, the severity of punishment in the later book is greater than the earlier one. Impact of 1952–1963 book

The information in the 1952–1963 book tended to undermine and contradict the recollection of former staff of the School as to the punishment regime.

The severity of punishment, as recorded in the book, is greatly in excess of what some respondent witnesses remembered. Br Alfonso was insistent that the amount of punishment was not excessive, and he was quite vigorous in defending his position. The numbers of blows recorded in the book, however, were wholly in conflict with his recollection, and counsel for the complainants suggested to him that the evidence of this book was more reliable because it was a contemporaneous record, and the Prefect or other person recording the punishment in the book had no reason to exaggerate the amount. The intention must have been to give an accurate description of what was inflicted.

Apart from Br Alfonso, the Investigation Committee had evidence in the form of correspondence from Br Giovani,7 who served in Upton for one year in the 1950s, a period covered by the entries in the book, which gave a different impression of the level of punishment from that indicated in the punishment book.

The entries in the punishment book demonstrate that the severity and frequency of beatings were greater than what were recollected by the staff. This discrepancy explains why accounts given by complainants, whose credibility was not in doubt, differed so markedly from the accounts given by respondents. This conflict appears in other institutions investigated.

The 1952-1963 punishment book provides evidence of the severity of punishments that were inflicted in Upton in the 1950s and early 1960s. It contradicts the recollections of Br Alfonso and Br Giovani, who recalled that punishments were not excessive, and supports the accounts given by the complainants. The later book contrasts unfavourably with the one kept in the late 19th century. It is not comprehensive, it is not methodical and is often not chronological, and the severity of punishment is greater. Some of the comments in the book suggest that they were not written in anticipation of an official inspection of the book, and there is no record of any such inspection. The punishment book is not a complete record, but it is accurate in respect of the punishment that it records. The book does not demonstrate an ordered system of punishment that was properly supervised and recorded on all occasions. The punishment books are not a complete record of punishments administered during the periods they cover. It is highly likely that other beatings were also administered.

Br Alfonso was a dominant figure during his time in Upton. He held the position of Prefect for a number of years from the mid-1950s. He was physically strong, and evidence from former residents confirms this.

One former resident was asked to describe Br Alfonso. He said: He had a bubbly personality, he had a wonderful structure. He was a brilliant golfer and a brilliant hurler ... To me, I was his lap dog. If he hit a sliotar and it went into the woods or into the nettles, me in my short little pants had to go and look for it and bring it back to him. Likewise, with a golf ball. And if you couldn’t find it you stayed until you did.

Another witness described the strength of Br Alfonso when he administered the strap: He really physically forced (indicating). It was like a golf driver and he was a golfer. That’s what he used to spend his time, playing golf. He used use the straps like a golfer. I never got so much pain in my life.

Br Alfonso said that corporal punishment in Upton was an essential tool in the maintenance of order in the School. He was given no training or advice regarding its use, which was a matter solely for his discretion. Other members of staff would send boys to him for punishment, and he always knew the reason for the punishment. He said that he always recorded his punishments in the punishment book and that the Resident Manager inspected his book regularly. When the entries in the punishment book were first raised with Br Alfonso during the investigation into Ferryhouse, in questioning about absconders, he said: The most strokes on the seat of the pants they would get for anything like that, if it were that, would be 10 strokes, that was a lot but that was what it was, that would be the maximum.