494 entries for Historical Context

The Department of Education referred to this matter in its Submission to the Investigation Committee: While the punishment of boys in this instance appeared to contravene Department regulations, the Inspector is not recorded as having challenged the Resident Manager and it is possible that Dr. McCabe considered reformatories requiring a different approach in regard to discipline and the use of corporal punishment. There is no evidence that she offered advice on how the troublesome boys could have been treated differently; the 1946 circular stated that principals could draw on the advice of the Department’s Medical Inspector “regarding any children who are specially troublesome of difficult to control”.

This statement itself revealed the problem. The Inspectors were the only persons who could, through their regular visits, ensure that the rules for corporal punishment were being followed. If Dr McCabe believed that the rules and regulations relating to corporal punishment did not apply to reformatories, this was a fact that should have been recorded in the Department records. It is a measure of the inadequacy of the Department’s supervision that it did not know what standards its own Inspector applied. In this case, the Inspector reported back and received Departmental approval for her approach.

Dr McCabe’s acceptance of the blatant breach of the rules and regulations governing corporal punishment is significant. No attempt was made to disguise the regime in operation. The Department of Education knew its rules were being breached in a fundamental way and condoned it. As a result, management in Daingean could and did operate a system of punishment in breach of the rules laid down by the Department, in the knowledge that the Department would not interfere.

The Department received another complaint, in 1964, contained in a letter from a solicitor on behalf of the parents of a boy, in which it was alleged that the boy had sustained injuries on his first day in Daingean in November 1963. His mother complained that, when she visited him in February 1964, she saw that his face was injured and her son told her that he had ‘received violence’ from one of the Brothers in the School. The solicitors requested that the Department investigate the matter, as the parents had not been informed by the School of their son’s injuries.

There was a short, handwritten note on the letter by a Department official, ‘please send copy to Mgr and ask him for his observations’.

The next letter on file is a letter from the Department of Education to the solicitors: I am directed to inform you that the allegations made by the parents of the boy have been investigated by the Manager of the school. He is satisfied that the allegations made by the parents are without foundation and that none of the Brothers in St. Conleth’s treated the boy with violence of any kind. I am to add that the boy’s mother visited him [in June, 1964] and is reported as having expressed her pleasure at her son’s progress and well-being.

There is no record of what investigations the Resident Manager made and no written record of what he told the Department.

During a visit to Daingean in early June, a father noticed that his son had a black eye. The boy’s explanation was that he had been kneed in the face by a Brother, who took bread from him. Another boy gave him a slice of his bread, and that boy in turn was beaten.

On 13th June 1969, the boy’s mother called to the Department of Education to apply for the discharge of her son, and had a conversation with an official who recorded what she said. She complained that he had been ill-treated in Daingean. She alleged that he had a black eye inflicted by one of the Brothers, and she also recounted the incident with the bread, which she claimed took place in the presence of another Brother, whom she named. The note of the meeting prepared by the Department official stated that this Brother denied having seen the incident. She was also annoyed that she had not received any letters from her son, as promised by the School.

After this visit to the Department, the mother wrote to the authorities in Daingean, informing them in an undated letter that she had lodged a complaint with the Department against the Brother who had injured her son. She was worried that he would be further injured for having spoken about his ill-treatment to his father, ‘... probably his arms and legs are broken for tell his Daddy as you don’t like squealers’. She also complained that her son was bullied and terrorised by other boys in the School, and she asked that her complaints be investigated.

The Department official was sufficiently concerned by what he heard that he phoned Fr Luca the same day, requesting a school report as soon as possible. Fr Luca said he would investigate the matter but assured the Department official that boys were not prevented from writing home, quite the contrary.

The boy absconded from Daingean in January 1970 and, as there were no further records relating to him, it would appear that he was never brought back and that he remained at large. Neither was there any account of the investigation of the complaint.

The discovered documents reveal an unexplained anomaly. The Department’s system for processing requests for early discharge was to send a standard communication form, requesting the Manager to indicate whether discharge was recommended by him. That occurred in this case, but the form sent by the Department was dated one month prior to the mother’s visit to the Department – 12th May 1969. Fr Luca filled in this form but did not make clear whether he recommended a discharge or not, although he did state that he thought there was little hope for lasting or radical improvement in the boy. There was no reference in that document to the complaint by his mother. The document signed by Fr Luca is dated 13th June 1969 and is stamped as received by the Department on 16th June 1969.

Irrespective of the whereabouts of the boy, the mother’s complaints were serious but they went uninvestigated. The complaint that the boy had been bullied and terrorised in the Institution was similar to the evidence of many witnesses at the private hearings. The circumstances of the meeting in the Department, the boy’s escape and the lack of follow-up are not easy to reconcile with good administration.

The next documented complaint came in September 1969, when the Department of Education was visited by the mother of a boy admitted to Daingean two months previously. She came into the Department personally, the day after her visit to Daingean, with another son and complained of ill-treatment of her son on two occasions.