186 entries for State Inspections

Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, however, numbers were sufficiently high to ensure an adequate income for the Institution, and this was particularly so after 1944 when the State grants were made payable on the accommodation limit of the School rather than the certified limit. For Glin, this meant an increase of per capita payments from 140 to 214. During this period, conditions for the boys in Glin were poor and in no respect reflected the funding that was available to the Institution.

The Visitation Reports for the period were not consistent in respect of financial information. The 1941 Report recorded a payment of £330 to the Manager, £200 to the Sub-Manager, and £120 to each of the five other Brothers working in the School. This represented approximately 25% of the State funding, which amounted to £5,014. It reflected a pattern seen in other industrial schools, where substantial sums were paid to the Community account for the maintenance of Brothers and of the Congregation. The figures for 1940 were unusually high and there is no explanation as to why. Subsequent Visitation Reports recorded sums paid into the Building Fund and, by the time the School closed, it had £7,000 invested in the Building Fund and a credit balance of £2,427 in the bank. The sums invested in the Building Fund were ‘excess funds’ from the Institution.

The basic stance of the Christian Brothers is that their institutions were not abusive and provided a positive experience for the boys who lived in them. They concede that, at certain times, some Brothers may have overstepped the mark and used excessive corporal punishment but, in the main, they contend that rules and regulations were complied with..

The Christian Brothers also contend that, where serious breaches of the rules occurred, the matter was dealt with promptly and appropriately by the authorities.

There are eight cases, within the documentation provided, where excessive corporal punishment was used. Not all of the Brothers mentioned below were working in Glin at the time the allegation against them was made. They are considered in detail below.

As in all the institutions run by the Christian Brothers, no punishment book was maintained. Without a written record of the nature of the punishments given, and the reasons for giving them, it is impossible to write about the extent of its use. The records that do exist are about clear excesses.

As set out in the General Chapter on the Christian Brothers, there were two sets of regulations governing the use of corporal punishment: the Department of Education regulations and the Rules and Acts of General Chapter.

With regard to the Rules and Acts of General Chapter, Mr Dunleavy found that ‘none of the Brothers who wrote a memoir have any recollection of the existence of such rules’. There were no written rules on the use of corporal punishment available to the Brothers within the School. They learnt how and when to punish from older, more experienced Brothers, who told them or showed them what to do.

By contrast, Br Gaston,4 when interviewed by Br McCormack for his report, stated, ‘There was no written code of discipline, but all were familiar with the rules laid down in the Acts of Chapter and the injunctions of the Directory concerning punishment of pupils’.

This informal approach to the regulation of corporal punishment increased the risk of abuses occurring. The Blake case (1945)

This case concerned a boy Paul Blake,5 who escaped from Glin following a severe punishment and went home to his mother. The story is recounted in a letter from a local councillor to the Minister for Education and the Minister for Justice: It is my distasteful duty to draw your attention to what I consider is a matter of paramount public importance. [A boy’s mother] called upon me on Wednesday last the 1st instant together with her son ... whom she stated was committed to Glin Industrial School. She further stated that the boy had escaped from the institution on the previous day, Tuesday 31st ultimo. She stated that he had received a flogging on Monday the 30th ultimo. She invited me to examine her son’s back which bore numerous dark stripes. There were also sores visible on the boy’s back. I issued a dispensary ticket to [a doctor] to have the youth examined at William Street Garda Station, Limerick, on the evening of Wednesday the 1st instant, three days after the alleged flogging had taken place. He (the doctor) informed me that the boy’s back bore evidence of having received a flogging. On questioning the boy, prior to his agreeing to surrender himself to the Garda authorities, he informed me that, as a result of his having not returned to the Industrial School at the end of the holiday period he was stripped of his clothes and flogged with a whip which had a number of leather thongs attached thereto. 1.Will you please state:- If a form of punishment so described by this boy is prescribed by law in certain cases in Industrial Schools and Borstal Institutions. 2.If the recipient of such treatment is compelled to be stripped or partly stripped of his clothing. 3.If it is compulsory for the Superior or other authorized person of an Industrial School or Borstal Institution to inflict such treatment in certain circumstances. 4.If the use of a whip with a number of leather thongs is prescribed and permitted. 5.If the report from Glin Industrial School agrees with the statement made to me by [the boy]. 6.If it does not in what respect does it differ. I may mention in conclusion that on Wednesday night this boy who handed himself over to the Garda authorities, later escaped from the members of the Glin Institution who had been sent to collect him at Limerick.

He received an acknowledgement on 8th August. On 25th August he sent a copy of the medical report which read: [The boy] was examined by me at William St. Barracks on August 1st 1945. Examination revealed on posterior surface of right upper arm, on right forearm and on back – wheals – about 2 to 3” long. The wheals were not tender or sore and was such as would be produced by a leather thong.

This medical report showed that the boy was severely beaten in a way that was against the regulations at that time.

Six weeks later, on 19th September, the Councillor had not received a reply from the Minister so he wrote again. He wrote, ‘As this matter is now long outstanding I would like to have a full reply to my letter. Will you kindly facilitate me in this connection at your earliest convenience’.

The Councillor was sent a brief note from the Secretary of the Department of Education dated 29th September 1945. The note said: I am directed by the Minister for Education to say that he has had full enquiries made into the circumstances of the case and has taken appropriate action in connection therewith.