462 entries for Tralee

Br Aribert, whilst accepting only that one of the Brothers was maybe harsh ‘on occasions’ towards the boys, also identified a loneliness in them. He did not know if the emotional needs of the boys were adequately catered for. He said that, whenever he or any Brother was on yard duty, the boys came and linked with them (three or four on each side of the Brother) and he felt it meant a lot to them, ‘that at least they had someone literally to hang on to’. He felt that there was an element of the boys feeling rejection and loneliness, even though they did not say so in so many words.

Whilst these three Brothers were clearly identifying an emotional need in the children in Tralee, they were not able to say what might have been done to offer a greater degree of comfort to the boys there. The witnesses who spoke to the Committee were quite clear that it was not possible to report or complain to any other Brother about mistreatment or abuse.

Other Brothers who were in Tralee did not identify emotional deprivation in the boys there. One Brother who was in the School in the mid to late 1940s stated that, as far as he knew, the Brothers and the boys got on well. He did not know if the boys were afraid of the Brothers but said that they had more respect for the Principal than the rest, as he had power.

Another Brother, Br Boyce, who had also worked in Artane, said that Tralee was more relaxed than Artane, for both the Brothers and the boys. He said that the small numbers there meant that they could deal with the boys easily. He was able to talk to the boys more easily. The boys were the same kind as in Artane, although he thought the boys were more relaxed in Tralee. He felt that the boys were helped, i.e. emotionally supported, by the smaller numbers in the School.

Br Bevis said that he did not think that there were many boys who found it difficult to cope. He accepted that they had their own fears and that there were tears for being rejected by their parents, tears of loneliness and tears from probably being taunted by the other boys, but they could tell ‘most of the Brothers’. For his own part, he said that boys would come to him and tell him that someone was bullying them or jeering at them. He did not accept that the atmosphere was cold and indifferent to their plight. He said the boys could complain to the Brothers about excessive corporal punishment being meted out by other Brothers, but accepted that there was no system for making complaints and that no investigations into complaints took place.

Two Brothers, Brs Aribert and Chapin, stated that they felt that they had a good relationship personally with the boys, and both said that generally the relationship between the Brothers and the boys was very good. Br Aribert referred to the boys needing someone to literally hang onto, and also said that the staff who were there in his time were ‘very caring people’. He mentioned one particular Brother, Br Reve, who was like a father figure.

Br Octave, in a reply to a Christian Brothers’ questionnaire, said that some of the Brothers were very tough on the boys and punished them severely. Others were more equable. He said it was important that all staff established their own discipline.

Some complainants gave evidence of kindness shown to them by different Brothers. However, one Brother described a failing in the Institution, when he said that the boys became institutionalised. He said that the ‘personal touch wasn’t there. Well, I suppose from men that is what you would kind of expect ... that the personal touch wasn’t really there’. He also pointed out that, when the boys left the School and ‘went out on their own’, they could not cope. ‘They lost the back-up of routine that they were used to’.

In 1947 the Visitation Report commented that, while the Resident Manager’s ‘intercourse with the boys is kindly ... it never sacrifices the distance that inspires respect’. In 1953 the Visitation Report stressed contact rather than a relationship. It wrote that the Resident Manager’s: main contacts with the boys ... are: Inspection every morning, the Store and distribution of clothing, etc. when necessary, and giving the boys a Religious Instruction on Sundays.

In 1957 the Report remarked on the quality of emotional support. It noted the Brothers were generally ‘sympathetic and considerate in their dealings with the boys and hence the Institution does, as far as possible, resemble a home’ and there was no attempt to run away.

The relationship between the boys and the Brothers in charge was very rarely described in positive terms by ex-residents of industrial schools, but many Brothers had a different understanding. Even today, some Brothers looking back at their time in schools such as Tralee do not appear to appreciate how the School impacted on the children who were sent there.

The Brothers who appeared before the Investigation Committee spoke of their daily routine and the stresses of working in Tralee. Four of the seven Brothers who worked in Tralee for other than holiday relief spoke about the busy days they had in the School, and one of them spoke about the stress it placed him under. This respondent, Br Mahieu, stated that he had a lot of supervision to do. It was generally the two or three teaching Brothers who organised and took responsibility for the daily activity, the timetables and the routines in the School. He also spoke about the arrival of boys from Glin and Upton in 1966 as causing a difficulty in terms of looking after them and trying to cope with them. He said it caused ‘an awful lot of extra vigilance’. He became less happy with his work there until they had ‘got to grips with the situation’. Other Brothers also spoke about the long hours.

Br Mahieu spoke of the difficulty of dealing with bed-wetters. He had nobody to help him, and trying to cope with it wore him down. The only resource available was an old-fashioned laundry. He acknowledged that he would get frustrated and would use the strap, which he bitterly regretted. He felt he was put into an almost impossible situation. There could be six or eight bed-wetters and soilers in a dormitory.

The 1966 Visitation Report noted that a number of older Brothers resided in Tralee, and advised that every member of staff should be able to take his share of duties and help to lighten the burden of the others, and this was going to be all the more necessary when the boys from Glin arrived. In the circumstances, the Visitor felt Tralee was not a suitable place for the old Brothers. With these older, more infirm Brothers unable to work, the burden of work fell unfairly on the younger Brothers. The evidence of Br Lisle confirmed that in 1966 there were only four Brothers, including himself, available to run the School, out of a total of 11 Brothers in the Community. He pointed out he was not trained as a teacher. Br Mahieu claimed that one of the remaining Brothers, Br Marceau, was not someone to whom supervision duties could be given.

Like those in other Christian Brothers institutions, Brothers in Tralee did not receive any training in childcare. According to the Opening Statement of the Christian Brothers, newcomers had to rely on the example and advice of senior colleagues. They also relied on the support of established routines and procedures. Six of the seven former permanent staff members who gave evidence to the Investigation Committee had all entered the novitiate at 14 or 15, and were no more than 18 years old after completing their first year in St Helen’s. All seven were aged between 24 and 28 when they arrived in Tralee. Br Bevis said that he did not believe early entry into the seminary affected his ability to cope with the boys emotionally, but he did concede that he needed more experience and that, if he had the chance to go back, he would do things differently.