227 entries for Church Inspections

Visitation Reports from the 1940s and 1950s made it clear that trades were expected to pay their way or to make a profit for the School. In 1947, the Visitor was critical of the fact that the tailor and shoemaker did little else than meet the necessities of the School. He noted that there was very good work being done in the various departments. He noted that the bread that was produced by the baker was very good, and there was a steady trade carried on with surrounding districts by the smiths and cartwrights.

Within a year, in March 1871, that number had been increased to an accommodation limit of 150 and a certified limit of 145. A series of land acquisitions throughout the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, culminating in the purchase of 16 acres in 1951, increased the size of the land available to 76 acres. A Visitation Report for 1970 recorded that, of the total 76 acres, 9 acres were Diocesan property and the remaining 67 were Congregation property. The buildings stood on the Diocesan property. The property was sold by the Christian Brothers to the Urban Council for what it was hoped was a ‘realistic price’, apart from 15 acres which were retained as playing pitches for the Green Secondary School.

The problem of falling numbers remained and, as early as 1955, the Visitor discussed the uncertain future of industrial schools such as Tralee. The follow-up letter to the Visitation Report noted that the boys’ apartments needed a ‘bit of a clean up’, but added that it was hard to ‘forecast the future for such schools’.

In the 1950s, there were two Resident Managers who appeared to take a genuine interest in the School and who tried to improve conditions there. The first of these, however, was criticised by ‘senior Brothers’ who found him too interfering. The follow-up letter after one Visitation implied that he should place more reliance on his Brothers and recommended he refrain from interference, since it ‘may produce much better results’ in the Community. In the late 1950s, a Resident Manager was appointed who was noted for his kindness to the boys and the Brothers. A Visitation Report remarked that he was regarded as a ‘kind father and guide’ by the boys and the Brothers.

Despite the very clear concerns expressed in the first Report about his severity, in a follow-up letter to the Resident Manager it was recommended that Br Eriq be appointed to a teaching post and that the services of a lay teacher could be dispensed with. The lay teacher had left before the next Visitation.

The following Visitation Report again singled out Br Eriq for criticism of his excessive use of punishment: [He] gives way rather often to outbursts of ill temper and inflicts immoderate corporal on the dull children in his class. I had abundant evidence that the charge against Br Eriq is true. The Superior makes a strong appeal to have [him] changed at some future date and to get an additional Brother for the staff.

Three Visitation Reports revealed that Br Eriq had failed to heed warnings about excessive punishments. There was no reason to believe that moving him to another school would have had any effect on his violent outbursts. A Brother with a known propensity for violent behaviour should not have been sent to another industrial school where he could inflict such punishment on other children. Documented cases of physical abuse: Br Marceau

One Visitation Report for that school noted that he was ‘doing most efficient work’ and without ‘any apparent severity’. When he left this school, the annals noted that he had given ‘wonderful service to the College having been in charge of the Infant dept. during his period here’.

He was then transferred to a school in the Midlands. A Visitation Report for that school in the late 1950s gave the first indication of a potential problem about his over-severe use of punishment: Br Marceau is a most energetic teacher and his pupils have made unusually good progress, nevertheless, the parents do not seem to have sufficient confidence in him. He was a little too severe, but he has overcome that difficulty and realises the ill-effects severity could have in a school of that kind.

A later Visitation Report, however, expressed concern about him. It mentioned he was not on the ‘official staff’: [Br Marceau] is a problem and a constant source of worry and anxiety to the Superior. He has a persecution complex, among others, and is unpredictable. At the moment his chief preoccupation is trying to recover a set of tools which he believes the Superior has taken and his enquiries have extended to the men in the Shops. He has several tea chests and cases of nondescript “property” stored away under lock and key and is constantly adding to his store. The Superior has a big job in keeping him under surveillance ... Br Marceau has a class of eleven boys but his stock of visual aids would supply several classes. I counted seventeen blackboards in his classroom. Most of his charts deal with Irish – lists of verbs, nouns, etc. – and he maintains that much time is saved. The children are tense and answer mechanically and are “encouraged” to use the time before class and other recess periods for learning off these lists and other lessons. He has beaten one of these boys severely, with the usual “black eye” result and boxed the ears of the youngest boy in the place, who attends the Convent School, but, as always, he denies everything when challenged and convinces himself that he is telling the truth. He made a strong appeal to the Visitor to have the Canonical Warning he received for such an offence annulled and he has consulted priests about this. It is preying on his mind.

This Visitation Report contained all the criticisms that the Superior of the school in the Midlands had made some years before: Br Marceau was using excessive corporal punishment, he was causing actual bodily harm to the boys, and could not be disciplined as he could see no wrong in himself. In the follow-up letter to the Resident Manager, he was advised: It appears that it is still necessary to keep Br Marceau under surveillance and that his indiscretions are liable to give rise to embarrassing situations ... he must be absolutely forbidden to punish the children.

Contrary to Br Nolan’s interpretation of Br Marceau’s removal, there is no evidence that Br Marceau was prevented from finishing the academic year as a teacher. At the end of the school year, the internal national school closed down anyway. He was not removed from the Institution and still had access to the children for over a year after the Visitation Report mentioned above.

Br Nolan also stated during the Phase I hearing that he believed that Brothers in Tralee would have complained about Br Marceau, but that there were no written reports apart from the Visitation Reports.

This complainant also said that Br Marceau would give the boys in first and second class charts to learn at night and, if they did not know them in the morning, ‘they were in for a hammering’. He was in third class next door at the time and would ‘hear all the lads screaming and shouting’. The second time Br Marceau was in Tralee, two other Brothers (including the school Principal) would wander through to keep an eye on him and to see he was not giving the young boys a hard time.8 This level of supervision is consistent with the Visitation Reports and the oral evidence of other Christian Brothers.

This Brother was in Tralee from the mid to late 1930s, having previously worked in Carriglea in the early 1930s. One Visitation Report during that time made the following reference to him: The main defect in Br Beaufort is his violent temper which on some occasions vented itself on the boys, but he is sorry afterwards and I am satisfied that he is on his guard against this defect and is striving to correct it.