10,992 entries for Inspections - State
BackMr Dunleavy BL, in his report on Glin Industrial School, examined the reasons for boys being admitted. During the period 1940 to 1947, he tabulated his findings as follows:<br><table><colgroup><col></col><col></col></colgroup><thead><tr><th><strong>Reason for admission</strong></th>
 <th><strong>Number</strong></th>
 </tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Destitution</td>
 <td>111</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Larceny</td>
 <td>62</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Not attending school</td>
 <td>61</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Wandering</td>
 <td>49</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Having a parent not a proper guardian</td>
 <td>38</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Parents unable to control child</td>
 <td>12</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Receiving alms</td>
 <td>10</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Being under the care of a parent with criminal habits</td>
 <td>6</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Homelessness</td>
 <td>5</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Fraudulent conversion</td>
 <td>2</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Housebreaking</td>
 <td>2</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Assault</td>
 <td>2</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Malicious damage</td>
 <td>2</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Total<br></br></td>
 <td>362</td>
 </tr></tbody></table>
His examination of the data revealed that, apart from one 12-year-old boy who was sentenced for a period of one and a half years, ‘not one of the boys above was committed for less than the maximum period allowed by law’. In short, no boy was to leave the School before the age of 16.
He went on to note: Even if crimes such as larceny, truanting and housebreaking, which may well have been motivated by poverty are excluded from the list of offences directly attributable to poverty – it is clear that over 48% of the boys were committed to Glin as a direct consequence of their impoverished backgrounds.
Mr Dunleavy stated that, between 1947 and 1966, the reasons for admissions were as follows:<br><table><colgroup><col></col><col></col></colgroup><thead><tr><th><strong>Reason for admission</strong></th>
 <th><strong>Number</strong></th>
 </tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Having a parent not a proper guardian</td>
 <td>218</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Destitution</td>
 <td>95</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Larceny</td>
 <td>35</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Not attending school</td>
 <td>12</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Housebreaking</td>
 <td>7</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Wandering</td>
 <td>6</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Homelessness</td>
 <td>4</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Parents unable to control child</td>
 <td>3</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Receiving Alms</td>
 <td>2</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Parent unable to support child</td>
 <td>2</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Fraud</td>
 <td>1</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Being under the care of a parent with criminal habits</td>
 <td>1</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Total<br></br></td>
 <td>386</td>
 </tr></tbody></table>
The Industrial Schools Act (Ireland), 1868 had envisaged that each school be under the control of a Manager and Management Committee, with the day-to-day running of the school under the supervision of a Resident Manager. In Glin, however, as in all Christian Brothers’ industrial schools, the role of Resident Manager was assumed by the local Superior of the Community. The House Council, consisting of the Superior, Sub-Superior, and one or more Councillors, served as a form of Management Committee.
The numbers in the primary school in Glin varied from a maximum of 212 boys, in the late 1940s, to 48 when the School closed in 1966. The average number of teachers who served on the staff was five.
The Resident Manager was responsible for the overall management of Glin on a day-to-day basis. The duties of the Resident Manager included the health and welfare of the boys, admission and discharge, staff, management of buildings and property, and interaction with Government Departments and other agencies. He was also the Superior of the Community and Manager of the Primary School. In this role the Resident Manager had the responsibilities now carried out by a Board of Management. The Resident Manager had responsibility for the educational life of the School, the lay teachers and the finance.
From 1936 until 1966, Glin had eight Resident Managers, three of whom served terms of six years.
Br Jules1 was appointed Resident Manager in the early 1950s. He abolished the separate post of Disciplinarian and assumed the duties himself. In an internal Christian Brothers interview that he gave, he recalled in relation to discipline: There were no written rules. There was a general understanding of rules, passed on from year to year. I never saw the “Rules and Regulations for the Industrial Schools”.
Br Coyan,2 speaking about his experiences in Glin, recalled Br Jules and his attitude to corporal punishment in the School: Well we had strict and firm orders from Br Jules, he was the boss and the principal. We were not to punish a young fella, if any young fella became troublesome, he was to be sent to him. I remember that occasion when I had the run in with [a boy], it was reported to him and he met me the next morning and he ate me for dead and I said sorry I lost my temper and that’s that.
In 1955, the Visitor remarked, ‘There is a homely spirit prevailing in our Glin Industrial School that could hardly be attained in a very large school’. The post of Disciplinarian was never reinstated in Glin, and subsequent Resident Managers continued with this regime. Br Hugues3 replaced Br Jules as Resident Manager in the late 1950s and was considered kind and considerate towards the boys. A Visitor’s Report stated: when the Superior came last Summer a number of boys took to running away although they had been kindly treated. It appears that this phase is rather common at change of Superior. Now all have settled down again ... The Superior is kind and considerate towards the boys and the boys respond well and seem to be quite happy and friendly. The Superior is not a believer in rigorous discipline.
Br Hugues continued to be viewed as a successful Resident Manager in Glin and, in 1961, the Visitor reported that he was: a man of happy disposition, gentle, kind and self-sacrificing and not easily perturbed. He seems to possess the qualities which contribute to the efficient running of the school and the happiness of the Brothers and boys.
The Visitor in 1962 remarked that the Superior was: very highly appreciated by each and every member of the community for his evenness of disposition, his sense of fairness to the boys and to the Brothers ... He is very kind to the boys and they appreciate this as shown by the good spirit in the place.
In 1964, the Visitor singled out Br Hugues for his ‘efficiency, self-sacrifice, kindness to all and devotedness to duty ...’.
It would appear that from the early 1950s the regime was less strict in Glin than in some other Christian Brothers’ schools, and the influence of a kinder and more efficient Resident Manager had a lasting effect on the ethos of the School. However, the accommodation of the School in a former Victorian workhouse meant that what improvements were effected were offset by the unsuitability of the building for its purpose.