Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:10:27.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Venereal disease in the Irish Free State: the politics of public health

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2016

Susannah Riordan
Susannah Riordan*
Affiliation:
School of History and Archives, University College Dublin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his article ‘Venereal disease and the politics of prostitution in the Irish Free State’ Philip Howell argues that in 1926, following the submission of the Report of the interdepartmental committee of inquiry regarding venereal disease, the Irish government was confronted with ‘a series of proposals to regulate prostitution in the Free State’ These proposals are associated with the influence brought to bear by the army on the committee’s deliberations, and it is suggested that this preferred military solution to venereal disease falls into a European pattern in which state formation was frequently accompanied by such regulation. The example of Italy is offered as the most pertinent. However, Howell suggests, the government rejected the regulation of prostitution in favour of ‘a moral regulation of sexuality marked by elements of Catholic social purity’.

Type
Research Article
Information
Irish Historical Studies , Volume 35 , Issue 139 , May 2007 , pp. 345 - 364
Copyright
Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Howell, Philip, ‘Venereal disease and the politics of prostitution in the Irish Free State’ in I.H.S., xxxiii, no. 131 (May 2003), pp 320-41Google Scholar.

2 Ibid., p. 320.

3 Ibid., p. 321.

4 Ibid., p. 323.

5 The report, using army statistics, only considered female to male transmission. Howell is not alone in finding this offensive. See McAvoy, Sandra, ‘The regulation of sexuality in the Irish Free State, 1929–35’ in Jones, Greta and Malcolm, Elizabeth (eds), Medicine, disease and the state in Ireland, 1650–1940 (Cork, 1999), p. 263 Google Scholar. However, no statistics were available for other forms of transmission.

6 In 1899 an international conference on venereal diseases held in Brussels ‘had concluded that such measures simply did not work’: see Ross, J.E. and Tomkins, S.M., ‘The British reception of Salvarsan’ in Journal of the History of Medicine, lii (1997), p. 401 Google Scholar.

7 Ibid., pp 402–3.

8 Ibid., p. 423.

9 Davenport-Hines, Richard, Sex, death and punishment: attitudes to sex and sexuality in Britain since the Renaissance (London, 1991 ed.), pp 211-14Google Scholar; Briget Towers, A., ‘Health education policy, 1916–1926: venereal disease and the prophylaxis dilemma’ in Medical History, xxiv (1980), pp 72-5Google Scholar.

10 Royal Commission on Venereal Disease: final report of the commissioners [Cmd 8189], 1916, xvi, 3Google Scholar.

11 Bland, Lucy, ‘ “Cleansing the portals of life”: the venereal disease campaign in the early twentieth century’ in Langan, Mary and Schwarz, Bill (eds), Crises in the British state, 1880–1930 (London, 1985), p. 203 Google Scholar.

12 Hall, Lesley, review of Alan Hunt, Governing morals: a social history of moral regulation (http://homepages.primex.co.uk/∽lesleyah/censrev.htm) (20 Apr. 2005)Google Scholar.

13 Ross and Tomkins, ‘British reception of Salvarsan‘, p. 416. For a study of the impact of these clinics in Scotland see Davison, Roger, ‘ “A scourge to be firmly gripped”: the campaign for V.D. controls in interwar Scotland’ in Social History of Medicine, vi (1993), pp 213-35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Report of the interdepartmental committee of inquiry regarding venereal disease (Dublin, 1926) (N.A.I., DT S4183), pp 5–6 Google Scholar. This is the document referred to by Howell as the ‘Report of venereal disease in the Irish Free State’ (p. 321). As he notes, there are several versions of the report which went through an intensive process of editing. While Howell uses the pagination of the final version, the present article uses the pagination of the original printed version, as the provenance of the appendixes contained therein are of considerable significance, as discussed below. No excised material is cited. See Barrington, Ruth, Health, medicine and politics in Ireland, 1900–1970 (Dublin, 1987), p. 92 Google Scholar.

15 Dr Steevens’s Hospital served schemes in Dublin county borough and Counties Kildare and Wicklow, and Sir Patrick Dun’s Hospital served the area under the jurisdiction of Dublin County Council (Report, p. 6). Barrington notes that the local authorities along the east coast were most active owing to the extent of local recruitment into the British army (Health, medicine & politics, p. 81).

16 Howell, ‘Venereal disease’, p. 321.

17 Report, p. 10. See Howell, ‘Venereal disease’, p. 327.

18 Howell, ‘Venereal disease’, p. 327.

19 Report, p. 5.

20 A report from the Director General, Army Medical Service, to the Commander in Chief, National Forces [1923], pp 10, 15 (Military Archives (henceforth M.A.), Cathal Brugha Barracks, Dublin, A/7152)Google Scholar. The recommendation that the pay of infected officers and men be cut, as well of those with alcohol-related diseases, proved to be incompatible with the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1924, and was therefore dropped (minute by Judge Advocate General Cahir Davitt, 25 Feb. 1924 (ibid., A/8890)).

21 Report, p. 23.

22 Army Medical Services annual report (1923), p. 12 (M.A., A/09796).

23 Morrin, Francis J., ‘Memorandum on venereal disease in the army’, 15 Nov. 1923 (Dublin Diocesan Archives (henceforth D.D.A.), Byrne papers, army chaplains correspondence file)Google Scholar.

24 Report for week ending 8 Sept. 1923 (M.A., A/09796).

25 See report for week ending 3 Nov. 1923 (ibid.); Army Medical Services annual report (1923) (ibid.).

26 Morrin, ‘Memorandum on venereal disease in the army’

27 Army Medical Services annual report (1923), p. 13 (M.A., A/09796).

28 Morrin, ‘Memorandum on venereal disease in the army’

29 Davenport-Hines, Sex, death & punishment, p. 223.

30 See Towers, ‘Health education policy’; Tomkins, S.M., ‘Palmate or permanganate: the venereal prophylaxis debate in Britain, 1916–1926’ in Medical History, xxxvii (1993), pp 382-98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Notes accompanying ‘Approved military lecture (to serve as a basis for talks to men in camp)’ (D.D.A., Byrne papers, army chaplains’ correspondence file); Report, p. 20Google Scholar.

32 Dáil Éireann deb., xi, 1568 (14 May 1925).

33 For example, reports for weeks ending 28 Feb. 1924 and 21 Mar. 1924 (M.A., A/09796).

34 Howell, ‘Venereal disease’, p. 334.

35 Ibid., p. 336.

36 ‘Report of evidence given at interview by Kevin O’Higgins’, 22 Apr. 1924 (U.C.D.A., Mulcahy papers, P7/C/23).

37 Valiulis, Maryann Gialanella, Almost a rebellion: the Irish army mutiny of 1924 (Cork, 1985), pp 108-9Google Scholar. For an alternative interpretation see Erwin, Patrick, ‘Civilian control and the Free State army, 1922–5’ (M.A. thesis, University College Dublin, 1984)Google Scholar.

38 Transcript of evidence of Col. Jephson O’ Connell, 8 May 1924 (U.C.D.A., Mulcahy papers, P7/C/27); transcript of evidence of Gearóid O’Sullivan, 15 May 1924 (ibid., P7/C/27); see also Erwin, ‘Civilian control and the Free State army’, p. 141.

39 Howell, ‘Venereal disease’, p. 335.

40 Statement of Gearóid O’Sullivan, 1 May 1924 (U.C.D.A., Mulcahy papers, P7/C/12)Google Scholar.

41 O’Sullivan’s earlier concerns about the subject are made clear in his letter to Mulcahy, 17 Sept. 1923 (M.A., A/09796)Google Scholar.

42 Evidence of Gearóid O’Sullivan resumed, 15 May 1924 (U.C.D.A., Mulcahy papers, P7/C/32)Google Scholar.

43 Conversation with Lt-Gen. Costello, 23 May 1963, cited in Howell, ‘Venereal disease’, p. 335.

44 Mulcahy interview, 18 Oct. 1964 (U.C.D.A., Mulcahy tapes, Tape 136A)Google Scholar.

45 It is possible that Mulcahy is referring to some other form of prophylaxis, but the terminology as well as the fact that the word ‘prophylaxis’ is only used in Army Medical Service sources when referring to chemical prophylaxis would suggest that the interpretation is legitimate.

46 Duggan, John, A history of the Irish army (Dublin, 1991), p. 127 Google Scholar.

47 O’Higgins allegedly described his military career as ‘very short though very brilliant’ (Terence de Vere White,Kevin O’Higgins (Dublin, 1986 ed.), p. 119)Google Scholar. It is noteworthy that his duties included making provision for Republican prisoners suffering from venereal disease — two of whom absconded from open arrest in Dr Steevens’s Hospital in August 1922 (O’Higgins to Mulcahy, 9 Aug. 1922 (U.C.D.A., Mulcahy papers, P7/B/44/14)).

48 Statement of Kevin O’Higgins, 12 May 1924 (U.C.D.A., Mulcahy papers, P7/C/21)Google Scholar.

49 Howell suggests that Higgins was ‘probably’ O’Higgins’s brother and identifies him as deputy director of the Army Medical Service (‘Venereal disease’, pp 321,337). Higgins was gazetted as director in March 1924 and is credited as being such in the Report.

50 Report, p. 18.

51 Robert Percy McDonnell is listed as having enlisted with the rank of colonel-commandant on 14 Sept. 1922 (U.C.D.A., Mulcahy papers, P7/B/54/12). He later described himself as having ‘some years of army experience’ (Robert P. McDonnell, ‘Report on the incidence of venereal disease in the army and amongst a section of the civil population in the Free State’, 5 Nov. 1924 (N.A.I., DH B135/13)).

52 Report,p.18.

53 McCarron to O’Hegarty, 27 Nov. 1924 (N.A.I., DH B135/13).

54 O’Connor to McCarron, [Dec. 1924] (ibid.).

55 O’Connor to McCarron, 27 Feb. 1925 (ibid.).

56 Meagher to the medical officer of each county hospital and county home, 18 Mar. 1925(N.A.I.,DHB135/13).

57 ‘Medical services annual report, 1924’, p. 9 (M.A., A/13570)Google Scholar.

58 Ibid.

59 Report, p. 24.

60 ‘Report from head chaplain’, 12 Oct. 1926, pp 2–3 (D.D.A., Byrne papers, army chaplains’ correspondence file)Google Scholar.

61 Dáil Éireann deb., xi, 1568 (14 May 1925).

62 Howell, ‘Venereal disease’, p. 337.

63 ‘Memorandum on the development of the forces in the period 1923–1927 — prepared by the General Staff’, n.d. (M.A., A/0876)Google Scholar.

64 Howell, ‘Venereal disease’, pp 326, 327.

65 Indeed, McDonnell was not in any sense a representative of the army, although his report was drafted in collaboration with Carroll.

66 Howell, ‘Venereal disease’, p. 326.

67 Despite his previous military experience, McDonnell was acting in a civilian capacity as a medical inspector of the Department of Local Government and Public Health.

68 Howell, ‘Venereal disease’, p. 327.

69 This is not to presume that the Army Medical Service had achieved all it claimed to have achieved. However, both the committee and the cabinet accepted that the army had indeed solved its venereal disease problem.

70 Report, p. 9.

71 Ibid., pp 3–4.

72 Howell, ‘Venereal disease’, p. 331.

73 Report, p. 39.

74 Ibid., p. 35.

75 Ibid., p. 10.

76 Under Section 148 of the Public Health Act, 1878 (ibid., p. 11).

77 Ibid., p. 8.

78 Evidence of Dr G. Pugin Meldon (n.d.), Dr T. Percy Fitzgerald (8 May 1925), Dr Gibbon Fitzgibbon (29 May 1925) (N.A.I., DH B135/13). This was the only issue on which it is apparent that witnesses were asked to respond to a suggestion made by a member of the committee. All three opposed straightforward notification but either approved of or expressed no objection to the ‘modified’ scheme.

79 Report, p. 8.

80 Ibid., pp 10–11.

81 O’Hegarty to Gilligan, 1 Apr. 1926 (N.A.I., DH B135/13).

82 O’Hegarty to Gilligan, 22 June 1926 (ibid., DT S4183); Gilligan to O’Hegarty, 23 July 1926 (ibid.). Howell suggests that ‘immediate objections to the publication of the report led to the excision of passages that were overly specific, politically sensitive, or critical of the church’ (‘Venereal disease’, p. 337). This is not quite the case. The initial decision to edit was taken by the committee in advance of any objections being made to publication as the witnesses had not been consulted. This should, of course, have been addressed at a much earlier stage. There is much that is amateurish about the proceedings of the committee — its ‘questionnaire’ has been previously mentioned — but this is not evidence of more sinister agendas. Further excisions were made later, and one remark ‘critical of the church’ was removed before the report was shown to the archbishop of Dublin.

83 Gilligan to O’Hegarty, 23 July 1926 (N.A.I., DT S4183).

84 Howell, ‘Venereal disease’, p. 338.

85 O’Hegarty to Gilligan, 13 Oct. 1926 (N.A.I., DT S4183).

86 E.F. Stephenson, ‘Memorandum on the report of the interdepartmental committee on venereal disease’, 3 May 1926 (N.A.I., DH B135/13). The minister’s power to compel local authorities to adopt the venereal disease regulations of 1917 derived from this act.

87 This recommendation referred to solicitation which was only an offence where the act applied.

88 Howell, ‘Venereal disease’, p. 338.

89 Stephenson, ‘Memorandum on the report’, 3 May 1926 (N.A.I., DH B135/13). Although the Department of Local Government and Public Health (but not the Executive Council) had requested in April that the Department of Justice should forward its views on these matters, it had not done so: see Gilligan to Friel, 8 Apr. 1926 (ibid.). Recommendations (6) and (7) were not referred to.

90 Stephenson, ‘Memorandum on the report’, 3 May 1926 (ibid.).

91 Gilligan to O’Hegarty, 2 Nov. 1926 (ibid.).

92 Howell, ‘Venereal disease’, p. 338.

93 O’Higgins to O’Hegarty, 4 Jan. 1927 (N.A.I., DT S4183).

94 McCarron to O’Hegarty, 13 Dec. 1926, 7 Jan. 1927 (ibid., DH B135/13).

95 A note recording the outcome of the meeting was made on the memorandum dated 7 Jan. 1927 (ibid., DT S4183), which records the Executive Council’s preference for publication and decision to have Cosgrave and O’Higgins meet Burke.

96 As Howell notes, the archbishop’s only recorded comment on the substance of the report was surprise that venereal disease was not primarily disseminated by prostitutes (‘Venereal disease’, p. 338).

97 McDonnell memorandum, 13 July 1934 (N.A.I., DH B135/13). The government had declined to accede to this treaty in 1924. For the campaign see Kennedy, Michael, Ireland and the League of Nations, 1919–1946: international relations, diplomacy and politics (Dublin, 1996), pp 129-46Google Scholar.