irish abnormal flight by Earl DeMott

The Abnormal Flight: The Migration and Repatriation of Irish Unmarried Mothers Author(s): Paul Michael Garrett Source: Social History, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Oct., 2000), pp. 330-343 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4286682 . Accessed: 19/05/2013 09:48 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.82.252.58 on Sun, 19 May 2013 09:48:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Q), Lt6

Social History Vol. 25 No. 3 October

2000

c wt

Paul Michael Garrett

The and

abnormal

the

flight: Irish

repatriation of

migration unmarried

mothers* INTRODUCTION This article discusses the migration of unmarried mothers from Ireland to England and their repatriation back to Ireland. In focusing on this process, the annual reports of the Child Protection and Rescue Society of Ireland are explored, together with official reports of the twentysix county state. Throughout, the former will be referred to as either the CPRSI or 'the Society'.' The CPRSI was founded in 1913 largely because of concerns about the children of Catholics being taken care of by 'Protestant proselytising bodies'.2 No 'class of Catholic' was 'free from the efforts of these enemies of the Faith', but they worked, it was alleged,'chiefly amongst the children of mixed marriages, unmarried mothers, and amongst the very poor of the city slums'.3 The CPRSI was not the first Catholic organization to undertake this type of activity and it acknowledged the 'immense good work' done by other Catholic institutions and societies already in existence. These, however, were 'local in their activity and limited in their objects'.4 The CPRSI hoped to 'co-operate, and to supplement them, to undertake what lies without their scope'.5 Children 'rescued' by the Society were placed in Catholic orphanages or 'boarded

* I am grateful to Dr Elizabeth Malcolm of the University of Melbourne and Professor Jane Lewis of the University of Oxford. Neither read this article, yet both - in differing ways and at different times - encouraged me in my research activities. Elizabeth O'Flynn, secretary of Cunamh, allowed me to have access to the archives of her agency. 1 In 1992 the Child Protection and Rescue Society of Ireland, by then also a registered adoption society, changed its name to Cunamh: Child Care Agency. It remains located at 30 South Anne Street, Dublin, where it moved to in I921. 2 Catholic Protectionand Rescue Society of Ireland

Annual Report (Dublin, 1916), II. 3 Catholic Protectionand Rescue Society of Ireland Annual Report (Dublin, 1923), 2. A list of the CPRSI's chief foes are provided in Catholic Protection and Rescue Society of Ireland Annual Report (Dublin, 1936), 4. 4 Catholic Protectionand Rescue Society of Ireland Annual Report (Dublin, I914), 7-8. See also M. Luddy, Womenand Philanthropyin Nineteenth-century Ireland(Cambridge, 1995), chap. 3. 5 Catholic Protectionand Rescue Society of Ireland Annual Report (Dublin, I916), 12.

Social History ISSN 0307-I022

online ÂŠ 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltd

print/ISSN 1470-I200

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

This content downloaded from 128.82.252.58 on Sun, 19 May 2013 09:48:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

October2000

Irish unmarried mothers

331

out' with Catholic foster carers. By the early I940s, despite early financial problems, it was able to claim that almost seven-and-a-half thousand children had been 'rescued' in this way.6 It was not, however, until 1942 that the CPRSI felt able to conclude that'proselytism has entered its final phase'.7 Perhaps, as a result of the perceived demise of this internal threat, the organization began to take more practical interest in 'cases' where children were simply 'unwanted'. Previously, it had concentrated solely on 'unwanted' children 'whose Faith' was 'in imminent danger'.8 By the early I950s, the Society's more general 'family welfare' work was also increasing.9 The concern about safeguarding the souls of Catholic children continued to preoccupy the CPRSI in the context of concerns about the 'numbers of Catholic babies who are being lost to the Faith in England'.10 Indeed, in the early I960s, this problem was 'assuming proportions far greater' than the worst years of proselytism in Ireland."1 In its annual report for 1960, the CPRSI defined 'repatriation' as follows: It means simply this: that we bring back to Ireland those pregnant girls who go over to England seeking help from already burdened English Rescue Societies. When a girl, pregnant from this country, seeks the assistance of our counterparts in England or Wales, we authorize those to who she turns to offer our help in providing her with ante-natal and post-natal accommodation and with the provision for care of her child. If she is willing to accept our offer and return to Ireland, we arrange her accommodation and promise her help in planning for her child. The English worker provides her with a ticket to Dublin and puts her on a train; our worker meets her at the boat and we interview her at our office, provide her with meals and a ticket to her destination here. Her 'destination' is always far removed from her own native place and she herself has the right to choose it. When her baby has been born she writes to us and then we help her in the manner chosen by her. All this work goes on quietly and confidentially and absolute secrecy is guaranteed to each girl.12 No evidence appears to be available to support the assertion that many Irish women'were sent specifically from Ireland, through the auspices of the CPRSI, to deliver their baby and were returned soon afterwards'.'3 Although the Society disagreed with the long periods women were confined in Mother and Baby Homes in Ireland, it did not facilitate women travelling to England to give birth. Although the impetus for repatriation came from English agencies, it did, however, co-operate with agencies intent on repatriating Irish women. 6 Catholic Protectionand Rescue Society of Ireland Annual Report(Dublin, 1941), 3. One of the Society's

initialHonoraryTreasurers wasW. M. Murphy.This is likely to have been William MartinMurphy,an importantfigurein the Home Rule movementand

owner of the Irish Independent and the Dublin United Tramway Company. A bitter foe of organized labour, Murphy's attempt to block the spread of trade unionism in Dublin led to the 'Dublin Lockout' of I913. See E. Larkin,James Larkin:Irish LabourLeader1876-1947 (Massachusetts, I965). 7 Catholic Protectionand Rescue Society of Ireland Annual Report (Dublin, 1942), 3. 8 Catholic Protectionand Rescue Society of Ireland Annual Report (Dublin, 1943), I.

9 Catholic Protectionand Rescue Society of Ireland Annual Report (Dublin, 1952), I. 10 Catholic Protection and Rescue Society of Ireland Annual Report (Dublin, I954), I. 11 Catholic Protectionand Rescue Society of Ireland Annual Report (Dublin, 1960), 3. 12 ibid., 2-3. See also P. M. Garrett,'The hidden

The repatriationof unmarried historyof the P.F.I.s: mothersand theirchildrenfromEnglandto Ireland in the i95os and i96os', Immigrants & Minorities (forthcoming). 13 L. Marks, 'The luckless waifs and strays of humanity: Irish and Jewish immigrant unwed mothers in London, I870-I939', TwentiethCentury British History, III, 2 (1992), II3-38.

This content downloaded from 128.82.252.58 on Sun, 19 May 2013 09:48:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Social History

332

VOL.25 : NO. 3

Initially,the articlewill seek to establishpartof the context for the migrationand repatriation of the unmarriedmothers.Thus the aim will be to look at how policies concerningissues of illegitimacy,unmarriedmotherhoodandadoptionevolved.Centralhere,it will be suggested, were the coercive measuresintroducedto regulateunmarriedmothersas a group. UNMARRIED MOTHERS, SOCIAL AUTHORITARIANISM AND THE IRISH FREE STATE, 1922-37

The official statisticsfor illegitimatebirths remainedlow throughoutthe period of the Irish Free State. In I92I-2 these births amounted to just 2.6 per cent of all births in the twenty-six

counties;in 1933-4,the percentagepeakedat 3.5 per cent.14What began to appearduringthe late 1920s, however,was a bifurcatedpolicy towardsunmarriedmothers.This policy was, for example,apparentin the Report of the Commissionon the Relief of the Sick and Destitute Poor,includingthe InsanePoor,which was publishedin 1927.Here 'two classes'of unmarried motherswere delineated:'those who maybe amenableto reform'and'the less hopefulcases'.15 The languageand tone of the Commissionindicates,moreover,a shift towardsthe criminalizationof such women in thatit wasreportedthat,on 27 MarchI926,'therewere in the County Homes and DublinWorkhouse,629 unmarriedmothersclassedas firstoffendersand 391women who had fallen more than once'.16The Commission next advocatedtreatmenttechniques which were intendedto set apart'firstoffenders'from the 'lesshopeful'cases.Thus,it went on, the treatmentof the former'must necessarilybe in the natureof moral upbringing'and be characterizedby the traitsof firmnessand discipline,but also charityand sympathy.This would takeplace in specialestablishmentsand a prototype,foundedby the Sistersof the SacredHearts of Jesusand Mary,was opened in 1922 - the SacredHeartHome, Bessborough,County Cork. Here, only those unmarriedmothers'likely to be influenced towarda useful and respectable life' were placed. At the end of 1928 some sixty-fivemotherswere situatedthere and 'trained in domestic work, poultry keeping and gardening'.They also receivedinstructionin religion and, at length, were 'providedwith a suitablesituation':their childrenwere boardedout with fostermothers.17Other specialestablishmentsfor firstoffenderswere set up and- unlikeBessborough - operatedby the local authority,though still staffedby nuns.These were located at Pelletstown(Dublin),Tuam (Galway)and Kilrush(Clare).However,70 per cent of unmarried mothers remainedin the county homes, or former workhouses.The policy,however,was to similarto the one at Besstry and ensurethatunmarriedmotherswere placedin establishments borough. 18

In respectof the othercategory,the so-called'lesshopefulcases',or'residuecomposedprobably of those who arethe leastopen to good influences',the Commissionproposedthata period of detention was fitting. In circumstanceswhere an unmarriedmother,pregnantfor a thirdtime, appliedfor relief to a poor law institution,the Boardof Healthshould,it wasproposed,havethe 'powerto detain'the mother for 'such a period as they think fit, havingconsideredthe recommendationof the Superioror Matronof the Home'.19The authorsobserved: 14 J. H. Whyte, Churchand State in ModernIreland

(Dublin, 1971), 31. 15 Department of Local Government and Public Health Annual Report (Dublin, 1927),68. 16 ibid., emphasis added.

17 Department of Local Government and Public HealthAnnual Report(Dublin, 1930), 13. 18 ibid., 14. 19 Department of Local Government and Public Health Annual Report (Dublin, 1927), 69.

This content downloaded from 128.82.252.58 on Sun, 19 May 2013 09:48:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

October2000

Irish unmarried mothers

333

The term of detention we recommend is not an irreducible period and is not intended to be in any sense penal. It is primarily for the benefit of the woman and her child, and its duration will depend entirely on the individual necessities of the case. We are not in favour of the rigid application of fixed periods of detention ... the widest possible discretionary powers should be exercised. The object of the recommendations is to regulate control according to individual requirements, or in the most degraded cases to segregate those who have become sources of evil, danger, and expense to the community.20 In short, the incarceration of these women was, therefore, not only to safeguard the moral community from the contagion of evil, it also made economic sense. Prior to discharge from a poor law institution it was mooted that these unmarried mothers should also fulfil the requirements of the Health Board in terms of being demonstrably able to 'provide for her child or children, either by way of paying wholly or partially for maintenance in the Home or boarding it out with respectable people approved by the Board of Health'.21 These proposals seem to have had a swift impact. The Department of Local Government and Board of Health report, published in 1933, stated that'intractable' unmarried mothers were finding themselves admitted to Magdalen asylums in Dublin and elsewhere throughout the country. Many of these women, it was alleged, were 'feeble minded' and in need of'supervision and guardianship'. Thus the Magdalen asylums offered 'special provision' for this 'class'.22 Despite this, many of these 'intractable'mothers, or'hopeless cases', continued to find their way into the county homes, or workhouses. A. H. Litster, one of the Free State's two inspectors for boarded-out children, condemned them for their'weak intellect' and 'lack of moral fibre' and her report concluded with a further call for 'the power of detention in special cases'.23 This view was also shared by her inspector colleague who called for the detention of unmarried mothers of'an unstable character'.

THE OPPOSITION TO THE INTRODUCTION ADOPTION IN IRELAND

OF LEGAL CHILD

Responses to unmarried mothers were related to the issue of child adoption. Legal adoption had been introduced in England and Wales in 1926, in Northern Ireland in 1929 and in Scotland in I930. However, no legal adoption existed in the Republic of Ireland until I952. Whyte, moreover, has stated that no question was asked in the Dail, the Irish parliament, on the introduction of legal adoption until I939.24 Pressure had begun for its introduction in 1948 with the formation of a skilled pressure group, the Adoption Society (Ireland),25but even in the early I95os and despite the wide coalition of support for adoption, there was opposition to such plans. General MacEoin, Minister of Justice in the inter-party government (1948-51) opposed any attempt to introduce reform and it was suggested by Charles Casey, the Attorney General, that a statute on adoption might breach the constitution. Fears were also expressed that legal adoption might run counter to the teaching of the Roman Catholic church. In this latter

20 ibid. 21

23 ibid., 294.

ibid.

24 Whyte, op.cit.,184. 25 See also W. A. Newman,'Legal adoption', The Department of Local Government and Public Health Annual Report (Dublin, 1933), 129. Bell, xvi, 4 (I95I), 59-66. 22

This content downloaded from 128.82.252.58 on Sun, 19 May 2013 09:48:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Social History

334

VOL. 25 : NO. 3

respect, perennial concerns were voiced about the children of illegitimate mothers being adopted by'kindly people not of her Faith'.26Indeed, Whyte's view is that this fear that reform 'would facilitate proselytism ... was probably the strongest objection to legal adoption'.27 Having won the approval of the church, a private member's bill was, however, introduced and this became law in I952.28 This Act made it plain that adopting parents were to be of the same religion as the illegitimate child. One further component of the opposition to legal adoption should be identified and this was summed up by a rural deputy's contention that legal adoption, in interfering with the line of succession, was 'like interfering with a stud-book'.29 This crudely put sentiment was attached to rural concerns about patterns of land and property inheritance being disrupted. Perhaps more significantly, however, this critique highlights the fact that frequently in Ireland, and particularly in the context of the post-famine restructured agrarian economy, every issue returns,in some respects, to more fundamental questions which are rooted in discourses centred on patriarchy and land ownership.30 Specifically, in this context and as Catherine Nash observes, the 'moral code supported the economic and social system of family farming, which demanded the regulation of sexuality for the control of inheritance'.31 Moreover, this usually implicit aspect of the discourse of illegitimacy and adoption in the early 195os hints at complex and specific local factors which, perhaps, delayed the introduction of legal adoption in Ireland. Despite there not having been legal child adoption in the twenty-six county state until the early I950s, there had been defacto adoptions32 and what one writer referred to as 'the export of Irish children in the name of lonely souls everywhere'.33 In the I950s, particularly,many illegitimate children, born in Ireland, were 'handed over' to childless couples in the United States. Despite the church being somewhat hesitant about the introduction of legal adoption, it remained complicit, however, throughout the I95os and i96os in covert and legally dubious endeavours to provide childless American couples, who were Roman Catholics, with children. These 'adoptions' frequently occurred, moreover, without there having been full and rigorous assessments of the potential adoptive parents. Such arrangements were also characterized by a racist subtext in that, for many white citizens of the United States, Ireland was the place where a child could be acquired who had little chance of possessing any'negro blood'.34

Casey in Whyte, op.cit., I90.

27 ibid.,I91. 28 ibid., 275-7. 29 ibid.,I87. 30 See P.

Gibbon,'Arensberg and Kimball revisited', Economy and Society, n1 (I973), 279-432; P

Gibbon and C. Curtin, 'The Stem family in Ireland', ComparativeStudies in Society and History, xx (I978), 429-53; C. Kinealy, The Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845-52 (Dublin, I994). 31 C. Nash,'Remapping and renaming: new cartographies of identity, gender and landscape in Ireland', Feminist Review, XLIV (1993). 32 C. J. Barrett, Adoption (Dublin, 1952), II. 33 M. P. R. H.,'Illegitimate', The Bell, II, 3 (194I), 78-88. See also M. Milotte, BanishedBabies(Dublin, I997).

34Milotte, op. cit., 56. In the mid-I960s, the CPRSI began to comment on specific factors associated with finding adoptive parents for black, or 'coloured', children who were 'illegitimate' and born to Irish mothers: 'The pressing challenge which faces our Adoption Department at the moment is the finding of suitable adoptive parents for children of mixed race. This is a particularly difficult problem and one which causes us much concern. Every deprived child is in need of the love and affection which the adoptive home provides. The need is even greater in the case of the coloured child, for the security provided by loving adoptive parents is essential if he is to be able to face life with what some at least regard as the addeddisabilityof colour'(emphasis added), (CatholicProtectionand RescueSocietyof Ireland Annual Report(Dublin, I960), 2-3.

This content downloaded from 128.82.252.58 on Sun, 19 May 2013 09:48:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

October2000oo

Irish unmarried mothers

335

THE DEBATE ON CHILD ADOPTION AND UNMARRIED MOTHERHOOD FOLLOWING THE INTRODUCTION OF THE 1952 ADOPTION ACT, I952-late I960s Following the introduction of legal child adoption, a more encompassing professional debate on child adoption and unmarried motherhood had an impact on the way in which 'experts' in Ireland addressed the issue.35 For example, a member of An Bord Uchtala (the Irish Adoption Board), writing in Christus Rex in the mid-I95os and after the Adoption Act of I952, stressed the importance of John Bowlby's assertions concerning the 'permanency of the mother substitute' for those children who were unable to live with their birth mother. The dominance of this approach was, moreover, such that it was 'not too far removed from common ordinary sense'.36 Within Ireland, however, there were also a small number of individuals who played a key role in mapping out an authoritative conceptual framework for the theory and practice of child adoption. Perhaps the central figure here was Cecil J. Barrett,'the acknowledged clerical expert on child fostering and adoption' in Ireland.37 Barrett's book, Adoption,was published in I952 and at the time it was regarded as the 'definitive guide to adoption practice'.38 The book reflected the contemporary understanding that adoption was regarded as a 'closed' system: once the mother and her child were separated they were never to see each other again. Perhaps not surprisingly,however, although being informed by dominant secular views on child adoption, Barrett was also preoccupied with the spiritual - more specifically Catholic - component and this was most apparent in his approach to birth mothers. Here, for example, Barrett adumbrated how the Roman Catholic social worker was different from her secular counterpart: The efforts of non-Catholic social workers in other countries on behalf of the unmarried mother are tending more and more to become purely humanitarian. The emphasis is laid on her social and economic difficulties to the disregard of her moral problems. Whilst her fall may be deplored because she has a child to provide for, only too often it is readily condoned and excused. Her condition is referred to as the unfortunate consequence of a slip or a mistake on her part. She has been the victim of bad luck resulting in an unhappy embarrassment and she is advised to be more careful next time! No cognisance is taken of the gravity of sin or the beauty of the virtue of purity. The very idea of sin would sometimes appear to be outside the ambit of their ministrations.39 For the Catholic social worker, therefore,'material assistance'was of'no avail, unless the rents in the mother's spiritual fabric' were 'repaired'.40Here, the provision of accommodation fulfilled a central role. Mother and Baby Homes run by the Sisters of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary were, as observed above, availableto 'assist'in such circumstances.The first of these establishments was opened, as we have seen, at Bessborough in 1922. By the early 1950s similar institutions had

35 See the very influentialJ. Bowlby,ChildCare 2 (955), 126-33. andtheGrowthof Love(London,I990), initiallypub37Milotte,op.cit.,30. Barrettwas also a member lished in I953; M. Spensky,'Producersof legiti- of the CPRSI ExecutiveCommittee.

macy: homes for unmarried mothers in the I950s' in C. Smart (ed.), RegulatingWomanhood:Essays on Marriage,Motherhoodand Sexuality (London, I990).

ibid., I76. 39 Barrett, op. cit., 23. 40 ibid., 24.

36 M. Macauley,'Ourchildren',ChristusRex, IX,

This content downloaded from 128.82.252.58 on Sun, 19 May 2013 09:48:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Social History

336

VOL. 25 : NO. 3

also been opened in Roscrea (I93o-69) and Castlepollard (I935-71). These so-caled'extern institutions', still reflecting the recommendations of the 1927 Commission, only accepted the 'girl expecting her first baby' and'every effort' was 'made to safeguardher secret'. Consequently, each woman entering such a Home was given a 'new name' and each resident was left unaware of the true identity of other residents.41 A number of disadvantages existed, however, for the unmarried mother. First, the centrality of the secrecy inherent in such arrangements was likely to reinforce the sense of shame and sin. Indeed, this was an essential aim of such Homes which remained intent on imprinting on the minds of such mothers what Barrett referred to as the 'gravity of sin'. Second, and still associated with the notion of secrecy, this arrangement reinforced patriarchal power and this was reflected in the various ways that this secrecy aided anonymous birth fathers and'protected men and male reputations'.42Despite the day-to-day control of such establishments remaining with nuns, it was men, particularly priests and doctors,43 who performed the important functions of gate-keeping and referring women who were to be admitted to such Homes. Finally, but crucially for the unmarried mothers directly concerned, they might be, in effect, incarceratedfor a number of years to enable their spiritual and moral regeneration to take root. On account of this situation, Barrett conceded that most 'girls do not like going to a Mother and Baby Home because they consider that they will have to remain there too long'.44 Indeed, as an anonymous author reported in The Bell, many women refused to go to such Homes because it meant 'in effect, two years' imprisonment'. Moreover, there was 'about the two year period of restraint a suggestion of "punishment" and "moral regeneration"'.45 The same author also castigated the standard of the state provision available in Dublin (St Patrick's, Pelletstown) and Galway (Children's Home, Tuam) for unmarried mothers pregnant for a second occasion, or more. The threat of a type of incarceration in semi-penal institutions was, therefore, likely to be one of the main reasons why so many pregnant unmarried mothers were intent on fleeing to England to give birth and have children adopted. However, many were thwarted in this endeavour and compelled to return to Ireland. OFFICIAL CONCERNS ABOUT THE MIGRATION OF EXPECTANT UNMARRIED MOTHERS FROM IRELAND TO ENGLAND Since the inception of the Irish Free State, and running parallel to the evolution of policy relating to unmarried motherhood and child adoption, there had been official concerns about the migration of unmarried mothers. In the late I92os it was noted that evidence had been received from the Catholic Aid Society in Liverpool that a number of expectant mothers were migrating from Ireland to England.46 At this time, however, the Commission was 'not prepared to put forward any scheme for repatriation'. It was similarly noted that these women'become public charges in Great Britain' and, indeed, this aspect was to become a recurring subtext connected to the way in which English agencies responded. In 1927 the Commission was of the view that'better organization ... of the machinery for dealing with expectant unmarried mothers' would reduce 'the number impelled to cross to Great Britain'. 41

ibid., 42. See also M. Luddy,op.cit., chap.4. 42 Milotte, cit., 43

op. 195. Barrett,op.cit., 43.

M. P. R. H., op.cit., 82. on theReliefoftheSickandDestitute 46 Commission Poor,includingthe Insane Poor (Dublin, 1927), 73. 45

44 ibid.

This content downloaded from 128.82.252.58 on Sun, 19 May 2013 09:48:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

October2000

Irish unmarried mothers

337

In I931 the Committee on the Criminal Law Amendment Acts (I880-5) and Juvenile Prostitution returned to the subject. Once again, evidence had been provided from Liverpool and the Committee concluded that migration of expectant mothers was increasing. The Liverpool Society for the Prevention of the International Traffic in Women and Children which met female travellers on the docks and at Lime Street station reported that in the period 1926-30 it had met 1947 Irish expectant mothers. Other voluntary organizations in Liverpool, Leeds and London identified a similar trend.47The Department of Local Government and Public Health also observed that 'several complaints' had been received from English rescue societies about 'the number of girls who having got into trouble leave the Free State and go to England'.48 Such was the concern that a special conference took place involving representatives of the English agencies and inspectors from the department where it was 'agreed that every effort should be made to discourage girls going to England and in such circumstances to bring them back when possible'. Since the conference a number of women had already 'been sent back' and arrangements made in Dublin for 'their reception'. No connection was made, however, between the migration of these expectant mothers and the punitive and semi-penal regimes they faced had they remained inside the Free State. Indeed, it was in an appendix to the same report that the two inspectors of boarded-out children were, as we have seen, calling for even greater powers to detain unmarried mothers in institutional settings. In the department's annual report for 1934-5, a specific paragraph appeared which was devoted to'Repatriation of Irish Unmarried Mothers'. One of the key agencies facilitating this arrangement in Ireland was the CPRSI. By the late I930s and at the 'special request of the Cardinal and Archbishops of Ireland' the Society had taken 'charge' in terms of assisting in the return of expectant unmarried mothers to Ireland.49 Indeed, the Society's annual report for 1948, reflecting the increased amount of time and energy being devoted to such work, began to carry a special section on'Repatriation Cases' (see Table I). Table I. Annual totalsof Irishwomen repatriatedvia the CatholicProtectionand RescueSocietyof Ireland50 1948 - 40 I949 - 50

I960 - 13 96I - I8i

1950-

55 1951 - 51 1952 - 85

1962-

1953 - II2

1965 - 195

1954-

II5

185 1963 135 1964 - 173 1967-

213

1955 - 121

I968 -

I956 - 123 I957 - IOO 1958 - 85

I969 - 145 I970 - 9

1959-

197I - 33

47 Committee on the CriminalLawAmendment Acts 49 CatholicProtection and RescueSocietyof Ireland Prostitution AnnualReport(Dublin, 1940), 4. (188-5) andJuvenile (Dublin,1931),io-II. 48 andPublicHealth 50 These figuresare extractedfrom the Catholic Department ofLocalGovernment

Annual Report 1931-1932(Dublin, 1932), 129-30.

Protectionand RescueSocietyof IrelandAnnualReports.

This content downloaded from 128.82.252.58 on Sun, 19 May 2013 09:48:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

338

Social History

VOL.25 : NO. 3

During I948, for example,'Forty of these girls, either before or shortly after confinement' had been 'brought home' and parents of'girls' were warned to be 'on their guard if a daughter unexpectedly and without apparent reason hastens off to England'51. However, the following year the Society injected a new note of urgency with the claim that 'Irish unmarried expectant mothers are constantly going to England for their confinement' and fifty had been repatriated during the year. Similar to the anonymous writer in The Bell eight years earlier,52the report, perhaps because of the organization's direct contact with the women concerned, referred to what was probably the prime reason for the women's migration: Reports from English Catholic rescue workers show that many girls refuse to return home because of the long period which they must spend in the Special Mother and Baby Homes in the country. We have little doubt that many of the girls would never willingly go to England or would willingly return if the term to be spent in the Special Homes here was shortened.53 In the annual report for 1952, the year of the Adoption Act, the CPRSI reported that the number of repatriated mothers was on the increase: eighty-five had been repatriated and there 'were many times that number who refused to return to Ireland'.54 Here the Society again linked the length of these women's confinement in institutional provision in Ireland with their wish to give birth in England: Apart from the services of a few voluntary societies in Dublin, such as ours, all of which are constantly in financial difficulties, the only facilities available for the unmarried mother are County Homes and three special Mother and Baby Homes. The local authorities maintain the girls in these institutions, and a girl has little chance of going free until she has remained almost two years with the child in the institution. How can any girl remain such a long time out of touch with her home and her friends and still preserve her secret? The result is the abnormal flight to England with the consequent danger to both mother and infant.55 In the twenty-six county state there were 806 unmarried mothers in County Homes and the three Special Homes for unmarried mothers in I953,56 but in that year alone the Society had assisted in the repatriation of 112 unmarried mothers57 and the following year the number had reached II5.58 In 1955 the Society claimed that the'situation appears to be particularly bad in the London area and the Crusade of Rescue, whilst doing magnificent work in helping our Irish girls, reports that it cannot cope with the large numbers - estimated to be many hundreds annually'.59 The fear which had dominated the early reports of the Society was also apparent in the worries expressed that the children of Catholic mothers might be 'lost' to non-Catholic adopters and a new note was introduced in that it was suggested that 'some girls place their 51 Catholic Protectionand Rescue Society of Ireland Annual Report (Dublin, 1948), 2. 52 M. P. R. H., op.cit. 53 Catholic Protectionand Rescue Society of Ireland Annual Report (Dublin, I949), 2-3. 54 Catholic Protectionand Rescue Society of Ireland Annual Report (Dublin, 1952), 2. 55 ibid.

56 Commissionon Emigrationand other Population Problems1948-54 Reports(Dublin, 1955), 265. 57 Catholic Protectionand Rescue Society of Ireland Annual Report (Dublin, 1953), 2. 58 Catholic Protectionand Rescue Society of Ireland Annual Report (Dublin, 1954), 2. 59 ibid., i.

This content downloaded from 128.82.252.58 on Sun, 19 May 2013 09:48:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

October2000oo

Irish unmarried mothers

339

children with English non-Catholic adoptive parents'because of'their preference' for'adoption rather than institutional care for their children'. This meant, however, that they were 'prepared to sacrifice a child's Faith for its apparent material welfare'. The point about Irish unmarried mothers' opposition to institutional care for their children will be returned to below, but the comments about the availability of 'apparent material welfare' in England hints, perhaps, at a more fundamental cultural malaise and disappointment about the lack of affluence in the twenty-six county state.60 The contrast with Britain might, moreover, have appeared to be particularly pronounced in the I950s when Harold Macmillan was telling the public that they had 'never had it so good'.61 The CPRSI soon returned, however, to its chief preoccupation in the I950s: We believe that a partial remedy lies in the hands of those who control the Mother and Baby Homes in this country. In no other country in the world has the unmarried mother to remain for two years in a Home with her child. A few months is regarded as sufficient to allow the mother time to decide on the future of her child and is also believed to be adequate in helping her towards moral rehabilitation. Any longer period is regarded as punitive and it is becoming increasingly obvious that our girls will not submit themselves voluntarily to punitive treatment. In 1955 the Commission on Emigration and Other Population Problems I948-5462 also made it clear that there was no legal basis for unmarried mothers being detained in this way, but the matrons of these establishments, who were religious sisters in the three Mother and Baby Homes for'first offenders', had wide discretionary powers as the local managers of such institutions. The Commission also reported that the illegitimacy rate had fallen in the early i95os; the annual rate for illegitimate births per IOOtotal live births was 3.5 for 1914-50, but for I951 and 1952 this had dropped to 2.5. It was conceded, however, that these figures were likely to 'understate the problem'. One reason for this was because of the 'births of illegitimate children whose conception took place in the Twenty Six Counties but whose birth occurred elsewhere'.63 In I955, the year the Commission published its report, the Society assisted in the repatriation of '121 Irish girls with their babies from England'.64 The London County Council, moreover,'had so many Irish babies abandoned and left in their care' that an LCC children's officer was appointed to spend six months each year in Ireland 'trying to get homes for these babies'.65 In 1956 the Society responded to criticisms which had apparently appeared in the press suggesting that Irish unmarried mothers going to England'did not receive the help they needed in their own country'. It set out, therefore,'emphatically to nail this inaccuracy' by stressing its various activities which included authorizing welfare officers of the Catholic Social Welfare Bureau, who worked on the boats leaving Dublin for Liverpool and Holyhead, to offer the help of the CPRSI to migrant unmarried mothers. The annual report for the following year stated

60 See Commission on Emigration and otherPopu- Problems 1948-54 Reports, op.cit.,264. 63 ibid.,IOI. lationProblems 1948-54Reports,op.cit. 61 See S. 64 CatholicProtection and RescueSocietyof Ireland Hall,C. Critcher,T.Jefferson,J. Clarke theState AnnualReport(Dublin, I955), i. and R. Roberts,PolicingtheCrisis:Mugging, 65 ibid., 2. andLawand Order(London,1978). 62 Commission on Emigration and OtherPopulation

This content downloaded from 128.82.252.58 on Sun, 19 May 2013 09:48:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

340

Social History

VOL.25: NO. 3

that one hundred mothers had been repatriated and also listed those Diocesan Rescue Societies - in Westminster, Birmingham, Southwark, Liverpool, Salford, Nottingham, Clifton, Portsmouth, Shrewsbury and Glasgow - which had been responsible for requesting repatriation and the assistance of the Society. The majority of these requests came, and continued to come, from the Crusade of Rescue in Westminster. By 196I I8I unmarried mothers were repatriated: the highest number which the Society had been involved in until that year. Indeed, by 1964 such was the amount of work that repatriation was engendering, that'Repatriation' (together with 'Child Care and Adoption' and the 'Unmarried Mother') began to feature on a new masthead for the CPRSI's annual reports. Concerns existed, however, not only about the children of these mothers finding themselves adopted by non-Catholics; there were also worries, in the new era seemingly heralded by the reforms of the administration of Sean Lemass, that unmarried mothers travelling to England were betraying the nation since 'with each such girl who arrives in England, the false impression abroad of Ireland as a cruel, intolerant land gains momentum'.66 Despite such criticisms, the numbers being repatriated continued to climb to 195 in 1965, 213 in 1966 and, even higher, to 235 in I967. The majority of these repatriations continued

be from the London area. In 1967 the Society warned of'an added and very grave danger', the legalization of abortion which placed a 'temptation of a very serious nature before the distraught unmarried mother'. Possibly related to the availability of legal abortion in England, the numbers repatriated with the co-operation of the Society plummeted to 120 in I968: almost 50 per cent less than in 1967. A fall in the number of women being repatriated might also have been related to more unmarried mothers being prepared to retain their children during a period of relative social liberalization. Importantly also there are indications that, by this time, unmarried mothers were unlikely to remain in the Mother and Baby Homes in Ireland for the same lengthy period as they had in the past. Some girls express the fear that if they go into a Mother and Baby Home in this country they will have to remain there for a very long time. Such fears are groundless nowadays. Any girl whom we have promised to help is assured that she will not have to spend too long a time in the Home after her baby is born. A mother is expected to remain with her baby until provision has been made for his care otherwise. Such care is usually provided either by adoption or, should the mother be undecided as to her plan for the future of her child, by temporary nursery or foster care. In either case, this usually takes about six to eight weeks. Many factors affect the timing in each individual case, but our efforts are always directed towards avoidance of leaving any girl unduly long in the Home.67 By the time of the publication of the Society report for 1972, repatriation did not even feature as an item to be mentioned. The final reference to repatriation occurred in 1971 when only 33 unmarried mothers were repatriated with the help of the Society; only four years previously 235 had been repatriated with the help of the agency. However, between 1948 and 1971 the

66 Catholic Protectionand Rescue Society of Ireland Annual Report(Dublin, 1964), 4. See also P. Bew and H. Patterson, Sean Lemassand the Making of Modern Ireland1945-66 (Dublin, 1982).

Annual Report (Dublin, 1969), 2. The CPRSI continued to stress,however, that it 'is our view that the various needs of the unmarried mother are best met in Mother and Baby Homes'.

CatholicProtection and RescueSocietyof Ireland

This content downloaded from 128.82.252.58 on Sun, 19 May 2013 09:48:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

October2000

Irish unmarried mothers

34I

Catholic Protection and Rescue Society of Ireland had assisted English authorities in repatriating over 2600 unmarried mothers back to Ireland. CONCLUSION The experiences of those Irish women who were repatriated are now, except to those directly involved,'outside history'.68 In this concluding section the aim will be to identify some of the reasons which might have prompted their migration. First, however, it is necessary to comment briefly on official concerns about the migration of unmarried mothers in the context of wider preoccupations with female emigration from Ireland. Travers,for example, has argued that Irish female emigration from Ireland, more generally, has been largely 'ignored by historians', despite the fact that during the period I87I-I97I the annual average emigration rate for females was higher than that for males.69 A number of female historians and sociologists have, however, begun to explore aspects of female emigration and, specifically, the Irish female experience of the diaspora.70 After the Second World War,particularly,fears began to be expressed about the consequences of Irish female emigration because of the impact on the 'blood stock'.71 Concern was also expressed and advice provided regarding worries about the impact of life in England on the spiritual life of vulnerable young Irish women. The ostensible fear that these women's Catholic faith might be undermined was, however, complex because it can also be associated with ideas rooted in notions of racial or ethnic purity. In the early 1950s, writing in The Furrow,a priest from Belfast commented, for example, that one girl returned from England, regarding as 'a great joke' the fact that she and others had been 'dumped into a hostel with negro men'.72 Similarly, a guidebook for 'Irish girls' emigrating to England warned against 'foreign jews'.73 Concerns such as these possibly also contributed to John Charles McQuaid, the Archbishop of Dublin, setting up the Emigrant Section of the Catholic Social Welfare Bureau in 1942. Indeed, according to McQuaid, the 'chief activity' of the organization was the care of emigrants, but'especially women and girls'.74 Furthermore, in the 1950s, the Roman Catholic church in England also began to respond to what it saw as the needs of the Irish in Britain.75 Not infrequently, however, Irish Catholic clergy felt compelled to remark on the 'patronizing attitude' held by 'their fellow Catholics' in England.76 68 E. Boland, ObjectLessons(London, 1996).

69 P. Travers,'Therewas nothing for me there: Irish female immigration, 1922-71I' in P O'Sullivan (ed.), IrishWomenand IrishMigration(London, I997). 70

the placementof Irishchildrenin Britain',Adoption & Fostering, 24(I) 71

(2000),

23-34.

Travers,op. cit., 154.

See R. Culchane,'IrishCatholicsin Britain',

See M. Lennon,M. McAdamand J. O'Brien,

The Furrow,i, 8 (I95o), 387-415. 73 See Travers,op.cit., 163. Across the Water: Irish Women's Lives in Britain 74 (London, 1988);M. J. Hickman and B. Walter, McQuaid's commentsarefeaturedin K. Kelly 'Deconstructing whiteness', Feminist Review, L and T. Nic Giolla Choille,'Listening and learning: (I995) 5-20; B. Walter,'Irishness, gender and place', experiences in an emigrant advice agency' in O'Sullivan,op.cit. Society and Space, xiii (I995), 35-50; B. Gray,'The

75 See W. home of our mothers and our birthrightfor ages? Godfrey,'TheIrishemigrant:apostleof Nation, diasporaand Irishwomen' in M. Maynard the faith in England', Christus Rex, x, 4 (i956), and P Purvis (eds), New Frontiersin Women'sStudies: 358-66; A. Woods,'Safeguardsin Englandfor the Knowledge,Identity and Nationalism (London, I996).

See also P.M. Garrett,'Respondingto Irish"invisisocialworkpracticeand bility":anti-discriminatory

Irish emigrant', ChristusRex, x, 4 (1956), 366-83. 76 See Culchane, op. cit., 411.

This content downloaded from 128.82.252.58 on Sun, 19 May 2013 09:48:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

342

Social History

VOL. 25

: NO. 3

Turning specifically to the issue of repatriation, as we have seen, in the late I96os numbers began to taper off and the availability of legal abortion in England was one possible factor accounting for the redundancy of this practice. In this context, Ackers has identified how the extent of women's right to reproductive self-determination and their migration are related issues.77 Perhaps some similarities also exist in terms of the 'secret'journeys made to England to have children adopted, in the past, and the 'secret'journeys made to abortion clinics today.78 In the early I99os, for example, there were 'around eighty Irish women' arriving every week for abortions in Britain.79 Moreover, figures released by the UK Office for National Statistics, published in August 1998, revealed that during the first quarter of the year the number of Irish women who had abortions in Britain was the highest ever recorded.80 Indeed, the 'silences' associated with 'secret' births and adoptions and 'secret' abortions are,perhaps,not entirelydissimilar in the context of this discussion.81 Furthermore, Powell's suggestion that Irish unmarried mothers travelling to England to have children born, then adopted, was 'not wholly displeasing to the Irish authorities since it served to distort the nation's illegitimacy rate and artificially push it downwards'.82 This perhaps also connects to the current situation in respect of Irish women travelling to abortion clinics in England in that, once again, unresolved tensions and problems centred on the denial of women's reproductive rights are being exported.83 Perhaps the chief reason unmarried mothers fled to England, to give birth in the 195os and I960s, was centred on their fear of a type of incarceration in Ireland'sMother and Baby Homes. The anonymous writer in The Bell, in the early I940s, identified the significance of this issue. In addition, the reports of the CPRSI indicate, as we have seen, that the staff of the Society were consistently unhappy about the length of time which unmarried mothers were expected to remain in the Mother and Baby Homes in Ireland. The seemingly low-key campaign of the CPRSI to promote changes in this policy, reflected in their annual reports, also reveals that the debate on unmarried motherhood and child adoption was more pluralistic than some presentday accounts have acknowledged.84 A second possible reason for the brief migration might also be related to fears about the mortality rate for illegitimate children in Ireland. A difficulty existed in terms of identifying potential adopters after legal adoption was introduced in I952. Consequently, most illegitimate children, if not looked after by grandparents or other extended family members, were placed in institutions. The Department of Local Government and Public Health had observed that 77 L. Ackers,'Internal migration and the negotiation of citizenship: the struggle for reproductive self-determination in Ireland', Journal of Social Welfareand Family Law, xvili, 4 (1996), 413-28; . O. Ramirez and E. H. McEneaney,'From women's suffrage to reproduction rights? Cross-national considerations', International Journal of Comparative Sociology, XXXVIII, 1-2 (1997), 6-25. In the 1970O more unmarried mothers were also prepared to keep their babies. 78 P. Conroy Jackson, 'Outside the jurisdiction:

Irish women seeking abortion'in A. Smyth (ed.), The AbortionPapers(Dublin, 1992). 79 See U. Barry, 'Movement, change and reaction: the struggle over reproduction rights in Ireland' in A. Smyth (ed.), The Abortion Papers

(Dublin, I992). 80 See'Irish abortions in Britain up 10.2%', The IrishTimes,27 August 1998. 81 See R. Fletcher, 'Silences: Irish women and abortion', Feminist Review, L (1995) 44-66. 82 F P. Powell, The Politics of Irish Social Policy (Dyfed, I992). 83 See also Smyth, op.cit. 84 Interesting film archive material and oral testimony was provided in a Channel 4 documentary screened in Britain in 1998 (Witness: Sex in a Cold Climate, i6 March 1998). The programme was, however, undermined because it failed to take account of the plurality of opinions in relation to how best to respond to and manage unmarried mothers in Ireland.

This content downloaded from 128.82.252.58 on Sun, 19 May 2013 09:48:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

October2000

Irish unmarried mothers

343

'one out of every four illegitimate infants died within the first year of life'.85 Similarly, in 1955 the Commission on Emigration and Other Population Problems reported, for example, that the death rate for illegitimate children in Ireland was higher than the rate in Britain and other countries.86 Moreover, the disparity between death rates for legitimate and illegitimate children was wider than in 'neighbouring countries'. Perhaps the deaths of thirty-five girls in a fire at St Joseph's Orphanage, Cavan in February 1943 was more meaningful and traumatic, for the general public, than arid statistical information.87 Identifying this as a factor motivating the journey of these women is entirely speculative and is, as we have seen, only referred to on one occasion in the annual reports of the CPRSI. To explore the issue more fully one would need to interview surviving birth mothers and allow them to define their own motivations. The point here is that the high death rate for illegitimate children in institutional care in Ireland mighthave prompted an unmarried and expectant mother to seek to give birth and have the child cared for in England. Finally,in 1995, the former President of Ireland, Mary Robinson, in a speech entitled 'Cherishing the Irish diaspora', stated: 'The men and women of our diaspora represent not simply a series of departures and loss. They remain even while absent, a precious reflection of our growth and change, a precious reminder of the many strands of identity which compose our story.'88 Despite this sentiment, there has been no adequate official acknowledgement of the position of the hidden diaspora:that is to say,the children of Irish unmarried mothers who were successful in their plans to travel to England, give birth and have their child placed for adoption there. Universityof Nottingham

85 Department of Local Government and Public Health Annual Report 1931-1932,op.cit., 58. 86 Commissionon Emigrationand Other Population Problems1948-54 Reports,op.cit., 112. 87 M. Arnold and H. Laskey, Childrenof the Poor Clares:TheStory of an Irish Orphanage(Belfast, 1985).

Women arealsolikely to havebeen aware,but con-

strained about revealing, the fact that children risked being physically and sexually abused in institutional settings. This may have been a further reason they were reluctant to have their 'illegitimate' children placed in such institutions. See M. Raftery and E. O'Sullivan, SufferThe Little Children(Dublin, 1999). 88

Gray, op cit., 182.

This content downloaded from 128.82.252.58 on Sun, 19 May 2013 09:48:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions