We find ourselves today engaged in endeavouring to undo the mistakes of Fianna Fáil and it is, perhaps, fortunate that it is Fianna Fáil that has to come into this House now to admit that its Constitution of 1937 was a serious mistake, serious in that it built into the fundamental law of this State a wholly unnecessary irritant which has given to the opponents of this State a stick with which to beat it. It is, perhaps, small wonder—I am sorry Deputy Lenehan is running out of the House to escape the truth and the facts—that the imperfect Constitution of 1937 received the support of only 26 per cent of the people; 20 per cent of the people voted against it; 32 per cent of the people were ineligible to vote; of those who were eligible to vote, 22 per cent did not vote on it. Contrary to what Deputy Lenehan suggested when he inferred that the Constitution of 1922 had not received popular support, the Constitution of 1922, when submitted to the people for approval in the context of a general election, received 78 per cent of the popular vote whereas the Constitution of 1937 received only 57 per cent in the context of those eligible to vote.
Deputy Cosgrave was quite right— it is necessary historically to recall this—when he said that the 1922 Constitution, which was belittled for 15 years and which some people could not get rid of quickly enough—is now found to be the Constitution which would most suitably meet the many tensions and difficulties that now exist. There was, of course, no need to set out in the Constitution of 1937 the numerical superiority of people of a particular religion. Neither was or is it necessary nor desirable to identify any religions by name. To do so is to infer that man has achieved a full knowledge of the truth and can never have greater truth revealed to him. This is so clearly illogical and so contrary to all man's experience that one is amazed at the stupidity of the draftsmen of the 1937 Constitution adopting the particular line they did. In passing, I might here remind Deputy Lenehan that the person he attacked this morning, the Most Reverend Dr. John Charles McQuaid, was neither a Bishop nor an Archbishop in 1937. He may possibly have had a part as adviser to Mr. de Valera at the time, but he was not then a bishop and the remarks the Deputy made were, to say the least of it, unfortunate.
Now, if a Constitution ignores essentials, it will breed both cynicism and hypocrisy. It will also tend to be an imperfect weapon. It will not be that which it should be—a document to promote the happiness of the greatest possible number of people governed by that Constitution. When we say that sectarian references should be omitted from our Constitution we are not saying that our Constitution should be made a purely secular Constitution. Belief in God is an overwhelming belief of nearly all Irish people and it is, indeed, this excess belief in God in parts of this country which is the root of much of the difficulty that exists. A totally secular Constitution or a totally secular administration would be as effective in reflecting the basic approach to life of Irish people as would be a mirror in total darkness. The avoidance of sectarianism, which it is our passion to avoid, does not require secularism; it requires tolerance.
One of the great fallacies of the modern Irish reform movement is the call for non-denominational education. This is a reform advocated in the erroneous belief that neutralised education will bring neutral and, consequently, tolerant adult citizens. But that does not necessarily follow. Deep religious conviction is an asset in any society and positive religious conviction should be fostered rather than discouraged. Loyalty to the Christian ethos demands tolerance of the views, the rights and the beliefs of others. I would prefer to see our people looking to a country like Holland, where the old irrational religious antipathy has disappeared because of the unity of view which developed between the Protestant and the Catholic Churches and because they joined in a common struggle to establish and maintain schools of their respective denominations and opposed the move to neutralise education. By coming together in this common interest in Holland, the Churches preserved their separate identities and, at the same time, found a new service to God by working together for the improvement of the young people. Holland now, at one time so divided, divided as we are in the North of our country, laughs at the folly, the bitterness and the bigotry of their past. If we were to adopt secular schools here in the South they would necessarily be Catholic schools by reason of the weight of the Catholic population, just as the non-denominational schools, so-called, in the North of Ireland have become Protestant schools by reason of the concentration of Protestants in that area. Secularism simpliciter, either in a Constitution or in an administration, can aggravate divisions. It should, therefore, be avoided.
As Deputy Cosgrave pointed out, the draftsmen of the 1922 Constitution did not risk the pitfalls into which the 1937 Constitution fell. The earlier document was a Constitution of fundamental principles in which the people of this island believed. A Constitution should guide public and private life and, at the same time, avoid troublesome denominational references and moral homilies like those we were given in the 1937 document. I think it was Deputy Cosgrave who said that there was, perhaps, some transient political advantage to the Government of that time in identifying the Church of Rome as the church of the majority faith in 1937; perhaps there was an anxiety on Mr. de Valera's part to escape from the smirch on his character flowing from his earlier deeds and perhaps it was this which instigated Mr. de Valera at the time to formulate the particular kind of Constitution he did. It is regrettable that ever since then, we have been taunted with adopting in 1937 a form of words which suggested that there was some substantial link between Church and State here, a link which, in fact, never existed. I speak from my own humble experience now as a Member of this House for 13 years.
During all those years I have never been ordered, directed or even counselled to follow a particular line in relation to my public affairs which was required by or pleasing to the Catholic Church as such. I, the same as any other Member of Parliament in any part of the world, am naturally influenced by my own environment and by the contacts I may make. Perhaps our outlook here is more strongly coloured by Catholic beliefs than it may be in a country in which one does not find so many members of a particular church. Yet, I have never found myself, and neither do I believe any other Member of this House has ever found himself, embarrassed by any pressures brought to bear by members of the Catholic Church or, indeed, of any other church. That is not to say that Members of this House are not asked by religious leaders of different parties to consider their opinions and their views on legislative and administrative matters. This would be an important Parliament if it did not invite and did not listen to the opinions of everybody in the community, and particularly religious leaders, on matters that might be worrying their flocks. However, the kind of intimidation to which we are supposed to be subjected does not exist, and I believe the Members of this House, individually and collectively, would strongly resist and repudiate any pressures, direct or indirect, which might be brought to bear on them by any particular church which could conflict with a public representative's obligation to represent all impartially.
The Constitution can and should be made religiously inoffensive without purging it of all references to God. The Preamble to the 1922 Constitution acknowledged, very properly, that all lawful authority comes from God to the people, and in exercise of that authority the people's constituent assembly enacted the Constitution and received subsequent approval from the people by way of a general election. Thus in 1922 was proper acknowledgement given to God as the basis of sound Government, but that was the only reference to God in the 1922 Constitution. Article 8 of that Constitution, as Deputy Cosgrave pointed out this morning, gave a most effective guarantee of religious liberty and equality but carefully excluded any reference which could have cast suspicion or generated any doubt. But the 1937 Constitution which we are today called upon to amend has seven specific references to God, three of them admittedly in oaths to be taken by office holders, but it is not necessary to put the form of an oath of an office holder into a constitution. Six religious denominations are named in the Constitution and it is implied that any religious denomination which comes into existence after the 1937 Constitution is not recognised. That has created troubles and could create even more administrative difficulties were it not to be amended. The publication of blasphemous matter is declared a punishable offence in the 1937 Constitution. A strange thing to do, to start spelling out particular crimes in a constitution, a wholly unnecessary performance and one which I think any lawyer would be anxious to avoid.
God is named on seven occasions in the 1937 Constitution but he is also referred to not simply as God but in Roman Catholic terms such as "The Most Holy Trinity, Our Divine Lord Jesus Christ and Almighty God." The most that can be said against any reference to God in the Constitution is that it could offend a humanist, an atheist or an agnostic. It is not desirable that any such people should be offended but in any society you are bound to find that its fundamental law and legislation will reflect the overwhelming view of its people. It is impossible to provide in man-made law a form of words which will not cause some irritation to some people. However, the typical Catholic terminology in the 1937 Constitution could reasonably be unacceptable to some Christian sects and to members of the Jewish congregation. In any modern constitution which we hope some day we will introduce here it is highly desirable that references of those limited kinds should be omitted from it.
The arguments most frequently voiced for deletion of sub-articles (2) and (3) of section 1 of Article 44 of the Constitution is that to recognise the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church is a useful weapon in the hands of Northern bigots who oppose Irish unity and because of that it should be omitted. That is a sound argument for omitting it but it is not the principal argument. This alteration to the Constitution should be made because it is good in itself to make it and it is good for our society to make it. We cannot now escape the charge, which is a true one, that we are making this amendment because of the pressure of the recent tragic savagery in the North of Ireland and perhaps because of diplomatic pressure or approaches which might have been made by the British Government and, indeed, by other countries as well. I am aware that several of the member states of the Council of Europe were surprised to find that the tolerant Republic of Ireland did have a provision in its Constitution which suggested that there was some formal, substantial association between the Catholic Church and the institutions of State, and they have suggested to the members of the Irish delegation in the Council of Europe that these could with benefit be omitted. It is unfortunate that this mistake was made in 1937, and it is particularly fortunate that even now, subject to the pressure of recent catastrophic events, we are making good this very foolish mistake which was made 35 years ago.
The Vatican Council Decree on Ecumenism exhorted men to eliminate words, judgments and actions which did not fairly respond to the wishes of others. Even people who may feel very strongly obliged to conform precisely with the teaching of the Catholic Church can find in the words of the Vatican Council encouragement and, indeed, an incitement to make this amendment to eliminate words from the Constitution which do not fairly respond to the wishes of others. I think it is true to say that the church references in our Constitution do not fairly conform to the wishes of others.
Deputy Ben Briscoe very usefully quoted the addresses of the Church of Ireland and Jewish Congregation leaders in 1937 in connection with the 1937 Constitution. I think the leaders of all churches were consulted in 1937 in connection with the drafting of Article 44, but even though they accepted the document as a whole in their public declarations as a comprehensive Constitution which did not impose or impinge unfairly on anybody, it is common knowledge that the phraseology on the churches caused a certain amount of unhappiness and irritation. That was the situation, I think, within our own jurisdiction, but it certainly caused untold mischief in the North of Ireland. It is, therefore, not entirely a true picture to quote the eulogies of churchmen in 1937, because if that were to be accepted as our present guide we would be wrong to be influenced by the 35 following years. I would suspect that the successors of the same people, if asked for a comment upon the Article in 1972, would not be using the same form of words as were used in 1937.
A Constitution is essentially a legal document. Deputy Joseph Lenehan offered some criticism of the use to which lawyers put the 1937 Constitution. What he is saying is that the lawyers were wrong to uphold the Constitution against the Government, against Governmental abuse, and against Parliament which was purporting to breach the Constitution. Any legal historian will quickly ascertain and point out that there was far less litigation under the 1922 Constitution than under the 1937 edition, probably because the 1922 one avoided the pitfalls, avoided the carelessness in language, avoided the soft approach, avoided the inept homilies which were in the 1937 Constitution. The 1937 Constitution has, admittedly, furnished very fertile opportunities for lawyers and for litigants, but the fault is in the extravagance of the language and in the failure to have regard to the fundamental requirements of the Constitution. I think the fundamental Constitutional requirements are brevity and preciseness. The 1937 one is full of ambiguities and it is one of these very ambiguities which we are seeking to amend today because of the irritation, confusion and mischief which have arisen out of it.
A Constitution, then, is a legal document, a document to control the behaviour of a society, to fix the bounds within which the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary may operate to ensure effective recognition and observance of the fundamental beliefs and rights of the people governed by that Constitution. In a country like our own, where the population is overwhelmingly one which believes in God and where all but a minority are Christian, it would be unjust and unthinkable were the fundamental law not to respect God and not to respect and reflect Christian outlook. Christian instruments and institutions cannot, of their nature, if they are Christian, be unjust to non-Christians—certainly not in this modern age, when one is guided by the more modern perspective and more tolerant outlook of the present day Catholic Church. Therefore, a Christian society in Ireland could not infringe the reasonable sensibilities of non-Christians, and a Constitution and the society it controls can be Christian without having all this effusive, ecclesiastical moralising of the present Constitution of the Republic. That is why we in Fine Gael urge that the present Constitution should be scrapped at the earliest possible date and replaced by a modern, more efficient and honest document.
The Irish, whether they come from ancient Celtic stock or are descended from people who came later to these shores, are a deeply religious people, as I have emphasised. This fact has been grasped by ill-disposed people, who for evil political ends have twisted deep religious convictions into hatred and prejudices. The best way to overcome the prolonged savagery and terror of misused religion in this island is to use positively and constructively the religious loyalties of people for good political ends. A great and just Presbyterian Minister, the Reverend Henry Montgomery, depicted his melancholy country in 1829 in the following words:
Political and religious bigroty have mingled together and those who foment persecutions among us have made it their policy so to conjoin the two principles that scarce an individual is now held orthodox who is not also an enemy to the civil or religious rights of his fellow men.
Those are words uttered a century and a half ago. Are they not tragically true of our experience today? A century and a half after the Reverend Montgomery spoke, things have not changed for one-third of the people of this island. Misled people deny justice, kill and physically attack their neighbours because their neighbours hold different beliefs. They do these terrible wrongs in the conviction that their God sustained their fathers and blessed the arms of their fathers in like deeds in the past and that the same God, their God, smiles and blesses their atrocities today. It has been said and one can repeat, that God does not demand such fervour from his servants.
If this bitterness, this bigotry, this religious savagery exists in this island it is not because of this foolish irritant in Article 44 of the Constitution; but as long as that irritant is there it will be identified by hypocrites as one of the causes. Bigotry exists because of the existence of the Orange Order. In 1835 a Parliamentary Committee of the Westminster Parliament carried out a most exhaustive research of the operations of the Orange Order and recommended to the British Government and Parliament, on the conclusion of its work, that the Orange Order should be suppressed. I shall quote from the actual report. Referring to the Orange Order it says:
A great political body thus organised in the ranks of the Army, and in every part of the British Empire, is a formidable power at any time and in any circumstances, but when your Committee look to the political tendancies of the measures of the Orange Societies in England and Ireland, and particularly to the language contained in addresses to the public and in correspondence to the Grand Officers of the Institution, and consider the possible use that might be made of such an organised power, its suppression becomes, in their opinion, imperatively necessary.
The Orange Order was not suppressed. It is as free today to carry on its malicious, anti-Catholic campaign in the North of Ireland as ever it was. If an explanation is to be found as to how the Unionists of the North of Ireland were unable to use independence and power which was given to them in 1920 to break out from the shackles of bigotry, the explanation will be found in the attitudes of the leaders of the Unionist Party, an attitude spelt out by Mr. Brian Faulkner, an attitude which in the end crushed Brian Faulkner and Unionism, an attitude which he described to a meeting of Orangemen in July, 1958 as "the invincible combination of the Orange Order and the Unionist Party", to which, he said, there was "no alternative".
Even though we from these benches in Fine Gael opposed the 1937 Constitution and even though now we are pleased at this move to eliminate these irritants of the 1937 Constitution, let no one pretend that the references in the Constitution of 1937, or indeed any of the practices here, are in any way a contribution to the vicious religious bigotry which exists in the North of Ireland and which will continue to exist as long as the British Government and any administration in the North of Ireland ignore and do nothing to break this invincible link between a sectarian, bigoted organisation and a political party.
On the other side of the political divide, as a consequence of this link between the Orange Order and the Unionist Party, the Nationalist Party also has an arrangement with the Ancient Order of Hibernians; but that is an arrangement which, though it exists on paper, in practice is not now effective. That is not the situation in relation to the Orange Order, which has as of right, and continues to practise as of right, a right of nomination of 130 religious bigots from the Orange Order on to the Unionist Council, the governing body of the Unionist Party. No matter what plebiscites are proposed or questions proposed in plebiscites, no matter what the colour or the number of papers for a solution published by the British Government or by anybody else, I believe there will be no end to the misery of our people until there is a severance of connection between sectarian organisations and political parties.
Therefore, one hopes this particular nettle will be grasped and that the British Parliament and Government, which did not suppress the Orange Order, as they should have, in 1835, will now see the price that they have paid for their past omissions and will endeavour in 1972 or soon to break this most vicious connection between religious sectarianism and political domination.
Europe and the world are baffled that a modern country like ours in the modern age could endure the kind of religious warfare we have. Where does one find the explanation? There is certainly a conflict between national loyalties, between Unionists and Nationalists: there is perhaps also a conflict between religious outlooks of Catholics and Protestants. Conflict is perhaps too strong a word, one might say incompatabilities. Differences of opinion exist between people of other nationalities in other parts of the world, and between people of the same and other religions, but they do not boil up into the vicious and continuing sectarian hatred which results in such misery and death in Northern Ireland. But it is only in Northern Ireland that you have an Orange Order, so well, so permanently and so fully organised. While I respect the many fair-minded Orange men who are in the Orange Order because they see that order as a way in which they can maintain their religious beliefs and although there are vast numbers in the order who have no animosity towards their Catholic brethren, the reality is that the Orange Order is organised, dominated and controlled not merely as an organisation to promote Protestantism —which is a perfectly legitimate objective—but it is also an organisation to promote hatred of Catholicism. If that simple fact is not grasped no pious resolutions, no amount of legislation or amendments of Constitutions will provide a cure for the misery to which our country, and particularly the North, is subjected at present.
While we are glad to be omitting the special position of the Catholic Church in the Constitution, perhaps we have some reluctance in removing from the Constitution the Protestant Churches by name, churches whose members have contributed most generously to the happy atmosphere and to the soundness of our society. I should like to use this occasion to express my unqualified praise for the manner in which Protestants have contributed to the building up of our society. Some Protestants were not politically sympathetic to the establishment of an independent Ireland in 1920, and some began with less than enthusiasm for a new and independent Ireland. Today they are not merely contented citizens but they are contributing in a greater way than ever before to the building up and improvement of our society.
In the charitable field the endeavours of Protestants frequently outdistance the contributions of Catholics. Work of very great value is done by many charitable organisations often without any public credit and generally without any worthwhile public recognition. Again and again you find that not only are the Protestant community playing a generous part but frequently a leading part. In many social fields they have initiated reforms and they have done so in a way which has always dovetailed easily into the political work of our institutions. This is evidence of what can happen in a society where you have tolerance. If only the Ulster Unionists had displayed towards their minority the tolerance of the minority exhibited here by successive Governments, you might well have in the North a society as peaceful, sound, progressive and as generous as the one in which we are very happy to live.
But apart from the corporal works of mercy and the effective initiative they have taken in social and political fields, the Protestants in southern Irish society have given us a dimension we would not otherwise have. They have often forced members of the majority faith to think. It is a very important thing to do some fundamental thinking from time to time. The more one becomes engaged in political life the less time one has to think. But again and again we have had a new dimension added to our thinking. Our approach to social and other problems has been improved by the contribution which the Protestant churches and members of the dissenting churches have given us. We want to promote this working together throughout this island. We believe this constitutional step today, even though little more than a gesture, is a step in the right direction. It could be described as a two-inch step forward but it is at least better than standing still or moving backwards.
It would be wrong to over-estimate the importance of this gesture in the North at present. Certainly there will be mischievous people in the Orange Order and other sectarian groups who will say that they cannot trust the Greeks bearing gifts, that if the South are doing this they are at the same time secretly entrenching the position of the church more strongly than ever. We cannot control that situation. Until we are far more generous in our approach to the fears of the Unionists in the North, we can do very little to overcome that kind of propaganda. Quite a large number in the North will regard this as little more than window-dressing but perhaps it is better to dress the window properly than leave it in the rather unacceptable condition in which it has been up to now. It is important for us to be free of the notion which could be interpreted from our Constitution that we have an established relationship between church and State. It is good to make this reform if it is desired by any people in the North —and it is desired by some—and it certainly means that our qualification and right to be consulted in relation to a solution of the Northern problem is more obvious and easier to recognise if we remove from our Constitution something to which many people in the North may take strong exception.
In this regard ours is a more positive and more constructive plebisite than that which the British Government announced yesterday for Northern Ireland. I appreciate that to discuss in detail the proposals of the British Government in regard to their plebiscite would be beyond the scope of this Bill but I must observe that this proposal, small though it is, is not divisive whereas the proposals of the British Government are divisive. The step we are taking is progressive; it is looking to, and will govern the future. The plebiscite proposed by the British Government seeks confirmation that their decision of 52 years ago to set up a politico-religious state was right and that everything that has happened as a consequence was also right. To that extent it is appropriate that we in this Parliament should point the way forward, should show that we are prepared to make changes, and hope this would be a guide to the British Parliament and Government as to how they ought to behave.
But as we do this let us recognise that there is a great deal more to do. Deputy Cosgrave has rightly said that there are many other parts of our Constitution which would be better omitted, and they are not merely the parts to which Deputy Lenehan made reference.
Apart from the express references to criminal offences in our Constitution and the claim in Article 3 of the Constitution to have a right—a right —to legislate for the North of Ireland, the whole Constitution of 1937 is written in terms which might have been appropriate in 1937 but which today are not appropriate. They were to a large part inspired by the Papal Encyclicals of the 1920s and 1930s. That does not say that they were wrong but it does perhaps mean that some people might have difficulty in accepting some of the Roman Catholic homilies contained in the 1937 Constitution.
So, let us therefore get away from the verbiage. Let us get away as fast as we can from the dead wood which tends to strangle and inhibit us and let us introduce here a modern Constitution which will avoid the many pitfalls of the 1937 Constitution.
I am a member of the all-party committee which is considering the 1937 Constitution and other matters which may be impediments to the unity of Ireland. I do not want to disclose, because I think it would be improper for me to do so, the workings of that committee but I do think some of the thoughts I have mentioned today reflect the thinking of all parties in this House when they express a desire for a modern document. Let us hope the Fianna Fáil Party will overcome any embarrassment it may feel as a party in moving to replace the 1937 Constitution, which is certainly regarded as the handiwork of Mr. Eamon de Valera. It would be wrong for our generation or future generations to be limited in their scope or activity or to be restrained by a Constitution which has now become unacceptable and unworthy to meet the demands, the aspirations and, indeed, the very needs of our people at the present time and of future generations. I believe it is possible to produce without a great deal of difficulty an acceptable Constitution for our own society and one which, by reason of its acceptability to our own society, will in fact not be unacceptable to our brethren in the North of Ireland.
But we as politicians will have to remember this: we may well in this House pass this legislation and the other House may do likewise; we have to sell this to the electorate, the electorate who are emotionally involved, who are emotionally indignant, who are nationally irritated by many happenings in the North of Ireland and many events which may occur between now and the referendum. The consequences to our own society, to this whole nation and to our relationships with Britain, Europe and the rest of the world were this referendum to be defeated would be disastrous. It would be catastrophic if this proposal were not carried in a referendum, not merely carried but carried by an overwhelming majority. Therefore, people cannot afford to say in this referendum, "It is beyond me. I do not want to take part in this. I will leave it to somebody else to vote." This is a crucial issue. This is a referendum which asks our people to declare for tolerance, which asks our people to repudiate all sectarianism, which asks our people to hold out hands in loving friendship to all people irrespective of their religion or political beliefs and that requires also that we declare an end to violence, pressure or chicanery of any kind to try to bend people from beliefs that they dearly hold.
This, I believe, is a challenge to our people to vote for a new society. It may be a small gesture in itself but its significance can be immense and if we as politicians fail to convince our people of the need to support this referendum en masse then I believe we would today, while we intend to do well, be doing very great harm to our society. So, our task is only beginning and it will not end even when this referendum is carried. We will have to carry on this aspiration to create a new and more tolerant outlook for our people in this island so that the sectarianism and bigotry which is tending to destroy us at present can be eliminated from this island and from our thoughts.
