Women, citizenship and Catholicism in the Irish free state,

Transcription

1 Women's History Review ISSN: (Print) X (Online) Journal homepage: Women, citizenship and Catholicism in the Irish free state, Caitriona Beaumont To cite this article: Caitriona Beaumont (1997) Women, citizenship and Catholicism in the Irish free state, , Women's History Review, 6:4, To link to this article: Published online: 20 Dec Submit your article to this journal Article views: 6664 View related articles Citing articles: 6 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at Download by: [ ] Date: 15 December 2017, At: 16:53

2 WOMEN S CITIZENSHIP Women s History Review, Volume 6, Number 4, 1997 Women, Citizenship and Catholicism in the Irish Free State, CAITRIONA BEAUMONT University of Glasgow, United Kingdom ABSTRACT This article explores the ways in which Catholic social teaching influenced and shaped the changing definitions of women s citizenship during the formative years of the Irish Free State. The 1922 Irish Free State Constitution guaranteed equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens. By 1937 this guarantee of equal citizenship for women had been transformed into a more gender based definition. Citizenship for women was now clearly defined in terms of their role as wives and mothers. The essay examines the relationship between Catholic social teaching and State legislation which resulted in such a narrow interpretation of women s role. The article also considers the opinions and activities of women s societies who campaigned for women s citizenship rights during these years. It is argued that despite the prevalence of Catholic social teaching, women did assert their citizenship rights and in doing so reclaimed their right to equal citizenship. Under the 1916 Proclamation, Irishwomen were given equal citizenship, equal rights and equal opportunities. Subsequent constitutions have filched these or smothered them in mere empty formulae. (Hanna Sheehy Skeffington, 1943) Twenty-one years after the establishment of the Irish Free State Hanna Sheehy Skeffington lamented the position of women in Irish society. Women s contribution to the nationalist cause and to the foundation of the State was, she claimed, long forgotten.[1] Legislation enacted during the 1920s and 1930s was seen to limit the citizenship rights of women. In 1937 the introduction of a new draft Constitution appeared to confirm these misgivings. Citizenship for women was now defined solely in terms of her function as wife and mother. Sheehy Skeffington wrote that the new Constitution was based on a Fascist Model, in which women would be relegated to permanent inferiority, their avocations and choice of callings limited because of an implied invalidism as the weaker sex.[2] 563

3 CAITRIONA BEAUMONT By the early 1940s it had become clear that Irish men and Irish women were not considered equal citizens and that women were not entitled to the same rights of citizenship as men. The ideal of equal citizenship, put forward in the 1916 Proclamation, had been lost. Historians have suggested that Catholic ideology, economic austerity and traditional attitudes regarding women s role were responsible for the continuing discrimination against women.[3] The prevalence of Catholic social teaching has generally been regarded as the most far-reaching and persuasive influence. John Whyte suggested in Church and State in Modern Ireland, (1980) that the 1937 Constitution was one more instance of the movement regardless of which party was in power, since the establishment of the State to enshrine Catholic principles in the law of the land.[4] Catherine Rose has argued that in a country where Catholicism is all pervasive it is hardly surprising, that women have been brain-washed into a reluctance to assert themselves.[5] There is no doubt that traditional assumptions about the role of women in twentieth-century Irish society mirrored the teaching of the Catholic Church. Pope Leo XIII clearly outlined the natural duty of women when he wrote in the encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891) that a woman is by her nature fitted for home work and it is this which is best adapted to preserve her modesty and promote the good upbringing of children and the well being of the family.[6] This view was reiterated in 1931 with the publication of the papal encyclical Quadregesimo Anno in which Pope Pius XI proclaimed that mothers will above all devote their work to the home and the things connected with it.[7] In a country where the bulk of the population were devout Catholics [8] the Church s interpretation of the role of women was hugely influential. Church teaching on the natural function of women as wives and mothers was accepted by the vast majority of Catholic men and women. It was when this teaching was used to justify legislation which limited the opportunities of women and attempted to confine women to their natural role that it took on a more sinister tone. Yet to suggest that Irish women were brain-washed into submission by Catholicism does a great disservice to the women of Ireland.[9] Many women actively asserted their citizenship rights through their membership of women s societies during the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. Organisations such as the Irish Countrywomen s Association (1910), the National Council of Women (1924) and the Joint Committee of Women s Societies and Social Workers (1935) were anxious to portray women as active, intelligent and responsible citizens.[10] Representing women, many of whom were themselves Catholic and accepted their primary domestic role, these groups campaigned against legislation which compromised the rights of women. Here I want to examine definitions of women s citizenship, the influence of 564

4 WOMEN S CITIZENSHIP Catholic social teaching on such definitions and the response of women asserting their citizenship rights. The 1922 Free State Constitution granted women over the age of twenty one the parliamentary franchise and so gave Irish women the same rights of political citizenship as men, the right to vote. All citizens were guaranteed equal religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities, regardless of their gender.[11] Under the terms of the new Constitution the future for women in the Irish state looked bright. The parliamentary franchise had been extended to women on equal terms with men, six years before women in Britain could claim such a victory.[12] The Constitution also guaranteed the equal rights of men and women without distinction of sex which, it was hoped, would prevent further discrimination against women. It is not surprising, therefore, that feminist activists were optimistic about the future of Irishwomen. Esther Roper, in a letter to Hanna Sheehy Skeffington, expressed her hopes for women in the Irish Free State. She wrote that never had there been such a firm foundation of justice and freedom guaranteed by any country of its women citizens.[13] Within a few short years, however, the promise of equal citizenship for women in the Irish Free State had been dashed. The first government of the Irish Free State, Cumann na ngaedheal, led by William Cosgrave, introduced a number of measures during the 1920s which were to have serious repercussions on the right of women to equal citizenship. These policy decisions reflected the growing influence of Catholic teaching on Irish social legislation. As early as 1925, the influence of the Church on Irish legislators was becoming clear. That year the Catholic hierarchy issued a statement condemning divorce, suggesting that it would be altogether unworthy of an Irish legislative body to sanction the concession of such divorce, no matter who the petitioners may be.[14] Despite the very real risk of alienating members of the Protestant community, both in the North and in the Free State, Cosgrave who was a devout Catholic, accepted the hierarchy s advice. As a result, the procedure of bringing a private members bill to the Dail in order to obtain a divorce was suspended. The Catholic bishops belief that it would be unworthy of any Irish government to introduce legislation contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church was very significant. With no conception of the separation between Church and State the Catholic hierarchy assumed that the government of the Irish Free State, representing a predominantly Catholic populace, would uphold Catholic social teaching in all legislative decisions. Throughout the 1920s, it became abundantly clear that the Irish bishops were correct in this assumption. Both the Cumann na ngaedheal, and later the Fianna Fail, government revealed a willingness to incorporate Catholic principles in social legislation during their terms in office. 565

5 CAITRIONA BEAUMONT There is little doubt that much of the legislation introduced during the early years of the Irish Free State reflected the Catholic nature of Irish society. In 1923 a full-time film censor was appointed by the State to protect citizens from the moral dangers of Hollywood films. The censor was given the power to ban or cut films considered indecent, obscene or blasphemous which could inculcate principles contrary to public morality or would be otherwise subversive of public morals.[15] Concern about the corruption of Irish morality also extended to published material. Amongst the books banned by the 1929 Censorship of Publications Act were Family Limitation by Margaret Sanger and Wise Parenthood by Marie Stopes.[16] Traditional Catholic views relating to women s position in society were also prevalent during the early years of the Irish Free State. The Papal Encyclical Rerum Novaru, stated clearly that in the eyes of the Church a woman s primary role was that of wife and mother. In reality, many women in Ireland who wished to marry were unable to find suitable partners. In 1926, 25% of women remained unmarried at the age of forty-five. Social and economic changes in the wake of the Great Famine meant that men tended to marry later in life when they gained control of the family farm.[17] The prospects for single women were not good. Emigration, entrance to a convent or limited, and often badly paid, employment opportunities were among the few options available.[18] Despite these harsh realities it was the image of the ideal Irish woman, the wife and mother, which predominated in Irish society. This image was fostered in the schools, through State legislation and the pronouncements of the Catholic clergy. Young Catholic girls were expected to conform to the Catholic Church s vision of the ideal Irish woman. In 1928, a Catholic Girl Guides [19] movement was established in the hope that it would encourage girls to attain to those high ideals of Catholic womanhood once so conspicuous in our race.[20] There was particular emphasis placed on the need for high ideals and moral virtue amongst the young, especially young women. During the 1920s and 1930s fears were growing in Ireland, as indeed they were in Britain, about the moral welfare of the nation and its inhabitants. In 1922 a Pastoral Letter, a traditional Lenten message from a Bishop to his parishioners, warned that traps for the innocent are chiefly the dance hall, the bad book, the indecent paper, the motion picture, the immodest fashion in female dress all of which tend to destroy the virtues characteristic of our race.[21] One way to protect the younger generation from these bad influences was to ensure that they had a strong moral and religious education. The education system in the Irish Free State was largely controlled by the Catholic church. Primary school teachers were appointed by the local parish priest whilst secondary schools were run on a denominational basis with the majority of schools governed by religious congregations. Members of these religious congregations made up a large proportion of the teaching staff of 566

6 WOMEN S CITIZENSHIP Catholic schools in Ireland.[22] This system of education, although based on a secular curriculum, was to all intents and purposes under the control of the Catholic hierarchy.[23] D. H. Akenson, in his study of the Irish education system, has commented that among the Catholic clergy there was universal agreement that education was not an end in itself, and that the educational process should shape the child to the measurements of his masters.[24] Girls attending convent schools were taught the importance of obedience, modesty and chastity. Students were taught by Catholic teachers, both lay and religious, who instilled in their pupils the importance of these basic moral principles. Women teachers were trained in Catholic colleges such as the Mary Immaculate Teacher Training College in Limerick, run by the Sisters of Mercy. In 1927, students at the College began producing a journal, The Mary Immaculate College Annual, which provides some insight into the moral principles trainee teachers were encouraged to pass onto their pupils. The Annual also reveals the influence of Catholic social teaching on the training of school teachers in the Irish Free State.[25] The first issue of the new journal dealt with the Catholic hierarchy s concern regarding the current trend in women s fashions. In an article entitled Wanted A New Woman students were urged to prevent the spread of indecent fashions. Recognising the important social status of teachers, students at the college agreed to play their part in discouraging mannish and immodest dress. To achieve this the Mary Immaculate Modest Dress and Deportment Crusade was launched by students at the College which it was hoped would rescue Irish maidenhood from the grip of the pagan world.[26] Rules laid down on what was deemed suitable dress for women were precise and uncompromising. Dresses were not to be cut less that four inches below the knee and should not be suggestive in style. Sleeves should always be two inches below the elbow, although one inch for evening wear was considered acceptable. Shades of stockings suggesting the nude should never be worn.[27] Women s behaviour also came under the scrutiny of the modest dress crusaders. Young women were to refrain from smoking and from talking or laughing loudly in public. Immodest dances, cinema shows and plays were to be avoided at all cost. The standards set by the Mary Immaculate College Crusade indicated what was required of a good Catholic, Irish girl. According to the Annual: the Irishwoman who is ashamed to be a true child of Mary is a sham Irishwoman.[28] The attitude of trainee teachers at the College to women s emancipation is also worth consideration. The extension of the parliamentary franchise to women was regarded as a good thing in the pages of the Annual. The Vatican had endorsed the decision by the British and later, the Free State Government, to extend the parliamentary franchise to Irish women. The Church based its approval of women s enfranchisement as 567

7 CAITRIONA BEAUMONT recognition of the contribution women had made and would continue to make to society. The 1937 edition of the Annual listed greater educational opportunities and economic freedom for women as positive results of women s emancipation. This enthusiasm was tempered, however, with the warning that women must never neglect their primary role as wives and mothers and on no account were women ever to emulate men.[29] The fact that many women, including the teachers attending Mary Immaculate College, would work before marriage was not considered a violation of women s ideal role. The assumption was that the majority of women would leave paid employment on marriage. The public service marriage bar, which prevented women teachers working after their marriage, ensured that these women would fulfil their primary role as wives and mothers.[30] Women were expected to be modest and well behaved because the responsibility of preserving the moral fibre of Irish life lay in their hands. As the mothers of the next generation they were expected to instruct their children in the importance of Catholic social teaching. Women found lacking were considered abject failures. One Jesuit commentator, Hunter Guthrie, writing in the The Irish Monthly, provided a vivid description of women who had failed in their moral duty. He suggested that the rudeness, brutality and licentiousness of the younger generation must in great part be laid at woman s door, for the mother is the inspiration and standard of reverence for her children.[31] Free State legislation enacted during the 1920s went part of the way to ensure that women would fulfil their natural and primary function as wife and mother. Although there is little doubt that many women wished to marry, have children and work within the home, the fact that state legislation appeared to be leaving women with little choice on this matter was of concern to Irish feminists. In 1925 the Cumann na ngaedheal government sponsored the introduction of the Civil Service Regulation (Amendment) Bill. This Bill proposed to confine women to the lower grades of the civil service, thus limiting their career opportunities and earning power because of their sex. Objections to this discriminatory legislation were raised by Senators Eileen Costello and Jennie Wyse Power, who played a crucial part in the final defeat of the Bill in the Seanad, the Irish Senate.[32] As the first President of Cumann na mban (The Women s League), an organisation for republican women set up in 1913, Jennie Wyse Power was well aware of the contribution women had made to the nationalist struggle. Now that the Irish Free State had been successfully established she accused the Free State government of attempting to exclude women from public service. As an active member of the Irish Women s Citizens and Local Government Association [33] Wyse Power did not confine her protest against the Civil Service (Amendment) Bill to the Seanad. The Irish 568

8 WOMEN S CITIZENSHIP Women s Citizens Association, together with the National Council of Women and the National Union of Women Graduates Association, mounted a public campaign against the implementation of this Bill.[34] Speaking on behalf of women s societies, the Irish Women s Citizens Association stated that: in the view of the women s organisations, the question is one of principle. To them, the test for appointment to any office should be the fitness of the candidate to discharge the duties of that office the question asked should be, not are these candidates men or women, but are they competent to do the work.[35] Following the protests of women s groups and the objections raised by Senators Costello and Wyse Power, the Civil Service (Amendment) Bill was defeated in the Seanad by 20 votes to 9.[36] Organisations such as the Irish Women s Citizens and Local Government Association, the National Council of Women [37] and the National University Women Graduates Association [38] represented women who were unwilling to accept any erosion of their citizenship rights. Many of the women active in these societies were prominent feminists and included such notable members as Hanna Sheehy Skeffington, Louie Bennett, Mary Hayden and Mary Kettle. Although the Civil Service (Amendment) Bill had been suspended, the right of women to equal citizenship without distinction of sex was undermined by the implementation of the 1924 and 1927 Juries Acts. The 1924 Juries Act gave women but not men the right to apply for exemption from jury service. Jury service, one of the basic obligations of citizenship, was a duty required of all citizens regardless of their gender.[39] The fact that women could extricate themselves from this service implied that women and men had different responsibilities as citizens. The Minister for Justice, Kevin O Higgins, defended the 1924 legislation by suggesting that his measure would allow women, supposedly busy with the responsibilities of home and family, to avoid participating in time-consuming jury service. It can be argued that some women may have been grateful for such a reprieve but the fact that women working within the home were being singled out for special treatment was regarded as an ill omen by women s organisations. Their concerns were fully justified in 1927, when Minister O Higgins attempted to exclude all Irish women from serving on juries. Supporting the 1927 Juries Bill in the Dail, Kevin O Higgins argued that it would be more economical to remove all women s names from jury lists in light of the large numbers of women who had sought exemption since 1924.[40] Nevertheless, as Maryann Valiulis has suggested, the fact that individual women did not want to serve on a jury did not mean that all women wished to be deprived of their right to jury service.[41] Once again women s organisations protested against the adoption of the new Bill and 569

9 CAITRIONA BEAUMONT were supported in the Seanad by Senators Jennie Wyse Power and Eileen Costello. Senator Wyse Power argued that if such a Bill were passed the civic spirit that is developing in women will be arrested.[42] Kevin O Higgins did not, however, share the Senator s concern and stated in the Dail that it was the normal and natural function of women to have children.[43] It was natural for women to have children, but to exclude them from civic duty on such grounds set a dangerous precedent. If a woman was to be barred from jury service because of her work within the home what was to stop the government excluding women from other areas of public life on similar grounds. In response to these fears, objections to the proposed legislation were raised by Wyse Power and Eileen Costello in the Seanad. Women s groups including the National Council of Women and the Irish Women s Citizens Association lobbied the government by sending letters to all members of the Dail outlining the implications of the Juries Bill for women. The Juries Bill was amended during its passage through the Dail and Seanad. A compromise was reached whereby women were able to apply to have their names kept on the state s jury rolls although men would continue to be automatically included. In spite of this concession, the 1927 Juries Act did impinge on the citizenship rights of women. Men and women were treated differently solely on the grounds of sex. The Act was in contravention of Article 3 of the 1922 Constitution which guaranteed equal rights without distinction of sex. The new legislation also affected the rights of women charged with criminal offences. The procedure which required women to voluntarily register for jury service meant that the number of women jurors was greatly reduced. As a result, many women accused of a criminal offence were denied the right to be judged by members of their own sex. Young girls charged with infanticide and prostitution would be judged by twelve men who, it was claimed by women s groups, would have no empathy whatsoever with the accused.[44] Within ten years of the Free State s existence, the guarantee of women s equal status in Irish society had been eroded. It is important to acknowledge, however, that the Irish Free State was not the only country in Europe which identified and enthusiastically endorsed woman s domestic role. In Britain, during a 1927 House of Commons debate on the right of married women to work, it was claimed that once a woman is married, in nine out of ten cases, her heart ceases to be in her work and is in her home; the marriage is a failure if this is not so.[45] An ideology of motherhood and domesticity dominated in Britain during the inter-war years.[46] A public service marriage bar deprived many women of the opportunity to continue work after marriage, a move which reinforced traditional assumptions that marriage and a career were incompatible for women. In Italy and Germany, authoritarian fascist regimes suppressed any attempts to 570

10 WOMEN S CITIZENSHIP advance women s equality and the German concept of kinder, kuche, kirche reigned supreme. In the aftermath of the First World War several European countries sought to limit the number of women working outside the home. Economic depression and high unemployment meant that job opportunities for men were given priority. Working women in Britain, France and Germany lost out to male workers during the 1920s and 1930s. This policy was justified by the industrialist, Sir Herbert Austin, when he commented in 1933 I don t think a woman s place is in industry. If we were to take women out of industry I believe we could absorb all the unemployment. I think men ought to be doing the work instead of women.[47] It is clear that the Irish State was not unique in equating women with motherhood and domesticity. What was peculiar to the Irish case was the extent to which Catholic social teaching was accepted by the legislators of the Irish Free State as well as by the vast majority of the population. This fact is clearly illustrated when legislation such as the 1929 Censorship of Publications Act and the prohibition of divorce is considered. In relation to legislation affecting the lives of women, the teaching of the Catholic church legitimated and encouraged traditional views which glorified women s natural role as wife and mother. The 1930s saw even greater pressures on Irish women to conform to the Catholic concept of womanhood. In 1932, Fianna Fail formed the new Free State government and Eamon de Valera was sworn in as the new Prime Minister, an Taoiseach. Hanna Sheehy Skeffington s opinion of the new leader was largely negative. She wrote that she had no belief in de Valera. Well meaning of course, better than Cosgrave, but really essentially conservative and Church bound, anti-feminist, bourgeois and the like.[48] There is no doubt that de Valera was a devout Catholic and conservative in his views on women. Taking up where Cosgrave and Cumann na ngaedheal left off, his government introduced legislation which strictly adhered to Catholic social teaching. In 1934, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act included an article which prohibited the sale and importation of birth control devices. This meant that not only literature advocating birth control was banned in the Irish Free State but the availability of contraceptives was also proscribed. The use of artificial methods of birth control was, of course, forbidden by the Catholic church. In 1933 the Vatican had requested de Valera to protest against a League of Nations directive on the use of birth control.[49] In September 1933, Sean T. O Kelly, representing the Irish Prime Minister at a meeting in Geneva, made his objections to the use of birth control clear when he stated that the practice of contraception for any purpose was abhorrent to the people of many countries, including Ireland...[bringing] health centres into disrepute in the minds of the faithful.[50] 571

11 CAITRIONA BEAUMONT In light of these events it is not surprising that the Fianna Fail government chose to ban the sale and importation of contraceptives into Ireland. What may appear more surprising is the reaction of women s organisations to this measure. A new women s group, the Joint Committee of Women s Societies and Social Workers, was founded in protest against the passing of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act. It was not, however, the section on birth control which prompted this action. The new Act set the age of consent at fifteen and introduced a six month jail sentence for women convicted of prostitution. A number of social workers and women activists were unhappy with these provisions and decided to lobby the government.[51] Despite the efforts of the women involved the Bill was not amended in their favour.[52] There is no evidence in the records of the Joint Committee of Women s Societies and Social Workers that any protest was made concerning Section 17 of the Bill which banned the importation of contraceptives. It would appear that protesting openly about a woman s right to birth control was not on the Committee s agenda. Any public discussion of sex or matters relating to sexual practice was taboo in Ireland during this period. An organisation which came out in favour of birth control for women would no doubt have been labelled anti-catholic and denounced by the Church. The risk of alienating potential members was too great. Kathleen Delap, a former Vice-President of the Irish Countrywomen s Association, recalls that the ICA did not address the issue of birth control during the 1930s. The majority of members were Catholic and would not have openly supported a campaign in favour of supplying women with birth control information and contraceptives. For an association like the ICA, the support and blessing of the local priest was crucial. If the parish priest approved of the organisation more women were encouraged to join and the parish hall could be used for weekly meetings.[53] The reaction of groups representing Protestant women to the ban on contraceptives was equally subdued. The Mothers Union, established in Ireland in 1887 but with a central office in London, was a religious society for Anglican women.[54] The official policy of the Mothers Union, in England as well as Ireland, was that any form of artificial family limitation was unchristian. Although birth control was regarded as a private matter for husbands and wives, the Union stated that for all married persons, it is a duty and an honour, to accept God s gift of a family... all artificial checks to conception are against the laws of nature.[55] 572

12 WOMEN S CITIZENSHIP As a result of their official policy on birth control, the Mothers Union did not protest against the banning of contraceptives in Ireland.[56] The two other major organisations for Protestant women in Ireland at this time were the Young Women s Christian Association and the Girl s Friendly Society. The Girl s Friendly Society was closely linked to the Mothers Union and shared its views on the use of birth control. The Irish YWCA, representing over 6,000 women, concentrated on evangelical and rescue work and did not become involved in the campaign for women s equality during this period. Whilst the banning of contraceptives did not provoke condemnation from women s organisations, attempts to restrict women s employment opportunities did result in a new campaign. Under the Fianna Fail administration, the right of women to work outside the home was once again under threat. A public service marriage bar was introduced in 1932 which prevented women teachers, and later female civil servants, working after marriage. Mary Kettle, chairman of the Joint Committee of Women s Societies and Social Workers, was outspoken in her opposition to the marriage bar. She claimed that women in the civil service from their entry until they reach the ages of 45 or 50 are looked on as if they are loitering with intent to commit a felony the felony in this case being marriage.[57] Despite the objections raised by organisations such as the Joint Committee of Women s Societies and Social Workers, it was not until 1972 that the public service marriage bar was finally removed. The 1936 Conditions of Employment Act was the most serious attack on the right of women citizens to work outside the home. Section 16 of the Act gave the Minister for Industry and Commerce the power to control and restrict the number of women working in any given industry. In an effort to alleviate male unemployment, the government was willing to restrict the employment opportunities of women. The Irish Women s Workers Union [58] campaigned against the new legislation but failed to have the offending clause removed.[59] Opinions regarding the employment of women were mixed within the Trade Union Movement. Women working in industry faced long hours and low rates of pay. As a result, the employment of women was thought to jeopardize not only men s jobs but the family wage traditionally earned by men. Even Louie Bennett, President of the Irish Women Workers Union, had her doubts about the recruitment of women into the workforce. She suggested in 1932 that the employment of women in industry had not raised their status as workers nor their wage standards... it is a menace to family life in so far as it has blocked the employment of men.[60] The Conditions of Employment Act attempted to safeguard the long-established right of the male citizen to paid work. The right of the woman citizen to employment was not thought to be so great. The Catholic church in Ireland supported this assumption when it made statements suggesting that a woman s greatest and most normal career and the fullest 573

13 CAITRIONA BEAUMONT expression of her individual personality is to be found within the home.[61] With such influential backing, the Fianna Fail government and the majority of deputies within the Dail were more than willing to limit the employment opportunities of women while at the same time ensuring that more jobs were made available to men. It is in the text of the draft 1937 Constitution that the clearest affirmation of woman s domestic duty is to be found. Historians are in agreement that the 1937 Constitution was greatly influenced by Catholic social teaching.[62] The first draft of the new Constitution was completed in March 1937 following three years of consultation and consideration initiated by the Taoiseach, Eamon de Valera. Amongst those who advised de Valera during this period were members of the Jesuit Order in Dublin and Father John Charles McQuaid. A future Archbishop of Dublin, McQuaid was a close personal friend of de Valera. Father Edward Cahill, who also participated in these discussions, was an advocate of Catholic social teaching and supported the view that women were best suited to home work. Cahill, in his submissions to de Valera, urged the Taoiseach to incorporate the principles of Catholic teaching in the new Irish Constitution.[63] The end result was a draft Constitution which reaffirmed many Catholic beliefs and values. Article stated that No law shall be enacted providing for the grant of a dissolution of marriage. This meant that divorce legislation could not be introduced under the terms of the Constitution. Articles relating to education and the family supported the Catholic view that the family was the primary educator of the child. The family was recognised as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of society.[64] The influence of Catholic social teaching was also evident in the section dealing with the status and duty of women citizens. The portrayal of women in Papal Encyclicals as housewives and mothers was reiterated in Article 41 of the draft Constitution. Article stated that the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.[65] Article continued that the State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.[66] It could be argued that this acknowledgement of women s work within the home was an important victory for Irishwomen. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, English women s organisations, including the Women s Co-operative Guild and the National Federation of Women s Institutes, had called for official recognition of the work done by women in the home. It was hoped that the state would reward women for their work with the provision of family allowances and access to free health care. Although Article of the 1937 Constitution recognised the work that women did in the home it did not improve the welfare of Irish women 574

14 WOMEN S CITIZENSHIP in any way. There was no suggestion in 1937 that family allowances, public health care for women or equal pay would be introduced to alleviate the hardships faced by many women. Instead, Article of the draft Constitution again attempted to restrict the employment opportunities of women. The Article stated that: The State shall endeavour to ensure that the inadequate strength of women and the tender age of children shall not be abused, and that women or children shall not be forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their sex, age or strength.[67] A number of women s organisations objected to the draft Constitution and joined together in a protest campaign. The organisations involved in the campaign included the National University Women Graduates Association, the Joint Committee of Women Societies and Social Workers and the Irish Women Workers Union.[68] Letters were written to the Taoiseach and the press outlining the dangers for women in the draft Constitution. Public meetings and deputations were organised while the draft was being discussed in the Dail. Throughout May and June 1937, considerable press coverage was given to the campaign and to the reaction of de Valera and Fianna Fail to the protesters. The objections raised by the women s campaign centred around a number of specific Clauses. Article 9 referred to citizenship qualification and Article 16 determined who was entitled to vote. The absence of the term without distinction of sex in both Articles was of grave concern to the women campaigners. When considered in conjunction with the wording of Article the danger appeared even greater. Article stated that all citizens were equal before the law but this shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.[69] Catholic social teaching declared that women did have a specific social function, that of wife and mother. Women s organisations were concerned that this definition of their social function could deprive them of their right to vote.[70] In a letter to the Irish Press, Louie Bennett, Secretary of the Irish Women Workers Union, argued that Article differentiated between male and female citizenship. Women as wives and mothers could be judged to have an inferior social status which could open the way for legislation which discriminated against women.[71] Organisations such as the Irish Women s Workers Union were not the only ones concerned about the implications of Article B. B. Waters, Chairman of An Rioghacht (the League of the Kingship of Christ) [72], also expressed doubts about the status of women citizens under the draft Constitution. Waters, a firm supporter of Catholic social teaching, recognised that any perceived inferiority of women 575

15 CAITRIONA BEAUMONT could exclude them from voting under the terms of Article 16. He warned that in a State which endorsed Catholic social principles the Constitution does in fact expose women to the dangers of being left defenceless before this jurisprudence. Therefore the Constitution does not appear to defend women as citizens.[73] The arguments put forward here by Bennett and Waters are convincing. Amongst the papers of Father John Charles McQuaid, adviser to the Taoiseach, is a document entitled Rights of Women in which is stated that the draft Constitution in no way denied woman s fundamental rights as a human being. It goes on to say, however, that: It is an unreality to imagine that the possession of an electoral vote abolishes for either men or women or for both diversity of social function. Nothing will change in law and fact of nature that woman s natural sphere is in the home.[74] This statement would imply that under the terms of the draft Constitution men and women were not considered equal citizens. De Valera denied that there was any threat to the political rights of women in the draft Constitution. He suggested that the term without distinction of sex was outdated and unnecessary. His assurances did not convince the women s organisations. At a meeting called by the National University Graduates Women Association (NUWGA) on 10 May 1937, it was reported that the omission of the principle of equal rights and opportunities enunciated in the Proclamation of the Republic of 1916 and confirmed in Article 3 of the Constitution of Saorstat Eireann was deplored as sinister and retrogressive.[75] During the Dail debate on the draft Constitution Articles 9 and 16 were amended. A clause was added to Article 9 which read that No person may be excluded from Irish nationality and citizenship by reason of the sex of such person. The term without distinction of sex was added to Article 16 as well as the guarantee that No law shall be enacted placing any citizen under disability or incapacity for membership of Dail Eireann on the grounds of sex or disqualifying any citizen from voting at an election for Dail Eireann on that ground.[76] These amendments marked an important victory in the fight for women s right to equal citizenship in the Irish Free State. Article was also amended during the Dail debate on the draft Constitution. In light of the Conditions of Employment Act, Article was seen by feminists as another attempt to keep women out of industry. Reference to the inadequate strength of women angered those involved in the campaign. In a letter to de Valera, W. R. O Hegarty of the Joint Committee for Women s Societies and Social Workers, enquired if: 576

16 WOMEN S CITIZENSHIP the hard-worked charwoman, running her own home, as well as doing the hard and uninteresting work of other households, or the nurse, with her long hours of day and night duty, be considered or would it only be used to prevent women entering occupations in which they would be in competition with men.[77] This view was echoed by the Joint Committee and the Irish Women Workers Union in separate deputations to de Valera. Following these meetings the offending phrase inadequate strength of women was removed. An amended version of Article read: The State shall endeavour to ensure that the strength and health of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children shall not be abused and that citizens shall not be forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their sex, age or strength.[78] Efforts to bring about further amendments to the draft Constitution were unsuccessful. The assertion in Article 40.1 that legislation may take into account differences of capacity and of social function was not deleted. Mary Hayden, President of the National University Women Graduates Association, objected to the inclusion of this clause because it leaves it open to the legislature and the Courts to restrict the legitimate liberties of any citizen or group or class of citizens.[79] De Valera denied time and again that there was any threat to women s citizenship rights in this clause. The Irish Press, defending de Valera, claimed that The action of the State must be guided by the common good... it is bound to afford succour and protection to those who need such, no matter to what sex they may belong.[80] De Valera was equally unwilling to amend Article This Article stated that mothers would not be forced by economic necessity to seek paid work and neglect their duties in the home. The Irish Women Workers Union and the Joint Committee objected to this article because it implied possible state intervention in family life. The decision whether or not a woman would go out to work was not a matter for the state. It was a private concern for each individual woman and her family. There was also genuine concern amongst women s groups that Article could confine women to home work. In a letter to the Executive Council, the Joint Committee expressed the view that Women fear this article may foreshadow an extension of such legislation as Section 16 of the Conditions of Employment Act, legislation which could limit the opportunities of women in the economic field, and which could be passed under Article 40.1.[81] The influence of Catholic social teaching in the wording of Article is clear. In the McQuaid document, Rights of Women, a mother s duty to the home was considered a crucial element of Catholic social teaching. The words of Benedict XV were quoted to illustrate this point: no change in the opinion of men, no new state of things, nor course of events can ever snatch woman, if she realises her mission, from that sphere which 577

17 CAITRIONA BEAUMONT is natural to her the family.[82] De Valera s defence of Article reflected his strong belief that a woman s place was in the home. He dismissed all the objections put forward by women s organisations. In a speech defending the draft Constitution he commented that the State pledges itself to have special care for the family. Everyone knows there is little chance of having a home in the real sense if there is no woman in it, the woman is really the home-maker.[83] The draft Constitution was passed in the Dail on the 14 June with Articles 40 and 41 intact and the date for a referendum set for 1 July. The Joint Committee of Women s Societies and Social Workers and the National University Women Graduates Association urged all women to vote against the Constitution. Despite a well run and highly publicised campaign no real impact was made on the majority of Irish women. The Constitution was accepted by a majority of 685,105 votes to 526,945. As a result Church and state were united in declaring that home-work for women was part of the natural order, an ideal to be attained by the majority of women. Throughout the 1930s and 1940s most Irish women worked within the home. The 1936 census revealed that 552,176 women were engaged in home work compared to 226,816 women who were in paid employment. The fact that a greater number of women did not support feminists in the campaign for women s rights was predictable. Equality was an abstract concept which had little to do with the everyday necessities of life. For women who were devout Catholics, the portrayal of women as home-makers and mothers was a familiar and acceptable idea and many women were content to fulfil their natural role as wife and mother. The legacy of the women s campaign against the 1937 Constitution should not, however, be underestimated. Throughout the late 1930s and 1940s women s societies continued to champion the right of women to equal citizenship. Organisations such as the Women s Social and Progressive League [84] repeatedly called on the government to introduce equal pay and equal opportunities for women but the government did not respond. The Church for its part remained steadfast in the belief that a woman s place was in the home. Women who advocated equality were denounced by members of the Catholic clergy: they demand that equality of right be reduced to a dead level, and that woman contrary to her natural temperament and function, be free to abandon her own role, enter man s world and compete freely with him.[85] During the 1940s, societies for women attempted to bridge the gap between a woman s domestic and private duty and her public role as an independent and accountable member of society. Organisations such as the Joint Committee of Women s Societies and Social Workers and the Irish Countrywomen s Association emphasised the need for all women, including home-makers, to be acknowledged as responsible citizens.[86] They argued that women, even those who worked within the home, had plenty to offer 578

18 WOMEN S CITIZENSHIP society. Through education and training, rural women could play an important part in keeping agricultural and traditional industries alive. In 1940 the Joint Committee of Women s Societies and Social Workers, representing over 28,000 women, emphasised the important work done by women in the home.[87] The Committee argued that housewives were in need of representation to ensure that their service to the State was not only recognised but rewarded with benefits including adequate health care, baby clinics and nursery schools.[88] The needs of wives and mothers were also highlighted by the Irish Housewives Association established in 1942 by a number of Dublin women, including Hilda Tweedy and Andrée Sheehy Skeffington. The Association attempted to protect the rights of women as consumers at a time when food shortages and rising prices were common as a result of the Second World War. Shortages created many problems for housewives trying to feed and clothe their families and the Housewives Association put pressure on the Government to introduce price controls and guarantee supplies of essentials for all citizens.[89] Hanna Sheehy Skeffington urged women to organize and become involved in societies such as the Housewives Association. In an article published in the Association s journal, The Irish Housewife in 1946, she wrote that: the example of the Housewives has shown that women too must organize, must educate themselves in citizenship, must become vocal, if need be, clamorous. The Association needs more members, much work remains to be done in 46. Go to it housewives! [90] When Ireland was declared a republic in 1948, the guarantee that all citizens would be treated equally without distinction of sex no longer existed. Legislation enacted by both the Cumann na ngaedheal and Fianna Fail governments discriminated between the rights and needs of male and female citizens. This discrimination was based on the assumption that men and women had different social functions. Catholic teaching was instrumental in giving credence to such a belief. In a country where the majority of legislators, educators and inhabitants were influenced by Catholic social teaching it comes as no surprise that so many accepted a woman s proper place was in the home. What was unacceptable to a number of women s societies in the Irish Free State was the fact that women were treated as secondary citizens because of their work within the home. Organisations such as the Joint Committee of Women s Societies and Social Workers did not deny that women had an important duty as homemakers. What they did object to was the way in which the State attempted to confine women to this role. Throughout the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s women s societies campaigned for the right of women to be treated as equal citizens. They argued that women, as homemakers and workers, had an important contribution to make to 579