Special Committee Defence Bill, 1951 díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 30 Apr 1952

SECTION 254.

Captain Cowan

I move amendment No. 300 :—

To delete sub-section (1).

The section says :

" If any person without due authority, the proof of which authority shall lie on such person—

(a) opens or keeps any house, place or rendezvous, or office as connected with the recruiting of the Defence Forces. . . he shall be guilty of an offence under this sub-section."

Could anyone imagine such a thing happening ? Is there any reason for that ? Could anyone imagine any person in his senses opening a house for recruits for the Defence Forces, unless he was paid by the Department of Finance?

Mr. Traynor

This is one of the sections which I particularly asked to have explained to me because I could not appreciate its necessity. I was told that it is already in Section 162 of the 1923 Act and the legal authorities of the Army thought it would be well to retain it.

Chairman

In 1923 there were very peculiar circumstances obtaining and an open house may have been used as a rendezvous. If you could use the word " purporting " or something like that it might improve the section. I think the draftsmanship is not sufficiently explicit there. It is understandable in the 1923 Act. Many Deputies here will recollect the circumstances. The purpose of the section initially, as I conceive it, was that the Free State Army wanted to ensure that people did not recruit into any other force on the pretext that it was an officially recognised recruiting station of the Free State Army. I think that is actually the genesis of it. I can see there is still need for an offence of purporting to recruit for the Defence Forces, but, in view of the changed circumstances, where it would not be so clear, perhaps the drafting could be reconsidered.

Mr. Traynor

The fact is that it is a harmless section.

Captain Cowan

It is.

Mr. Traynor

The other fact is that the legal authorities deem it desirable to have it in. I do not think it is worth bothering about. I was not concerned with the 1923 Act or the circumstances which existed then. I was looking at it from the point of view of recruiting the Defence Forces. There is only one Defence Force in the State at the present time.

Captain Cowan

That is all.

Mr. Traynor

I was wondering in what circumstances could anyone establish a private recruiting office for the Defence Forces. If somebody did it during the present recruiting campaign it might be regarded as a very patriotic thing to do, but they would have no authority to do it. Somebody might be an enthusiast and be very anxious to get a couple of hundred recruits for the Army and would think he was doing it lawfully when, in fact, he would not be.

Captain Cowan

You have sub-section (b), which says :—

publishes or causes to be published notices or advertisements for the purpose of procuring recruits for the Defence Forces, or in relation to recruits for the Defence Forces, or

I put down a note when I read that—" he would be mad ". I cannot improve on that.

Chairman

Maybe not so mad. Supposing there was some unauthorised army in the country and they wanted to get personnel. Supposing a person put up an advertisement which said : " Recruits are wanted for the Defence Forces—report here ", and then they bona fide marched them to a barrack. It could be done for patriotic motives but still it is dangerous because it could be a sifting centre. It could be a centre at which you could get your hands on people before they went into the Defence Forces. I know that is a very extreme case. I think the Minister should keep his section but the wording of it might be considered.

Captain Cowan

I think the section ought to go completely out. It should not be there at all. I think the genesis or the birth of this section was probably the old idea that used to exist about 100 years ago when people set up their own county regiments as part of the army of Britain and men would recruit deliberately 200 or 400 men for the British army and, when they came to pass the 1823 Act, they wanted to put a stop to this and put in such a section as this.

Mr. Carter

On the basis of the militia.

Captain Cowan

Yes. In fact, the most interesting book I have read was by Michael McDonagh, The Viceroy’s Postbag, and it gives letters form a colonel in Antrim who recruited a regiment of his own and considered he was treated very badly by the viceroy here. There are some very interesting letters in it. I think that is the sort of thing that was got after in the section originally. I think the Minister ought to drop this sub-section altogether and rely on sub-section (2) which makes it an offence to obstruct or interfere with recruiting. That would be good enough.

Mr. Traynor

In view of the fact that our own legal authorities have informed me that they think the section ought to be retained because it provides a safeguard, all I can say is that I will submit the views expressed here by Deputy Cowan to them. If they still think that it is desirable, it does not in fact do any harm.

Captain Cowan

If they do insist on having it retained, then the punishment should be altered so that the offending person would be shot at 200 yards by arrow fired from the bow of the Deputy Judge Advocate General.

Chairman

I would like the Minister to consider the wording. I think he should have the section.

Mr. Traynor

I think so, too.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 254 agreed to.

Sections 255 and 256 agreed to

The Committee adjourned at 9.40 p.m. until 3.30 p.m. on Thursday, 1st May.