§ MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in any of the 14 counties of Ireland proclaimed under the paragraphs of Section 2 of the Coercion Act, relating to the offences of taking forcible possession, and assaulting ministers of the Law, any offence of either class has been committed since the beginning of the present year; and, whether, with a view to enable the House to test the extent 931 of the alleged necessity for Proclamations under the Coercion Act, the Government will lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing, for each county in Ireland, the names of persons "more or less boycotted," and of persons receiving police protection, with particulars of the nature of each case?
§ MR. DE LISLE (Leicestershire, Mid)In reference to the Question of the hon. Member, I desire to put a Question to you, Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order. Is it in Order to introduce into a Question offensive words or nicknames, which, in the opinion of many hon. Members of this House, are calculated to provoke sedition and to bring the law into contempt? In this Question the words "Coercion Act" are used instead of "Criminal Law Amendment Act." I wish to ask, (Sir, whether the use of this expression is in Order, and also to call your attention to the fact that the same words which appear to me to be offensive, are used in a Question which is to be asked on a future day?
§ MR. SPEAKERI have no doubt it is by inadvertence that the words to which the hon. Member takes exception appear on the Paper. But I have already given directions that an alteration shall be made in the words which will appear on the Paper to-morrow.
§ MR. SEXTONAre hon. Members to understand that this phrase cannot appear on the Paper of this House, and cannot be used in the course of debate, because, hitherto, it has been the expression commonly used in discussions in this House?
§ MR. SPEAKERI do not go as far as that. I only say that it is not a proper expression to appear on the Paper.
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)in reply, said, he had no reason to doubt the conclusion arrived at in the first paragraph of the Question so far as it related to the number of offences. He need not explain again to the House what he had already several times explained as to the general grounds on which the particular sub-sections of the particular clause were made general in their application to Ireland. As regarded the second paragraph of the Question, the hon. Gentleman would understand that it would be perfectly impossible for this or any other Govern- 932 ment to furnish details and names in reference to cases of Boycotting in justice to the victims, if for no other reason.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he did not understand. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in these Boycotting offences, or in the circumstances of police protection, there was anything secret, or whether there was any ground for withholding this information from the House?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he thought that everybody would agree with him that a very serious disadvantage would arise from giving the information.
§ MR. SEXTONasked, if the right hon. Gentleman would give a Return, without identifying individuals, showing in each county in Ireland the number of persons Boycotted and the number of persons receiving police protection. That could not hurt anyone.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he saw no objection to giving the number in a Return; but he must demur to the statement of the hon. Member that the case of the Government rested upon statistics of police protection or Boycotting.
§ MR. SEXTONasked, how otherwise the Government justified themselves in the proclamation of 14 counties in respect of offences which they admitted had not been committed in those counties during the year?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he had already answered the Question of the hon. Member. In his opinion, certain sub-heads of sub-sections in the clause in question might well be made part of the general law of Ireland.