§ MR. ROCHE (Galway, E.)I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the Parliamentary Return, issued last week, on Outrages in Ireland, and to the fact that the Return shows that most of the serious crimes were committed in the province of Ulster; and whether he intends to take any steps to secure a stricter enforcement of law and order in that province.
§ MR. WALTER LONGIn the absence of my right hon. friend, I will answer this Question. Taking the population of the four provinces as shown by the last census, I find that the Return referred to gives the following result:—In Con-naught there was one case of serious crime to every 5.725 of the population; in Munster the proportion was one to 6,185; in Leinster (excluding Dublin), one to 6,641; and in Ulster (excluding Belfast), one to 11,215. Ulster, therefore, compares most favourably with the other provinces in respect of serious crime, and there is obviously no necessity for taking any special steps to enforce the law in that province.
§ MR. WALTER LONGThe hon. Member is no more entitled to infer that than he is to infer that Dublin is not in Leinster. In both cases I have excluded the two great cities. If Belfast were included in Ulster, the proportion would be one in 8,330 instead of one in 11,215.
§ MR. GORDON (Londonderry, S.)How does Leinster stand if Dublin is included?
§ MR. WALTER LONGI have not the figures with me.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)Why does the right hon. Gentleman not leave out the city of Cork from Munster? These figures are all gerrymandered.
§ MR. WALTER LONGThe hon. Member has no right to make a statement of that kind. I submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that an hon. 242 Member of this House has no right to accuse a Minister of producing gerrymandered figures. He has served in a Government office and knows that these figures are produced by the permanent officials and are carefully examined by the Minister who is responsible for them, and no charge of gerrymandering lies fairly and squarely against either permanent officials or Ministers.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that what he asked was why the city of Cork, which was a city of 100,000 inhabitants, was included in the Munster return, and Belfast and Dublin were excluded from the Ulster and Leinster returns. If the right hon. Gentleman thought the word offensive he would withdraw it.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe expression of the hon. Member was clearly out of order. In the first place it was not a Question but an interjection, and secondly, the word is certainly objectionable.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLI have withdrawn it.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERYes, I understood that. But if the hon. Member wishes for any further information, drawing the distinction which he has indicated, he can put a Question on the Paper.
§ MR. GORDONasked whether he understood correctly that, including Belfast in Ulster, the proportion in that province was one in something over 8,000, whereas, including Cork, in Munster the proportion was one in something over 6,000.
§ MR. WALTER LONGYes, Sir; Cork is included because obviously it is not excluded. The object of the Question was clearly to draw a comparison between different parts of the country. The reason for the inclusion of Cork is not, as the hon. Gentlemen opposite appeared to imagine, some underhand and dishonest reason; it is simply because I thought that by supplying the information exclusive of Belfast and Dublin I should be meeting the reasonable requirements of the House.
§ MR. MACVEAGHIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures he has just given differ from those contained in the Return issued to Members last week?
§ MR. WALTER LONGThe Question addressed to me had regard to crime. The Return dealt with outrages only.
§ MR. MACVEAGHAnd are not crime?
§ MR. FLAVINAnd is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Munster is the province in which ex-Sergeant Sheridan committed his offences?
§ [No Answer was returned.]