§ Mr. LANSBURYasked the President of the Local Government Board if he would lay upon the Table of the House a full report of the evidence taken at the inquiry into the causes of the recent riot at the Belmont Workhouse; and if he would state the total number of inmates at this institution at the time of the riot, stating separately the number of able-bodied and the number classed as non-able-bodied, together with their ages; what tasks of work were imposed on the able-bodied; how many officers were in charge; and the industrial record of the men who were charged before the magistrate?
§ The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns)After the outbreak at Belmont Workhouse in December last, one of my inspectors attended there and endeavoured to ascertain the grievances of the men by inviting any who wished to see him to do so in the absence of the officers. There was no evidence in the proper sense, and I do not think it is necessary, or that it would be fair to the men, to publish any report. The total number of inmates at the workhouse on 14th December, the day of the riot, was 1,327. Of these, 422 were classed as able-bodied, 752 as not able-bodied, and 153 as epileptics. The ages of the inmates ranged from sixteen to eight-five years, twenty three men being under twenty years of age, and 426 over sixty. The employments upon which the inmates were engaged included farm work, corn grinding, wood bundling, ward work, tailoring, and other occupations. The staff of male officers on 14th December numbered fifty-six. I have no information of the industrial record of the eighty-six men recently charged before the magistrates, but I may say that thirty of the men had previously had seventy-eight police convictions, of which thirty were for offences at Belmont; and that forty of the men had previously received 199 workhouse punishments (bread and water diet) for insubordination at Belmont and other workhouses.
§ Mr. LANSBURYDoes the right hon. Gentleman object to lay on the Table not the evidence, but the report of the inspector to the right hon. Gentleman?
§ Mr. BURNSThere was no report in the sense implied by the hon. Member. It was a condition made with the men who had complained that the officers should not be present, and that the men should be protected in the event of any officers finding out the complaints of the men.
§ Mr. LANSBURYHave the inspectors reported verbally or in writing as to their proceedings at Belmont?
§ Mr. BURNSImmediately this riot took place, on the very same day I sent an inspector down. The next day I sent another inspector, and the thing was done in a direct and businesslike way.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI only want an answer to my question. The answer I want to get is——[HON. MEMBERS: Question.] Well, am I to put the question or hon. Gentlemen opposite?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe best way for the hon. Member to get an answer is to put a question on the Paper.
§ Mr. LANSBURYWith very great respect. Perhaps I have not made myself clear to the right hon. Gentleman. Is there any written report from the gentleman who was sent to inquire into these disturbances, and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman lay it on the Table of the House?