§ Mr. LANSBURYasked if any of the officers now engaged at Belmont workhouse in responsible positions, such as labour masters, are engaged in a temporary capacity; and whether, in each case, certificates of character and last employment have been obtained?
§ Mr. BURNSI am informed that there are no temporary officers at Belmont workhouse at the present time of the description referred to in the question.
§ Mr. LANSBURYasked if, in view of the fact that one of the principal witnesses in the case against the inmates at Belmont in respect of the recent riots has been proved to be guilty of unworthy conduct in one position and of being under the influence of drink while engaged in the responsible work of supervising and controlling men, he will reconsider his previous decision and lay upon the Table of the House the evidence given by the inmates before his inspector and also the report made to him by the inspector who held the inquiry?
§ Mr. BURNSThe information I have received in relation to this matter, and which I have already given to the House, does not in my opinion make it necessary to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member.
§ Mr. LANSBURYMay I ask whether it is not a fact that several of the men sent petitions to him protesting against their conviction on the evidence given by this particular man, and asking that an inquiry should be held into the statements against him in regard to his evidence?
§ Mr. BURNSThe evidence given by this man was considered so unimportant that no reference was made to it in the local newspapers. No one was convicted upon the statement of this man, who was only a temporary officer, and the offence for which he was dismissed from Belmont was that he celebrated the dismissal of himself by getting drunk after that event.