Chapter III
.
(c)--The Demand for State Provision.
Soon after the beginning of the new century the agitation for some form of State feeding grew urgent and widespread. There was no attempt to deal with the matter in the Education Act of 1902, but from about this date onwards the question constantly recurred in Parliamentary debates, a sure indication that the question was interesting others besides the expert and the philanthropist. And to the old motives of sentiment and educational need was added a new motive, a motive specially characteristic of the present century and one which in some other directions threatens to become almost an obsession. This was the desire for "race regeneration," the conviction of the supreme importance of securing a physically efficient people. Formerly the tendency had been to sacrifice the needs of the child to the supposed moral welfare of the family, now the child was regarded primarily as the raw material for a nation of healthy citizens.
The South African war had been partly instrumental in producing this extreme anxiety about physical unfitness, and two public enquiries--the Royal Commission on Physical Training in Scotland, and the Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration--furnished abundant proof of the harm which was being done in this direction by the mal-nutrition of school children.
The report of the Royal Commission on Physical Training showed indisputably the necessity for better feeding. On this point a large number of important witnesses were unanimous.[85] The Commissioners were, however, cautious in their recommendations. Though fully convinced of the necessity for feeding, they were doubtful as to how far the responsibility for dealing with the need should be placed upon the Education Authorities. "It is matter for grave consideration," they declared, "whether the valuable asset to the nation in the improved moral and physical state of a large number of future citizens counterbalances the evils of impaired parental responsibility, or whether voluntary agencies may be trusted to do this work with more discrimination and consequently less danger than a statutory system."[86] On the other hand, they urged, "it must be remembered that, with every desire to act up to their parental responsibility, and while quite ready to contribute in proportion to their power, there are often impediments in the way of the home provision of suitable food by the parents."[87] They considered, therefore, that "accommodation and means for enabling children to be properly fed should ... be provided either in each school or in a centre; but, except a limited sum to provide the necessary equipment, no part of the cost should be allowed to fall on the rates."[88] The meal should be educational in character. "An obligation for the proper supervision of the feeding of those who come for instruction should be regarded as one of the duties of school authorities."[89]
Footnote 85:
Report of Royal Commission on Physical Training (Scotland), 1903. Vol. I., p. 30, par. 162. "If we are going to develop the physical training of children we must be on our guard against overworking them," said one witness, "and, of course, underfed children would be positively injured by even light exercises." (_Ibid._, Vol. II., Q. 760, evidence of Mr. J. E. Legge, Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools.) "Children can exist, when doing no mental or physical work, on a bare subsistence diet," said Dr. Clement Dukes, "but ... a bare subsistence diet becomes a starvation diet when mental or bodily work is added." (_Ibid._, Q. 8140.)
Footnote 86:
_Ibid._, Vol. I., p. 30, par. 165.
Footnote 87:
_Ibid._, p. 30, par. 167.
Footnote 88:
_Ibid._, p. 31, par. 172.
Footnote 89:
_Ibid._, p. 30, par. 168.
The findings of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration were more definite and striking. To take first the evidence as to the extent of underfeeding, Dr. Eichholz, after careful investigation, estimated that the rough total of underfed children in London was 122,000 or 16 per cent. of the elementary school population. These figures were based on the assumption that all the children being fed at schools and centres would otherwise have gone unfed; but, considering the loose method of enquiry prevalent, this was questionable. The London School Board put the number at 10,000, but this seems to have been grossly understating the case.[90] In Manchester, according to the estimate of the Education Committee and the Medical Officer of Health, not less than 15 per cent. were underfed.[91] The evidence given was, however, conflicting, and indeed little reliance can be placed on these statistics.
Footnote 90:
Report of Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration, 1904, p. 66, pars. 332-334; evidence of Dr. Eichholz, Qs. 471-476.
Footnote 91:
_Ibid._, p. 67, par. 335; evidence of Dr. Eichholz, Q. 476.
With regard to the effect of underfeeding on the physique of the children, the doctors gave striking testimony. Dr. Robert Hutchison was of opinion that, if a child had not sufficient food during the period of growth, that is during the school years, it would be permanently stunted.[92] "Apart from infectious diseases," said Dr. Collie of the London School Board, "malnutrition is accountable for nine-tenths of child sickness."[93] Dr. Eichholz pointed out that at Leeds Dr. Hall had found that fifty per cent. of the children in a poor school suffered from rickets, the true cause of which was poor and unsuitable food, whilst in a well-to-do school the proportion was only eight per cent.[94] In the opinion of this witness, an opinion "shared by medical men, members of Education Committees, managers, teachers and others conversant with the condition of school children ... food is at the base of all the evils of child degeneracy."[95] "The sufficient feeding of children," declared Dr. Niven, Medical Officer of Health for Manchester, "is by far the most important thing to attend to and ... specially important in connection with the Army.... When trade is good," he argued, "you will have to rely for the Army upon this very poor class, and in order to get good soldiers you must rear good children, you must see that children are adequately fed."[96]
Footnote 92:
_Ibid._, Q. 9974. "The critical age," he considered, was "from 10 to 15." Looking at the enormous improvement in children in the Navy and in Industrial Schools, where they were properly fed, he did not "share the pessimistic view that the mischief is hopelessly done by the time a child reaches school age." He felt certain that "the provision of meals would do a great deal to improve the health and growth and development of the children of the poorer classes." (_Ibid._, Qs. 9973, 10047-8, 10051, 10006.)
Footnote 93:
_Ibid._, Q. 3992.
Footnote 94:
_Ibid._, Q. 452.
Footnote 95:
_Ibid._, Q. 475.
Footnote 96:
_Ibid._, Q. 6484. See also evidence of General Sir T. Maurice, Q. 278.
Such were the arguments on the negative side--on the positive side there was ample proof of the good effects of a regular nutritious diet. Dr. Eichholz referred to Dr. Hall's experiment in feeding poor children at Leeds. "Taking sixty poor seven-year-old children, at the beginning of the period they totalled 455 lbs., below normal weight.... They gained in three months forty lbs. in addition to the normal increase in weight" for that time, "and they looked less anaemic and more cheerful."[97] Too much importance must not be attached to these figures since the data on which they are based are not sufficiently known to gauge their value, but that the improvement was very considerable cannot be doubted. Moreover, in the special schools for mentally defective children where meals were regularly provided, the results were astonishing. Dr. Collie told how, "in a large number of instances after the careful individual attention and midday dinner of the special schools," the children "returned after from six to eighteen months to the elementary schools with a new lease of mental vigour. These children are functionally mentally defective.... Their brains are starved, and naturally fail to react to the ordinary methods of elementary teaching."[98] "Bad nutrition and normal brain development," he added, "are incompatible."[99]
Footnote 97:
_Ibid._, evidence of Dr. Eichholz, Q. 486.
Footnote 98:
_Ibid._, evidence of Dr. Collie, Q. 3938.
Footnote 99:
_Ibid._, Q. 3973.
There was indeed, as the Committee pointed out, "a general consensus of opinion that the time had come when the State should realise the necessity of ensuring adequate nourishment to children in attendance at school ... it was, further, the subject of general agreement that, as a rule, no purely voluntary association could successfully cope with the full extent of the evil."[100] In a large number of cases such voluntary organisations would be sufficient for the purpose, "with the support and oversight of the Local Authority," and, as long as this was so, the Committee would "strongly deprecate recourse being had to direct municipal assistance."[101] But in cases where "the extent or the concentration of poverty might be too great for the resources of local charity ... it might be expedient to permit the application of municipal aid on a larger scale."[102] As a corollary to the exercise of such powers on the part of the Local Authority, the law would have to be altered to make it more possible to prosecute neglectful parents.[103] The Committee were also in favour of establishing special schools of the Day Industrial School type in which feeding would form an essential feature. To these definitely "retarded" children might be sent.[104] They recommended that the funds for these experiments should be found through the machinery of the Poor Law,[105] for they were anxious to guard the community from the consequences of "the somewhat dangerous doctrine that free meals are the necessary concomitant of free education."[106]
Footnote 100:
_Ibid._, p. 69, par. 348.
Footnote 101:
_Ibid._, p. 72, par. 359.
Footnote 102:
_Ibid._, par. 362.
Footnote 103:
_Ibid._
Footnote 104:
_Ibid._, par. 363.
Footnote 105:
_Ibid._, par. 364.
Footnote 106:
_Ibid._, par. 365.
Following on these reports came a strenuous agitation in Parliament and in the country. The National Labour Conference on the State Maintenance of Children, held at the Guildhall in January, 1905, declared unanimously in favour of State Maintenance "as a necessary corollary of Universal Compulsory Education, and as a means of partially arresting that physical deterioration of the industrial population of this country, which is now generally recognised as a grave national danger. As a step towards such State Maintenance," the conference called upon the Government to introduce without further delay legislation enabling Local Authorities to provide meals for school children, the cost to be borne by the National Exchequer.[107] The National Union of Teachers, at a largely attended conference at Llandudno in the same year, were agreed as to the urgent need for legislation.[108]
Footnote 107:
Report of the National Labour Conference on the State Maintenance of Children, at the Guildhall, January 20, 1905, p. 25.
Footnote 108:
Report of Select Committee on Education (Provision of Meals) Bills (England and Scotland), 1906, Qs. 792, 924, 925. By a considerable majority the Conference defeated an amendment that the Board of Guardians should be substituted for the Local Education Authority as the authority for making the provision, but owing to a technical difficulty the main resolution was not put. See also the resolution passed at a conference of the School Attendance Officers' Association, quoted by Mr. Slack in the House of Commons (_Hansard_, April 18, 1905, 4th Series, Vol. 145, p. 533).
In Parliament the agitation was led by Mr. Claude Hay, Sir John Gorst and Dr. Macnamara. It was urged that a large part of the money spent on education was wasted. To teach children who were physically quite unfit to receive instruction, was, as Sir John Gorst pointed out, "the height of absurdity."[109] Thirty years' compulsory education had, Mr. Claude Hay declared, resulted in disappointment. "The gain in intelligence was, to say the least of it, equivocal, while the physical deterioration of the people was obvious. The reason was largely that we had taken education as an isolated factor, whereas it was part of an absolutely indivisible unit.... We had assumed that ... the intellect could act independently of all other parts of the total human being. We had ignored the body, the soul and the will, and the result had been a fiasco."[110] Compulsory education involved free meals, but only for the "necessitous child."[111] It was declared that many parents would gladly pay if they were thereby assured that their children were adequately and properly fed.[112]
Footnote 109:
_Hansard_, July 9, 1903, Vol. 125, p. 194. See also _ibid._, February 14, 1905, Vol. 141, p. 143.
Footnote 110:
_Ibid._, April 20, 1904, Vol. 133, pp. 782-3.
Footnote 111:
_Ibid._, p. 784.
Footnote 112:
_Ibid._, p. 788; Sir John Gorst, _ibid._, July 9, 1903, Vol. 125, p. 196.
For some time the Government remained obdurate, and declined to take any
## action. At last, however, it became clear that something must be done.
The findings of the Royal Commission on Physical Training and the Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration had created too profound an impression to be ignored. Yet even now the Government were not prepared for legislation. They were of opinion that there still existed a wide divergence of views as to the extent of underfeeding and the remedies to be applied. Accordingly, in March, 1905, another Departmental Committee was appointed to collect further information.[113]
Footnote 113:
_Hansard_, March 13, 1905, Vol. 142, p. 1185.
The reference of this Committee made it clear that the Government had no intention of allowing the rates to be utilised for the supply of food. In the matter of feeding, the Committee were merely to enquire into the relief given by the various voluntary agencies, and report "whether relief of this character could be better organised, without any charge upon public funds."[114] The Report was, therefore, mainly concerned with questions of administration. A careful and elaborate account was given of the existing agencies all over England, the methods employed, the sums expended, and the kind of relief given. Evidence was received from representatives of all the more important societies in London and the provinces. It was found that outside London feeding agencies existed in 55 out of the 71 county boroughs, in 38 out of the 137 boroughs and in 22 out of the 55 large urban districts.[115] In addition to these there were numerous efforts of a spasmodic character, school meals being often started hastily during some special emergency. The Committee estimated that the total amount spent on the provision of meals in England and Wales was approximately L33,568, of which L10,299 was spent in London.[116] But these figures were "very far from representing the full amount of money spent out of charitable sources."[117] No account was taken of the innumerable philanthropic agencies existing all over the country, such as Soup Kitchens, District Visiting Societies and the like, who were incidentally spending large sums on the provision of food for school children. Moreover, the impracticability of obtaining returns from all the feeding agencies and the varying methods in which their accounts were made up, made any exact computation impossible.
Footnote 114:
Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Medical Inspection and Feeding, 1905, Vol. I., p. vii.
Footnote 115:
_Ibid._, pp. 54, 55, pars. 182, 186, 189. The total number of these agencies was 140. Of these 71 were permanent (_i.e._, had been in existence over a year), 24 were new, and 45 were intermittent in their operations.
Footnote 116:
_Ibid._, pp. 78-80, pars. 290-293.
Footnote 117:
_Ibid._, p. 79, par. 291.
In the evidence given before the Committee, we note the same evils prevailing as had been discovered in former years. There is the same diversity in the method of selection and the same inadequate provision. We find still the practice of giving a child a meal two or three days a week only.[118] In the great majority of cases the feeding was confined to the winter months, though many witnesses were of opinion that meals should be obtainable in the summer also.[119]
Footnote 118:
"At present," declared one witness, "the funds are wasted through their being distributed over too large a number of children.... At one school ... the headmaster asked the boys whether they would like to have their ticket this week or next week." (_Ibid._, Vol. II., Q. 1780, evidence of Mr. T. E. Harvey.) At Norwich, a child received a meal only once a week. "There was no system of feeding the children regularly. They had to take it in turns." (_Ibid._, Q. 4228, evidence of Mrs. Pillow.) At Hull it was "a rough rule given to the teacher" that a child should be fed every other day. (_Ibid._, Qs. 6157, 6158, evidence of Mr. G. F. Grant.) See also evidence given by Mrs. Adler (Qs. 135-136), Mrs. Burgwin (Q. 446), and the Rev. J. C. Mantle (Q. 2452). It was even urged by Mr. Hookham, of Birmingham, that the insufficiency of the provision was a positive advantage. The fact "that there are more children wanting meals than can get them ... is the main safeguard against imposition." Without this safeguard, he declares, "you will lose the evidence which the children give against one another when imposition takes place, which I think is the most valuable of all evidence" (_Ibid._, Q. 1253.)
Footnote 119:
_Ibid._, Vol. I., pp. 75-76, pars. 280-281. The meals given at Bradford were continued all through the year, and so were the breakfasts given by Mr. Hookham at Birmingham (_ibid._).
The Committee were convinced that, in all county boroughs and large towns, no voluntary agency which extended beyond the limits of one or two schools could be worked properly, except in intimate connection with, if not directly organised by, the Local Education Authority. To avoid overlapping and abuse it was essential that managers and school teachers should be required to supply full information, and only the Local Authority had power to insist on this being done.[120] The Committee deprecated "the proneness for starting school meals hastily upon some special emergency."[121] It was essential that any organisation for feeding school children should be of a permanent character and provision should be made for enabling meals to be given where necessary throughout the year.[122] It was desirable that meals should be obtainable on every school day, and it should be the object of the feeding agency to feed the most destitute children regularly rather than a larger number irregularly.[123] The Committee recognised the valuable help which had been given by the teachers. Many of the systems for feeding the children had in fact originated entirely with them, whilst in many more the whole brunt of the work had fallen upon them. But this work involved too great a strain upon the teachers and they should not be required to supervise the meals unless their attendance was indispensable.[124] Nor in the matter of the selection of the children should the teachers be asked to do more than draw up the preliminary list. They had no time for visiting the homes nor were they always the most competent persons for making enquiries. The final selection of the children should be in the hands of a Relief Committee, which should be formed for each school or group of schools.[125] The increasing attention paid to the medical side of the question is shown by the recommendation that, wherever possible, the advice and guidance of the school doctor should be obtained.[126] The Committee refer with approval to the proposal that a system of school restaurants should be established, at which meals could be supplied at cost price. "Not much attempt," they say, "has yet been made through the medium of school meals towards raising the standard of physical development among the children and promoting a taste for wholesome and nourishing food."[127] In view of the very divergent opinions expressed by witnesses, the Committee were unable to come to a clear conclusion whether or not such restaurants would succeed, but they would "welcome experiments made in this direction."[128] The restaurants, they thought, would probably have to be kept separate from any system of free dinners, for attempts to combine free and cheap meals had always ended in failure. In country districts, where the children often lived at a great distance from the school, the need for school restaurants was distinctly felt. The lunches brought by the children were generally of a most unsatisfactory nature. The Committee were of opinion that the managers should arrange for the provision of a hot dinner, or at any rate soup or cocoa, for those children who were unable to go home at midday. A charge should be made which should at least cover the cost of the food.[129]
Footnote 120:
_Ibid._, p. 59, par. 208.
Footnote 121:
_Ibid._, p. 75, par. 279.
Footnote 122:
_Ibid._, pp. 84, 85, par. 306, secs. 3, 4.
Footnote 123:
_Ibid._, p. 85, pars. 5, 6.
Footnote 124:
_Ibid._, pp. 60, 61, pars. 210, 215.
Footnote 125:
_Ibid._, pp. 62, 85, pars. 220, 306 (secs. 9, 10).
Footnote 126:
_Ibid._, p. 66, par. 236. So far as the committee could discover, "the question of malnutrition and underfeeding has attracted very little attention in connection with medical inspection. There appears to be no area where the Medical Officer works in close touch with the organisations for the feeding of children." (_Ibid._, p. 25, par. 97.)
Footnote 127:
_Ibid._, p. 68, par. 242.
Footnote 128:
_Ibid._, p. 71, par. 258.
Footnote 129:
_Ibid._, p. 58, par. 205. This was already being done in some rural schools. At Siddington, for instance, a hot dinner had been supplied for the last two years, the parents' payments more than covering the cost of the food. (_Ibid._, par. 202.) We have already alluded to the experiment at Rousdon, where dinners were provided throughout the year in a specially provided dining-room, as a part of the school organisation. Here the cost of the food was not quite covered by the parents' payments. (_Ibid._, par. 203.)
The report of the Committee was published late in 1905. Meanwhile the Parliamentary agitation had continued. Two Bills were introduced in March by Mr. Claude Hay and Mr. Arthur Henderson.[130] These were withdrawn to make way for a resolution moved by Mr. (afterwards Sir Bamford) Slack--"that in the opinion of this House, the Local Education Authorities should be empowered (as unanimously recommended by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration, 1904) to make provision, under such regulations and conditions as they may decide, for ensuring that all the children at any public elementary school in their area shall receive proper nourishment before being subjected to mental or physical instruction, and for recovering the cost, where expedient, from the parents or guardians."[131] This resolution marks an important stage in the movement, for it received support from all sides of the House, and was passed by a considerable majority.[132] One feature of the debate was new. It was no longer said that the matter should be left solely to private charity. The main point at issue now was whether the money required should come from the Education rate or the Poor rate.[133]
Footnote 130:
_Hansard_, March 27 and 29, 1905, Vol. 143, pp. 1307-9, 1543.
Footnote 131:
_Ibid._, April 18, 1905, Vol. 145, p. 531.
Footnote 132:
_Ibid._, March 2, 1906, Vol. 152, p. 1394.
Footnote 133:
_Ibid._, April 18, 1905, Vol. 145, p. 554. The balance of opinion was at this date in favour of the latter. Sir John Gorst thought that where the parents could not pay for the meals "reference should be made to the Poor Law authority, and the natural consequences of the receipt of public relief would follow." (_Ibid._, July 9, 1903, Vol. 125, p. 197.) In the Bill introduced by Mr. Claude Hay in March, 1905, provision was made for payment of the cost of meals by the Guardians, but any parent receiving such relief from the Guardians might apply to a court of summary jurisdiction and the court, "if satisfied that the parent's ... inability to pay is temporary and arises from no fault of his own," might make an order that he should not be disfranchised. (Elementary Education (Feeding of Children) Bill, 1905, clause 3.)
(d)--Provision by the Guardians.
Following on this resolution came an attempt to deal with the question through the machinery of the Poor Law. By the Relief (School Children) Order,[134] issued in April, 1905, the Guardians were empowered to grant relief to the child of an able-bodied man without requiring him to enter the workhouse or perform the outdoor labour test.[135] Any relief so given was to be on loan if the case was one of habitual neglect, and might be so given in any case at the discretion of the Guardians.[136] Except with the special sanction of the Local Government Board proceedings were always to be taken to recover the cost.[137] The children of widows and of wives not living with their husbands were expressly excluded from the scope of the order.[138] The reason for this omission was that these children could already be dealt with by the Guardians and that, therefore, no further sanction was needed, but this was not clearly explained by the Local Government Board, and was indeed not generally understood.[139] It was recommended that, where charitable organisations existed, the Guardians should make arrangements with them for the supply of food; in other cases an arrangement might be made with a local shopkeeper.[140] A circular issued by the Board of Education to the Local Education Authorities, explaining how these authorities could co-operate with the Guardians in carrying out the order, classified underfed children under three heads:--(1) those whose parents were permanently impoverished; (2) those whose parents through illness, loss of employment, or other unavoidable causes were temporarily unable to provide for them; (3) those whose parents, though capable of making provision, had neglected to do so. It was suggested that the second of these groups of cases should be left to the voluntary agencies, the first and third being dealt with by the Guardians.[141]
Footnote 134:
For a description of the working of this order see the Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, 1909, 8vo. edition, Vol. III., pp. 160-162.
Footnote 135:
Relief (School Children) Order, 1905, Article V. (in 35th Report of Local Government Board, 1905-6, p. 322).
Footnote 136:
_Ibid._, Article II., sec. 2.
Footnote 137:
_Ibid._, Article VI. Whether the amount was recovered or not the parent became a pauper, and was disfranchised.
Footnote 138:
_Ibid._, Article VII.
Footnote 139:
"The whole Order," declared Mr. Wyatt, the Director of Elementary Education at Manchester, "was a most perplexing thing. Very early in the year there came down to Manchester a Poor Law Inspector who said that the construction of the Order was that the children of widows or deserted women should not come under the Order. That swept away a great many of those we had been feeding." (Report of Select Committee on Education (Provision of Meals) Bills (England and Scotland), 1906, Q. 1208.) Miss Margaret Frere was of opinion that the Order would be a dead letter in that it ruled out the two most difficult classes, one being widows and deserted wives. (Report of Inter-Departmental Committee on Medical Inspection and Feeding, 1905, Vol. II., Q. 483.)
Footnote 140:
Circular of Local Government Board accompanying Relief (School Children) Order, in 35th Report of Local Government Board, 1905-6, p. 320.
Footnote 141:
Circular issued by the Board of Education to the Local Education Authorities re Relief (School Children) Order, April 28, 1905.
In a large number of Unions this order was entirely disregarded.[142] In London the County Council, though ready to assist in carrying it out where local authorities desired it, declined to initiate proceedings, for they did not look upon the order as "materially helping the solution of the problem."[143] Where the Local Education Authority and the Guardians agreed on a scheme, there was constant friction. This was only to be expected. The opposing views of the two bodies--the one actuated by a desire to ensure that children should not be prevented by lack of food from taking advantage of the education provided for them, the other imbued with the spirit of deterrence--militated against any successful co-operation. When the Local Education Authority sent in lists of underfed children, the Guardians cut them down ruthlessly.[144] There was no serious contention that these children did not need food, but merely that their parents' circumstances were such that they could afford to provide it. Undoubtedly under the voluntary feeding system there had been much abuse, many parents obtaining the meals when they were in receipt of good incomes.[145] But in these cases, with very few exceptions,[146] no pressure was brought to bear by the Guardians on the parents to force them to provide adequate food for their children, and the children consequently remained unfed. In many cases the fathers of the children indignantly refused to allow them to receive the meals when they discovered that disfranchisement was entailed.
Footnote 142:
The order "has been so far practically a dead letter in this district" [the counties of Bedford, Hertford, Huntingdon, etc.]. (35th Report of Local Government Board, 1905-6, p. 452.) Such seems to have been the case also in Yorkshire and the northern counties, in Wales, in Essex and in Surrey, for we find no mention of the Order in the reports of the Inspectors for these districts.
Footnote 143:
Minutes of the London County Council, July 11, 1905, p. 297. The Council objected to the introduction of a dual authority in every district, which would cause delay and possibly friction; the absence of any provision for uniformity of rules in the different districts; and the radical error of allowing the cost to fall on the local authorities instead of on Government funds, or at least on the rates of London as a whole. The risk of fathers being disfranchised as a result of meals being supplied by the Guardians to their children without their knowledge, would militate against the usefulness of the scheme (_ibid._). As a matter of fact very few cases were relieved in London under the Order. (_Hansard_, July 31, 1906, Vol. 162, p. 680.) In two unions, Fulham and Wandsworth, where the Guardians offered to assist, the Council allowed lists to be sent from the schools, but the great majority of these children were reported by the Relieving Officers not to be underfed. (Report of Joint Committee on Underfed Children for 1905-6, p. 4.)
Footnote 144:
At Bristol out of 129 applications from the Local Education Authority, the Guardians felt justified in giving relief in 12 cases only. (35th Report of Local Government Board, 1905-6, p. 480.) At Chorlton, relief was given in 219 cases out of 1,295 applications; at Salford in 175 out of 1,086. (_Ibid._, p. 504.) At Stoke-on-Trent, out of 72 cases reported 4 were relieved, and at Ecclesall Bierlow 51 cases were reduced after careful investigation to one. (_Ibid._, pp. 488, 520.) At Kettering, on the other hand, practically all the cases referred to the Guardians were relieved. (Report of Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, 1909, Appendix, Vol. I., Q. 6443.) This, however, was exceptional.
Footnote 145:
At Birmingham it was found that many parents "were earning over 30s. a week, and in one case the parent was in constant employment with an average rate of L3 17s. 6d. a week." (35th Report of Local Government Board, 1905-6, p. 495.) At Bolton, some of the parents were receiving from L2 to L3 a week. (_Ibid._, p. 506.)
Footnote 146:
In the Bolton Union, in cases where the father's income was considered sufficient to provide meals without assistance, "the children were specially watched and reported upon by the Cross Visitor each fortnight, until the Guardians were satisfied that the parents were carrying out their responsibility in this respect.... The Relieving Officer visits the home at meal time, or in the evening, to see what provision is made for feeding the children." (35th Report of Local Government Board, 1905-6, p. 503.) At Birmingham the head teachers were of opinion that the children were being better looked after by their parents than formerly owing to the way in which the Order was being carried out. (_Ibid._, p. 495.)
At Bradford, where the most systematic attempt was made to carry out the order, the disputes and difficulties proved endless. "The principles upon which the Guardians ... proceeded in selecting the children to be fed were," declared Mr. F. W. Jowett, "such as made not for the feeding of the children so much as for the saving of expense."[147] The quality of the food and the conditions under which the meals were served[148] were hotly criticised. The attempt on the part of the Guardians to recover the cost from the parents raised a storm of protest.[149] Finally, in May, 1907, the Guardians announced their intention of discontinuing the provision of meals and the Local Education Authority took over the work.[150] In no other town was the action of the Guardians prolonged to so late a date. By the end of 1906, indeed, the Order had become a dead letter. Meanwhile, the public having assumed that everything necessary would be undertaken by the Poor Law Authorities, voluntary contributions had declined.[151]
Footnote 147:
Bradford City Council Proceedings, September 26, 1905.
Footnote 148:
At the centres provided by the Guardians "the children were kept outside the doors until all was ready, and when they were allowed to enter they came in without any semblance of order, to tables without cloths, without seats." (_Bradford and its Children: How They are Fed_, by Councillor J. H. Palin, 1908, pp. 6-7.) Later the Guardians distributed the children among various little eating-houses in the town, where the food was better, though the conditions of serving were not much improved. (_Ibid._)
Footnote 149:
_Hansard_, February 28, 1906, Vol. 152, p. 1129; Bradford City Council Proceedings, September 26, 1905; see also the local newspapers about this time. The prosecutions were apparently confined to those cases where the underfeeding of the children was due to neglect on the part of the parents. The charge fixed by the Guardians was, however, very high, 3d. per meal. Up to March 1, 1906, action had been taken in the County Court against 51 men and orders for payment obtained in each case. (A short account of the working of the Relief (School Children) Order, issued by the Bradford Poor Law Union, 1906; Report of Select Committee on Education (Provision of Meals) Bills (England and Scotland), 1906, Qs. 1702-05.) In other unions there seems to have been little or no attempt to recover the cost. At Birmingham, for instance, it was reported, "the process of recovery laid down by the Local Government Board was farcical in character and was dropped." (Report of Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, 1909, Appendix, Vol. IV., Q. 43626, par. 37.)
Footnote 150:
Extracts from the Annual Reports of the Bradford Education Committee for the four years ended March 31, 1907, 1908, 1909 and 1910 in respect to the working of the Education (Provision of Meals) Act, p. 3.
Footnote 151:
At Birmingham the Free Dinner Society, after an existence of thirty years, ceased its operations when the Order came into force. (Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, 1909, Appendix, Vol. I., Q. 8525.) "There was at first," declared Mr. Jenner Fust, a Local Government Board Inspector, "much misapprehension among the public as to the scope of the Order, the prevalent idea being that all school children requiring it would now be supplied with free meals at the public expense, and that there was no further occasion for voluntary efforts." (35th Report of the Local Government Board, 1905-6, p. 506.)
(e)--The Education (Provision of Meals) Act.
The Relief (School Children) Order having proved a "relative failure," to use Mr. John Burns' moderate expression,[152] and the evidence given before the Committee on Medical Inspection and Feeding of School Children having demonstrated once more the inadequacy of existing agencies to cope with the evil, it became imperative for Parliament to take action. Early in 1906 the Education (Provision of Meals) Bill was introduced.[153] The opposition to this Bill, both inside[154] and outside[155] the House, rested mainly on the familiar arguments respecting parental responsibility and the advisability of leaving all questions connected with relief to the Poor Law Authorities. We hear also the objection that free meals must lead to a reduction in wages.[156] The strongest argument, to which, however, little attention was paid, was that urged by the Edinburgh School Board before the Select Committee of the House of Commons to which the Bill was referred. "The Bill touches the fringe of very serious and comprehensive social problems with which the Imperial Parliament should deal, and it [the School Board] objects to so much power being placed upon a local authority before Parliament has dealt with serious principles underlying the questions involved."[157] "The causes of low physique and vitality, and inability to profit by instruction" are "insanitation, overcrowding, keeping the children out at night very late or all night, bad footwear, and homes where they have no ventilation at night," irregular meals, "uncleanliness and bad clothing and out-of-school employment."[158] This was very true, but it did not convince the public that nothing should be done. In the experience of Miss Horn, the secretary of the Westminster Health Society, where continuous feeding was combined with regular visits to the parents, there was a distinct improvement in the standard of the homes.[159]
Footnote 152:
_Hansard_, December 6, 1906, vol. 166, p. 1284.
Footnote 153:
The Bill was introduced by a private member, Mr. W. T. Wilson. The Government decided to make the matter an open question with their followers. (_Ibid._, February 22 and March 2, 1906, vol. 152, pp. 525, 1399.)
Footnote 154:
For the debates on the Bill see _Hansard_, March 2, December 6, 7, 13, 19, 20 and 21, 1906 (vol. 152, pp. 1390-1448; vol. 166, pp. 1273-1292, 1315-1465; vol. 167, pp. 722-780, 1473-1482, 1629-1670, 1865-1881).
Footnote 155:
See, for instance, the discussions at a conference of representatives of Charity Organisation Societies held in 1906. (_Charity Organisation Review_, July, 1906, pp. 30 _et seq._)
Footnote 156:
Mr. Harold Cox, _Hansard_, March 2, 1906, vol. 152, pp. 1412, 1417.
Footnote 157:
Report of the Select Committee on the Education (Provision of Meals) Bills (England and Scotland), 1906, evidence of Mr. Mill, Chairman of Edinburgh School Board, Q. 4194.
Footnote 158:
_Ibid._, evidence of Mr. Scott, Head Teacher of Wood Close School, Bethnal Green, Q. 2641. _Cf._ evidence of Dr. Kerr (Q. 2984), Miss Horn (Qs. 1321-2), and Mr. Ferguson (Q. 2739).
Footnote 159:
_Ibid._, Qs. 1287-1290.
During the Parliamentary debates, for the first time, much emphasis was laid on the educational value of the meals if served under proper conditions. Mr. Birrell "could conceive no greater service to posterity than to raise the standard of living in the children of the present day."[160] "It was desired that this work should be not a work of relief, but a work of education," declared Mr. Lough, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education. "They wanted wholesome food given to the children and they wanted the children taught how to eat it, which was a most useful lesson."[161] "This was not merely a question of providing the meals," said Mr. John Burns, "it was also one of teaching better habits and manners."[162] For this work the Local Education Authorities were better fitted than the Guardians, for they "would attract, in a way which Boards of Guardians would not, the services of voluntary agencies, of leisured people ... and of managers and teachers, whose assistance was absolutely essential."[163] For these reasons it was essential that the Local Education Authorities should have power to provide meals, not only for necessitous children but also, on receipt of payment, for the children of all parents who desired it.[164]
Footnote 160:
_Hansard_, March 2, 1906, Vol. 152, p. 1441.
Footnote 161:
_Ibid._, December 6, 1906, Vol. 166, p. 1280.
Footnote 162:
_Ibid._, p. 1285.
Footnote 163:
_Ibid._ See also the speeches of Mr. Jowett (_ibid._, March 2, 1906, Vol. 152, p. 1412), Mr. Claude Hay (_ibid._, December 6, 1906, Vol. 166, p. 1288) and the Earl of Crewe (_ibid._, December 19, 1906, Vol. 167, p. 1478). An amendment to substitute the Poor Law Guardians for the Local Education Authority as the authority for the administration of the Act was defeated by an overwhelming majority, the voting being 290 to 36. (_Ibid._, December 6, 1906, Vol. 166, pp. 1274-1288.) The Local Government Board did not, in fact, desire to have the duty imposed on them. (Mr. John Burns, _ibid._, p. 1285.)
Footnote 164:
An amendment to limit the provision of meals to underfed children only was defeated by 230 votes to 39. Mr. Lough declared the amendment would strike at the root of one of the objects of the Bill. (_Ibid._, December 7, 1906, Vol. 166, pp. 1339-40, 1350.)
The new attitude of Society towards the child and the family was brought out by Lord Grimthorpe during the debates in the House of Lords. "The children are the paramount consideration.... In a great many cases the parents are already demoralised owing to having themselves been insufficiently nourished in their youth. Because they suffer from those conditions there is no reason why we should inflict similar conditions on the children.... Experience in this matter shows us that the sense of parental responsibility will be increased rather than decreased. When the parent sees that his child is regarded by the nation as a valuable national asset he himself will think more of his child."[165]
Footnote 165:
_Ibid._, December 20, 1906, Vol. 167, p. 1637.
The Bill received the Royal assent on December 21, 1906.[166] It provided that the Local Education Authority might associate with themselves any committee (called a School Canteen Committee) on which the Authority was represented, who would undertake to provide food, and might aid that committee by furnishing buildings and apparatus and the officers and servants necessary for the organisation, preparation and service of the meals.[167] The parents were to be charged such an amount as might be determined by the Local Education Authority, and, in the event of non-payment, the Local Authority, unless satisfied that the parent was unable to pay, should recover the amount summarily as a civil debt.[168] Failure on the part of the parent to pay was not, however, to involve disfranchisement.[169] Where the Education Authority resolved "that any of the children attending an elementary school within their area are unable by reason of lack of food to take full advantage of the education provided for them, and have ascertained that funds other than public funds are not available or are insufficient in amount to defray the cost of food," they might, with the sanction of the Board of Education, provide for food out of the rates, the amount thus spent being, however, limited to what would be produced by a halfpenny rate.[170] The teachers might, if they desired, assist in the provision of meals but they were not to be required as part of their duties to do so.[171]
Footnote 166:
6 Edward VII., c. 57.
Footnote 167:
_Ibid._, clause 1.
Footnote 168:
_Ibid._, clause 2. The Select Committee to which the Bill had been referred, while of opinion "that the local education authority ought to undertake the administration rather than the Boards of Guardians," nevertheless recommended that it should be the duty of the Guardians to recover the cost from neglectful parents. (Report of Select Committee on the Education (Provision of Meals) Bills (England and Scotland), 1906, pp. viii., x.) They accordingly inserted a provision to this effect (_see_ the Education (Provision of Meals) Bill as amended by the Select Committee, No. 331 of 1906, clause 2). This was amended in the committee stage in the House of Commons. (_Hansard_, December 7, 1906, Vol. 166, pp. 1439-1444.
Footnote 169:
6 Edward VII., c. 57, clause 4.
Footnote 170:
_Ibid._, clause 3.
Footnote 171:
_Ibid._, clause 6.
The Bill, when it left the Commons, applied to Scotland as well as England and Wales. The Lords, however, struck out the clause extending its application to Scotland.[172] The Commons, in view of the fact that the session was so far advanced, agreed to this amendment, but under protest.[173] It was not till two years later that the Scottish School Boards, by the Education (Scotland) Act of 1908,[174] received power to spend the rates on the provision of food.
Footnote 172:
_Hansard_, December 20, 1906, Vol. 167, pp. 1662-1670.
Footnote 173:
_Ibid._, December 21, 1906, pp. 1865-1881.
Footnote 174:
8 Edward VII., c. 63 (December 21, 1908). A Bill was introduced by the Government in 1907, but was withdrawn. (_Hansard_, March 20, 1907, Vol. 171, pp. 880-883.) For an account of the provision made in Scotland see Appendix II.
The Provision of Meals Act marks an important point in the history of school feeding. The experiments of forty years had amply demonstrated the impossibility of dealing with the evils of underfeeding through voluntary agencies alone. Parliament was indeed still convinced that voluntary organisations were the best bodies to supply the necessary food. The proposal that the duty of providing meals should be cast entirely upon Local Education Authorities, relying only on public funds, had indeed, as the Select Committee of the House of Commons declared, not been "seriously suggested." Such a course would obviously result in the extinction of all voluntary societies, a result "from every point of view ... much to be deplored."[175] Only where voluntary subscriptions failed might the Local Authority provide the necessary funds. Even in this case there was no compulsion on the authority to take any action whatsoever. Still, with all these limitations, the Act involved the assumption, however partial and incomplete, by the State of the function of securing to its children, by one means or another, the necessary minimum, not only of education, but also of food.
Footnote 175:
Report of Select Committee on the Education (Provision of Meals) Bills (England and Scotland), 1906, p. vi.
##