Appendix I.--Examples of Menus 231
Appendix II.--The Provision of Meals in Scotland 237
Appendix III.--The Provision of Meals Abroad 249
Introduction
The Provision of Meals for School Children, which is the subject of the
following pages, is still undergoing that process of tentative
transformation from a private charity to a public service by which we
are accustomed to disguise the assumption of new responsibilities by the
State. Begun in the 'sixties of the nineteenth century as a form of
philanthropic effort, and denounced from time to time as socialistic and
subversive of family life, it first attracted serious public attention
when the South African war made the physical defects caused by
starvation, which had been regarded with tolerance in citizens, appear
intolerable in soldiers, and was canvassed at some length in the
well-known reports of the Royal Commission on Physical Training in
Scotland and of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical
Deterioration. The first disposition of the authorities was, as usual,
to recur to that maid-of-all-work, the Poor Law, and in April, 1905, the
Relief (School Children) Order empowered the Guardians to grant relief
to the child of an able-bodied man without requiring him to enter the
workhouse or to perform the outdoor labour test, provided that they took
steps to recover the cost. The Guardians, however, perhaps happily, had
little sympathy for this deviation from the principle of deterrence,
with the result that the new Order was in most places either not applied
or applied with insignificant results. The consequence was that the
attempt to make the provision of meals for school children part of the
Poor Law was abandoned. In 1906 the Education (Provision of Meals) Act
was passed empowering Local Education Authorities to provide food,
either in co-operation with voluntary agencies or out of public funds,
up to the limit of a half-penny rate. In the year 1911-12, out of 322
authorities, 131 were returned as making some provision for the feeding
of school children.
The object of Miss Bulkley's monograph is to describe what that
provision is, how adequate or inadequate, how systematic or haphazard,
and to examine its effect on the welfare both of the children concerned,
and of the general community. The present work is, therefore,
complementary to Mr. Greenwood's _Health and Physique of School
Children_, which was recently published by the Ratan Tata Foundation,
and which gave an exhaustive description of the conditions of school
children in respect of health as revealed by the reports of School
Medical Officers. That the subject with which Miss Bulkley deals is one
of the first importance, few, whatever views may be held as to the Act
of 1906, will be found to deny. Almost all the medical authorities who
have made a study of the health and physique of school children are
unanimous that a capital cause of ill-health among them is lack of the
right kind of food. "Defective nutrition," states Sir George Newman,
"stands in the forefront as the most important of all physical defects
from which school children suffer.... From a purely scientific point of
view, if there was one thing he was allowed to do for the six million
children if he wanted to rear an imperial race, it would be to feed
them.... The great, urgent, pressing need was nutrition. With that they
could get better brains and a better race." "Apart from infectious
diseases," said Dr. Collie before the Inter-Departmental Committee on
Physical Deterioration, "malnutrition is accountable for nine-tenths of
child sickness." "Food," Dr. Eichholz told the same body, "is at the
base of all the evils of child degeneracy." "The sufficient feeding of
children," declared Dr. Niven, the Medical Officer of Health for
Manchester, "is by far the most important thing to attend to." "To
educate underfed children," said Dr. Leslie Mackenzie, "is to promote
deterioration of physique by exhausting the nervous system. Education of
the underfed is a positive evil." What doctors understand by
malnutrition is what the plain man calls starvation; and while it is, of
course, due to other causes besides actual inability to procure
sufficient food, the experience of those authorities which have
undertaken the provision of meals in a thorough and systematic manner
suggests that these statements as to the prevalence of malnutrition or
starvation are by no means exaggerations. To say, as has recently been
said by a writer of repute in the _Economic Journal_, "already 40,000
children are fed weekly at the schools without appreciably improving the
situation," is a ridiculous misstatement of the facts. On the contrary,
there is every reason to believe that in those areas where suitable and
sufficient meals have been provided, there has been a marked improvement
in the health of the children receiving them. The tentative conclusions
on this point given for a single city by Mr. Greenwood (_Health and
Physique of School Children_, pp. 62-67), are substantiated by the
fuller evidence which Miss Bulkley sets out in Chapter V. of the present
work. "As far as the children are concerned, indeed, whether we consider
the improvement in physique, mental capacity or manners, there is no
doubt that the provision of school meals has proved of the greatest
benefit."
But while there is little doubt that the authorities which have made
determined attempts to use to the full their powers under the Act of
1906 have been rewarded by an improvement in the health of the children
attending school, Miss Bulkley's enquiries show that the Act itself is
open to criticism, that many local authorities who ought to have
welcomed the new powers conferred by the Act have been deterred by a
mean and short-sighted parsimony from adopting it, and that in many
areas where it has been adopted its administration leaves much to be
desired. The limitation to a halfpenny rate of the amount which a local
authority may spend, has resulted in more than one authority stopping
meals in spite of the existence of urgent need for them. By
deciding--contrary, it would appear, to the intention of
Parliament--that local authorities cannot legally spend money on
providing meals except when the children are actually in school, the
Local Government Board has made impossible, except at the risk of a
surcharge or at the cost of private charity, the provision of meals
during holidays. To those who regard the whole policy of the Act of 1906
as a mistake, these limitations upon it will appear, of course, to be an
advantage. But the assumption on which the Act is based is that it is in
the public interest that provision should be made for children who would
otherwise be underfed, and, granted this premise, the wisdom of
intervening to protect ratepayers against their own too logical
deductions from it would appear to be as questionable as it is
unnecessary. The bad precedent of authorities such as Leicester, which
has refused to adopt the Act, and which leaves the feeding of school
children to be carried out by a voluntary organisation under whose
management the application for meals is in effect discouraged, does not,
unfortunately, stand alone. Of more than 200 authorities who have made
no use of their statutory powers, how many are justified in their
inaction by the absence of distress among the school children in their
area? How many have even taken steps to ascertain whether such distress
exists or not? If it is the case, as is stated by high medical
authorities, that "the education of the underfed is a positive evil,"
would not the natural corollary appear to be that, now that the
experimental stage has been passed, the Act should be made obligatory
and the provision of meals should become a normal part of the school
curriculum?
Apart from these larger questions of policy, it will be agreed that, if
local authorities are to feed children at all, it is desirable that they
should do so in the way calculated to produce the beneficial results
upon the health of school children which it is the object of the Act to
secure. That certain authorities have been strikingly successful in
providing good food under humanising conditions appears from the account
of the effects of school meals given by Miss Bulkley. But the methods
pursued in the selection of the children and in the arrangements made
for feeding them vary infinitely from place to place, and the standards
of efficiency with which many authorities are content appear to be
lamentably low. It is evident that in many places a large number of
children who need food are overlooked, either because the conditions are
such as to deter parents from applying for meals, or because no attempt
is made to use the medical service to discover the needs of children
whose parents have not applied, or for both reasons (pp. 59-75). It is
evident also that many authorities do not give sufficient attention to
the character of the meals provided (pp. 79-83), or to the conditions
under which they are served (pp. 83-101), with the result that "most
diets ... are probably wanting in value for the children," and that
little attempt is made to secure the "directly educational effect ... in
respect of manners and conduct," which was emphasised as a _desideratum_
by the Board of Education. London, in particular, where the necessity
for the provision of meals is conspicuous, has won a bad pre-eminence by
sinning against light. Reluctant, in the first place, to use its powers
at all--"the whole question," said the chairman of the Sub-Committee on
Underfed Children in 1908, "of deciding which children are underfed, and
of making special provision for such children, should really be one for
the Poor Law Authority"--the Education Committee of the London County
Council has taken little pains to ensure that the food provided should
always be suitable, or that the meals should be served under civilising
conditions. That these defects can be removed by care and forethought is
shown by the example set by such towns as Bradford, and now that eight
years have elapsed since the Education (Provision of Meals) Act was
passed, they should cease to receive the toleration which may reasonably
be extended to new experiments. Miss Bulkley's monograph will have
served its purpose if it makes it somewhat easier for the administrator,
whether on Education Authorities or Care Committees, in Public Offices
or in Parliament itself, to apply the varied experience of the last
eight years to a problem whose solution is an indispensable condition of
the progress of elementary education.
R. H. Tawney.
Heights and Weights of 366 Children from Secondary Schools and 2,111
from Elementary Schools in Liverpool.
Boys
Age Secondary Council A Council B Council C
Schools
ft. in. ft. in. ft. in. ft. in.
7 3 11·4 3 9·33 3 8·8 3 8
7-1/2 4 1·83 3 10·7 3 8·17 3 10
8 4 2·61 3 11·67 3 10 3 8·37
8-1/2 4 2·5 3 11·62 3 11·33 3 9·2
9 4 4·03 4 1·76 4 0·8 3 11
9-1/2 4 4·37 4 1·75 4 1·61 4 0
10 4 6·41 4 3·3 4 1·7 4 0·5
10-1/2 4 6·83 4 3·7 4 3·04 4 0·75
11 4 7·5 4 5·11 4 3·8 4 1·75
11-1/2 4 8·87 4 6·25 4 4·57 4 2·3
12 4 10 4 6·9 4 5·6 4 3·6
12-1/2 4 9·4 4 7·5 4 6·34 4 4·16
13 5 0·55 4 9·05 4 5·9 4 5·61
13-1/2 4 11·77 4 8·62 4 7·23 4 6·5
14 5 1·75 4 10·2 4 8·25 4 7·25
Girls
Age Council A Council B Council C
ft. in. ft. in. ft. in.
7 3 10·75 3 8·25 3 9·12
7-1/2 3 10·13 3 9·77 3 8·75
8 3 11·5 3 10·73 3 8·87
8-1/2 4 0·25 3 10·57 3 9·5
9 4 2·62 4 0·25 3 11·16
9-1/2 4 2·25 4 1·2 4 0
10 4 3·25 4 1·76 4 0·17
10-1/2 4 2·75 4 3·35 4 0·3
11 4 5 4 4·12 4 1·06
11-1/2 4 4·75 4 4·25 4 2·7
12 4 7·25 4 5·7 4 4·16
12-1/2 4 9 4 6·14 4 5·16
13 4 8·3 4 7·3 4 7·5
13-1/2 4 10·75 4 8·87 4 7
14 5 0·5 4 5·7 4 8·5
Boys
Age Secondary Council A Council B Council C
Schools
st. lb. st. lb. st. lb. st. lb.
7 3 7·3 3 2·1 3 1 3 1
7-1/2 4 0·7 3 6·77 3 0·11 3 4
4 0·7 3 4·44 3 3·64 3 1·87
8-1/2 3 10·5 3 5 3 5·2 3 3·3
4 3·5 3 11·33 3 8·85 3 6·38
9-1/2 4 5·4 3 9·35 3 11·16 3 9·5
4 10·03 3 13·1 3 11 --
10-1/2 4 12·76 4 0·43 4 0·6 3 12·37
11 5 0·27 4 5·45 4 3·05 3 13·5
11-1/2 5 4·75 4 6·8 4 4·79 4 2·3
12 5 7·05 4 10·6 4 7·92 4 6·05
12-1/2 5 4 4 13 4 11·5 4 7·73
13 6 4·25 5 3·42 4 12·75 4 13·33
13-1/2 6 1·72 5 4·26 4 12·5 5 0·63
14 6 10·5 5 5·82 5 5·87 5 1·14
Girls
Age Council A Council B Council C
st. lb. st. lb. st. lb.
7 3 1 2 13·1 3 5
7-1/2 3 2·6 3 3 3 8
3 6·85 3 3·9 3 2·16
8-1/2 3 8 3 5·5 3 4·7
3 10 3 7·9 3 6·5
9-1/2 3 10·85 3 10·5 3 8·05
4 1·5 3 12·3 3 10·75
10-1/2 3 13·46 4 3·57 3 11·2
11 4 5·28 4 6·5 4 0·25
11-1/2 4 4·7 4 5·2 4 4·57
12 5 1·31 4 11·07 4 11·7
12-1/2 5 7·3 4 11·7 4 13·12
13 5 0·3 5 3·16 5 3·3
13-1/2 5 10·5 5 5·8 5 4
14 6 9·3 5 4·57 5 12
A is a school where the parents were comparatively well-to-do and the
children mostly had comfortable homes.
B is a school where the parents were mostly small shopkeepers or
labourers in constant employment.
C is a school where the parents were mostly unemployed or casually
employed.
CHAPTER I
THE HISTORY OF THE MOVEMENT FOR THE PROVISION OF SCHOOL MEALS
The latter half of the nineteenth century was remarkable for the birth
of a new social conscience manifesting itself in every kind of social
movement. Some were mere outbursts of sentimentality, pauperising and
patronising, others indicated real care and sympathy for the weaker
members of society, others again a love of scientific method and order.
Thus in the early 'sixties there was an enormous growth in the amount
spent in charity, leading to hopeless confusion. An attempt to introduce
some order into this chaos and to stem the tide of indiscriminate
almsgiving was made in 1868 by the formation of the "Society for the
Prevention of Pauperism and Crime," which split the following year into
the Industrial Employment Association and the better known Charity
Organisation Society. In the 'eighties "slumming" became a fashionable
occupation, while 1884 saw the beginning of the Settlement movement in
the foundation of Toynbee Hall. Meanwhile the working classes were
becoming articulate, learning more self-reliance and mutual dependence.
The growth of Trade Unions, of Co-operative and Friendly societies,
showed how the working people were beginning to work out their own
salvation. Towards the close of the century methods of improvement were
nearly all on collectivist lines--in sanitary reform, in free education,
in the agitation for a legal limitation of labour to eight hours a day,
for a minimum wage and for Old Age Pensions.
Amongst the most characteristic of these activities was the movement for
the feeding of poor school children. In the early years of the movement
the motives were chiefly philanthropic. The establishment of the Ragged
and other schools had brought under the notice of teachers and others
large numbers of children, underfed and ill-clothed. Still more was this
the case when education was made compulsory under the Education Act of
1870. It was impossible for humanitarians to attempt to educate these
children without at the same time trying to alleviate their distress.
Education, in fact, proved useless if the child was starving; more, it
might be positively detrimental, since the effort to learn placed on the
child's brain a task greater than it could bear. All these early
endeavours to provide meals were undertaken by voluntary agencies. Their
operations were spasmodic and proved totally inadequate to cope with the
evil. Towards the end of the century we find a growing insistence on the
doctrine that it was the duty of the State to ensure that the children
for whom it provided education should not be incapable, through lack of
food, of profiting by that education. On the one hand some socialists
demanded that the State ought itself to provide food for all its
elementary school children. Another school of reformers urged that
voluntary agencies might in many areas deal with the question, but that
where their resources proved inadequate the State must step in and
supplement them. Others again objected to any public provision of meals
on the ground that it would undermine parental responsibility. The
demand that the State must take some action was strengthened by the
alarm excited during the South African war by the difficulty experienced
in securing recruits of the requisite physique. The importance of the
physical condition of the masses of the population was thus forced upon
public attention. It was urged that the child was the material for the
future generation, and that a healthy race could not be reared if the
children were chronically underfed. In the result Parliament yielded to
the popular demand, and by the Education (Provision of Meals) Act of
1906 gave power to the Local Education Authorities to assist voluntary
agencies in the work of providing meals, and if necessary themselves to
provide food out of the rates.
(a)--Provision by Voluntary Agencies.
The first experiments in the provision of free or cheap dinners for
school children appear to date from the early 'sixties.[1] One of the
earliest and most important of the London societies was the Destitute
Children's Dinner Society, founded in February, 1864, in connection with
a Ragged School in Westminster.[2] This Society quickly grew and,
between October 1869 and April 1870, fifty-eight dining rooms were
opened for longer or shorter periods.[3] The motive, though largely
sentimental, was from the first supported by educational considerations.
"Their almost constant destitution of food," write the Committee in
their appeal for funds, "is not only laying the foundation of permanent
disease in their debilitated constitutions, but reduces them to so low a
state that they have not vigour of body or energy of mind sufficient to
derive any profit from the exertions of their teachers."[4] The
influence of the newly-formed Charity Organisation Society is seen in
the nervous anxiety of the promoters to avoid the charge of pauperising.
"Our object is not the indiscriminate relief of the multitude of poor
children to be found in the lowest parts of the metropolis. Our efforts
are limited to those in attendance at ragged or other schools so as to
encourage and assist the moral and religious training thus afforded."[5]
The dinners were not self-supporting,[6] but a great point was made of
the fact that a penny was charged towards paying the cost. Nevertheless
the promoters admitted that "it has been found impossible in some
localities to obtain any payment from the children."[7]
Footnote 1:
"Many of our own [Roman Catholic] schools ... fed the children even in
the 'sixties." (Report of Select Committee on Education (Provision of
Meals) Bills (England and Scotland), 1906, Evidence of Monsignor
Brown, Q. 1038.)
Footnote 2:
It is interesting to note that the impulse for the formation of this
society came indirectly from France. In 1848 a commission of medical
and scientific men had been appointed by the French Government to
enquire into the causes of diseases, such as scrofula, rickets, and
impoverishment of blood, to which children of the poor were exposed,
and which produced so much mortality. The Committee reported that in
their opinion the diseases were caused by children not having animal
food, and might be checked by their having a meal of fresh meat once a
month. Owing to political events no action was taken on this report,
but it made a great impression on Victor Hugo, and some fourteen years
later (in 1862) he started the experiment of giving dinners of fresh
meat and a small glass of wine, once a fortnight, to forty of the most
necessitous young children of Guernsey. This experiment was declared
to be very successful. Many children suffering from the above diseases
had been cured, "and the physical constitution of nearly the whole of
them sensibly improved" (_Punch_, January 16, 1864). This description
concluded with a suggestion that a similar scheme might be initiated
in London. The Destitute Children's Dinner Society was the result.
(_Charity Organisation Review_, January, 1885, p. 23.)
Footnote 3:
Report on Metropolitan Soup Kitchens and Dinner Tables, by the Society
for Organising Charitable Relief, 1871, p. 57.
Footnote 4:
_The Times_, December 5, 1867.
Footnote 5:
_Ibid._, November 1, 1870. The following year the Charity Organisation
Society reports approvingly that the Destitute Children's Dinner
Society "cordially accepts and endeavours to act up to the principle
that 'to relieve destitution belongs to the Poor Law, while to prevent
destitution is the peculiar function of charity.'" (Report on
Metropolitan Soup Kitchens and Dinner Tables, 1871, p. 57.)
Footnote 6:
The cost of a meal was generally 4d., 5d. or 6d.
Footnote 7:
_The Times_, April 15, 1868.
The methods adopted by other societies were very similar. A common
feature of all was the infrequency of the meal. As a rule a child would
receive a dinner once a week, at the most twice a week.[8] It is true
that the dinners, unlike those supplied at the end of the century, when
the predominant feature was soup, seem always to have been substantial
and to have consisted of hot meat.[9] But making all allowance for the
nutritive value of the meal, its infrequency prevents us from placing
much confidence in the enthusiastic reports of the various societies as
to the beneficial result upon the children. "Experience has proved,"
writes the Destitute Children's Dinner Society in 1867, "that one
substantial meat dinner per week has a marked effect on the health and
powers of the children."[10] "Not only is there a marked improvement in
their physical condition," reports the same society two years later,
"but their teachers affirm that they are now enabled to exert their
mental powers in a degree which was formerly impossible."[11] The Ragged
School Union in 1870 reports to the same effect. "The physical benefit
of these dinners to the children is great; but it is not the body only
that is benefited; the teachers agree in their opinion that those who
are thus fed become more docile and teachable."[12]
Footnote 8:
We have only found one case where the dinner was given as often as
three times a week. (See letter from John Palmer, Hon. Sec. of the
Clare Market Ragged Schools, _ibid._, October 16, 1871.)
Footnote 9:
Thus a dinner given by the Refuge for Homeless and Destitute Children
to pupils of St. Giles and St. George, Bloomsbury, consisted of boiled
and roast beef, plenty of potatoes, and a thick slice of bread, the
portion given to each child being abundant. (_Ibid._, November 27,
1869.)
Footnote 10:
_Ibid._, December 5, 1867.
Footnote 11:
_Ibid._, March 26, 1869.
Footnote 12:
Report of Ragged School Union for 1870, quoted in Report on
Metropolitan Soup Kitchens and Dinner Tables, 1871, p. 58.
Meals were given only during the winter, though one society at any rate,
the Destitute Children's Dinner Society, realised the importance of
continuing the work throughout the year--an importance even now not
universally appreciated--their object being "not to relieve temporary
distress only, but by an additional weekly meal of good quality and
quantity, to improve the general health and moral condition of the half
starved and neglected children who swarm throughout the poor districts
of London."[13] Funds apparently did not permit of their achieving this
object.[14]
Footnote 13:
Letter from the Treasurer of the Destitute Children's Dinner Society,
_The Times_, April 15, 1868.
Footnote 14:
In that year (1868) dinners were given during nine months, being
discontinued only from July to September, but in subsequent years they
appear to have been provided during the winter months only.
After the passing of the Education Act of 1870, educational
considerations became the dominant motive for feeding. Teachers and
school managers as well as philanthropists found themselves increasingly
compelled to deal with the problem. It was not only that compulsory
education brought into notice hundreds of needy children who had before
been hidden away in courts and back alleys,[15] but the effect of
education on a starving child proved useless.
Footnote 15:
"At the present season, when the energy of the School Board visitors
is filling the schools with all the poorest of the poor street Arabs,
the need of such a society as this is more than ever felt." (Letter
from the Committee of the Destitute Children's Dinner Society, _The
Times_, December 12, 1872.)
The _Referee_ Fund, started in 1874, was the result of Mrs. Burgwin's
experience when head teacher of Orange Street School, Southwark. She
found the children in a deplorable condition and on appealing to a
medical man for advice was told that they were simply starving. With the
help of her assistant teachers she provided tea, coffee or warm milk for
the most needy. Soon a small local organisation was started, and a year
or two after Mr. G. R. Sims drew public attention to the question by his
articles on "How the Poor Live," and appealed for funds through the
_Referee_.[16] The operations of the fund thus established were at first
confined to West Southwark--"in that area," Mrs. Burgwin triumphantly
declared, "there was not a hungry school child"[17]--but were gradually
extended to other districts. As a result of the meals thus provided it
was said that the children looked healthier and attended school better
in the winter when they were being fed than they did in the summer.[18]
Footnote 16:
London School Board, Report of Special Committee on Underfed Children,
1895, Appendix 1, p. 5.
Footnote 17:
Report of Inter-Departmental Committee on Medical Inspection and
Feeding, 1905, Vol. II., Q. 304.
Footnote 18:
London School Board, Report of Special Committee on Underfed Children,
1895, Appendix 1, p. 6.
The standard example, however, constantly quoted as evidence of the
value of school meals, was the experiment started by Sir Henry Peek at
Rousdon in 1876. The children in that district had to walk long
distances to school, "bringing with them wretched morsels of food for
dinner," with, naturally, most unsatisfactory results. Sir Henry Peek
provided one good meal a day for five days, charging one penny a day.
The system was practically self-supporting. The experiment was declared
by the Inspector to have "turned out a very great success. What strikes
one at once on coming into the school is the healthy vigorous look of
the children, and that their vigour is not merely bodily, but comes out
in the course of examination. There is a marked contrast between their
appearance and their work on the day of inspection, and those of the
children in many of the neighbouring schools. The midday meal is good
and without stint. It acts as an attraction, and induces regularity of
attendance.... Before the school was started the education of the
children of the neighbourhood was as low as in any part of the
district."[19]
Footnote 19:
Mr. Mundella in the House of Commons, _Hansard_, July 26, 1883, 3rd
Series, Vol. 282, pp. 577-9. "The effect on the health of the
children," writes the Rector of Rousdon in January, 1885, "may be well
exemplified by the most recent illustration--viz., that in the third
week of December, though whooping-cough had been, and still was,
prevalent among them, and the weather was damp and raw, the entry on
the master's weekly report was, absentees, 0--that is, _every_ child
on the register had appeared on the Monday morning and paid for its
week's dinners. Probably such a circumstance in a rural school
district (with radius of a mile and a half at least) in the height of
winter is unprecedented." (_Sanitary Record_, January 15, 1885.)
About 1880 another motive for school meals emerges. Public opinion began
to be aroused on the subject of over-pressure. It was said that far too
many subjects were taught and that the system of "payment by results"
forced the teachers to overwork the children for the sake of the grant.
It was pointed out that not only was it useless to try to educate a
starving child, but the results might be positively harmful. Numerous
letters from school managers, doctors and others appeared in _The
Times_. "In dispensary practice," writes Dr. Sophia Jex-Blake, "I have
lately seen several cases of habitual headache and other cerebral
affections among children of all ages attending our Board Schools, and
have traced their origin to overstrain caused by the ordinary school
work, which the ill-nourished physical frames are often quite unfit to
bear. I have spoken repeatedly on the subject to members of the School
Boards, and also to teachers in the schools, and have again and again
been assured by them that they were quite alive to the danger, and
heartily wished that it was in their power to avert it, but that the
constantly advancing requirements of the Education Code left them no
option in the matter."[20]
Footnote 20:
_The Times_, April 15, 1880. Speaking of the children at London
Hospitals, Dr. Robert Farquharson writes: "Ill-fed and badly housed
and clothed, exposed to depressing sanitary and domestic conditions,
these poor creatures are frequently expected to do an amount of school
work of which their badly-nourished brains are utterly incapable. I
have long been familiar with the pale, dejected look, the chronic
headache, the sleeplessness, the loss of appetite, the general want of
tone, caused undoubtedly by the undue exercise of nervous tissues
unprovided with their proper allowance of healthy food." Such children
"are by no means inclined to shirk their lessons; they are frequently
much interested in them; but, feeling the responsibility of class and
examinations keenly ... they become sleepless and restless, and
rapidly lose flesh and strength." (_Ibid._, April 19, 1880.)
_The Lancet_ spoke strongly on the subject[21] and in 1883 it was hotly
discussed in Parliament. Mr. Mundella spoke in warm praise of Sir Henry
Peek's experiment, while Mr. S. Smith, the member for Liverpool, went so
far as to say that "if Parliament compelled persons by force of law to
send their children to school, and the little ones were to be forced to
undergo such a grinding system, they ought not to injure them in so
doing, but should provide them, in cases of proved necessity, with
sufficient nourishment to enable them to stand the pressure."[22] Such a
proposition sounds "advanced" for the year 1883, but he added the still
more modern suggestion--"that not only should we have a medical
inspection of schools, but that the grants should be partly dependent
upon the physical health of the children.... We were applying sanitary
science to our great towns, and we should apply the same science also to
the educational system of the country."[23] At last Mr. Mundella
instigated Dr. Crichton Browne to undertake a private enquiry into the
subject. The report was somewhat vague and rhetorical, and Dr. Browne's
judgments were said to be based on insufficient data, so that little
fresh light was thrown on the question. It is, however, noteworthy that
he too recommended medical inspection and also that a record of the
height, weight and chest girth of the children should be kept.[24]
Footnote 21:
"That good feeding is necessary for brain nutrition does not need to
be demonstrated or even argued at length ... it must be evident that
the position in which education places the brains of underfed children
is that of a highly-exercised organ urgently requiring food, and
finding none or very little. These children are _growing_, and all or
nearly all the food they can get is appropriated by the grosser and
bulkier parts of the body to the starvation of the brain.... It is
cruel to educate a growing child unless you are also prepared to feed
him." (Leading Article, _The Lancet_, August 4, 1883, Vol. II., pp.
191-2.)
Footnote 22:
_Hansard_, July 26, 1883, 3rd Series, Vol. 282, p. 597.
Footnote 23:
_Ibid._, p. 598.
Footnote 24:
_The Times_, September 16, 1884.
In spite of conflicting opinions, one point became increasingly clear.
Whether the amount of mental strain necessitated by the Educational
Code was exaggerated or not, there was no doubt that good educational
results were dependent upon health and could not be attained where the
children were seriously underfed. The situation was summed up by Mr.
Sydney Buxton during a conference of Managers and Teachers of London
Board Schools in 1884. The School Boards, he said, had by their
compulsory powers been "year by year tapping a lower stratum of
society, bringing to light the distress, destitution and underfeeding
which formerly had escaped their notice. The cry of over-pressure had
drawn public attention to the children attending elementary schools,
and he thought it was now becoming more and more recognised that
'over-pressure' in a very large number of cases was only another word
for 'underfeeding.'"[25]
Footnote 25:
_School Board Chronicle_, December 13, 1884, pp. 628-9.
The principle that compulsory education involved some provision of food
being thus generally admitted,[26] the question remained how was this to
be done? Should the meals be provided free or should they be
self-supporting? A keen controversy ensued as to the merits of penny
dinners. _The Times_ quoted with apparent astonishment and alarm the
view of the Minister of Education that it would not be enough to provide
meals for those who could pay for them, and that whatever might be the
vices of the parents the children ought not to suffer.[27] The Charity
Organisation Society held more than one conference on the subject and
emphatically contended that the only means of avoiding "pauperisation"
was to insist on payment for the meals. Indeed some members felt so
strongly that penny dinners were bound to be converted into halfpenny or
free dinners, that they were reluctant to give the movement any support
at all.[28] The attitude of the society was, as _The Times_ said, "one
of watchful criticism."[29] Yet there were some, at any rate, who
recognised that the obligation on the part of the parent to send his
children to school involved a very real pecuniary sacrifice which might
often more than counterbalance any advantage to be obtained from free
meals. "We must not teach poor children or poor parents to lean upon
charity," says the School Board Chronicle in 1884. "But, on the other
hand, it ought never to be forgotten that this new law of compulsory
attendance at school, in the making whereof the poorest classes of the
people had no hand whatever, exacts greater sacrifices from that class
than from any other. We hear a good deal sometimes ... of the grumbling
of the ratepayers ... as to the burden of the school rate.... But do
these grumblers ever reflect that the very poor of whom we are speaking
never asked to have education provided for their children, never wanted
it, have practically nothing to gain by it and much to lose, and that
this law of compulsory education is forced on them, not for their good
or for their pleasure, but for the safety and progress of society and
for the sake of economy in the administration of the laws in the matter
of poor relief and crime."[30] Amidst all the discussion on the needs
and morals of the poor from the standpoint of the superior person, it is
refreshing to find so honest and sympathetic a criticism.
Footnote 26:
"It is now admitted that children cannot be expected to learn their
lessons unless they are properly fed." (_The Times_, Leading Article,
December 13, 1884.)
Footnote 27:
_Ibid._
Footnote 28:
_Charity Organisation Review_, January, 1885, p. 25. As we shall see
(post, p. 19), their fears in this respect were realised.
Footnote 29:
_The Times_, Leading Article, January 20, 1885.
Footnote 30:
_The School Board Chronicle_, December 13, 1884, p. 627.
The outcome of this lengthy public discussion was a great increase in
voluntary feeding agencies all over the country about the year 1884.[31]
At the Conference of Board School Managers and Teachers in that year,
Mr. Mundella stated that, since he referred in the House of Commons to
the Rousdon experiment, provision for school meals was being made in
rural districts to an extent which he could hardly believe.[32] In
London the Council for Promoting Self-supporting Penny Dinners was
established and the movement spread rapidly. In August, 1884, there were
only two centres where penny dinners on a self-supporting basis were
provided. By December such dinners had been started in thirteen other
districts.[33]
Footnote 31:
Such voluntary agencies were established, for instance, at Hastings
(about 1882), at Birmingham and Gateshead (in 1884), at Carlisle (in
1889).
Footnote 32:
_School Board Chronicle_, December 13, 1884, pp. 629-630.
Footnote 33:
_Ibid._, p. 628.
Meanwhile the promoters of free meals continued their work unabashed.
The Board School Children's Free Dinner Fund declared in 1885, "our work
does not cross the lines of the penny dinner movement. It was started
before that movement and has been in some cases carried on side by side
with it, its object being to feed those children whose parents have
neither pennies nor half-pennies to pay for their dinners. Free dinners
are restricted to the children of widows, and to those whose parents are
ill or out of work."[34] The _Referee_ Fund now supplied schools over a
large part of South London and had always given free meals. In most
provincial towns, whether the dinners were nominally self-supporting or
not, necessitous children were seldom refused food on account of
inability to pay. Private philanthropists saw the suffering and tried to
alleviate it, not enquiring too closely into the consequences.
Footnote 34:
_The Times_, December 16, 1885.
It was generally taken for granted that the meals, whether free or
self-supporting, should be provided by voluntary agencies. The Local
Education Authorities sometimes granted the use of rooms and plant,[35]
but seldom took any further action. It is remarkable that the Guardians,
whose duty it was to relieve the destitution existing, seem to have paid
but the scantiest attention to it. Even where they attempted to deal
with it by granting relief to the family, this relief was generally
inadequate and the children were consequently underfed, with the result
that they were given meals by the voluntary feeding agencies.[36] There
seems indeed to have been no co-operation whatever between the various
voluntary agencies established all over the country and the Boards of
Guardians.[37] By an Act of Parliament passed in 1868 it was enacted
that where any parent wilfully neglected to provide adequate food for
his child the Board of Guardians should institute proceedings.[38] This
Act seems to have remained almost a dead letter. In giving evidence
before the House of Lords Select Committee on Poor Law Relief in 1888,
Mr. Benjamin Waugh, Director of the National Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Children, in speaking of the Act, stated, "first, that the
Guardians do not act upon it to any very great extent; secondly, that
the police know that it is not their business, and they do not act upon
it; and, thirdly, the public have an impression that they are excluded
from taking cognisance of starvation cases because the term used is 'the
Guardians shall' do it." "There are cases in which they are habitually
doing it, chiefly where ladies are upon the board, but in a very small
number of cases indeed throughout the country."[39] The part taken by
the State in the matter of relieving the wants of underfed children was
thus as yet a small one.[40]
Footnote 35:
Thus at Liverpool, about 1885, the Council of Education resolved to
offer grants to School Managers for the supply of needful appliances
for penny dinners, provided that "the payment of a penny should
absolutely cover the cost of each dinner, so as not only to avoid
pauperising the recipient, but also to render the scheme entirely
self-supporting." (Report of Special Sub-Committee on Meals for School
Children, in Minutes of London School Board, July 25, 1889, p. 383.)
At Birmingham the School Board allowed a voluntary committee to erect
kitchens on the school premises. (London School Board, Report of
General Purposes Committee on Underfed Children attending School,
1899, p. 253.) At Gateshead, in 1884, the School Board arranged for a
supply of dinners in the schools in the poorest parts of the town.
(Report of Select Committee on the Education (Provision of Meals)
Bills (England and Scotland), 1906, Q. 4101.) In London, the School
Board in 1885 resolved "that the Board grant facilities to local
managers and to other responsible persons for the provision on the
school premises of penny dinners on self-supporting principles for
elementary school children, where it can be done without interference
with school work or injury to the school buildings." (Report of
Special Committee on Meals for School Children, in Minutes of London
School Board, July 25, 1889, p. 374.) At Manchester, as early as 1879,
the School Board initiated a scheme for providing meals. The chairman,
Mr. Herbert Birley, had been in the habit of supplying breakfasts to
poor children in some of the schools, and on these schools being
transferred to the School Board, he induced it to continue the work.
(Report of Inter-Departmental Committee on Medical Inspection and
Feeding, 1905, Vol. II., Qs. 2745A, 2754, evidence of Mr. C. H.
Wyatt.)
Footnote 36:
In Manchester there had been a serious attempt to meet the difficulty.
There the Board of Guardians maintained a "Day Feeding School" and
gave three meals a day to its out-door relief children for some years
between 1856 and 1866. (Report of Royal Commission on the Poor Laws,
1909, 8vo Edition, Vol. III., p. 148 n.)
Footnote 37:
See for instance the evidence given before the London School Board in
1895. (See post, p. 17.)
Footnote 38:
31 and 32 Vict. c. 122, sec. 37.
Footnote 39:
House of Lords Select Committee on Poor Law Relief, 1888, Qs. 5857,
5858.
Footnote 40:
By an Act of 1876, the Local Education Authority might establish Day
Industrial Schools at which one or more meals were provided, towards
the cost of which the parents should contribute. (39 and 40 Vict., c.
79, sec. 16.) Very few such schools were established. (See post, p.
119.)
(b)--The Organisation of the Voluntary Agencies.
The history of the movement for the next ten years or so is mainly
concerned with organisation. In London, with the number of feeding
centres growing so rapidly, with many different agencies whose
principles and methods conflicted, some plan of organisation and
co-operation was the crying need. In May, 1887, at the instigation of
Sir Henry Peek, a committee, composed of representatives of the various
voluntary societies,[41] was formed to consider in what ways
co-operation was feasible. This Committee recommended that (i)
self-supporting dinner centres should be opened in as many districts as
possible in London, and the various societies for providing dinners for
children should be invited to make use of them; (ii) free dinners to
children attending public elementary schools should only be given on the
recommendation of the head teacher; (iii) when free dinners were given a
register should be kept of the circumstances of the family.[42]
Footnote 41:
The Committee represented the Self-Supporting Penny Dinner Council,
the Board School Children's Free Dinner Fund, the South London Schools
Dinner Fund, Free Breakfasts and Dinners for the Poor Board School and
other Children of Southwark (the _Referee_ Fund) and the Poor
Children's Aid Association.
Footnote 42:
_The Times_, November 16, 1887.
This attempt cannot have been very effective, for when, at last, the
London School Board took the matter in hand, feeding arrangements were
as chaotic as ever. In 1889 a special committee was appointed to enquire
into the whole question and report to the Board. The report shows that
the supply of food was extraordinarily badly distributed. "In some
districts there is an excess of charitable effort leading to a wasteful
and demoralising distribution of dinners to children who are not in
want, while in other places children are starving."[43] In most cases
the provision was insufficient to feed all the indigent children every
day, many getting a meal only once or twice a week.[44] Only a rough
estimate of the number of necessitous children could be obtained, but it
was calculated that 43,888 or 12·8 per cent. of the children attending
schools of the Board were habitually in want of food, and of these less
than half were provided for.[45] The Committee recommended that a
central organisation should be formed "to work with the existing
Associations with a view to a more economical and efficient system for
the provision of cheap or free meals."[46] As a result the London
Schools Dinner Association was founded. Most of the large societies were
merged into this body, one or two retaining their separate organisation,
but agreeing to work in harmony with it.[47]
Footnote 43:
Report of Special Sub-Committee on Meals for School Children, in
Minutes of London School Board, July 25, 1889, p. 373.
Footnote 44:
_Ibid._
Footnote 45:
_Ibid._, p. 372.
Footnote 46:
_Ibid._, p. 377.
Footnote 47:
Seven members of the School Board were placed on the Executive
Committee as a kind of informal representation, but in 1899 this
number had dwindled to three. (London School Board, Report of General
Purposes Committee on Underfed Children, 1899, pp. v.-vi.) There was
"no direct touch" between the two bodies, "except the accidental
circumstance that Members of the Board might be on the Committee" of
the Association. (_Ibid._, p. 6, evidence of Mr. T. A. Spalding.)
Another committee appointed by the School Board in December, 1894, was
just as emphatic as to the general inefficiency and want of uniformity.
The work of giving charitable meals, they found, was still in the
experimental stage, as was shown by the "extremely divergent views ...
both as to the nature and extent of the distress ... and as to the
efficiency of the methods employed in meeting it."[48] They were struck
by "the apparent want of co-ordination between the various agencies
which were dealing with distress in London" (_i.e._, the Poor Law, the
Labour Bureaux established by the London Vestries, etc.). "The local
committees in connection with the schools seem to have had no knowledge
whatsoever of what was being done by these other bodies, except in the
few cases where more or less permanent out-door relief was being given,
and where the children presented attendance cards to be filled up by
their teachers."[49] "Our work," remarked one witness, "is carried on
without paying heed to what may be done under the Poor Law
Authorities."[50] Relief was "often given without any connection with
the managers or teachers of Public Elementary Schools." In one instance
tickets for meals "were distributed without enquiry at the door of a
Music Hall ... the proprietor of which had been one of the chief
subscribers to the Fund."[51] In another case "tickets issued by an
evening paper fund were sold over and over again by the people to whom
they were given; sold in the streets and in the public-houses."[52] Even
when the arrangements were nominally controlled by the Education
Authorities the methods of selection were haphazard and the provision
often totally inadequate. A number of witnesses gave evidence of this.
"It was found that one child of a family was given fourteen tickets
during the season, whilst another child of the same family had only one
or two."[53] "It might have been well to have taken one or two children
in hand for the purpose of observations," remarked the head-master of a
Stepney school, "but I remember one of my instructions was that the same
child was not to be given a meal too often."[54] In one school the
number of children needing a dinner on any day was ascertained by a show
of hands. Each child was then called out before the teacher and asked
about its parents' circumstances.[55] In another case the teachers
merely asked the children in the morning which of them would not get any
dinner at home that day.[56] Of course there were seldom enough tickets
to go round. For the parents this haphazard method was most bewildering.
"No arrangement is made with the parents as to whether or not a child
will have a meal on any day .... In many cases the parents hardly know
whether the children are having a meal at school or not, as they
constantly come home for something more."[57]
Footnote 48:
London School Board, Report of Special Committee on Underfed Children,
1895, p. vii.
Footnote 49:
_Ibid._
Footnote 50:
_Ibid._, p. 11, evidence of Mr. W. H. Libby. "I am of opinion," said
this witness, "that the children of parents who are in receipt of
out-door relief are more in need of our help than others." (_Ibid._)
"In my experience," said Mrs. Burgwin, "the greatest distress was
amongst the children of parents who were in receipt of out-door
relief, and free meals should certainly be given to them, for the
amount allowed as out-door relief is so small that a family is left
practically on the verge of starvation." (_Ibid._, p. 7.)
Footnote 51:
_Ibid._, p. ii.
Footnote 52:
_Ibid._, p. 24.
Footnote 53:
_Ibid._, p. 30 (evidence of Mrs. Marion Leon, Manager of Vere Street
School, Clare Market).
Footnote 54:
_Ibid._, pp. 14-15 (evidence of Mr. J. Morgan).
Footnote 55:
_Ibid._, p. 21 (evidence of Mr. C. H. Heller, Headmaster of Sayer
Street School, Walworth).
Footnote 56:
_Ibid._, p. 30 (evidence of Mrs. Marion Leon).
Footnote 57:
_Ibid._, p. 41 (evidence of Miss L. P. Fowler).
In 1889 the self-supporting meal was still regarded as the normal type
although the number of free meals was on the increase. In 1895 the
committee recognised that self-supporting penny dinners were a failure.
Only 10 per cent. of the meals were paid for by the children.[58] This
had one rather curious effect. The meals were much more uniform in type
than in 1889, and this uniformity was distasteful if not harmful to the
children. The chief reason was perhaps that the need to attract the
children was not so great as when it was hoped to establish the meals on
a self-supporting basis. Another reason was that the National Food
Supply Association, which did most of the catering, desired to encourage
the use of vegetable soup as well as to relieve distress.[59]
Footnote 58:
_Ibid._, p. iii. Even when the dinners were paid for, the payment
rarely covered the cost. The same want of success was reported in the
provinces. At Birmingham the experiment of giving penny dinners failed
completely, and the meals had to be given free. (Report of
Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration, 1904, Qs.
13238, 13240, evidence of Dr. Airy.) "The experience of all workers in
this movement testifies," says Canon Moore Ede, "that the poorest of
all--those who are least well nourished--are scarcely touched by the
penny dinners." ("Cheap Meals for Poor School Children," by Rev. W.
Moore Ede, in _Report of Conference on Education under Healthy
Conditions at Manchester_, 1885, p. 81.)
Footnote 59:
London School Board, Report of Special Committee on Underfed Children,
1895, pp. iv., v. "Under the penny dinner system, we had to provide
something to attract the children, as they would not come to the same
meal every day and pay a penny for it; puddings and meat pies were
provided and varied from day to day. Now they get soup." (_Ibid._,
Appendix I., p. 39, evidence of Rev. R. Leach.) "The soup ... supplied
by the National Food Association varies so very little from day to day
that it is natural for the children to grow tired of it," (_Ibid._, p.
22, evidence of Mr. C. H. Heller.)
Apart from the question of more efficient organisation, the
recommendations of this committee were somewhat indefinite. They urged
that, as a guide for future action, continuous records should be kept
of all children fed.[60] On the adequacy of the existing voluntary
organisations to cope with the distress the majority declined to
commit themselves. The minority asserted emphatically that these
charitable funds were amply sufficient. The Committee questioned how
far the supply of food was the right way of dealing with distress.
"Actual starvation," they said, "was undoubtedly at one time the chief
evil to be feared by the poor. But now that rent in London is so high
and food so cheap conditions have changed."[61] Other forms of help,
they felt, were possibly more needed, _e.g._, medical advice and
clothing. Indeed, during the last sixty years there had been such an
improvement in the economic conditions of the working classes as had
not been known at any other period of history. Comparisons between
conditions obtaining at the beginning and at the end of the nineteenth
century are to some extent vitiated by the fact that the former was a
period of extraordinary social misery. Nevertheless, the improvement
is striking. Sir Robert Giffen, speaking on "The Progress of the
Working Classes in the Last Half Century," in November, 1883, showed
that, while the wages of working men "have advanced, most articles he
consumes have rather diminished in price, the change in wheat being
especially remarkable, and significant of a complete revolution in the
conditions of the masses. The increased price in the case of one or
two articles--particularly meat and house rent--is insufficient to
neutralise the general advantages which the workman has gained."[62]
By further statistics he showed "a decline in the rate of mortality,
an increase of the consumption of articles in general use, an
improvement in general education, a diminution of crime and pauperism,
a vast increase in the number of depositors in savings banks, and
other evidences of general well-being."[63] Up to 1895 the cost of
living steadily declined, and in that year real wages were higher than
they had ever been before. This did not mean, as some urged, that
Society might slacken any of its efforts to improve the condition of
the poorer classes. Even from the most optimistic standpoint the
improvement was far too small, and there was still a residuum whose
deplorable condition demanded "something like a revolution for the
better."[64] But now that the more prosperous working men were
consciously striving to improve their own position, the community, or
the philanthropists among it, were more able to assist the submerged
remainder. The history of school feeding illustrates how "one of the
least noticed but most certain facts of social life is the fact that
Society very seldom awakes to the existence of an evil while that evil
is at its worst, but some time afterwards, when the evil is already in
process of healing itself.... Society can seldom be induced to bother
itself about any suffering, the removal of which requires really
revolutionary treatment. It only becomes sensitive, sympathetic and
eager for reform when reform is possible without too great an upheaval
of its settled way of life."[65] A higher standard of living was now
required and the real question was whether feeding the school child
was the right way to attain to it, or only a following of the line of
least resistance. If it was a healthy movement, then clearly it was
time to set about feeding in a more thorough fashion.
Footnote 60:
_Ibid._, pp. v., viii.
Footnote 61:
_Ibid._, p. vi.
Footnote 62:
_Economic Enquiries and Studies_, by Sir Robert Giffen, 1904, Vol. I.,
pp. 398-9.
Footnote 63:
_Ibid._, p. 419.
Footnote 64:
_Ibid._, p. 408.
Footnote 65:
_A Philosophy of Social Progress_, by E. J. Urwick, 1912, pp. 88, 89.
In 1898 a third attempt was made by the London School Board to deal with
the question. It was referred to the General Purposes Committee to
enquire into the number of underfed children and to consider "how far
the present voluntary provision for school meals is, or is not,
effectual."[66] The evidence given before the committee shows the
prevalence of a state of affairs very similar to that of the earlier
years. There is the same complaint about "the want of any general plan,
the utter lack of uniformity ... the absence (except in a few places) of
any means of enquiring into doubtful cases, and above all the
non-existence of any sort of machinery for securing that where want
exists it shall be dealt with."[67] But the report and recommendations
of the majority of the Special Committee show an astonishing advance on
the views of the two former committees. The necessity for feeding was
not now denied, they thought, "even by those ... who are keenly anxious
to prevent the undermining of prudence or self-help by ill-advised or
unregulated generosity."[68] They were most emphatic as to the good
effects on the children when the meals were nicely served in the schools
under proper supervision, and they considered "that food provision and
training at meals should in particular form part of the work of all
Centres for Physically and Mentally Defective children, and that the
Government grant should be calculated accordingly."[69] One or two of
the members of the committee and some of the witnesses urged that meals
should be continued in the summer.[70] As to the effect on the parents,
"it appears to the sub-committee ... that its concern is with the
well-being of the children, and even if it were the case that it was, in
some way, better for the moral character of the parents to let the
children starve, the sub-committee would not be prepared to advise that
line of policy. The first duty of the community to the child ... is to
see that it has a proper chance as regards its equipment for life."[71]
"If they come to school underfed ... it would seem to be the duty of
those who have a care of the children to deal with it, and to see that
the underfeeding ceases. It is, of course, obvious, in any case, that
this, like all other social evils, may be gradually eliminated by the
general improvement, moral and material, of the community. But apart
from the fact that that is a slow process and that many generations of
actual school children will come and go in the meantime, it is obvious
that the prevention of underfeeding in school children (with its results
of under-education and increasing malnutrition) is itself one of the
potent means of forwarding the general improvement."[72] At the same
time the idea that school dinners pauperise the parents or destroy the
sense of parental responsibility "appears to the sub-committee to be a
mere theoretic fancy entirely unsupported by practical experience."[73]
Parents who could feed their children and would not should "simply be
summoned for 'cruelty.'"[74]
Footnote 66:
London School Board, Report of General Purposes Committee on Underfed
Children, 1899, p. ii., par. 1.
Footnote 67:
_Ibid._, p. vi., par. 29.
Footnote 68:
_Ibid._, p. iii., pars. 11, 12.
Footnote 69:
_Ibid._, p. v., par. 25. "School dinners well managed may be made to
have an admirable educative effect.... This makes me think that a
proper part of the business of the School should be a common mid-day
meal." (Evidence of Mrs. Despard, _ibid._, p. 3.) Mrs. Burgwin was of
the same opinion. (_Ibid._, p. 14.)
Footnote 70:
See, for instance, the suggestions made by Mr. Whiteley (_ibid._, p.
ix.), and the evidence of Mrs. Burgwin and Mr. J. Morant (_ibid._, pp.
14, 15).
Footnote 71:
_Ibid._, p. iv., par. 20.
Footnote 72:
_Ibid._, p. iv., par. 17.
Footnote 73:
_Ibid._, p. iv., par. 19.
Footnote 74:
_Ibid._, p. v., par. 21.
The majority of the committee declared themselves convinced "by the
consideration of the subject, and by the special information now
obtained from Paris and from other foreign countries,[75] that the whole
question of the feeding and health of children compulsorily attending
school requires to be dealt with as a matter of public concern."[76]
They therefore recommended that a Central Committee should be formed,
which should be authorised to call for reports and general assistance
from the Board's staff, facilities being granted for the use of rooms at
the schools for meals, and they made the following important statement
of principle:--"It should be deemed to be part of the duty of any
authority by law responsible for the compulsory attendance of children
at school to ascertain what children, if any, come to school in a state
unfit to get normal profit by the school work--whether by reason of
underfeeding, physical disability or otherwise--and there should be the
necessary inspection for that purpose; that where it is ascertained that
children are sent to school 'underfed' ... it should be part of the duty
of the authority to see that they are provided, under proper conditions,
with the necessary food;" that "the authority should co-operate in any
existing or future voluntary efforts to that end," and that, "in so far
as such voluntary efforts fail to cover the ground, the authority should
have the power and the duty to supplement them." Where dinners were
provided, it was desirable that they should be open to all children, and
that the parents should pay for them, unless they were unable by
misfortune to find the money, and that no distinction should be made
between the paying and the non-paying children. If the underfed
condition of the child was due to the culpable neglect of the parent,
the Board should prosecute the parent, and, if the offence was persisted
in, should have power to deal with the child under the Industrial
Schools Acts.[77]
Footnote 75:
For some account of the "Cantines Scolaires" of Paris, and the
provision of meals in other foreign towns, see Appendix III.
Footnote 76:
London School Board, Report of General Purposes Committee on Underfed
Children, 1899, p. vii., par. 35.
Footnote 77:
_Ibid._, p. i.
The Board rejected these proposals and acted on the more cautious
recommendations of the minority, who were convinced that there was no
necessity for any public authority to undertake the work, the voluntary
associations being entirely capable of dealing effectively with the
need, if they were properly organised. They considered, therefore, that
the duties of the School Board should be confined to co-operation in the
organisation of these associations.[78] This decision was hailed with
relief by _The Times_, which rejoiced that "the attempt of the 'Fabian'
School of Socialists, assisted by some philanthropic dupes, to capture
the London School Board has been decisively repelled."[79]
Footnote 78:
_Ibid._, p. xii. Minutes of the London School Board, November 30,
1899, Vol. 51, pp. 1868-72. The Majority Report was rejected by 27
votes to 12.
Footnote 79:
_The Times_, December 1, 1899.
As a matter of fact the Fabian Society seems as yet to have paid little
attention to the question, and, in so far as these proposals had been
due to socialist influence, the agitation had come from the Social
Democratic Federation. This body had, since the early 'eighties, made
the provision of a free meal for all children attending elementary
schools one of the fundamental planks of its platform.[80] Several
memorials were sent to the School Board,[81] urging that all children
whose parents were unemployed should be fed and clothed out of the
rates, but this proposal was too sweeping to meet with a favourable
reception.
Footnote 80:
_Justice_, March 29, September 13 and 27, December 6, 1884.
Footnote 81:
See, for instance, the memorials presented in 1892, 1896, and 1899.
(Minutes of the London School Board, November 17, 1892; February 20,
1896; December 7, 1899.)
The recommendations, which were finally adopted in March, 1900, provided
for the establishment of a permanent committee, to be known as the
"Joint Committee on Underfed Children." This was composed partly of
members of the School Board, partly of representatives of various other
bodies. Sub-committees, consisting of managers, teachers, School Board
visitors and one or more co-opted outsiders, were to be appointed in
each Board School, or group of Schools, where the necessity for
providing meals for underfed children was felt, and these sub-committees
were to make all necessary arrangements for the provision of meals.[82]
The functions of the Joint Committee were limited. It was to receive
reports from the sub-committees, to draw their attention to any defect
which might appear in the selection of the children or the arrangements
made for providing relief, to give them assistance by placing them in
communication with a source of supply so as to enable them to obtain the
necessary funds, to communicate with the chief collecting agencies when
there was reason to fear that the funds might not be sufficient, and
"generally to keep the public informed of what is being done to provide
relief for underfed children, and to stimulate public interest in the
work."[83] How far this effort to meet the need was successful we shall
relate in a subsequent chapter.[84]
Footnote 82:
Similar committees had been in existence in several schools for some
years.
Footnote 83:
Minutes of the London School Board, March 1, 1900, Vol. 52, pp. 854-5,
905.
Footnote 84:
See 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 anæmic 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 £33,568, of which £10,299 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 £3 17s. 6d. a week." (35th Report of Local Government
Board, 1905-6, p. 495.) At Bolton, some of the parents were receiving
from £2 to £3 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: