The Feeding of School Children

CONTENTS

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 xiiabandoned. 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 xiiifor 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 xivtheir 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 xvthe 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 ... xviin 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.

xviiiHeights and Weights of 366 Children from Secondary Schools and 2,111 from Elementary Schools in Liverpool.

Boys

Girls

xixBoys

Girls

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 — (a)—Provision by Voluntary Agencies. — (b)—The Organisation of the Voluntary Agencies. — (c)—The Demand for State Provision. — (d)—Provision by the Guardians. — (e)—The Education (Provision of Meals) Act.

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 2improvement 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 3African 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.

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] 4This 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 5has been found impossible in some localities to obtain any payment from the children."^[7]

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 6opinion that those who are thus fed become more docile and teachable."^[12]

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]

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.

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 7a 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]

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 8their 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]

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 9assured 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]

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 10suggestion—"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]

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]

11The 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 12classes 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.

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]

Meanwhile the promoters of free meals continued their 13work 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.

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 14seldom 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 15of 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]

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 16possible 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]

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, 17one or two retaining their separate organisation, but agreeing to work in harmony with it.^[47]

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 18was "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. 19For 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]

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]

20Apart 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 21articles—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 22standard 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.

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 23Mentally 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 24or 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]

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 25so 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]

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]

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 26schools 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.

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 27interest in the work."^[83] How far this effort to meet the need was successful we shall relate in a subsequent chapter.^[84]

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 28witnesses 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 29of the feeding of those who come for instruction should be regarded as one of the duties of school authorities."^[89]

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.

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. 30Collie 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]

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] 31Too 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]

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 32corollary 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]

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]

33In 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]

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 34created 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]

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 35London.^[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.

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 36witnesses were of opinion that meals should be obtainable in the summer also.^[119]

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 37matter 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 38nature. 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]

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. 39The main point at issue now was whether the money required should come from the Education rate or the Poor rate.^[133]

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 40for 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]

41In 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 42was 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.

At Bradford, where the most systematic attempt was 43made 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 44other 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]

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, 45rested 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]

During the Parliamentary debates, for the first time, much emphasis was laid on the educational value of the 46meals 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]

47The 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]

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 48on 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]

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.

The Provision of Meals Act marks an important point in the history of school feeding. The experiments of 49forty years had amply demonstrated the impossibility of dealing with the evils of underfeeding through voluntary agencies alone. Parliament was indeed still convinced that voluntary organisations were the best bodies to supply the necessary food. The proposal that the duty of providing meals should be cast entirely upon Local Education Authorities, relying only on public funds, had indeed, as the Select Committee of the House of Commons declared, not been "seriously suggested." Such a course would obviously result in the extinction of all voluntary societies, a result "from every point of view ... much to be deplored."^[175] Only where voluntary subscriptions failed might the Local Authority provide the necessary funds. Even in this case there was no compulsion on the authority to take any action whatsoever. Still, with all these limitations, the Act involved the assumption, however partial and incomplete, by the State of the function of securing to its children, by one means or another, the necessary minimum, not only of education, but also of food.

CHAPTER II THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) ACT — (a)—The Adoption of the Act. — (b)—Canteen Committees, their constitution and functions. — (c)—The Selection of the Children. — (d)—The Preparation and Service of the Meals. — (i) The Time of the Meal. — (ii) The Dietary. — (iii) Preparation and Distribution of the Meals. — (iv) The Service of the Meals. — (e)—The Provision of Meals during the Holidays. — (f)—The Provision for Paying Children and Recovery of the Cost. — (g)—Overlapping between the Poor Law and the Education Authorities. — (h)—The Provision of Meals at Day Industrial Schools and Special Schools. — (i)—The Underfed Child in Rural Schools. — Conclusions.

We propose in this chapter to describe the manner in which the Local Education Authorities are administering the Act of 1906. We shall see that the adoption of the Act has been by no means universal and that in many towns provision is still made by voluntary agencies. Where the Act has been put in force we shall find the greatest diversity of practice in such matters as the selection of the children, the dietary provided and the manner in which the meals are served. One Local Authority will construe its duties under the Act in the narrowest sense, cutting down the number of children to be fed to the minimum, and serving the meals with the least possible expense. Another authority will look on the school meal as a valuable means for improving the physique of its scholars; it will endeavour to secure that all children who are underfed shall be given school meals; the dietary will be carefully planned, while, in the matter of the service of the meals, the aim will be to make these in every way educational. We shall see that meals are as a rule given only during term-time, holiday feeding out of rates being held to be illegal, while many authorities limit their operations to the winter months. Most authorities have confined their provision almost entirely to necessitous children, the plan of providing meals as a matter of convenience for children of parents who are at 51work all day or are otherwise prevented from preparing a midday meal, and who would be able and willing to pay for school dinners, finding but little favour. We shall describe the arrangements made in the Special Schools for defective children, where a dinner is provided either for all children attending the school or for all those who care to stay, and in the Day Industrial Schools, where the provision of three meals a day for all is the rule. We shall discuss the extent to which the provision of meals by the Local Education Authority overlaps the relief given by the Poor Law Guardians. Finally we shall touch upon the question of underfeeding in the rural districts, where the problem is little less urgent than in the towns.

The Provision of Meals Act came into force on December 21, 1906. As we have seen, it was merely permissive and its adoption was, therefore, only gradual.^[176] Many Local Education Authorities contented themselves with making arrangements with voluntary agencies, the Education Committee continuing the already common practice of providing accommodation and apparatus, and the voluntary society providing as hitherto funds for the food. Thus, at Hull, the Education Authority co-operated with the Hull School Children's Help Society, which had been founded in 1885 for the provision of free meals. This arrangement was continued till 1908, when the Society's funds were exhausted and recourse was had 52to the rates.^[177] At Scarborough, the Amicable Society, which had been founded in 1729 "for clothing and educating the children of the poor of Scarborough," arranged with the Education Authority that the provision of meals should be organised through a Joint Committee of the two bodies.^[178] At Liverpool, where the provision of meals had been undertaken since the early part of 1906, before the Act was passed, by a voluntary committee consisting of members of the Education Committee, the Central Relief Society, the Guardians and others, this system was continued for some years. In spite of strenuous opposition in 1908 from the Labour party and the local Fabian Society, who complained that the numbers fed were far below the number in need of food, and that no proper attempt was made to ascertain the extent of the need, a special committee appointed by the Education Committee to investigate the whole question reported that the existing voluntary system was adequate. It was not till November, 1909, that the Education Committee resolved that, "after full consideration of the circumstances and after having regard to the fact that it has been necessary to call upon the general public on two occasions during each year for subscriptions to the funds, the Committee cannot but conclude that the time has now come when the provisions of the Education (Provision of Meals) Act, 1906, should be put into force, and, therefore, though with great reluctance," they recommended that application be made to the Board of Education for power to levy a rate.^[179]

Leicester, perhaps, furnishes the most notable example 53of the survival of the voluntary principle. In 1906, when the Provision of Meals Bill was before Parliament, the Town Council appears to have been in favour of it. After the Act was passed, however, the Leicester branch of the Charity Organisation Society opposed its adoption. At a conference between representatives of the Charity Organisation Society and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, a scheme was formulated for administering the Act from voluntary funds. The scheme was accepted by the Town Council, and the formation of the Children's Aid Association was the result.^[180] This body consists chiefly of members of the Charity Organisation Society and of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, with a small minority representing the Education Committee. In spite of considerable opposition from the Labour party, who demand that the Act shall be put into force, meals are still provided by this Association out of voluntary funds.^[181]

This delay on the part of the Local Authorities in towns where, it was asserted, it was notorious that children suffered from want of food,^[182] led to an attempt to make the School Medical Officer responsible for determining 54whether or not it was necessary to put the Act in force. In December, 1908, a Bill was introduced by the Labour party with the object of providing that, when requested by the Education Committee, by a majority of the managers, or by the head teachers, the Local Authority should provide for the medical inspection of the children for the purpose of determining whether they were suffering from insufficient or improper food; if the medical inspector reported that the children were so suffering, the Local Authority should be obliged to provide food. The Bill was not proceeded with, and the same fate befell four similar Bills introduced within the next five years.^[183]

In 1911-1912, out of 322 Local Education Authorities in England and Wales, 131 were returned as making some provision for the feeding of school children (i.e. 13 counties, including London, 57 County Boroughs, 35 Boroughs and 26 Urban Districts).^[184] Of these 95 were spending rates on the provision of food; 19 were spending rates on administrative charges only (accommodation, apparatus, etc.), the cost of food being borne by voluntary funds; whilst in the remaining 17 areas^[185] the cost of both food and administration was met by voluntary contributions.

The steady decrease in the amount derived from voluntary contributions, and the increase in rates are shown by the following table :—^[186]

The total number of children fed is given in the returns for 1911 as 124,685.^[187] This, however, does not include a few counties and towns which did not return the number fed during the year. In most of these areas the number fed is very small, but at Barnsley the number attending daily was about 2,917, and in London the highest number fed in any one week during the year was 44,983. If we take these figures as representing roughly between two-fifths and one half of the total number of children who were fed at some time or other during the year, we get a total of about 230,000,^[188] out of a total school population of 5,357,567.^[189]

56In most towns where the Act has been adopted the amount spent on food is well within the limit of the halfpenny rate. In 1911-12, only Bradford and Stoke-on-Trent exceeded the limit, the latter (by an inconsiderable sum) owing to the coal strike. At Bradford the rate has almost from the first been annually exceeded by a considerable amount.^[190] This excess is due partly to the numbers fed (a large proportion of the children receiving breakfasts as well as dinners), partly to the fact that the meals are continued throughout the holidays. The Local Government Board Auditor has regularly surcharged the excess expenditure, but the Finance Committee defrays it out of the Corporation trading profits, which are not subject to the Local Government Board audit.

The limitation of the rate has in some towns undoubtedly restricted operations. In 1909, for instance, the Workington Education Committee were reluctantly obliged, owing to the exhaustion of the funds raised by the halfpenny rate, to stop the meals at a time of great distress.^[191] At East Ham, the product of a halfpenny rate not being sufficient for a whole year, meals can only be given during the winter months.^[192]

We may note that the power of the Local Education Authorities to provide food for necessitous children is 57not limited to their powers under the Provision of Meals Act. By the Education Act of 1902 grants may be given for the maintenance of children at Secondary Schools. At Bradford, at any rate, in quite a number of cases this grant is earmarked for providing school meals.^[193] More important is the power to provide three meals daily for all children attending Day Industrial Schools. These children are drawn very largely from the class to whom free meals would have to be given if they were attending the ordinary elementary schools.^[194] Again, necessitous children who are physically or mentally defective can receive meals at the Special Schools, and the cost of the food (and other expenses) can be charged to the Special Schools account. Thus, at Liverpool, dinner is provided for all defective children, this provision having been undertaken deliberately as part of the school curriculum long before the Provision of Meals Act was passed. The class of physically defective children for whom Special Schools can be provided include not only cripples, but all children who are certified by a doctor to be "by reason of ... physical defect ... incapable of receiving proper benefit from the instruction in the ordinary public elementary schools."^[195] This wide definition enables the School Medical Officer to send to the Open Air Schools, which several Local Authorities have established, and at which one or more meals a day are provided, not only children suffering from definite diseases, but also those who are underfed, anæmic and generally debilitated, to whom the fresh air, 58healthy life and regular, wholesome meals prove an inestimable boon.

The arrangements for carrying out the Provision of Meals Act are usually in the hands of a Committee called variously the School Canteen Committee, the Children's Care Committee, the Underfed Children's Meals Committee, or, as at Leicester, the Children's Aid Association. The constitution of this Committee varies in different towns. Sometimes it is composed entirely of members of the Education Committee.^[196] Sometimes outside bodies, such as Boards of Guardians and voluntary agencies, are represented upon it. Thus at Crewe the Children's Care Committee consists of representatives of the Local Education Authority, teachers, Guardians and various voluntary societies.^[197] At Leicester the members of the Education Committee are in the minority, the Children's Aid Association being composed chiefly of members of the Charity Organisation Society and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Elsewhere the Committee may be composed entirely, or almost entirely, of voluntary workers. Thus at Leeds, where all the members are women, all, except the Chairman and Vice-chairman, who are members of the Education Committee, are voluntary workers; two Inspectors attend the meetings and carry recommendations to the Education Committee, but they do not vote. At Bury St. Edmunds, where the Committee is also composed of women members, the only representative of the Education Committee is the official who holds the post of Borough 59Treasurer and Secretary to the Education Committee. At Bournemouth the schools are grouped under four District Care Committees, composed of voluntary workers nominated by the School Managers, and of representatives of the head teachers, the School Attendance Officers being ex officio members. These District Care Committees are controlled by a Central Care Committee, composed partly of members of the Education Committee, and partly of co-opted members. The School Medical Officer here, as in some other towns, is an ex officio member.^[198]

The functions of the Canteen Committee also vary in different towns. Sometimes, as at Bradford, all the arrangements for the management of the centres and the decision as to which children shall be fed are in the hands of the Committee. At Leeds the Committee has no executive power, its functions being limited to making recommendations to the Education Committee as to the management of the dining centres. At Bury St. Edmunds each member of the Committee is responsible for one school, making arrangements with caterers for the feeding of the children and visiting the homes. This visiting of the homes is rarely, if ever, undertaken by members of the Canteen Committee, unless it is composed of voluntary workers.

In the selection of the children who are to receive school meals two methods may be adopted. The selection may be based either on the physical condition of the child or on the economic circumstances of the family. The majority of the children selected will, of course, be the same whichever method is adopted, since the child will generally be found to be under-nourished if the family 60income is inadequate, and vice versa; but there are some children who, although the family income is comparatively good, are yet, for some cause or other, underfed, and these will be excluded if the "poverty test" is the only criterion used. From the first the Board of Education has urged that the "physical test" should be used as well as the "poverty test." The administration of the Provision of Meals Act should be carried on in the closest co-operation with the School Medical Service.^[199] The School Medical Officer should approve the dietary, he should supervise the quality, quantity, cooking and service of the food and should inspect the feeding centres.^[200] In the selection of the children he should take an important part. Not only should he recommend for school meals all cases of bad or insufficient nutrition observed in the course of medical inspection. "The end to be aimed at," writes Sir George Newman, "is that all children admitted to the meals should be medically examined by the School Medical Officer either before, or as soon as possible after, admission."^[201] That is to say, 61the Provision of Meals Act should not be considered primarily as a measure for the relief of distress; "the physical and mental well-being of [the] children ... should be regarded as the principal object to be kept in view."^[202]

Very few authorities have made any attempt to select the children primarily or even to any great extent on the "physical test." In Brighton the plan has perhaps been tried with more thoroughness than in any other town. When, in 1907, the Education Committee undertook the provision of meals in association with the Voluntary Canteen Committee, it was resolved that "the term 'underfed' ... should be held to apply distinctively to those scholars who, by reason of more or less continuous antecedent underfeeding, are physically below a certain specified standard of size and weight. These cases, which must of course be the first consideration of any feeding scheme, can only be scientifically detected by a detailed system of medical weighing and examination, and when so detected should be dealt with in accordance with medical advice."^[203] Accordingly all the children 62for whom an application for free meals is made are weighed and measured, and the Canteen Committee, when deciding whether any particular child shall be fed or not, has before it this report as to the child's physical condition. Whether the meals are supplied free depends on the economic circumstances of the family. If the child needs meals on medical grounds but the income is adequate, a circular is sent to the parent warning him of the child's condition. Sometimes the parent will be willing for meals to be supplied on payment of the cost. If the parent refuses to pay, meals are not granted, but the name of the child is placed on a special list for observation.^[204] Roughly about fifty per cent. of the children are fed solely on economic grounds and fifty per cent. on medical grounds.^[205]

At Heston and Isleworth, the Canteen Sub-Committee decided in 1911 to obtain from the School Medical Officer a report on the state of each child before determining 63whether it required school meals.^[206] At Lancaster also all children who are recommended for free meals are seen by the School Medical Officer.^[207]

But these cases are exceptional. In 1909 "the number of Local Education Authorities who left the final selection in the hands of the School Medical Officer, or acted exclusively upon his recommendation or required every application to be endorsed by him," was, so far as the information of the Board of Education extended, less than a dozen.^[208] In 1911 Sir George Newman writes, "it is true that in the majority of cases the School Medical Officer takes some part ... in the work connected with the provision of meals, but the number of cases in which he exercises all the functions ... appropriately devolving upon him are very few indeed."^[209] In the great majority of towns, though the School Medical Officer may recommend for school meals children whom he finds suffering from malnutrition in the course of medical inspection, the greater number of children are selected on the "poverty test."

As a rule the primary selection is made by the teachers, either on their own initiative or on receiving requests from the parents. The School Nurse, the Attendance Officer or perhaps a member of the local Guild of Help may also recommend cases.

Sometimes a personal application by the parent at the Education Offices or before the Canteen Committee is insisted on. Thus at Manchester the parents have to make application either at the Education Offices or at 64any of the district centres, of which there are twenty-four, situated in different parts of the town, and open at convenient hours. The teachers can advise children, whom they consider to be in need of food, to tell their parents to apply, but they take no further part in the selection of the children. At West Ham also the parents have to apply at the Public Hall or Education Office. The section of the Act dealing with repayment is read to the applicant, who then decides whether or not he wishes his children to be fed.^[210] On the parent's signing a form (by which he agrees to repay the cost of meals when he gets into work^[211]), tickets are issued for a week, pending enquiry. The parent is expected to send a note to the head teacher each day to say that he or she still wishes the child to be fed.^[212] This personal application has to be renewed every month. The teachers are allowed to give urgency tickets for three meals, but if the parents fail to apply the meals have to be discontinued. At Erith "no breakfasts are supplied till the parents have registered at the Distress Committee (if eligible), or have made personal application there, or at the Education Office."^[213] At Leicester, again, the parent has to make personal application at the office of the Canteen Committee, and this application has to be renewed every month. At Birmingham, except in special cases, the parent has to attend the meeting of the Committee; if he fails to appear, after being given a second chance, the child, who has meanwhile 65been temporarily receiving the meals, is removed from the feeding list.^[214]

The primary selection of the children having been made, by whatever method, enquiry is then made into the home circumstances of the family. The object of this enquiry is or should be twofold: to ascertain the resources of the family, so as to determine whether the parents are able to provide adequate food for the child or not, and to find out whether help is needed in any other direction, and by friendly advice to improve the conditions of the home. We shall discuss later the great advantages to be obtained from the employment of voluntary workers for the purpose of these friendly home visits, as distinct from the duty of making enquiries.^[215] Here it is sufficient to note that very few Education Authorities have made use of their services at all.^[216] The most notable example is, of course, furnished by the London Care Committees. A somewhat similar system has been adopted at Bournemouth. Here, as we have seen, the schools have been divided into four groups, and a Care Committee appointed for each. The members investigate the circumstances of children who are alleged to be in want of food and report to their Committee, which thereupon decides whether or not the children shall receive free meals. At Liverpool a tentative effort has been made in the same direction. Care Committees, managed by the different settlements, have for some years 66been attached to some half-dozen schools, but their position is rather indefinite. The enquiries are made by the School Attendance Officers, but the Education Committee asks the Care Committee for reports on special cases. At one school the Care Committee appears to visit all the cases. A wider scheme for the establishment of a system of Care Committees is at the present time (1913) under consideration. At Brighton also, where Care Committees have been appointed, mainly for the purpose of finding employment and generally supervising the children when they leave school, a Care visitor is sometimes asked to supplement the enquiries of the School Attendance Officers in doubtful cases where further investigation is needed. At Leicester the enquiries are made by a paid investigator appointed by the Children's Aid Association, subsequent friendly visits being paid by voluntary workers.^[217] In most towns, however, the work of enquiry is undertaken solely by the School Attendance Officers.^[218]

The thoroughness of the investigation varies considerably in different towns. The parent's statements as to the amount of wages earned are in some cases checked by enquiries from the employers. At Birmingham the wages are always thus verified where the worker is employed by one firm regularly. At Bradford the wages are verified except when the applicants are working on their own 67account, for instance hawking, when it is clearly impossible. Generally enquiry is made from the employer as to the wages of the head of the house only, but at Leeds and at Leicester the wages of all earning members of the family are verified. At Leicester in doubtful cases enquiries may be made from the employer as often as once a week. In other towns, as at Stoke and York, where the current rates of wages are well known, wages are only verified when there is any doubt as to the parent's statement. At Bootle little attempt is made to verify the information given by the parents. Here the enquiries are made—so far as they can be said to be made at all—by the teachers. The help of the Attendance Officer can be asked in difficult cases, but this appears to be seldom done. The teachers naturally have no time to visit the homes, and the enquiry generally resolves itself into a form being given to the child for its parent to fill up. The parents are asked to state the rent, the number in the family and the total weekly income, taking the average for four weeks. When one considers the difficulty normally experienced in filling up forms correctly, one can readily imagine that the information thus obtained is practically valueless. Where the answers are unintelligible—an occurrence by no means rare to judge from the few specimens of case papers which we have seen—the information may be supplemented by questioning the children.

Often urgency tickets can be issued by the teachers, pending enquiries, as at Bradford, Birmingham, Bootle and Liverpool. At Birkenhead the teacher can only report the need for meals, but the enquiries only take two or three days. At Leeds we were told that a week or ten days generally elapses between the time of application and the child's being placed on the list, with the result that in some cases the most urgent need is passed. It is 68true that the head teachers can secure a child's being placed immediately on the list by writing specially to the Education Office, but to do this every time would involve a considerable expenditure on postage, which is not refunded.

When investigation has been made into the home circumstances, the decision as to whether or no the child shall be fed is made generally by the Canteen Committee or by a small sub-committee of this Committee, or perhaps by the Chairman.^[219] Sometimes the responsibility rests with the Secretary of the Education Committee or some other official, as at Acton and Leeds. At Bournemouth the cases are decided by the District Care Committees, which are composed of voluntary workers and teachers. At Bootle the decision appears to rest entirely in the teachers' hands.

The decision is based on a consideration of the family income. Many authorities have adopted a scale. At Birmingham meals are granted if the income per head, after rent is deducted, does not exceed 2s. 9d. in winter or 2s. 6d. in summer.^[220] In Bootle the income limit, in summer and winter alike, is 3s. 6d. for an adult and 2s. 6d. for each child under 14.^[221] When we consider, however, the slipshod method of enquiry pursued at Bootle, we cannot attach much importance to the existence on paper of this scale. At Bradford dinners are given if the income does not exceed 3s. per head; if the income is less than 2s., breakfasts also are given. This scale is taken only as a rough criterion of the needs of the family. Special circumstances are taken into account, such as the size of the family, sickness, old debts, etc. And where the 69circumstances of the family are slightly above the point at which free meals may be given, the parents are often allowed to receive them on paying 1/2d. or 1d. towards the cost. At Leeds, on the other hand, the scale, which is a low one (2s. in winter and 1s. 6d. in summer) is, we are informed, rigidly observed. No regard is paid to the circumstances of the family. As a rule, directly the family income rises above the limit, the child's dinners are stopped, no matter how much debt has to be paid off. A delicate child who needed feeding or an underfed neglected child would not be fed if the income was above the limit. At Liverpool the scale is 2s. per head; at Stoke it is 2s. 6d.; at Brighton it is 3s. per adult, two children being reckoned as one adult. In all these towns the limit is not a hard and fast one, regard being paid to any special circumstances. At Manchester a sliding scale has been adopted. If there are five or more in the family the limit is 2s. 6d. per head, if there are only three or four 2s. 9d. is allowed, while if there are only one or two 3s. is allowed.^[222] At Salford the limit is 10s. per week for two persons, and 2s. extra for each additional member of the family, rent not being deducted. In other towns, as at Birkenhead, Bournemouth, Leicester and West Ham, there is no fixed scale, each case being decided on its merits.

As a rule the cases are revised about once a month. Sometimes chronic cases will be continued for two or three months at a time, as at Liverpool. At York the cases are revised only twice a year. At the beginning of the winter the head teachers send in lists of children whom they consider to be necessitous. These children (if the Cases Selection Sub-Committee decide to feed them) remain on the feeding list till the following April, when 70the head teachers are asked to send in a list of children who they consider need not receive meals during the summer. The Attendance Officers visit again and the cases are revised by the Committee. This method is said to be satisfactory as, though officially the cases are revised so seldom, practically the circumstances are known, since the Attendance Officers regularly visit the homes in the course of their ordinary work and the Chairman of the Canteen Committee knows many of the children intimately. At Bootle, where, as we have seen, the decision as to which children shall be fed is practically in the hands of the teachers, there seems to be no system of revising the cases, and the tendency is for a child who is once put on the feeding list to remain on it till the meals are discontinued in the summer, unless the parents voluntarily withdraw the child on an improvement in the home circumstances.

Without discussing here the question whether it is possible to devise any system of selection which can be satisfactory, we may note some of the disadvantages of the methods at present in use. In the first place, since the selection is made in the main through the teachers, it necessarily follows that the numbers fed in any particular school depend very largely on the attitude taken by the head teachers. As a general rule the teachers are keenly interested in the physical welfare of their children, and anxious to do everything in their power which may promote it; but some teachers are opposed to the provision of meals, feeling that too much is done for the children; others, again, consider their schools "superior," and do not like their children to go to free meals. Constantly one finds an astonishing disproportion between the numbers fed at two adjacent schools, drawing their children from the same locality. It is true that the character of two schools, within a stone's throw of each 71other, may vary in a curious way, one attracting a more prosperous class of children—perhaps because of the personality of the teacher, better buildings, or some other cause—but this would not account for all the difference. At Bootle, for instance, it was reported, "there is apparently an absence of uniformity in assessing the needs of the children; for in the six schools of the poorest neighbourhoods it is found that of the number on the rolls the percentage of scheduled children varies from 6 per cent. to 34 per cent., and that in two schools of almost identical character, in one case 10 per cent. of the children are returned as needing daily breakfasts, and in the other 34 per cent."^[223] Where the teachers are anxious to place all apparently underfed children on the feeding list, pressure is not infrequently exercised by the Education Authority to induce them to keep down the numbers.

When an application by the parent is obligatory, there is cause for very grave doubt whether the provision of meals reaches all for whom it is intended. Miss Winder has shown that, at Birmingham, out of 22,753 children for whom applications were received during the three years 1909-11, 4,700 were not fed because the parent failed to appear before the Committee. She investigated the circumstances of twenty-eight of these families and came to the conclusion that, "although the small number of families investigated cannot justify an absolutely positive assertion, I think it may fairly be concluded 72that, on the whole, they are representative of most of the families whose applications are not granted, and that the home circumstances of these families are much the same as those of the families whose applications have been granted."^[224] This is the impression gained from enquiries at other towns. At West Ham it is clear that there are children who need the meals, but do not get them because their parents will not apply. The number of "missed" cases does not appear to be large, for the Act is administered in a sympathetic spirit, the Superintendent of Visitors impressing on the Attendance Officers that they should bring to his notice any case where the children appear to be suffering from lack of food. But there are cases where the parents, though they will take the urgency tickets for three meals which the teachers can give them, will take no further action. At one school the headmaster pointed out two boys who looked obviously in need of food and attention generally, but whose father, though out of work, would not apply. In another case he had used his discretion and kept two boys on the list for a month in spite of their parents' failure to renew their application, but he felt obliged at last to take them off though he considered that they still needed the meals. In such cases the Attendance Officers are supposed to visit the homes to find out the cause of the children's underfed condition, and to urge the parents, if necessary, to make application for school meals, but this course does not seem to be by any means always pursued.

At Leicester again, nothing appears to be done in those cases where the child needs food but the parent refuses to apply. And such cases appear to be frequent. We were told by the vicar of a very poor parish that numbers of the parents would not make the necessary 73application. This evidence seems to be borne out by a comparison of the numbers of cases helped by the Distress Committee and the Canteen Committee. In 1910, for instance, it was found that on September 30, 607 married men and widowers, having 1,145 children wholly, and 214 partly, dependent upon them, were registered at the Labour Bureau as unemployed.^[225] These numbers were, of course, not a complete index of the unemployment in the town. But, turning to the report of the Canteen Committee, we find that on the same date only 105 children were being helped.^[226] The great discrepancy between these figures seems to point to the fact that the Canteen Committee had not discovered all the cases of children who were suffering from want of food.

The failure of the parents to apply may in some cases be due to laziness and disregard for their children's welfare. Or it may be that they are too sensitive to ask for help. Or again it may be difficult or impossible for them to attend at the time named. The hour is usually fixed so as to be that most convenient for the parents, but it is impossible, of course, to fix a time which will suit all. At Birmingham cases have even occurred "where the father has been obliged to pay tram fares in order to arrive in time to prove his inability to feed his children"!^[227]

But even if the parent is not obliged to appear in person, but may send an application by note or verbal message to the teacher, there are still "missed" cases. It is notorious that many parents are too proud to let their need be known; in such cases, as teachers have 74frequently told us, it may be a considerable time before it is discovered that the child is suffering from want of food; and when the discovery is made there is frequently difficulty in inducing the parents to send the child, or in inducing the child itself to go, to the school meals. There still seems to exist, in certain districts at any rate, an idea that the provision of meals is Poor Law Relief, and parents consequently shrink from applying. Moreover, it is not generally recognised that the provision of school meals is by no means universally known to the parents. The School Medical Officer for Leicester reports that "in certain cases it was a matter for regret that the families had not received help earlier by personally applying for assistance. Ignorance of the existence of the Canteen Committee was given as the reason for non-application."^[228] And we have ourselves been told in other towns of cases where the children were suffering from want of food, but were not receiving school meals because the parents were unaware that they could be obtained.

The enquiries into the home circumstances undoubtedly exercise a deterrent influence—to what extent depends on the manner of the particular individual who makes the enquiries—both with the more independent parent who resents the investigator's visit, and with the criminal and semi-criminal parent whose record does not bear close investigation. Thus the headmaster of a school in one of the worst districts of Liverpool told us that numbers of the boys were in need of food but the parents would not submit to the necessary enquiries and consequently meals were not granted. At Leicester, the searching enquiries made by the Canteen Committee, which, it must be remembered, is practically a department 75of the Charity Organisation Society, coupled with the insistence on an application by the parent in person, result, as we have seen, in numbers of underfed children remaining underfed.

Where the Education Authority has adopted a scale of income on which to base the decision as to which children shall be fed, this scale is frequently below, and in some cases very considerably below, the minimum amount which has been shown to be necessary for expenditure on food.^[229] Where the scale is rigidly adhered to, two classes of children are excluded altogether, those who are underfed through the neglect of their parents to provide for them though able to do so, and those cases where the family income may be sufficient to meet normal calls but where, owing to illness or the delicacy of the children or other special circumstances, extra nourishment is required.

To sum up, we find as between town and town, and even as between school and school in the same town, a great want of uniformity in selecting the children to be fed. Where the Education Authority has determined that all its underfed children shall be provided for, the child's need being the paramount consideration, undiscovered cases of underfeeding are reduced to a minimum. Where, on the contrary, enquiries are carried out in a deterrent manner, or the parent is made to apply in person for the meals, or the selection is based on a rigid application of a scale, there is reason to fear that considerable numbers of children are, and remain, "unable by reason of lack of food to take full advantage of the education provided for them."

There are considerable differences of opinion as to what kind of meal should be given. Many Local Authorities prefer breakfast. It is argued that when no breakfast is forthcoming at home the interval between the meal the previous evening and the midday dinner is too long, and that it is cruel to expect the child to attend morning school, when the heaviest work of the day is done, without a meal, especially in the cold winter months. By midday the parents, especially in districts where there is much casual labour, may have earned enough to provide some sort of a meal. But the arguments in favour of breakfast—as the sole meal provided—are largely based not so much on the child's physical needs as on the moral effect produced both on the child and the parent. The provision of breakfast furnishes a test of need. The meal is not so popular as dinner, and will only attract those who are really hungry.^[230] Co-operation on the part of the mother is demanded, since she must get up early to see the children are dressed in time. Moreover, the provision of breakfast does not act as an inducement to the mother to go out to work, as it is feared the provision of dinner may.

The arguments seem to us overwhelmingly in favour of dinner. The provision of a midday meal may possibly encourage mothers to go out to work, though it is exceedingly difficult to trace such a result to any great extent. 77But on the other hand there are numbers of cases already where the mothers are forced, by stress of circumstances, to be the breadwinners and are obliged to leave home all day, or, if they come home for the dinner hour, have no time to prepare a proper meal. The children will either get a piece of bread, or will be given coppers to buy their own dinner; in either case the meal will be equally unsatisfactory. Possibly the children will go dinnerless altogether, and the afternoon's lessons will then be a serious tax on their brains. The attendance at breakfasts is always less than at dinner.^[231] The breakfast acts, that is to say, as a successful "test." But this means that many children, either because their mothers are too lazy to get them dressed early, or because they are too lazy themselves, miss the meals, though they are admittedly in need of them.

We do not wish to under-estimate the importance of the moral aspect of the question. It is essential that co-operation on the part of the mother should be demanded. But the child's need must be the first consideration. The laziness of the children, be it noted, is frequently not entirely their own fault; the drowsiness in the morning may be due to the fact that they have slept all night in a crowded room and stuffy atmosphere. Till the deep-rooted objection to open windows at night can be overcome, this will continue to be the case. For this reason too, the children will often have little appetite for breakfast.

Physiologically, again, dinner appears to be the 78better meal since it contains a greater quantity of the elements which are lacking in the ordinary home dietary of the child. Thus in the feeding experiment at Bradford in 1907,^[232] the porridge breakfast, the most satisfactory kind of breakfast that can be supplied from the food value point of view, contained a proteid value of 19 grammes, and a fat value of 20 grammes. The dinners contained, on an average, 29 grammes of proteid and 18 grammes of fat. Thus the combined proteid and fat value of the breakfasts and dinners was respectively 39 and 47 grammes.^[233] Moreover, the gain in point of cheapness to be derived from provision on a large scale is much greater relatively in the case of dinners than in the case of breakfasts.

About 27 per cent. of the Local Authorities give breakfasts only, and about 45 per cent. dinners only, the remainder giving both meals.^[234] In the last-named case, dinners may be given in some schools and breakfasts in others, as at Southampton and York. At Bradford dinner is given to all the children on the feeding list, the most necessitous receiving breakfast as well.^[235] At West Ham all the children receive both meals. At Bootle, where till a few years ago only breakfasts were given, it was found that this provision was inadequate to meet the needs of many necessitous children.^[236] The 79expense and the practical difficulties in the way of providing a proper dinner led the Education Committee to adopt a simpler method, namely, that of increasing the quantity of food supplied for breakfasts, any overplus being given at midday at the discretion of the teachers as an extra meal to children who would otherwise go dinnerless.^[237]

Taking into consideration the fact that with a large number of elementary school children bread and tea form the chief elements in the home diet, it is of the greatest importance that the school meal should be planned so as to contain a good proportion of the ingredients which are lacking at home.

Whatever views may be held as to the amount of proteid food that is necessary for adults, it is not disputed that in the case of children the more expensive forms are necessary because the growth of the body depends entirely upon the proteids. "It is impossible," declares the School Medical Officer of the London County Council, "to cut down proteids to the same extent in children as in adults without serious results.... To set out, therefore, to relieve underfeeding by a single meal a day, it is necessary to concentrate attention upon proteids and fats ... and, therefore, a dinner for necessitous children must be necessarily more costly than for those properly fed in institutions or in their own homes. The want of clothing, which often accompanies underfeeding, also necessitates more expensive feeding in relief, the loss of bodily heat to be made up being greater 80than in the case of the child in an industrial school or workhouse, who is warmly clad, and who, moreover, spends much time in a properly heated playroom or dormitory."^[238]

Few Local Authorities have so planned their dietary as to contain this excess of proteid and fat over starchy food. "Judged by this standard," declared Dr. Kerr in 1908, and the same statement holds good to-day, "most diets supplied by public funds are probably wanting in value for the children, however useful they might be as a single meal for a normal individual."^[239]

It would naturally be expected that the School Medical Officer would be consulted about the dietary as a matter of course,^[240] but this is by no means invariably the case. At Birkenhead, for instance, the School Medical Officer has no voice in the planning of the menu. At Stoke-on-Trent the School Medical Officer reports in 1911 that, "with the exception of the Fenton district, the medical staff does not appear to have even been consulted on the matter of dietary."^[241]

Where the meals are given at restaurants, the dietary 81is almost invariably unsatisfactory, adequate inspection being impossible.^[242]

The most elaborate dietary is probably that adopted by the Bradford Education Committee. In 1907, after the Education Committee had adopted the Provision of Meals Act, but before arrangements had been made to feed the children out of the rates, an experiment was made in feeding forty children for fourteen weeks. The dietary was carefully planned so that, while containing the requisite amount of proteid and fat, it should not be beyond the purse of the ordinary parent in normal times.^[243] This dietary is still in force, a few alterations having been made which experience showed to be advisable. The menu is varied, according to the season, winter, summer, and spring or autumn. The same meal is not repeated for four weeks.^[244] At Portsmouth again, where the dietary is drawn up by the Medical Officer of Health and the School Medical Officer, a different meal is given every day for three weeks.^[245] In most towns, however, the same menu is continued week after week, with some slight variation in the summer. The same meal is given on the same day in the week so that the children learn to know what meal to expect, and in consequence the attendance is often considerably smaller on days when the dish is unpopular. Sometimes the food will vary very little even from day to day. Though served under various names, soup, stew or hash, it is really almost precisely the same. Some authorities 82supply only one course, others two. In some towns a child is allowed to have as much as it wants, in reason; in other towns only one helping is allowed as a rule, though, if there happens to be any food over, this may be distributed among the children.^[246]

Occasionally special provision is made for the infants. Thus, at York, milk and bread is given in the middle of the morning to infants who are on the feeding list, it having been found that they could not digest the ordinary dinners. But as a rule, though in well managed centres the infants are placed together at special tables, so that they can be better supervised and taught how to eat, there is no separate dietary for them.

Where only breakfasts are provided there is, of course, less room for variation. Generally cocoa or coffee is given, with bread and butter, margarine, dripping, jam or syrup. At Bootle pea soup is given one day a week. In several towns porridge is provided, either alternately with the cocoa or coffee breakfast, or every day. At Sheffield, where a cocoa breakfast used to be given, porridge was substituted at one school as an experiment; it was found that the boys who were fed on porridge increased in weight at double the rate of the boys who received only the cocoa breakfast; as a result porridge breakfasts were substituted in all the schools.^[247]

In a few cases the Local Education Authority has equipped a kitchen for the preparation of the food, and 83makes arrangements for distributing it to the various centres. At Bradford all the meals, with the exception of those for schools in outlying districts where arrangements are made with local caterers, are cooked at a central kitchen and distributed in special heat-retaining boxes to the different dining centres by motor vans. Manchester, Birkenhead and other towns also have their own central kitchen. Sometimes, as at West Ham, a kitchen is attached to each of the centres; or occasionally a cookery centre is utilised for the preparation of the meals. Sometimes, as at Leeds and Portsmouth,^[248] the Local Education Authority provides the kitchen and a caterer prepares the food. Frequently, however, all the arrangements for the preparation and the distribution of the meals are in the hands of caterers.

From the first great stress was laid by the Board of Education upon the educational aspect of the meals. "The methods employed in the provision of meals should be not merely such as will secure an improvement in the physical condition of the children, but such as will have a directly educational effect upon them in respect of manners and conduct."^[249] "The school dinner may ... be made to serve as a valuable object-lesson and used to reinforce the practical instruction in hygiene, cookery and domestic economy."^[250]

In many cases this advice was totally disregarded. 84The second report on the working of the Act contains many examples of the utter lack of discipline prevailing in some centres. In one case "no attempt to teach orderly eating was made; there was a certain amount of actual disorderly conduct, throwing bits of food at each other and so forth." In another case where the meals were served in a small outhouse in the playground, the "table was a low locker.... On this a newspaper was spread, and there was hardly room for more than six children to sit round it. Other children sat on low benches where they could, holding their bowls on their knees ... about fifty partake of the dinner, but there is not room for more than twelve at a time, and then it is a scramble.... The food (Irish stew and bread) was good but everything else was as bad as could be." At another centre, we read, "the dinner is eaten in a perfect pandemonium of noise. Nine charwomen of a rather low type attend to about 470 children."^[251]

It is encouraging to note that there has since been, generally speaking, an improvement in the service of the meals. But "there are still areas in which the educational possibilities of the meals have not been realised, or, if realised, have not received the attention which they deserve"^[252]—a statement which we can amply corroborate.

The different methods in vogue may be classified roughly under four heads, according to the place in which the meal is served, i.e. (a) in the school, (b) in eating-houses, (c) in "centres," or (d) in the home.

(a) The ideal place for the meal is the school when a room is specially set apart as a dining-room. The meal should be attended only by the children from that particular 85school and should be served under proper supervision. The tables should be nicely laid, regard being paid to the æsthetic side of the meal, and table manners should be taught. The children should themselves lay the tables and wait on one another. We have found these ideal arrangements in some of the Special Schools for Defective Children and in Open Air Schools,^[253] but it is very rare to find such provision made for the "necessitous" children in the ordinary elementary schools. Many authorities, indeed, adopt the plan of serving the meals in the schools, but too frequently class-rooms are utilised. The objections to this course are obvious. Adequate ventilation after a meal is often impossible, and the smell of food pervades the atmosphere. It is frequently necessary to hurry over the meal so that the room may be prepared in time for school. The food is often served on the desks, an uncomfortable arrangement and one which renders it very difficult to teach the children to eat nicely.

The worst example of this utilisation of the school premises that we have seen is that of Bootle. Here the arrangements made for supplying the meals show a deplorable lack of appreciation, on the part of the Education Authority, of the benefits which may be derived from the Provision of Meals Act. The breakfasts are served sometimes in class-rooms, sometimes in the cloak-rooms or the cellars! When we visited Bootle (in April, 1913) the breakfasts had been stopped for the summer, but we were shown one or two of these cellars. We were told that they are made as inviting as possible—the walls are whitewashed, sawdust is sprinkled on the floors, a table is placed for the children to sit down to—but when all is done that can be done they remain 86entirely unsuitable places for the purpose. The only point that is urged in their favour is that the children enjoy the warmth from the heating apparatus. In the cloak-rooms there is not always room for a table, and the children sometimes have to sit along the walls, holding their mugs of cocoa or their basins of soup on their knees. When the class-rooms are utilised the food has to be placed on the desks; nothing in the nature of table-cloths is provided, and the state of the desks after the children, the infants especially, have eaten soup or bread and syrup, can be well imagined. Often the breakfasts arrive late, and the children have consequently to be hurried over the meal so that the class-rooms may be got ready for school.^[254] It must not be assumed that nothing in the way of table manners is attempted; clean hands, for instance, can be insisted on (though even this is difficult in some schools where there is an insufficient supply of water), and at one school we were told that the infants had learnt to eat without spilling their food; but it is obvious that very little can be done. The method of serving the midday meal is even less "educational." We have seen that the Education Committee refused to make arrangements for the provision of a suitable dinner, and decided instead that the teachers should distribute at midday to the most necessitous children any surplus left over from breakfast. The dinner thus consists usually of merely a piece of bread, with perhaps some cocoa, if any remains from the morning meal. The bread is given to the children to take away, and they eat it on their way 87home. What renders the failure of the Education Authority to pay any regard to the educational aspect of the meal more disastrous is that it is the teachers who supervise the meals. Many of them bitterly resent the way in which the meals are served; as one pointed out to us, the girls are taught in the school how to set a table, but the practical example which the teachers are forced to show will have much more weight than any theoretical teaching. A year ago the head teachers presented a memorial to the Education Committee, urging that the schools should no longer be used. As "a temporary expedient," runs the communication, they "have loyally endeavoured to work this imperfect system, but they now feel that the time has arrived for the adoption of a scheme on a more satisfactory and permanent basis.... The serving of meals in cloak-rooms, cellars or basements, and other unsuitable places, calls for immediate remedy. In some cases the children receive their meals whilst sitting upon the floor; in all, the bread is of necessity placed upon the dirty desks. In others, there is no adequate supply of hot water and towels for use in cleansing the utensils. Under such conditions there can be no training in habits of decency or cleanliness.... When the meals are served in class-rooms, the desks and floors are rendered unfit for immediate school use, and a smell of food permeates the atmosphere. To combat this state of affairs as far as possible, the teachers have, in many cases, to wash the desks and brush the floors. In other cases, the children are hurried over their meals in order that the necessary preparations for lessons may be made."^[255] To this the Education Committee replied that, while they agreed "that an ideal system of feeding the children would be by properly equipped centres quite apart from 88the school premises, the cost of such would be prohibitory, and that quite possibly the pressing of such a change would jeopardise the continuance of the exercise of the powers given by the Provision of Meals Act, now so beneficially and economically administered." The committee hoped "that the teachers will recognise the Authority's financial difficulties in the way of the introduction of a more desirable system, and, pending the arrival of the long-expected parliamentary aid for this and other ameliorative work devolving upon local education authorities, will continue their valuable co-operation in meeting the needs of their hungry scholars by the existing practical if not perfect system."^[256] The teachers had apparently been considering the advisability of withdrawing their services altogether, but this threat of a possible cessation of the meals induced them to continue their assistance.

(b) A second method is the service of the meals at local restaurants. This plan is strongly discouraged by the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education, since it is impossible to secure adequate supervision of the meals or proper control of the dietary; "the meals are consequently of little, if any, value from an educational or even nutritional point of view."^[257] Any authority adopting this system is, in fact, animated solely by the desire to get the children fed with the least possible trouble.

Unfortunately the plan is still in favour with a considerable number of local authorities,^[258] even in some of the large towns.

Thus at Stoke-on-Trent the children for whom free 89meals are granted are sent to eating-houses.^[259] These houses are often, if not always, small bakers' shops, not general restaurants. They are usually situated at an easy distance from the school. The numbers attending each are small, amounting to not more than twenty or so. At the one we visited^[260] the conditions seemed to be as good as could be expected under the circumstances; the caterer was a motherly old woman who took an evident interest in the children, and the food was hot and palatable. The disadvantages inherent in the system, the impossibility of supervision and the lack of control over the dietary, are, however, observable here as elsewhere. Probably in few cases would the children get an insufficiency of food. The difficulty lies rather in securing good quality and the proper kind of meal. Thus it was found that one caterer had substituted, for the regulation fish pie, bread and jam, because the children preferred it. "I have inspected several of these [eating-houses]," reports the School Medical Officer, "and although I found one instance in which the children were treated on exactly the same lines as the contractor's own children, in fact sat at the same table, and were regarded quite as members of the family; in most instances the surroundings, the manner of serving and the dietary left much to be desired.... I would strongly urge the advisability of getting the catering in all instances into our own hands. I do not think that the full benefit of the Act can be secured in any other way; it is doubtful, as things are, whether the intention of the Act, as a remedy for malnutrition, can be carried out at all."^[261]

90At Acton the meals are given at a dingy eating-house which is intended primarily to serve the needs of the women working at the laundries in the district.^[262] There is only one room, so that the children have to have their meals with the other customers, and the hour at which the children come in, between twelve and one, is, of course, the busy hour for the restaurant. At one time a rota of ladies attended voluntarily to supervise the meals, but this plan has been given up; the School Attendance Officers now take it in turn to be present. The children come and go as they please and there is no attempt to teach table manners.

At Liverpool, till quite recently, the same system was in force. The children received coupons at the school, which they presented at various cocoa rooms in the city.^[263] The objections to this system were many. The number of cocoa rooms, at which coupons were accepted, was limited, and in some cases the nearest cocoa room was situated too far from the school for the children to be sent there.^[264] Though some managers refused to supply unsuitable food, others gave whatever the children asked for—frequently buns, jam puffs, or iced cakes.^[265] Often the children would take the food home 91to be shared among the other members of the family.^[266] At some cocoa rooms the children were served in the general room, and were brought into contact with adult customers "of a class not choice in language or manners." There was little or no supervision—only occasional visits by the teachers—and consequently no attempt "to influence the children in the direction of cleanliness and orderliness at meals."^[267] In spite of these revelations the system was continued for several years, being only finally given up in August, 1912. The meals are now served in centres. The food is at present supplied by caterers, but the Education Committee are considering the advisability of providing their own kitchen.

(c) The plan most usually adopted, and the one recommended by the Board of Education, is the system of serving the meals at centres attended by children from three or four neighbouring schools. For this purpose some room belonging to the Corporation may be utilised, perhaps a room attached to the Police Station, as often at Manchester, or a room in some disused school; frequently the hall of a club or mission is hired. The arrangements are often of a makeshift character, the room being ill-adapted for the purpose and the surroundings dark and dreary. Moreover, the assembling of large numbers of children from different schools renders the work of supervision more difficult and detracts considerably from the educational value of the meal.

The actual conditions vary widely from town to town, and even from centre to centre in the same town. 92The best results are perhaps to be seen at Bradford,^[268] the town in which most attention has been paid to the subject. Here the teachers supervise the meal, two or three being present generally, one to apportion the food and the others to supervise the table manners of the children. They are assisted by boy and girl monitors. These are selected generally from the elder children on the dinner list.^[269] On arrival, about ten minutes before the meal, each monitor puts on one of the blue overalls provided for them, sets the table for which he or she is responsible and hands round the food. The position of monitor is a much coveted one. The system provides a valuable training for the children in doing things for themselves, and in looking after one another. The results are most marked. In every centre we visited the children were quiet and orderly, and in some cases the behaviour was excellent. At one centre we were particularly struck by the table manners of the boys, their consideration for one another, and the quick and quiet way in which they collected all the plates and spoons and packed them in the boxes for return to the cooking depot of their own accord, without any instructions from the teacher in charge. The results vary, of course, in different centres. For instance, with regard to clean hands and faces, some teachers are very strict, each child having to hold up his hands for inspection as he enters the dining-room. In others only periodical inspection is made, and we noticed several dirty hands, notably in the case of some of the boys who were assisting to hand round the food. Infants are placed at separate tables so that they can receive special attention. Each child is expected to eat the first course, or at any rate to try to eat it, 93before being given the second. When the child does not like the food, it is given a small helping at first and coaxed to eat it. Over and over again we were told that at first the children would hardly touch the food, being accustomed to the home dietary of bread and tea and pickles; but by the patient endeavours of the teachers this difficulty was overcome and the children have learnt to appreciate nourishing food. The importance of the æsthetic side of the meal is fully appreciated. Table cloths are provided and often flowers. The meal, indeed, "from start to finish is educational."^[270]

At Leeds it struck us that the chief aim was merely to feed the children, the educational side receiving only secondary consideration. As most of the centres are not large enough to accommodate all the children at once (at any rate in winter time), two "sittings-down" are necessary, and the meal is hurried through so as to allow the second relay to come in as soon as possible. The children begin their meal as soon as they enter, without waiting till the others have come in so that all may begin together in an orderly manner. Grace is said halfway through the meal. As soon as a child has finished the first course (of which it is allowed to have a second helping, if desired), it is given a piece of cake or bun which it eats outside in the street. The supervision is undertaken by the teachers, but only for a day or two at a time. This constant change of supervisors makes the teaching of table manners more difficult. One of the regulations runs that "the supervisor should see that no child is admitted who has not clean hands and face,"^[271] 94but to judge from the very dirty state of some of the hands and faces we saw, this rule seems to be ignored, at any rate at some of the centres. No special provision is made for the infants; they have the same food and are placed at the same tables with the bigger children; in some cases the tables are so high that they have to kneel on the forms in order to reach their food, and the spoons provided are so large that it is difficult for them to eat without spilling it.^[272] The condition of the rooms after the children have finished their dinner is anything but desirable, soup being spilled on the table and pieces dropped on the floor. Especially was this noticeable at one centre where the meal was served on desks. These desks were covered with dirty and ragged linoleum, and the whole surroundings were inexpressibly dreary, the litter of food on the floor at the end of the meal adding to the general squalor.

At West Ham some attempt is made to render the meal educational.^[273] Monitors and monitresses are appointed from among the elder children to assist in waiting on the others. Table cloths are provided, and in some cases flowers are placed on the tables. But here again the meal is spoilt by the sense of rush. Since at each centre there may be twice or even perhaps three times as many children as can be accommodated at once, each child is given its dinner as soon as it comes in, and is dispatched as soon as it has finished. "Table manners, 95personal appearance, good behaviour, and punctuality," are indeed, as the Superintendent of the Centres remarks, "not overlooked; but in these respects, the results are not as satisfactory as one could desire. The unusually large numbers of children attending the centres, and the limited time in which to serve the meals to enable the children to return in time for school, make it a difficult task to give the necessary individual attention."^[274] At one time school managers and members of the Children's Care Committee took it in turn to attend the different centres and supervise the children, but this plan has been given up, and the supervision is now done solely by the women who prepare the meals.

Birkenhead affords a striking example of the varying conditions prevailing in different centres in the same town. In one case a dining-room has been specially built at the school, this dining-room serving as a centre for several other schools. No table cloths are used, but the tables are of white wood, well scrubbed; plants are sometimes provided, and the whole surroundings are bright and cheerful. The children were unfortunately allowed to come in as they liked, but in other respects the discipline seemed good. Table manners were inculcated and clean hands insisted on. Food had to be finished at table and might not be taken away. At another centre the conditions were entirely different. The meals were served in a corridor at the public baths. Two long narrow tables were placed against each wall, with forms on one side; on the other side, owing to the narrowness of the corridor, there was no room for seats, so that some of the children had to stand. The children entered and left as they liked, and were allowed to take away food with them. Little effort was made to teach table manners, 96indeed it would have been impossible to do much in this respect owing to the unsuitable character of the premises. It would perhaps be unfair to dwell too much on the conditions prevailing in this centre, since the use of these premises was admittedly a temporary expedient (though we understood they had been used for some time), but the conditions at a third centre were not very much better. The hall was large, it is true, and there was plenty of room for the children, but the surroundings were very dreary. The tables, which were not covered with tablecloths, were dark and dingy. Here again the children were allowed to straggle in as they pleased, some as much as half an hour or forty minutes late. They left as soon as they had finished, frequently carrying away food with them unchecked. Little attention was paid to table manners and much of the food was wasted.

(d) The three methods which we have described all present one feature in common. The children, whether fed at the schools, at eating-houses or at centres, all share with their schoolfellows in a common meal. There remains one other method, the supply of food to the family for consumption at home. This is the method adopted at Leicester and, so far as we know, in this town only. As we have already pointed out, no rate is levied at Leicester, voluntary funds being declared to be sufficient. These funds are administered by the Children's Aid Association, a body composed largely of members of the Charity Organisation Society and imbued with its spirit. The Association proceeds on the theory that the provision of meals is simply a form of relief; this being so, the relief should be adequate, and the family as a whole should be dealt with. The food is accordingly distributed in the homes,^[275] sufficient being supplied 97for all the family, not only for those attending school, and it is given every day, including Sundays, throughout the year. Milk being the chief article absent from the dietary of the poor, the food chosen is bread and milk. This is delivered by the ordinary baker and milkman so that the neighbours should not know that the family is receiving relief (though as a matter of fact the "bread and milk" families appear to be well known).

Certain advantages have undoubtedly accrued from this system. The parents have learnt the value of milk, and the children have been taught to take it. At first there was often much difficulty in this latter respect, but by constant visitation the children's prejudice has been broken down, and they now relish the food.^[276] On the other hand, under this method of distributing the food in the homes the advantages to be derived from a common meal are totally ignored. No provision is made to meet the case where the mother goes out to work all day, and where the provision of a midday meal at school would be of great value. Moreover, though frequent visits are paid to the homes at breakfast-time to see that the children are actually getting the food intended for them, it is impossible to ensure this in all cases.

We have classified the different methods under the above four headings according to the place where the meal is served, but, as will have been seen by the examples given, the educational value of the meal is determined even more by the character of the supervision than by the nature of the surroundings.

The supervision is frequently undertaken by the 98teachers. In 1909, the Board of Education reports that the "assistance of teachers has been the rule rather than the exception."^[277] This service is always rendered voluntarily, though occasionally, as at Bradford, the teachers receive some small remuneration.^[278] The amount of service given varies widely in different towns. At Bradford the same teacher will attend the centre daily for months. In other towns his or her turn may come quite infrequently, and may only amount to two or three days' service at a time.^[279] Sometimes School Managers, members of the Canteen Committee or voluntary workers take it in turn to assist in the supervision, but their attendance is generally spasmodic. At Portsmouth the centres are entirely in charge of ladies who give their services voluntarily.^[280] As a rule, however, paid superintendents are appointed, too often women of the caretaker type. In some towns the School Attendance Officer attends to collect the tickets and helps to maintain order.

99The question how far the teachers should be asked to give their services is a vexed one. On the one hand, where the teacher attends regularly—and regular attendance is essential if the full benefit from the meals is to be derived—this extra work involves a great strain. Especially when the midday interval is only from 12 to 1.30, as in many provincial towns, the time for rest is seriously curtailed. At Leeds "a reasonable time is allowed the teachers in charge for their own midday meal," and they are allowed to arrive late at afternoon school in consequence of this,^[281] but we were told that this permission is not in practice taken advantage of, as their late arrival would dislocate the work. Moreover, although the service is supposed to be always entirely voluntary on the part of the teachers, there is always the danger that they may feel under a moral obligation to offer their services. In some cases, the burden seems to fall unduly on a few, only a small minority offering to assist in the supervision, the others taking no share.

On the other hand, "it is unquestionable that where the teachers are willing to undertake the work, they are, generally speaking, the most competent supervisors. The reason for this is not far to seek. The children, being accustomed to obey the commands of their teachers, are more ready to behave in an orderly and disciplined manner when under their supervision than when a stranger is in charge. Moreover, the teachers' acquaintance with the idiosyncrasies of individual children enables them to keep an eye on those children who are specially in need of food or who need persuasion to make them eat 100the wholesome food provided."^[282] Again, the fact that the teachers are present connects the meal in the child's mind with the school, and so tends to make it more a part of the school curriculum, a lesson in table manners. Without the teacher, Miss McMillan points out, "the whole venture will fail miserably on the educational side." But it is a mistake to ask the teachers to serve the food and wait on the children. Their function should be "to preside and to be the head, and as far as possible the soul, of the daily gathering,"^[283] just as at dinner in a secondary school.

To sum up now the main characteristics of the present methods of serving the meals, it will be seen that, generally speaking, the conditions are very far from satisfactory. Even where the Local Education Authority draws up elaborate regulations for the management of the dining-centres, these regulations are frequently disregarded in practice by the supervisors. Too often the object is to get the meal over as quickly as possible, and inadequate attention is paid to the inculcation of table manners and the little amenities of a civilised meal. To expedite the service the food is frequently placed on the table before the children come in, and it is nearly cold before they eat it. Sometimes the second course is served and placed in front of the child before it has finished the first course. The food is almost invariably such as can be eaten with a spoon and fork, and the children are thus not taught the use of a knife.^[284] 101Sometimes only a spoon is provided and the help of fingers is almost unavoidable. We have as a rule found the supply of utensils fairly adequate, though where water is given it is not always the case for each child to have a separate mug.^[285] It is rare to find any attempt at table decoration, and table-cloths are by no means universal. It may be objected that table cloths are expensive and, if the tables are kept thoroughly clean, unnecessary, but to keep the tables well scrubbed costs as much as to provide table cloths and the necessity of keeping the cloth clean is a useful lesson to the child. Sometimes the food, if of the bread and jam nature, is placed on the table without plates. In very few cases has the system of utilising the services of the elder children been adopted with any thoroughness, and the valuable opportunity of training thus offered is lost.

At the time the Act of 1906 was passed, it appears to have been generally taken for granted that it empowered Local Education Authorities to provide meals during holidays as well as during school time.^[286] The circular issued by the Board of Education, asking the Local Authorities for information as to the way in which 102the Act had been administered, contained a question as to the number of children who were fed during the school holidays, thus assuming that the meals would be continued; nowhere was it pointed out that the cost of the meals so provided could not be borne by the rates.^[287] Moreover, during the next two or three years, the accounts of several Local Authorities, who continued the meals during the holidays, were certified by the Local Government Board Auditors.^[288] About 1909, however, the question was raised whether Local Authorities could legally spend the rates on providing meals when the children were not actually in school. The Local Government Board, on being appealed to by the Newcastle-on-Tyne Education Authority, replied that they could not concur in any interpretation of the Act which would empower the authority to incur expenditure when the closing of the schools precluded the children's attendance.^[289] In August, 1909, the cost of feeding children during the previous Christmas holidays was disallowed by the Auditor in the accounts of the West Ham Authority. The Local Government Board, on appeal, confirmed the disallowance, though they remitted the surcharge.^[290]

Since this date, in the great majority of towns where meals are continued during the holidays,^[291] the cost is 103met by voluntary funds. Sometimes the Local Education Authority will issue a special appeal for funds. Or the arrangements may be undertaken by some voluntary society or by philanthropic individuals. Where no provision is made officially, the teachers sometimes make arrangements privately for the most necessitous children to be fed at shops. At Leeds it has become the custom for the Lord Mayor to provide out of his own purse meals during the Christmas holidays (the meals being discontinued during the other holidays); the cost of this provision may amount to as much as £500.

In one or two towns the charge has been met year after year out of public funds. At Bradford, for example, the meals have from the first been continued during school holidays.^[292] The expenditure has been surcharged regularly by the Local Government Board Auditor, but, as we have said, it has been met out of a grant voted by the Finance Committee from the trading profits of the Corporation. The Labour Councillors maintain that when the Act was passed holiday feeding was considered legal and the ratepayers generally seem to uphold them in this claim, in spite of occasional protests.^[293] At Nottingham the same plan is pursued.^[294] At Portsmouth a grant is made to the Mayor on the tacit understanding that 104he will use it for the provision of meals during the holidays. At West Ham, after the Local Government Board auditor had, in 1909, disallowed the charge for holiday feeding, the cost was for a year or two borne by voluntary funds.^[295] It became, however, increasingly difficult to raise the necessary subscriptions, and during 1911 £494 was charged to the rates, the voluntary subscriptions only amounting to £74.^[296] During the following year recourse was again had to the rates. The Local Government Board Auditor surcharged the expenditure, but the Board, on appeal, remitted the surcharge, though confirming the Auditor's decision.^[297] At Acton meals have been supplied regularly on Saturdays^[298] and during the school holidays for the past few years without any question having been raised.

The question of the legality of the provision of meals during the holidays out of the rates is, indeed, an open one. The London County Council took counsel's opinion on the point in 1909 and again in 1910, each time receiving the reply that holiday feeding was illegal,^[299] but the question has never been settled by a case in the courts. On special occasions the Local Government Board have relaxed their prohibition. Thus, in 1911, Mr. John Burns stated in Parliament that though the Board would not sanction in advance any expenditure incurred in providing 105meals during the week the schools were closed on account of the Coronation festivities, they would be prepared to consider each case on its merits, and decide whether any surcharge that might be made should be remitted or upheld.^[300] And in the spring of 1912, during the widespread distress caused by the coal strike, the Board sanctioned the provision of meals during the Easter holidays.

On several occasions Bills have been brought in by the Labour party to legalise the provision of meals during the holidays, the latest being in April, 1913.^[301] So far these efforts have met with no success, though the Prime Minister declared in 1912 that the Government was favourable to the principle,^[302] but it has now been promised that the forthcoming Education Bill shall contain a clause enabling Local Authorities to provide meals on Sundays and during holidays.^[303]

There seems indeed to be a general consensus of opinion in favour of holiday feeding. The experiments made by Dr. Crowley at Bradford in 1907, and by the Medical Officer of Health at Northampton in 1909, which we shall describe later,^[304] not to mention the testimony offered by numbers of teachers as to the deterioration of the children physically during the holidays, prove conclusively the need for the continuation of the meals, if the children are not to lose much of the benefit which they have derived during term time.

106In passing we may note that not only do many Local Authorities—how many we are unable to ascertain, but the number must be considerable—discontinue the meals during the holidays, but they stop them entirely during the summer months.^[305] In some towns, where employment is good during the summer, there may be little need for school meals, but in large towns, such as Bootle and Salford, which contain a large population who rely on casual labour, it is obvious that the cessation of the meals during the summer must cause considerable hardship.

When the Provision of Meals Act was passed it was assumed that a considerable proportion of the cost of the meals would be borne by the parents. It was confidently expected that large numbers of parents would be willing to avail themselves of the provision of a midday meal at school for their children and would gladly pay for it.^[306] The circular issued by the Board of Education to the Local Authorities pointed out that the Act aimed at securing that suitable meals should be available "just as much for those whose parents are in a position to pay as for those to whom food must be given free of cost."^[307] "There will generally be no difficulty in providing, where it is so desired, a school dinner at a fixed price in the middle of the day, attended by children for whom, by reason of 107distance from the school or because the mother's absence makes a home meal difficult, the parent prefers to take advantage of an arrangement similar to that now in operation in most secondary day schools."^[308] Moreover, little difficulty was anticipated in extracting payment from those parents who could afford to pay but neglected to do so. These expectations have not been fulfilled. In the year 1908-9 the sums received from the parents, either contributed voluntarily by them or recovered after prosecution or threat of prosecution, amounted to only £295, or .44 per cent. of the total receipts.^[309] In 1911-12 the amount so received had increased but was still only 1 per cent.^[310]

The smallness of the sums voluntarily contributed by the parents is largely due to the action of the Local Authorities. In the great majority of towns in England^[311] no serious attempt has been made to establish "school restaurants"; the Local Education Authority, owing perhaps to lack of accommodation, perhaps to the difficulty of providing for a fluctuating number of children (a difficulty felt especially where the meals are supplied through a caterer), perhaps to the feeling that the provision of school meals as a matter of convenience would encourage the mothers to go out to work, has limited the provision to necessitous children. In 1911-12, out of 118 towns (apart from London) in which provision was made for underfed children, in only twenty-two were any of the meals paid for wholly by the parents. The number of children so paid for was in most cases negligible, the 108total amounting to only a few hundreds. And these figures include meals paid for under compulsion (though without prosecution) as well as meals voluntarily paid for as a matter of convenience.^[312]

But even where the system of voluntary payment has been tried, it has been a failure. At Bradford, where a large proportion of married women work in the mills, it was felt that many parents would take advantage of a system by which they could obtain a midday meal for their children at cost price.^[313] The Education Committee accordingly sent round a circular to the head teachers asking them to announce to their scholars that a good dinner could be obtained for 2d.^[314] The response was disappointing. Comparatively few of the mothers took advantage of the offer, and the result, though the number of paying children^[315] seems to be larger than in any other provincial town,^[316] can only be described as a failure. This 109may be partly attributed to the cost. Where there are several children a payment of 2d. per head may be more than the parent can afford. But the main cause of failure is undoubtedly the dislike of the independent type of parent who can afford to pay to sending his children to meals the majority of which are being given free. In fact any system which seeks to combine free and paying meals, the free meals being the chief element, is fore-doomed to failure.^[317]

In the Special Schools for mentally or physically defective children, where the dinner is provided more as a part of the school curriculum than as a "charity" meal, there is not, as we shall see, much difficulty in inducing the parents to pay for the meals.^[318] In rural districts also, where the children are in many cases unable to go home at midday, the system of paying dinners has more chance of success.^[319]

Turning now to the question of the recovery of the cost from unwilling parents, the Provision of Meals Act, it will be remembered, laid down that the Local Authorities should require payment unless satisfied that the parents could not pay, and the cost might be recovered summarily as a civil debt. In practice this has been found very difficult to accomplish. It is impossible to tell from the returns how much of the £1,570 received from parents in 1101911-12 was contributed voluntarily, and how much recovered after compulsion, but the amount recovered must necessarily be very small.^[320]

Where the Local Education Authority confines the provision of meals strictly to the cases where the family income is below a certain amount per head, as at Leeds, there is of course little to be recovered, attempts at recovery being limited to cases where the parents have made an incorrect statement as to their income, and have therefore been obtaining the meals under false pretences. At West Ham, indeed, the Education Committee has interpreted the Provision of Meals Act to mean that recovery must be attempted in every case where meals are supplied. When a parent applies for meals for his children on the score of being unable to provide for them himself—for only necessitous children are fed, no provision being made for voluntary payment—he has to sign a form by which he agrees to repay the cost of all meals which have been supplied when he gets back into work and can afford to do so. Moreover, he has to send a note every day saying that he still wishes his children to be fed,^[321] this being insisted on as a proof that meals have been supplied in the event of an attempt at recovery. In any case the full cost is rarely charged, the wage and the number of children being taken into consideration, and a rebate of sometimes as much as 75 per cent. being granted. But as a matter of fact very few accounts are sent to the Borough Treasurer for collection, as the wages of nearly all the parents of the children who are fed, even 111when they are in good work, are too small to allow of their paying for meals supplied in the past.^[322]

When the Local Education Authority is determined to provide food for all children who need it, for those who are underfed through the neglect of their parents to provide for them as well as for those whose parents are too poor to do so, a considerable amount ought to be recovered. The difficulty lies in the impossibility in many cases of securing sufficient evidence of the parent's ability to pay. Magistrates are notoriously loth to convict. At Bradford we were told that in numbers of cases magistrates' orders for payment had been served on the parents, but these orders were frequently disregarded by parents who knew the practical difficulties in the way of enforcing them.^[323]

Whether the amount due for meals which have been already supplied is paid by the parent or not, the commonest result of sending a notice that the Local Authority intends to recover the cost is that the parents refuse to allow their children any longer to receive the meals. "In practice it is found," says the Bootle School Canteen Committee, "that when action is taken to enforce payment the children are withdrawn by their parents from further participation in the meals, with the result that the children revert to their former ill-fed condition."^[324] At York, too, we were told that when a child who is found to be underfed through neglect is put on the feeding-list and a letter written to the father that he will be charged 112the cost of the meals, he invariably writes back demanding that his child shall be taken off the list. Nothing more is done and the child remains underfed. The Local Education Authorities are, indeed, "on the horns of a dilemma in dealing with such cases, as the Act obliges them to make this attempt to recover the cost, and they know that the only result of their doing so will be that the children are withdrawn from the meals."^[325] So much has the Bradford Education Authority felt this difficulty that they have more than once sought power, by inserting a clause in the local Bills promoted by the Corporation, to compel the attendance of children at meals in all cases in which the School Medical Officer certifies that the children are underfed, and to recover the cost. These efforts have so far proved useless, it being held that such a clause involves a new principle and cannot therefore be included in a local Act.^[326]

The question of dealing with neglectful parents is indeed beset with difficulties. Under the Children Act, 1908, a parent or guardian can be prosecuted for neglecting a child "in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary suffering or injury to its health." This neglect is defined to mean those cases where the parent or guardian "fails to provide adequate food, clothing, medical aid or lodging," or, if unable to provide the same himself, fails to apply to the Guardians for relief.^[327] It is rare for the Local Education Authorities themselves to institute proceedings under this Act. Usually they prefer 113to refer cases to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Often an improvement in the condition of the child is effected as a result of the visits of this society's inspectors to the home. But when these warnings prove useless, frequently nothing more is done; the society are loth to prosecute, except in extreme cases when they can be practically certain of securing a conviction.

We have already alluded to the neglect of the Guardians to deal with more than an insignificant fraction of the children who are underfed. The attempt made in 1905 to force them to fulfil their responsibility in this respect was, as we have seen, a complete failure, and the duty was therefore cast upon the Local Education Authorities. But even in the few cases where the Guardians have assumed the responsibility by granting out-relief to the family, the amount of this relief is, in the vast majority of cases, totally inadequate. This was abundantly proved by the Report of the Poor Law Commission in 1909. "The children," they reported, "are undernourished, many of them poorly dressed and many bare-footed ... the decent mother's one desire is to keep herself and her children out of the work-house. She will, if allowed, try to do this on an impossibly inadequate sum, until both she and her children become mentally and physically deteriorated."^[328] When the mother was careless or neglectful no supervision was exercised by the Guardians to see that even this inadequate amount was really spent on the children. This indictment still holds good to-day. The inadequacy of 114the relief granted by the Guardians, in all but a few exceptional Unions, has, in fact, become a byword.

In the great majority of towns, the Local Education Authority is consequently driven to feed children whose parents are in receipt of poor relief. Thus two authorities deal with the same case, without, in many instances, either of them knowing what the other is doing.^[329] Only in a few cases has any attempt been made to prevent this overlapping. For example, at Leicester (one of the few towns, we may note, where liberal out-relief is granted by the Guardians) there has from the first been co-operation between the Guardians and the Canteen Committee.^[330] The Relieving Officer refers to the Canteen Committee many applications that are made to him where temporary help only is needed, and the Committee has frequently tided families over a bad time and saved them from recourse to the Poor Law. On the other hand, when a family is receiving out-relief the Canteen Committee refuses to grant food for the children. At Acton a similar policy has been adopted. If parents who are in receipt of out-relief apply for school meals for their children, the Secretary of the Education Committee recommends them to apply to the Guardians for more relief, at the same time himself writing to the Relieving Officer. As a rule the relief is increased in consequence. Meanwhile the teachers are told to watch the children to see that they do not suffer from want of food. At Dewsbury, also, temporary cases are dealt with by the Canteen Committee, but all chronic cases by the Guardians.^[331]

Elsewhere an attempt has been made to prevent overlapping 115by other means. While the Education Authority undertakes to provide for all the underfed children, an arrangement is made with the Guardians whereby they repay the cost of the meals supplied for all children whose parents are in receipt of relief. The relief is thus given partly in the form of school meals, a plan strongly to be commended, since it ensures that the relief given on account of the children is in fact obtained by them. This plan has been for some years pursued at Bradford. At first there appear to have been complaints that the Guardians were reducing the relief granted, on account of the dinners supplied at school,^[332] but the dinners are now given in addition to the ordinary relief.^[333] In 1912-13, the Guardians paid £303 to the Education Authority on this account.^[334] Even so, there is some slight overlapping, since the Guardians only pay for dinners and in some cases the Canteen Committee are of opinion that a second meal is needed, and consequently breakfasts are granted and paid for by the Education Authority. A similar plan has been adopted at Blackburn,^[335] Huddersfield,^[336] Brighton,^[337] York and Liverpool. In the last named town the arrangement has only recently been made, and is in force in only two of the three Unions into which 116the town is divided, West Derby and Liverpool. The Guardians have agreed to issue coupons for school meals to children whose parents are in receipt of out-relief, and will pay to the Education Authority 2d. per meal. We were informed that, in the case of the West Derby Guardians at any rate, these coupons would only be given to children whose mothers were out all day. The relief would be reduced in consequence, though not to the extent of the full value of the meal. The Guardians of the Toxteth Union declined to make a similar arrangement, but suggested that the Local Education Authority should inform them when they found children underfed whose parents were in receipt of relief, and they proposed in these cases to increase the relief.^[338]

Other Local Education Authorities have tried this plan of communicating with the Guardians, in the hope that they would grant adequate relief for the needs of the children, but, finding no such result ensue, have discontinued the practice. At Bury St. Edmunds, for instance, it was found in the winter of 1907-8 that "a large percentage of the families whose children were fed at school were in receipt of outdoor relief of an amount which the Education Authority thought inadequate. The attention of the Board of Guardians was called to the fact, but no steps were taken by them."^[339] The Education Committee accordingly continued to feed the children, and we gather that now no communication is made by them to the Guardians. Similarly at West Ham we were informed that the Education Committee used to report cases to the Guardians, but 117the practice proved useless and it has been given up, except for special cases, where the Guardians will sometimes increase the relief given.

In a few Unions, as at Leeds, the only result of the Guardians learning that the children are receiving school meals—the need for which points to the conclusion that the out-relief granted is inadequate—is that they promptly reduce the relief, though not contributing to the Local Education Authority anything towards the cost of the meals. They appear to regard the provision of school meals merely as a means of reducing the poor-rates, and casting the burden on other shoulders. Naturally in such circumstances the Local Education Authority does not report cases to the Guardians.

Any systematic arrangement between the two Authorities appears indeed to be exceptional. As a rule there is practically no co-operation, beyond, perhaps, the notification of cases by both authorities to some Mutual Registration Society,^[340] or the informal meetings of the Relieving Officers and the School Attendance Officers.^[341]

We have already alluded to the power of the Local Education Authorities to provide meals for the children attending the Day Industrial Schools and the Special Schools for the mentally or physically defective. The Day Industrial Schools are intended primarily for children who have played truant from the ordinary schools and 118who are committed by a magistrate's order. But in the case of widows or deserted wives who have to work all day, or when the father is incapacitated from work by illness or infirmity, or if the father is a widower, the children may be admitted to a Day Industrial School, without an order, as "voluntary cases."^[342] When children are committed by a magistrate's order, the parents are ordered to make a weekly payment towards the cost of industrial training and meals.^[343] In the case of children admitted voluntarily such payment is also theoretically demanded,^[344] but in practice it is, as a rule, impossible to exact it. Thus at Liverpool, though small payments are received from widowers, the condition as to payment has to be waived in the case of widows and deserted wives, or when the father is unable to work through illness.^[345] At Bootle we were informed that no payment is received from any of the voluntary cases. The Schools are open from 6 or 7 in the morning to 5.30 or 6 at night and three meals are provided. The dietary is as a rule monotonous, being continued week after week with practically no variation. In point of order, as might 119be expected, the service of the meals compares favourably with those given to necessitous children, erring rather on the side of over-much discipline. It is, unfortunately, by no means uncommon to find absolute silence insisted on, a regulation which has a most depressing effect. In these Day Industrial Schools the Local Education Authorities have a valuable instrument for providing for the numerous cases where mothers are at work all day and so cannot provide proper meals for their children, or where the children are neglected. This was urged by many witnesses before the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws,^[346] and again recently by the Departmental Committee on Reformatory and Industrial Schools.^[347] Very few authorities, however, have taken advantage of this power. In 1911 there were only twelve Day Industrial Schools in England, provided by eight authorities, and eight in Scotland, of which seven were in Glasgow.^[348] The total attendance numbered a little over 3,000, the voluntary cases amounting to only 308.^[349] These numbers showed a decrease compared with previous years,^[350] and this decline has since continued, partly owing to the fact that truancy is far less common now than formerly, partly owing to the provision of meals for children attending elementary schools, which renders the Day Industrial Schools less necessary.^[351]

120The arrangements made for providing for the mentally and physically defective children vary in different towns. Sometimes no special provision is made. At Leicester, for instance, the mentally defective children who come from a distance bring their food with them and the caretaker warms it. Frequently, however, a regular dinner is supplied. Thus at Eastbourne dinners are provided at the Special School for dull and backward children at a very small charge.^[352] At Bradford some of the children pay 1-1/2d. a meal, others receive it free. At Liverpool a payment of 1s., 6d. or 3d. a week is demanded, according to the circumstances, the meals being given free in special cases.^[353] In Birkenhead, too, the charge varies, some paying 1s. a week, some 2d. or 1d. per meal, at the discretion of the teacher; no meals are given free, children who cannot pay being sent to the centre to have their dinner with the necessitous children from the ordinary elementary schools. There appears to be usually little difficulty in collecting payment. At Birkenhead we were told that some difficulty was experienced at first, but the children appreciate the dinners so much now that they beg their parents to give them the necessary pence.

At the Open Air Schools^[354] the common meal always forms part of the regular school routine. As a rule three meals a day are provided,^[355] and sometimes milk is given in addition in the middle of the morning. Usually some 121charge is made towards the cost of the meals, varying from 6d. to 3s. per week, according to the parents' circumstances, but in necessitous cases the charge is remitted.^[356]

The service of the meals at these Special Schools presents in general a marked contrast to the methods prevailing at the centres for necessitous children. For example, at Birkenhead, where the management of the feeding centres leaves much to be desired,^[357] the dinner provided at the Mentally Defective School, for all children who care to stay, is served in an attractive and educational manner. One or more teachers are always present to supervise it. The children enter all together and sit down at small tables. The boys and girls take it in turns to lay the tables and clear away afterwards, and help to serve the food. Table-cloths are provided and these are kept remarkably clean. Somewhat similar conditions prevail at Liverpool in the Special Schools for Physically and Mentally Defective Children.^[358] But it is at a school for feeble-minded children at Bradford that we found the most perfect arrangements. The smallness of the numbers—only some 17 or 18 children being present—allowed 122attention to be paid to each individual child. The dinner was served in a bright cheerful hall, and the tables were nicely laid by the children, with table-cloths, plants and flowers; these latter the children often bring themselves. Two teachers are always present and preside at the two tables, having their dinner with the children. The children's manners were excellent and spoke volumes for the patience and care exercised by the teachers.

The example afforded by the service of the meals at these special schools might well be imitated by the Education Authorities in providing meals at the ordinary elementary schools.

We have confined our investigations almost entirely to the Urban Districts. We must, however, briefly touch upon the question of underfeeding in the country. Here the conditions are different. The problem is not only how to provide for the children who do not get sufficient to eat; there are also to be considered the large numbers who are unable to return home at midday and have to bring their dinner to school with them. Many of these children have to walk long distances, perhaps two miles, three miles, or even more. The long walk necessitates an early start from home; this makes the interval between breakfast and dinner long and the exercise sharpens the appetite. Hence it is of the greatest importance that the midday meal should be adequate. In most cases, however, as the reports of School Medical Officers abundantly testify, the dinner which these children bring with them consists of bread and jam, cake or pastry, with perhaps a bottle of cold tea.^[359] In a few schools the 123teachers have organised cocoa clubs, the children paying 1d. or 1-1/2d. per week, which is as a rule just sufficient to cover expenses.^[360] Incidentally, it is noticed, the weekly payment for cocoa has a good effect on the attendance. "A child having once paid his or her cocoa fee at the beginning of the week seldom stays away from school during the remainder of the week if it can possibly be avoided."^[361]

Sometimes the teacher encourages the children to bring bottles of milk, cocoa or coffee and sees that they are warmed over the fire before being partaken of.

Occasionally a regular dinner is provided. We have already mentioned the experiment made at Rousdon 124by Sir Henry Peek in 1876. This has been continued to the present day. A hot dinner is provided daily, consisting of one course, soup with bread and vegetables two days a week, and some form of suet pudding the other three days. About half the children stay for the dinner and pay one penny each, these payments just about covering the cost of the food. The meal is served in a dining-room in the school and the ex-headmaster and the present headmaster voluntarily undertake the supervision.

A somewhat similar plan has been tried at Grassington, in Yorkshire. When, eighteen years ago, the teaching of cookery was introduced, it was resolved to combine with that instruction the provision of a hot midday meal. The children not only cook the dinner themselves, but they take it in turns to order and pay for the materials, thus acquiring the valuable knowledge how to buy. They are taught the value of the different foodstuffs and learn how to make a good substantial dinner at a little cost. A two-course dinner, ample and varied, is provided daily at the school.^[362] Each child is allowed to eat as much as it wants, but no waste is allowed. Marvellous as it appears, the payment of a 1d. per meal covers the cost of the food.^[363] The dinner appears to have been intended chiefly for the children who came from a distance, but the parents of the children who live in the village have been glad to avail themselves of the provision, since the school dinner is better than they can supply at home.^[364] Nearly half the children stay. All the arrangements 125are, and have from the first been, made by the headmaster's wife, who takes the cookery lesson and serves the meal herself, and the success of the experiment must be very largely attributed to her voluntary labours.

In two schools in Cheshire also, Siddington and Nether Alderley, hot dinners are provided at a charge of 1-1/2d., in the former during the winter months, in the latter all the year round. In both cases the children's payments cover, or slightly more than cover, the cost of the food, the other expenses being borne by voluntary funds.

Such provision is, however, quite exceptional. As a rule no provision whatever is made. "I have only once seen any supervision of the meal on the part of the teachers," writes a late Assistant School Medical Officer for East Sussex; "in fine weather the children generally eat [their dinner] out of doors; in bad weather it is taken in the school or cloak-room in what are often very unhygienic surroundings."^[365] "There is no doubt," writes another School Medical Officer, "that at some of the schools the conditions in which the children get their midday meal are deplorable."^[366] "It is only too common a sight," reports the School Medical Officer for Derbyshire, "to see little children sitting in a corner of the class-room, cloak-room or even the playground, munching at thick slices of bread and butter. Under these circumstances," he continues, "it cannot be wondered at that children below the normal development are to be found in our schools."^[367] In Anglesey the School Medical Officer 126finds more children badly nourished in the rural areas than in the urban areas; this he attributes mainly to the long walk to school every day, the inadequacy of the midday meal and the hurried manner in which it is eaten.^[368]

It is indeed essential that in all country schools to which children come from a distance, provision should be made for the serving of a midday meal under proper supervision.^[369] As Dr. George Finch points out, "the authority which requires the child to spend its day away from home might not unreasonably be expected by the parents to make some provision that its midday meal might be taken under not unfavourable conditions. The parent, however conscientious, cannot adequately deal with the problem, and the provision of suitable cold food is not an easy matter, even in the more well-to-do family."^[370] The meals should be served as part of the school curriculum and might well be combined with the teaching of cookery as is done at Grassington.

It may be useful now to sum up the main points which emerge from the foregoing description. The proposal, which we shall discuss in the final chapter, to make the midday meal a part of the school curriculum, 127to be attended by all children who wish to avail themselves of the provision, would obviate many of the difficulties that arise under the present system. Meanwhile we may point out some ways in which improvements can be effected, apart from this more drastic proposal.

1. Since the Provision of Meals Act is only permissive, Local Education Authorities are allowed to remain inactive in spite of the fact that children in their schools are underfed, and that no adequate provision is made by voluntary agencies. It should be made obligatory on the Local Authority to take action in such a case.

2. The limitation of the amount which may be spent on food by the Local Education Authority to the sum yielded by a halfpenny rate restricts operations in some towns, and prevents provision being made for all the necessitous children. This limitation should be removed.

An alteration of the law in these two directions would merely assimilate the powers and duties of the English Education Authorities to those already conferred on the Scottish School Boards by the Education (Scotland) Act of 1908.^[371]

3. The selection of the children who are to receive school meals is based, often solely and always primarily, on the poverty test. Little attempt is made to link up the provision of meals with the school medical service. The meals, that is to say, are regarded primarily as a means of relieving distress rather than as a remedy for malnutrition. The numbers selected vary according to the policy of the Local Education Authority and the views taken by the individual head teachers. Nowhere can the selection of the children be said to be satisfactory. In towns such as Bradford, where the Local Authority is determined to search out all cases of children who are suffering from lack of food, the great majority of underfed 128children are doubtless discovered, but in other towns numbers of such children are overlooked and left unprovided for, while everywhere little or no provision is made for the countless children who are improperly fed at home. We shall discuss in the final chapter the best method to be pursued in this matter of selecting the children.

4. There is great diversity of practice in different towns with regard to the time at which the meal is given, the manner in which it is prepared and served, and the kind of food supplied. Where only one meal is provided, it would appear that dinner is for many reasons preferable to breakfast. The dietary should be varied and should be drawn up in consultation with the School Medical Officer; it should be so planned as to contain a due proportion of the elements which are lacking in the child's home diet, and special provision should be made for the infants. The preparation of the meals should not be left to caterers but should be undertaken by the Local Authority, so that adherence to the approved dietary and a high standard of quality can be assured. The meal should be regarded as part of the school curriculum. It should be served as far as possible on the school premises, and should be attended only by children from that particular school. The children should be taught to set the tables and wait on one another, the tables being nicely laid, with table-cloths and, if possible, flowers or plants. Clean hands and faces and orderly behaviour should be insisted on. Some of the teachers should supervise the meal and should receive some extra remuneration for this service.

5. The discontinuance of the school meals during the holidays has been shown to undo much of the benefit derived during term-time, and it entails unnecessary suffering on the children. The expenditure of the rates on holiday feeding must be legalised. The limitation of 129the provision to the winter months, as is the practice in some towns, is even more absurd. Local Authorities should be required to continue the school meals throughout the year, if need exists.

6. The sums contributed by the parents towards the cost of their children's meals amount to only a trifling fraction of the total expenditure. The power of providing meals as a matter of convenience for children whose parents are able and willing to pay has been very sparingly used by the Local Education Authorities, as far as the ordinary elementary schools are concerned. In the special schools for defective children, on the other hand, where not infrequently a midday meal is provided for all the children, a considerable proportion of the parents contribute towards the cost. It is difficult to say whether the establishment of School Restaurants in the ordinary schools would be successful. One point, however, seems clear; if the plan is to succeed, the meals must be intended primarily for paying children; if they are provided mainly for necessitous children, parents who can afford to pay will not send their children to any great extent.

In the case of the parents who can afford to feed their children but neglect to do so, the attempt to recover the cost of the meals supplied to the children results as a rule in almost total failure, owing to the extreme difficulty of obtaining conclusive evidence of the parents' ability to pay. An attempt to recover may be worse than useless, for it frequently leads the parent to withdraw his children promptly from the school meals, though their need of the meals continues as great as before.

7. Owing to the inadequate relief usually given by the Boards of Guardians, the Local Education Authorities are in many cases forced to feed children whose parents are receiving poor relief. In only a few towns is any 130systematic attempt made to prevent this overlapping between the two authorities. So long as the Guardians retain their present functions, the plan adopted at Bradford and a few other towns, by which the out-relief granted by the Guardians is given partly in the form of school meals, the Guardians paying the Education Authority for these meals, might well be extended to other towns. By this plan overlapping of relief is avoided, while it ensures that the relief given to the mother on account of her children is in effect obtained by them.

8. In the rural districts the conditions under which the children eat their midday meal are frequently deplorable. The long walk to school renders it even more important than it is in the towns that the meal should be a substantial one, but the food which the children bring with them is as a rule entirely inadequate. In the few schools where a hot dinner has been provided, the plan has met with marked success, and such provision should be made in all schools. It might advantageously be combined with the teaching of cookery, a plan which is more practicable in the country than in the towns, since the numbers to be provided for are comparatively small.

CHAPTER III THE PROVISION OF MEALS IN LONDON — (a)—The Organisation of the Voluntary Agencies. — (b)—The Assumption of Responsibility by the County Council. — (c)—The Extent of the Provision. — (d)—The Care Committee. — (e)—The Provision for Paying Children. — (f)—The Service of the Meals. — (g)—Overlapping with the Poor Law Authority. — APPENDIX EXAMPLES OF FEEDING CENTRES IN LONDON — (a)—School, visited October, 1913. — (b)—School, visited June, 1913. — (c)—Centre, visited May, 1913. — (d)—Centre, visited March, 1913. — (e)—Centre, visited June, 1913. — (f)—Centre, visited October, 1913.

We have reserved the treatment of London for a separate chapter since, owing to its size and the diverse conditions prevailing in the different districts, it presents problems of special difficulty. We shall describe in this chapter the provision made in the early years of this century by voluntary agencies, and the final assumption by the London County Council of the whole responsibility of dealing with its underfed children; we shall trace the gradual building up of a vast and complex organisation to deal not only with the question of school meals, but also with other matters affecting the general welfare of the children; and we shall discuss the actual methods of working at the present day.

We have already sketched the early history of the movement in London, and described the attempts made by the London School Board to organise the host of voluntary agencies.^[372] The proposal put forward by a Committee of the School Board in 1899 to make that body responsible for providing food for all its underfed children was, as we have shown, defeated by a large majority, and a renewed attempt was made by the establishment of a central organisation, the Joint Committee on Underfed Children, to organise the voluntary agencies.

This attempt met with but little more success than the earlier endeavours. The functions of the Joint 132Committee were limited to receiving reports from the Relief Committees, pointing out defects in their methods of working, and acting generally as a medium of communication between these committees and the collecting agencies. If the Relief Committees failed to send reports, the Joint Committee had no power to compel them to do so, nor could the Committee insist on the remedying of the defects which they pointed out. By 1907 the Committee were able to report that only one school had been discovered in which meals were provided but no report received. "We may hope, therefore," they continue, "that ... the instructions of the Council ... have at last reached all head teachers and are being obeyed. But in default of any executive and inspecting machinery, it has taken the persistent efforts of the Joint Committee, during six years, to effect this result, if indeed it has really been effected."^[373] The greatest difficulty was experienced in getting Relief Committees established in every school or group of schools in which underfed children were provided with meals.^[374] Even when these committees were appointed, the meetings of many of them were held infrequently and for formal business only, the selection of the children and the enquiry into the parents' circumstances being left entirely to the teachers.^[375] Consequently the methods 133of selection differed widely, even in the same school, the different departments paying no attention to what the others were doing.^[376] The enquiry was generally totally inadequate, and in some cases was not even attempted.^[377] The Joint Committee urged that, when meals were given at all, they should be given regularly at least four if not five days a week, and should be continued throughout the year if necessary.^[378] But in 1907 we find that "there are still a good many schools where meals are only provided on one or two days, and more where they are only given on three days, the average number throughout the schools being 2-3/4 meals per child per week."^[379] In only sixteen schools were the meals continued for more than twenty weeks during the year.^[380]

The Joint Committee strenuously opposed the theory, 134which was now steadily gaining ground, that the rates should be utilised for the supply of food. In 1904 they report that, in their opinion, "all real distress on any considerable scale has been effectually met.... They have never been restricted in their efforts for want of funds, and there is no reason to think that any organisations dealing with public money would be more efficient than these bodies dealing with charitable money. On the other hand, there is reason to believe that, even as things are now, relief is often given to children who are not really in want, and there is no doubt that if the public purse were being drawn upon, relief would be distributed more lavishly."^[381] The County Council could hardly, however, remain unmoved by the disquieting report of the Committee on Physical Deterioration published in the same year. Dr. Eichholz, in his evidence before the committee, had indeed described the existing method of feeding in London as "entirely in the nature of a temporary stop-gap. There is," he declared, "but little concentrated effort at building up enfeebled constitutions, school feeding doing little beyond arresting further degeneracy."^[382] In April, 1905, the Council accordingly resolved "that, with a view to checking the physical deterioration among the London population and securing 135the best result from the expenditure on education, it be referred to the Education Committee to consider and report as to the necessary Parliamentary power being obtained for the provision of food where necessary for the children attending rate-supported schools in London."^[383] The Education Committee, however, while admitting that there were numbers of underfed and ill-fed children attending the schools and that in the case of these children it was impossible to secure the best results from an educational standpoint, were nevertheless of opinion that, "while the necessity for feeding children as the last resort out of public funds is a proposition endorsed by the whole spirit of the Poor Law," there were strong arguments against seeking power to utilise the rates at present. The provision of school meals out of public funds must tend to lessen parental responsibility, and the expense entailed would be very serious, since the numbers, though small at first, would inevitably tend to increase.^[384] The Committee recommended, therefore, that the experiment should be tried of utilising the food prepared at the cookery centres. The advantages of this course would be twofold. The experiment would prove whether there was a demand on the part of the better-off parents for the provision of cheap dinners at school, while the training at the cookery centres would be improved by receiving a more practical trend.^[385]

The experiment was accordingly tried at five^[386] selected schools. In three of these schools, which were situated in poor districts, dinners were supplied at 1-1/2d each. In the other two schools, situated in better-class neighbourhoods, the cost was 2d. and 3d., the parents preferring 136the more expensive dinner.^[387] The Council having no power to spend the rates on the provision of food, the meals had to be paid for by the parents or by charitable agencies. The teachers were instructed not to choose only necessitous children, but to distribute the tickets fairly between the children in the schools, the object being to try the experiment of a common dinner.^[388] From an educational point of view the dinners were very successful. The children were taught to eat properly,^[389] and the girls attending the cookery class benefited by the practical training. It appeared, too, that there was a demand, in certain districts at any rate, for the provision of cheap dinners at school.^[390] But the experiment was on too small a scale to have much practical bearing on the question of feeding necessitous children. For large numbers the cookery centres were quite inadequate and any attempt to use them primarily for the object of providing children's meals would interfere with the instruction given.

No further serious attempt was made for some years to place the provision of food upon the rates. On the passing 137of the Provision of Meals Act the County Council took over the whole responsibility for the provision, the Joint Committee on Underfed Children, which had been composed partly of representatives of voluntary organisations,^[391] giving place to a Sub-Committee of the Education Committee^[392]; but voluntary funds were still relied on. In 1908, however, the supply began to fail. In July of that year a conference of the Mayors of the London boroughs had declared that there was no reason to fear that voluntary contributions would be insufficient to defray the cost of food.^[393] The appeal subsequently issued met, however, with a very meagre response, only some £6,000 being subscribed.^[394] By the end of the year it became clear that recourse must be had to the rates, and application was accordingly made to the Board of Education. The new system was put in force early in 1909.^[395]

Meanwhile the constant complaints of the varying methods pursued by the different Care Committees^[396] in the selection of the children, and the rapid increase in the number of children fed,^[397] led the Sub-Committee on 138Underfed Children to call for a report on the circumstances of these children, so that the cause of the distress might be ascertained and some light thrown on the question how far the provision of free meals was really an effective remedy for the evils which existed.^[398] An investigation was accordingly conducted by the two officials who had been appointed by the Council to organise the work of the local Care Committees. Twelve schools were selected in different districts, and a careful enquiry made into the circumstances of all the children at these schools who were receiving free meals. In all 1,218 families were dealt with, containing 3,334 children.

In a small number of the cases, 3·9 per cent., the distress was found to be due to illness or some other temporary misfortune; unemployment of the wage-earner accounted for 5·7 per cent., and under-employment for 19 per cent., of the cases; in 44·7 per cent. the cause of the distress was attributed to the intemperance or wastefulness of the parents.^[399] The necessity of providing school meals, at any rate as a temporary expedient, was clearly proved. It was found that, though 21·12 per cent. of the children were not necessitous, the remaining 78·88 per cent. were necessitous "in the sense of lacking sufficient food," and that they would require school meals "until effective Care Committees are able to check the diseases attendant on partial employment, bad housing and other evils."^[400] So far little attempt had been made to improve the conditions of the homes by systematic visiting. With the majority of the Care Committees, declared the organisers, "their only active members are the head teachers and their 139only visitors are the attendance officers."^[401] The complaints as to want of uniformity in the selection of the children were corroborated. In many schools "each department has its own system of enquiry, its own method of selection, its own standard of necessity, and the result is that it is seldom that all the school children of one family are on the necessitous list."^[402] The extent of overlapping between the Education Authority and the Boards of Guardians was shown by the fact that out of the 1,218 families 39 were in receipt of out-relief while no fewer than 165 had been in receipt of relief recently.^[403]

To put an end to all this want of uniformity it was recommended that a responsible secretary visitor should be appointed for each school or group of schools, who would organise bands of voluntary workers, and co-operate with all existing local agencies for social improvement. It was urged that the duties of the Care Committees should not be confined to the provision of meals, but should include everything pertaining to the health and general well-being of the child.^[404] This latter recommendation was carried out. The Care Committees were re-organised and given additional duties, the supervision of medical treatment and the work of after-care,^[405] and it was resolved that a committee should be appointed for every elementary school, not only for those which contained "necessitous" children.^[406] The suggestion that a paid secretary should be appointed for every school or group of schools 140was not adopted. The Council decided merely to appoint twelve paid lady workers for the whole of London, whose duties would be to strengthen the Care Committees. At the same time, as a further step towards uniformity, local associations of Care Committees were formed. Several such associations had already come into existence voluntarily, but they were now made uniform and permanent. The functions of these associations, which numbered 27, were to make all the arrangements in connection with the feeding centres, and to collect voluntary contributions. They were also to act as advisory bodies. At their meetings would be discussed such questions as the selection of children to be fed, after-care, medical treatment, and any other duties falling to the Care Committees to be performed. They would thus, it was hoped, initiate a common policy and serve as a means of co-ordinating the work of the various Care Committees. Two-thirds of their members were to be representatives of Care Committees, one-sixth were to be nominated by the Teachers' Local Consultative Committees, and one-sixth appointed by the Children's Care (Central) Sub-Committee.^[407]

There are thus to-day three distinct, though interdependent, organisations—the Children's Care (Central) Sub-Committee, the Local Associations of Care Committees and the local Care Committees appointed for each school.

In considering the development in London of the movement for the provision of meals, one is struck by the haphazard way in which the vast organisation has been built up. The County Council has from the first been reluctant to undertake the responsibility for its 141underfed children. "The whole question of deciding which children are underfed, and of making special provision for such children," declared the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Underfed Children in 1908, "should really be one for the Poor Law Authority to decide, and not the Education Authority."^[408] The attempt to make the Guardians carry out their duty having signally failed, the London County Council was forced to undertake the task, but it has done so in a half-hearted fashion. The results of this failure to grasp the problem in a statesmanlike manner are conspicuously evident in the conditions prevailing to-day.

The total expenditure on the provision of meals in London amounted, for the year 1912-13, to £99,805. Of this by far the greater part, £98,111, was derived from the rates, voluntary contributions amounting to only £3. Apart from these voluntary contributions collected by the Local Associations, however, a few schools "contract out" and supply the meals from their own private sources.^[409] Moreover, large sums were collected by voluntary organisations for the provision of meals during the holidays, especially during the summer holiday of 1912, owing to the distress caused by the dock strike. And 142besides this holiday feeding, which, since it cannot be met out of the rates, must be paid for out of voluntary funds, there are still a certain number of voluntary agencies which are providing meals quite independently of the County Council.

Amongst the most important of these is the London Vegetarian Association. One of the chief objects of this Association, which has been in existence many years, is the popularisation in the homes of the poor of a vegetable diet which is at once both cheap and wholesome. Dinners are provided consisting of a bowl of vegetable soup, a slice of wholemeal bread and a slab of pudding. As a rule the meals are given during the winter only, being continued during the Christmas holidays and, if necessary, during the Easter holidays, and on Saturdays also. The number of centres opened varies according to the state of the Association's finances and the need that exists. During the present winter some half-dozen have been established, besides the central depôt in Whitechapel, about 900 children on an average being fed daily. Since the passing of the Provision of Meals Act the activities of the Association, as far as the children are concerned, have been confined theoretically to the supply of dinners to children under school age or to children who wish to pay for the meals. But school children who prefer to be fed by the Association rather than by the school are also given meals, as in addition are those who are not considered necessitous by the School Care Committee. Any child can have a dinner on producing a halfpenny. Free dinners are only given to children for whom application is made by some charitable agency, district visitors, Little Sisters of the Poor or other persons interested, no enquiry being made by the Association itself in these cases. It is clear that there is much danger of overlapping—in fact it has been found that, in some cases, 143children have obtained a dinner at school first and have then gone on to the depôt. In other cases it seems that the Association feeds some children of a family, the Care Committee others.

The total number of individual children fed during the year 1912-13 was 100,771,^[410] the average weekly number being 41,529. The numbers fed during the last thirteen years are seen in the following table:—^[411]

In the selection of the children the County Council has throughout pursued the policy of keeping the numbers fed as low as possible. The School Doctor may recommend for meals, or more frequently for milk or codliver 144oil, under-nourished children whom he discovers in the course of medical inspection,^[412] but the number of such cases is comparatively small. As a rule the children are selected by the teachers (either on their own initiative or, more frequently, on the application of the parents) on the ground of poverty.

The enquiry into the home circumstances of these children and the final decision as to which of them shall be fed, devolve upon the Care Committees. These Care Committees form the most striking feature of the administration of the Provision of Meals Act in London. In no other town have the services of the volunteer worker been utilised to such an extent.^[413] As we have seen, the County Council decided in 1909 that a Children's Care Committee should be formed for every elementary school, and there is now practically no school for which a committee has not been appointed.^[414] The committees consist of two or three of the School Managers, together with not less than four voluntary workers appointed by the Children's Care (Central) Sub-Committee.^[415] The head teachers, though not members,^[416] usually attend the meetings, and in some cases undertake 145a considerable amount of clerical work. The members of these committees number some 5,600,^[417] but of these many take little or no part in the work, and the effective membership amounts perhaps to not more than two-thirds of this total.

The functions of the Care Committees are numerous and important. They do not merely decide which children shall receive school meals. They have also to "follow up" cases of children who are found by the School Medical Officer to need medical treatment, and, by visiting the homes, induce the parents to obtain this treatment; often they arrange for the supply of spectacles at reduced rates and collect payment from the parents by instalments. Further, they have to advise parents in connection with the employment of their children, referring suitable cases to the Local Juvenile Advisory Committee, Apprenticeship Committee or other agency, and generally befriending the children leaving school. Some committees undertake the work in connection with the Children's Country Holidays Fund. Frequently the Care Committee makes arrangements for the supply of boots,^[418] and sometimes also clothing, gratuitously or at reduced rates.

The advantages of such a system of voluntary workers, acting in connection with, and under the guidance of, the Local Authority are many. The volunteer worker, as has often been pointed out, can bring to bear on individual cases a patience and an enthusiasm which the 146official has no time to bestow. By getting into friendly relations with the mother, the volunteer visitor will often be able to help the family in numberless ways. The Care Committee system represents, indeed, one of the most hopeful movements of the time, denoting, as it does, an awakening of the social conscience and a revolt against the old system of district visiting, which meant too frequently merely the giving of a dole, a system which encouraged a patronising attitude on the one hand, and a cadging habit on the other. From the Care Committee visitor little in the way of material gifts is to be expected. Instead, some effort is demanded from the parent. He, or more usually she, is asked to co-operate with the Care Committee in doing what is necessary for the child's welfare. Moreover, the Care Committee is invaluable as a means of educating public opinion. Many will be found who, though perhaps strongly opposed in theory to the whole system of the provision of free meals, are yet willing to work for the children, and by contact with the children and their homes will learn something of the life and struggles of the poor, and a better mutual understanding will be brought about. As the Warden of a Settlement in Liverpool has pointed out, "it is a constant lament of administrators of education that the public care more for saving the rates than making citizens. The complaint is justified. We only care about what we understand; the public understands the money it has to pay, but it does not understand what happens to it. As a matter of fact ninety per cent. of the ratepaying public have never been at a feeding centre or seen a medical inspection; and their own education was of such a scanty nature that one cannot expect their general imagination to supply the deficiency. Hence they grumble at paying for a service of which they are ignorant. The remedy lies in making them understand. From the 147young men and women of these families we can recruit Care Committee workers. They will visit the homes of the people, the feeding centres and the school; their imagination will be stirred and their intellects quickened; finally, the time will come when an enlightened public opinion will be the critic of the education policy of our city."^[419] Splendid work is now being done in many parts of London by the Care Committees and it is greatly to be regretted that the system has not been more widely adopted in the provinces.

On the other hand, the disadvantages of relying only on voluntary help must not be overlooked. In the first place there is the difficulty of securing enough workers. Remarkable as has been the response to the appeal of the County Council for helpers, yet many more are needed. In the residential parts of London this difficulty is not so much felt, but in the poorer districts, where the need is greatest, it is impossible to find enough people with leisure to devote to the work. From every Care Committee that we have visited comes the cry for more helpers. If the friendly relations with the parents are to be established, which are essential if the maximum amount of good is to be derived from the various activities which are undertaken by the school authorities, it is of the greatest importance that the homes should be visited; but it is rare to find a sufficient supply of workers forthcoming for this visiting to be undertaken regularly. It is true that some committees visit the homes once a month or sometimes even, in doubtful cases, once a fortnight, but more frequently visits are paid at long intervals, and in some districts many of the homes are never visited at all. At a school in East London, for instance (and this is typical of many others), we were told that it is 148found in practice quite impossible for every case to be visited, since there are only two members of the Care Committee to undertake this work. A committee in another district reports, "visits in doubtful cases are made twice a year, supplemented by quarterly visits," while another committee in the same district reports that, "owing to the lack of sufficient help, it is often necessary to receive parents instead of visiting homes."

Still more difficult is it to obtain honorary secretaries. The functions of a Care Committee are, as we have seen, many and varied, and involve an enormous amount of work, if they are to be performed efficiently, especially in districts where few volunteers can be obtained and where, in consequence, a disproportionate amount of visiting falls to the lot of the secretary. The secretary of a Care Committee in Stepney found that it was necessary to give three quarters of her time to the work, and "even so, outside help had to be called in to keep the clerical work even approximately up to date."^[420] The secretary of another school in East London informed us that he had to give four full days a week, besides some hours devoted to clerical work in the evening; while another secretary, in Central London, gives about four hours' work on an average five days a week. Obviously it is impossible to secure enough volunteers. Many who undertake the work of secretary find after a few months that they are obliged to give it up. The history of too many Care Committees is a record of ever-changing secretaries, interspersed with more or less prolonged interregna. In one district—and this appears to be typical of London as a whole—we were told that, out of 91 schools, some 10 or 15 were at the time without secretaries, and the duties had to be undertaken by the Assistant Organisers. 149These officials are already overburdened, and the result is that all but the most urgent work is left undone. Nothing is more disheartening for an energetic secretary who has laboured hard to effect some improvement in the condition of the children than to find, when forced by stress of circumstances to give up the work, that no one can be found to undertake the secretaryship and that, consequently, much of the devoted labour of months, perhaps of years, is undone.

The need for the appointment of paid secretaries for each school or group of schools was, as we have seen, pointed out as long ago as 1908.^[421] Since that date the activities of the Care Committees have been enormously extended, and, in certain districts at any rate, if the work is to be done with any degree of efficiency, the necessity for such paid secretaries is becoming absolutely imperative.

But apart from the difficulty of securing enough voluntary workers, there are inherent disadvantages in the present system. The enquiry into the circumstances of the parents is not a duty for which the ordinary volunteer worker is fitted. And the necessity of making these enquiries may endanger those friendly relations which it is of such importance to establish between the visitor and the parent. The enquiry is generally totally inadequate. In the majority of cases the visitor is not trained for the purpose, and frequently finds this work distasteful. Each visitor has a different standard. No enquiry is made from the employer^[422]; indeed, in the large number of cases where the father is casually employed such enquiry would be impracticable. In many cases there 150is little or no knowledge of what other help is being given to the family. Many committees insist on the parents appearing before them to answer enquiries as to their circumstances. This is sometimes, as we have seen, rendered necessary by the lack of workers and the consequent impossibility of visiting the homes. But even if the homes are visited some committees consider that the obligation on the part of the parents to apply in person furnishes a test of the genuineness of their need. The attendance of the father, where it can be secured, is useful as it proves a means of bringing home to him his responsibility. It is not infrequently found that the mother has applied for meals without the husband's knowledge. On the other hand, as we have already shown, the insistence on the parents' attendance may result in considerable hardship to them, entailing perhaps the loss of half a day's work. They are often kept waiting for a considerable time. Moreover, the assembling of numbers together, all for the purpose of making application for meals, tends to diminish the sense of self-respect. For this reason many committees consider it undesirable to summon the parents, or they only summon them in special cases. When the parent is summoned and does not attend, the Council lays down that, if no immediate home visit is possible, a notice shall be sent to the parent that if he or she fails to attend before the committee or to show some good reason for not attending, the committee will be obliged to charge for the meals supplied to the children.^[423] As far as we can discover, this is very rarely done. The far more usual course is for the committee to send a notice to the effect that the meals will be discontinued unless the parent appeals.

151Another disadvantage arising from the utilisation of the service of voluntary workers alone, is that no sufficient control can be exercised by the Central Authority to enforce a common policy. A certain amount of latitude is desirable so as to allow scope for individual initiative and experiment. But in the matter of selection of the children to be fed want of uniformity is wholly to be condemned. The diversity in methods that prevails is in effect amazing. In two schools situated almost side by side, and drawing their children from the same streets, the percentage fed may be, in the one case, two, in the other ten, fifteen or even more.^[424] We have found this lack of uniformity in other towns, since the numbers fed depend very largely on the views taken by individual teachers, but in London there is superadded the diversity produced by the divergence of views of the different Care Committees. In one Care Committee the socialist element will be predominant. In another the work may be done on strictly "C.O.S." lines; the meals are regarded simply as a form of relief, and the feeding-list is cut down to the lowest limit.^[425]

The County Council has not found it possible to lay down any uniform rule for the guidance of the committees.^[426] Though, in a small number of cases, the committee 152professes to have a scale, usually that laid down by Rowntree,^[427] in practice this is a very rough criterion, frequently departed from, and the cases are all virtually decided on their merits. Moreover, the policy of the same Care Committee even will not always be a consistent one. The decision as to any particular case will vary with the presence or absence of particular members of the Committee.

Where children from the same family attend different schools—a frequent occurrence in London—meals may be granted at one school and refused at another. The County Council have issued elaborate regulations for ensuring that in such cases each Care Committee concerned shall know what the others are doing.^[428] But though many Care Committees do communicate with one another, or notify cases to a Mutual Registration Committee, the County Council's instructions are frequently disregarded. The secretary of one committee informed us that during the whole time of her secretaryship—a period of over a year—she never once received any notification from another committee. Even where the cases are notified, it by no means follows that the several committees concerned adopt the same plan of action; often we have found that the one committee did not know in any particular case what the result of their notification had been. One secretary even told us that though all the committees in her district mutually notified cases to each other, this was solely for information; they 153pursued their own policy, merely noting that some of the children of the family were receiving meals at another school.^[429]

To the parents this diversity of treatment of similar cases can only appear as capricious. Successive visits by the Care Committee visitors from different schools, all making the same enquiries, are a needless source of irritation to the parent, while being at the same time unnecessary expenditure of time and energy for the visitors. Attempts have been made in some districts to put an end to this waste of energy and overlapping. In Camberwell, two or three years ago, it was decided that the Care Committee visiting should be organised by streets instead of by schools. The Care Committees of the different schools all sent on their cases to the secretary of the organisation, who referred them to the visitor for the particular street.^[430] This scheme worked very well for about eighteen months, but was then given up chiefly because the secretary could not continue the work. Now three Care Committees in this district have been amalgamated, so as to secure some measure of uniformity.^[431] In a few other districts also, the Care Committees for groups of schools, though nominally separately appointed for each school, are in effect composed of the same people. Quite recently an attempt to prevent overlapping has been made by the County Council on a larger scale. 154In Whitechapel the Council have provided a Central Office where case papers will be kept, and paid assistants have been appointed who will notify to each Care Committee any assistance which is being given to the brothers and sisters of the children with whom they are dealing.

The County Council from the first has not looked with approval on the proposal that meals should be provided as a matter of convenience to parents who are willing to pay for them. "Only cases of exceptional hardship," declared the Education Committee, "e.g., children of widowers or of widows who are compelled, owing to their work, to be away from home all day—should be so dealt with."^[432] In such cases payment must be made in advance and a week's notice be given, the full cost of the meals being charged.^[433] Consequently, in most schools we find that no parents or only an insignificant number are voluntarily paying for the meals.^[434] But that there is a certain demand for such provision is shown by the number of applications received where the Care Committee encourages such a plan. In one school, for instance, we were informed that a number of parents paid; sometimes when the children had been receiving free meals the parents wished the children to continue having them when the home circumstances improved, and were quite willing 155to pay the cost. In such cases they preferred the children to go to the Cookery Centre, this being looked on as superior to the feeding-centre. In another district we were told that, though there was a demand on the part of the parents, this was not encouraged, partly because the staff of supervisors was inadequate to cope with larger numbers. There is frequently an unfortunate difference in the treatment of the paying and the non-paying children. At one centre, for instance, the "necessitous" children are placed at one table, and are supplied with food provided by the Alexandra Trust; the paying children are placed at another and are given food cooked at the Cookery Centre. At another school we were told that the paying children were fed at one end of the room, the necessitous children at the other; incidentally the paying children had to stand, since there were no chairs available, while the necessitous children sat on forms. In several schools the parents pay for milk or codliver oil when this is recommended by the doctor. In at least one school, however, we were told that though some of the parents would be willing to pay for this milk, it was too much trouble to collect the money, so no payment was asked. In one or two schools milk is provided for any child who likes to pay a halfpenny, and this provision is very largely taken advantage of.

In the special schools for mentally defective children, where the provision of meals is carried on on the same lines as in the ordinary elementary schools, the proportion of children who pay for the meals is greater, since, owing to the distance from school of many of the children's homes, provision has to be made for non-necessitous as well as necessitous. In the Cripple Schools special provision has for many years been made by the Cripple Children's Dinners Committee. This body provides the food, the County Council supplying the apparatus and 156attendance. Dinners are supplied for all the children at a charge of 2d. each. The parents appear thoroughly to appreciate the provision made, and the great majority of them pay the full cost, only a few of the children receiving the dinner free or at a reduced price.^[435]

The results of the half-hearted fashion in which London undertook the responsibility for its underfed children are seen nowhere more clearly than in the arrangements made for serving the meals. The County Council seems to have been actuated throughout rather by the desire to keep the expense down to the minimum than to supply the children with the most suitable food and to see that the meals were served under civilising conditions. In the early years after the Council took over the provision, the Local Committees were left to make the best arrangements that they could. Little encouragement was given them in any endeavour to provide wholesome and varied meals under conditions likely to exercise an educational influence over the children. Still less was any attempt made to enforce such a policy. The reports are almost silent on this aspect of the question, though the scanty references which are to be found show a far from satisfactory state of affairs. In 1908, for instance, it was reported that at thirty schools, where 3,090 children were fed, plates and mugs were not provided. "This has meant generally," reports the Executive Officer, "that the children brought their own mugs and ate the food out of their hands." In twenty other schools insufficient 157provision was made for washing up the utensils used and, "as food was served to the children in successive relays, two or more children used each drinking vessel or plate before it had been washed." "The usual meal has been a dinner of soup (sometimes containing meat), with, in certain cases, a form of pudding as an alternative. In the great majority of cases this was the daily meal for months without variety."^[436] The Care Committee organisers, in their Report on the Home Circumstances of Necessitous Children in the same year, remark that, considering "the poor accommodation and the inferior quality of the meals often provided for the children," together with the fact that the highest average number of meals per child was 4·4 per week, it could not be expected that there would be much noticeable improvement in the physical condition of the children."^[437]

Since the formation of the Local Associations of Care Committees in 1909 conditions have improved, but they are still far from satisfactory. As we have already mentioned, these Associations were formed in order to introduce some measure of uniformity into the work of feeding the necessitous children of the metropolis. They were from henceforth to be responsible for the arrangements made for the actual serving of the meals. The selection of a suitable centre rests with them, and it is their duty to arrange for the requisite supply of food and for the proper service of the meals and supervision of the children during the meal time.

The food may be supplied by the Alexandra Trust, a local caterer, a cookery centre or a kitchen managed by the Local Association. The quality of the food varies according to the arrangements made by each Local 158Association. The food specially prepared for the Jewish children appears to be generally good. At the cookery centres again, though complaints are occasionally heard that the dinners are badly cooked, they are as a rule appetising, and the menu is varied. The great majority of the meals are, however, supplied by the Alexandra Trust. Ten different dinner menus have been drawn up by this Trust, with a slight variation for summer,^[438] but in practice there is very little variety, practically the same dietary being repeated week after week; usually there is a deficiency of proteids and fats. The quantity supplied for each child varies considerably in different centres. In one that we visited, for instance, each child was given a large helping of suet pudding with minced meat, followed by a large plateful of rice, and second helpings were given if required; at another, where the dinner consisted of only one course, with a piece of bread, the portions were very small; the cook admitted that some of the children could eat more, but if any were allowed a second helping all would ask for it, whether they wanted it or not, and the food would then be left uneaten.

How far the infants' needs are specially catered for depends on each Local Association. Sometimes they are fed by themselves at the Cookery Centre, where it is easier to provide suitable food and to pay individual attention to their wants. More often they go with the elder children to the feeding-centres. The Alexandra Trust has drawn up a special menu for infants, and in centres where the food is supplied otherwise than by the Trust the Council have instructed the Local Association to make special provision.^[439] But it is rare to find any such provision made. As a rule the infants have the same food as the elder children, though in 159centres where there is careful supervision, and where the infants are placed at a separate table,^[440] the size of the helping is suited to their appetites. In many centres the number of infants is so few as to make the preparation of a separate diet hardly worth while, and the provision of special food has been known to give rise to jealousy on the part of the elder children.

Ordinarily one meal a day is provided, this meal being almost invariably dinner, but in cases of special necessity or delicacy an additional meal may be given. This meal may be either breakfast, milk or codliver oil. The practice varies in each school. In some schools breakfast is never given, or given only in very rare cases. In others breakfasts as well as dinners are given to the most necessitous children. At St. George's-in-the-East formerly only breakfasts were given, but now dinners are given in addition to all the children on the feeding-list; the breakfast is used as a test, the theory being that if the child does not come for breakfast it shall not receive dinner, but in practice this plan is not strictly carried out. Milk and codliver oil are given in most schools, when recommended by the School Doctor; in some schools milk is also given on economic grounds, as an additional meal to specially necessitous children, instead of breakfast. In a few schools a quantity of milk is supplied in the middle of the morning, and any child who pays a halfpenny can have it, the children, especially the infants, being encouraged to spend their halfpence on milk instead of on sweets.

Where no other suitable accommodation is available, the meals may be served in the School Hall, but this 160method is not encouraged by the Council, and is frequently objected to by the teachers, and it is only occasionally utilised. Often, as we have already mentioned, the meals are served in the cookery centres, but the number of children that can be thus accommodated is necessarily limited, and the centre may be closed during the summer. Till recently some Local Associations arranged for their children to be sent to small eating-houses. We have already pointed out the disadvantages—the impossibility of making the meal in any sense educational, and the lack of control over the dietary—inherent, even under the most favourable conditions, in this system. But in London, in many of these cookshops, the conditions were the reverse of favourable; they could, indeed, only be described as deplorable. For instance, at one eating-house, where the children were sent for their dinners up to the spring of 1912, the room used was hardly larger than a cupboard, and only six or eight children could be fed at a time; the children had to go in relays and, when the numbers were very large, had to sit on the stairs eating their food. In others the conditions were equally bad. The plan of utilising restaurants is, we are glad to say, falling into disfavour, but it is not yet entirely abandoned.

The most usual method is for the children to be sent to centres. These centres are frequently basement rooms, dark and cheerless. Occasionally plants or flowers are provided, but it is very rare to find any attempt at table decoration. Since the average cost of serving the meals is much less proportionately if the number of children is large, the County Council has, for the sake of economy, decided that, where possible, schools shall be grouped, and the children from them fed at one centre.^[441] As we 161have already pointed out, the herding together of large numbers of children from different schools deprives the meal of much of its educational value. The children from the different schools will come in at different times. Often the centre is not large enough for them all to be accommodated at once, and they have to be served in relays, with the consequence that the meal must be hurried through. They are usually seated at long tables, and are often crowded together, so that adequate supervision is rendered very difficult.

The supervision is occasionally undertaken voluntarily by teachers, and in many centres by other voluntary workers. Where their regular attendance can be secured the good results are soon apparent. But the visits of voluntary supervisors are too often irregular, and it may happen that no one is present to supervise the meal, except the women who serve the food. In many districts it is impossible to obtain the services of volunteers at all, and paid supervisors are appointed.^[442] These may be assistant teachers, retired teachers or other suitable persons. One supervisor may be appointed for every hundred children, but frequently the number to be looked after by one supervisor far exceeds a hundred. Thus, in three centres we visited, there were 140 to 160 children present, whilst in two others the numbers were well over two hundred; in all these there was only one supervisor.

The County Council has drawn up regulations for the management of the centres,^[443] but these regulations are largely disregarded. The Council, for instance, has laid it down that boys and girls are to be appointed to act as monitors, to assist in laying the tables and serving the meals. In many centres this is not even attempted, 162and occasionally where their services are utilised, owing to the large number of children present, the supervisor is unable to devote much attention to the training of the monitors, and their presence rather adds to the prevailing confusion than conduces to the orderly and quiet service of the meal. Another of the Council's regulations directs that a separate mug shall be provided for each child.^[444] But it appears to be the exception rather than the rule for this instruction to be observed. Though a sufficient supply of mugs is, or can on application be, supplied for every centre, the women who serve the meals, being only employed and paid for a fixed time, object to the extra labour involved in washing up. Frequently no mugs are placed on the table at all, though we were told that the children could have water if they asked for it; when mugs are provided there is often only one to every two or three children, perhaps to every five or six! At one centre that we visited, though the girls were allowed mugs, the boys were not trusted, and mugs of water were placed on a side table for their indiscriminate use after the meal.

The actual management of each centre varies, of course, very largely according to the personality of the supervisor. We have visited some two or three centres where all the arrangements were admirable; the children were quiet and well-behaved, there was little or no waste of food, and attention was paid to individual wants. But these cases are unfortunately exceptional. Out of twenty centres in different parts of London that we have seen,^[445] in at least half the educational advantages to be derived from the common meal are imperfectly 163realised.^[446] In a few cases the supervisors appear to consider this aspect as but of secondary importance. So long as the children are fed and some sort of rough order preserved, they are satisfied. The meal may be eaten in a babel of noise. Food which the children do not fancy they will throw on the floor, little attempt being made to prevent waste. But in any case, in many centres, owing to the large number of children to be attended to, the task of inculcating table manners is an almost impossible one. Though the supervisors do their utmost, for instance, to teach the children to use spoons and forks, it is not uncommon to observe children eating with their fingers—even occasionally licking their plates! It is impossible for the supervisor to give that individual attention which is absolutely essential if the meal is to be in any sense educational.

We have already described the extent to which, in the provinces, the provision of meals by the Local Education Authority overlaps the granting of relief by the Poor Law Authorities. London is no exception to the general rule. In 1908 it was found that out of 1,218 families investigated, 3·2 per cent. were at the time in receipt of out-relief, while 13·54 per cent. had recently been receiving such relief.^[447] In February, 1910, it was reported that, of the children who were being fed all over London, 4·6 per cent. were from families to whom Poor Law relief 164was being granted.^[448] The confusion was the greater since the practice of the Guardians varied in each Union. "There is no uniformity of policy or action amongst the Boards," reports the Education Committee of the County Council in 1910. "For example, there could hardly be a wider divergence of principle and practice between public bodies than that which exists between such Boards as Paddington, Fulham, and St. George's-in-the-East on the one hand, and Islington and Poplar on the other. In the case of Fulham, the Guardians, when assessing the relief to be granted, take into account the extent to which school meals are already being supplied to children of the family ... but in the case of Poplar, the Guardians have informed the various school Care Committees that 'the fact that a family is in receipt of poor law relief should not be considered as a reason for the children not being supplied with meals.'"^[449] To put an end to all this overlapping and diversity of practice, the Council proposed that the Guardians should purchase school meals for the children of families who were in receipt of relief. The Local Government Board, however, declined to agree to this course. In practice, they thought, it was hardly possible to avoid all difficulty of overlapping, "though it should be feasible, with careful administration, to restrict it within reasonable limits"; the only suggestion they offered towards the solution of the difficulty was that, if it appeared to the Education Authority that a child whose parents were receiving out-relief required supervision by the Guardians, the Education Authority should communicate with the Guardians with a view to an investigation of the circumstances.^[450] 165This suggestion was acted upon, and the Care Committees were instructed in future to notify to the Guardians all cases in which, to their knowledge, necessitous children belonged to families in receipt of poor law relief.^[451] But such notification had little practical result. The Guardians continued to grant inadequate relief, and the Council felt compelled to continue to provide these children with food. How necessary school meals were was, indeed, clearly shown by a resolution of the Hammersmith Guardians, who themselves actually declared that, "when school children's parents are in receipt of outdoor relief, that fact should in general be taken as an indication that such children would be benefited by school meals, and not as an indication that they are adequately fed, since, as a matter of fact, outdoor relief is seldom or never adequate"!^[452]

Though the Council's proposal that the Boards of Guardians should repay the cost of the meals was rejected by the Local Government Board, as far as London generally was concerned, individual Boards have agreed to the plan. In Lambeth and Chelsea the Guardians have consented to pay the cost of meals supplied to the children of parents who are receiving out-relief, if they consider that school meals are necessary.^[453] At Hampstead, where the funds for the provision of school meals are supplied by the Council of Social Welfare,^[454] an informal arrangement has been made with the Guardians. Where the mother can stay at home and can be trusted to expend the relief given in food for the children, the Guardians have agreed to give ample relief. Where the mother goes 166out to work or cannot be trusted to feed the children properly, or where it is undesirable for the children to go home, the Council of Social Welfare pays for school dinners.

But as a rule no definite arrangement is made. A few Care Committees refuse to feed children whose parents are receiving relief, but in the great majority of schools cases are to be found where children are being fed by the Care Committee, while their parents are being relieved by the Guardians.^[455] Frequently no official communication passes between the two authorities concerned. The Guardians may learn indirectly through the Relieving Officer, or perhaps through some member of their Board who happens also to be a member of the Care Committee, that the latter are feeding the children. Where a system of mutual registration has been established, each authority will, theoretically, be informed of what the other is doing. How far all cases are actually notified will depend on the secretary of each individual Care Committee. And this system of mutual registration does not prevent overlapping in many cases where the children are on the feeding-list for a short time only, since cases are often notified only once a month, by which time the necessity for feeding may have ceased. Occasionally the Guardians ask the Care Committee to inform them if they discover any cases where the relief appears inadequate, so that they may increase it, if necessary. In other Unions the Guardians deliberately count on the provision of school meals to supplement the relief given; they tell the parents to apply for dinners and grant less relief in consequence, thereafter priding themselves on keeping down the rates.

Here the dinner is served in the Infants' School in a room at the top of the building. Some sixty infants, all attending the school, were being fed. They entered the room two by two and sat down together at low tables on specially small chairs. Two teachers were present throughout the meal; they served the food, and four of the children handed it round. Perfect order was kept, and at the end of the meal all the children rose together, and, after saying grace, marched out quietly. The food is cooked on the premises, the menu being drawn up by one of the teachers and varied every day. The whole meal was served in as attractive a manner as possible, and testified eloquently to the care and thought which must have been spent on its organisation.

Here the meal is served in the school hall. The Headmistress much objects to this plan, since it leaves the atmosphere close and stuffy all the afternoon. Moreover, the bringing in of the tables and forms, an operation which has to be begun twenty minutes before the end of morning school, causes a considerable commotion. On the day of our visit 160 children, boys, girls and infants, were receiving dinner. For this number there were only one supervisor and two servers, assisted by five or six monitresses chosen from among the elder children. As a result of this inadequate supervision the meal was served in a perfect babel of noise; the children shouted and screamed and banged their spoons on the table. A bell was rung at intervals throughout the meal to obtain silence, but no attention was paid to it. The fact that there was a deficiency of seating accommodation heightened the confusion. At the end of each table a child had to stand, and those sitting down were crowded much too closely together. Separate tables were reserved for the infants, of whom there were a large number, some of them tiny mites of three years old. The tables, however, were not specially adapted for them, being of the ordinary height. In consequence many of the little ones had considerable difficulty in feeding themselves, their heads only just appearing above the table, and, of course, nobody had time to attend to their wants. It is only fair to add that we saw the centre at a particularly unfortunate time, since the supervisor 168had only taken over the work a few days prior to our visit, and therefore had not yet obtained a firm hold over the children. The noise, we were told, was usually not so great.

This centre, attended by children from two neighbouring schools, is a striking illustration of what can be effected by patient and careful supervision. At the time of our visit this work was being performed by an assistant teacher, but before her appointment the secretary or some other member of the Care Committee daily supervised the meal for two years. The meal was served in a large, cheerful room. No tablecloths were supplied; at one time flowers were provided, much to the joy of the children, but it was found impossible to continue this practice. The children were seated at small tables, some eight or ten at each, an arrangement which renders the work of supervision very much easier. There were no infants present, as these are sent to the Cookery Centre. A boy or girl was responsible for each table; they handed round the food, paying attention to the individual appetites of the children. No waste of food was permitted, the children being kept till they had finished. The whole scene, the quiet and orderly behaviour of the children and their consideration for one another's wants, left a most pleasing impression upon the mind. At the date of our visit the numbers were small, only some 50 children being present, but we were told that their behaviour was quite as orderly even in winter, when the numbers were much larger.

This centre is a large basement room in a Mission Hall, dark and unattractive, accommodating between 200 and 300 children. It serves several neighbouring schools, and the numbers on the day of our visit were too large to admit of all the children sitting down together. As each child came in and gave up its ticket, it seized a spoon and fork from a pile on a table near the door, and rushed to its place. When about half the children were seated, grace was sung or rather shouted, and then the food was brought in and literally flung on to the table by the server and one or two of the elder boys. Though the numbers were so large there was only one supervisor, though we were told that occasionally one of the sisters from the neighbouring settlement came to help. With such inadequate supervision it was, of course, impossible to teach table manners. The children, the boys especially, gobbled down their dinner, amid a hubbub of noise, and hurried out as soon as they had finished, other boys rushing in to take their places. No special provision was made 169for the infants; they were placed with the other children and were given the same food. No attention was paid to individual appetites and much of the food, we were told, was wasted.

This is a centre for Jewish children, serving three or four neighbouring schools. The room not being large enough to accommodate all the children at once, two relays are necessary, even in summer. Over 200 children were present, but there was only one supervisor, assisted by four or five women. The children entered in an orderly fashion and seated themselves at the table, none being allowed to begin the meal till all were seated. The infants were placed at a separate table; they are given special food when the dietary provided for the other children is not suitable for them. Some of the elder girls acted as monitresses and helped to serve the food and clear up afterwards. Unfortunately, owing to the fact that other children were waiting to come in, the meal was necessarily hurried, the second course being placed on the table while the children were still eating the first course. Though the order maintained was wonderful, considering the large numbers present, it was impossible to attend adequately to the children's manners; many of them were using their fingers, and there appeared to be considerable waste of food.

This is another centre for Jewish children. The dinner was served in a large, dreary parish hall, to some 200 or 300 children. There was one supervisor and four servers, while tickets were taken by the caretaker. Order was well preserved, but only by means of the frequent ringing of a bell, and by the enforcement of absolute silence. The supervisor said that if the children were allowed to talk the noise would be unbearable. Before being given their food, the children were told to hold up their hands if they were "big eaters," the margin of waste being minimised in this way. Although the manners and behaviour of the children could not be said to be bad, the whole effect was singularly unattractive—the bare room, the large numbers, and the frequent shouted commands and rebukes of the supervisor leaving no scope for humanising and educational influences.

CHAPTER IV THE EXTENT AND CAUSES OF MALNUTRITION

"Defective nutrition," Sir George Newman points out, "stands in the forefront as the most important of all physical defects from which school children suffer."^[456] Malnutrition, 'debility' and other physical defects in childhood "are the ancestry of tuberculosis in the adult. They predispose to disease, and are, in a sense, both its seed and its soil."^[457]

It is impossible to give any figures as to the extent of this defect, since nutrition is not a condition which can be measured by any definite standards. The weight of the child is, of course, a most important matter to be noted, but there are other points—"the ratio of stature to weight; the general appearance, carriage and 'substance' of the child; the firmness of the tissues; the presence of subcutaneous fat; the development of the muscular system; the condition of the skin and redness of the mucous membranes; the expression of listlessness or alertness, apathy or keenness; the condition of the various systems of the body; and, speaking generally, the relative balance and co-ordination of the functions and powers of digestion, absorption and assimilation of food."^[458] Each observer adopts a different standard of what constitutes 171good nutrition, and hence the statistics given in the reports of the School Medical Officers cannot be used for comparative purposes. According to the latest figures, as quoted by the President of the Board of Education, 10 per cent. of the elementary school children of England and Wales suffer from defective nutrition.^[459] Many of the School Medical Officers, however, have obviously adopted a low standard and Mr. Arthur Greenwood, who has made a careful enquiry into this subject, is of opinion that, "taking the country as a whole, not merely 10 per cent., but probably a number approaching 20 per cent., show perceptible signs of malnutrition."^[460]

Unfortunately, there is reason to believe that the degeneration is progressive. In an enquiry conducted by Dr. Arkle at Liverpool, 2,111 children from three elementary schools were compared, as to height and weight, with 366 children from secondary schools. The results (see accompanying table) showed that at practically every age the heights and weights of the children varied directly with the class from which they were drawn, and the deficit increased out of proportion to the rate of growth. "These figures," he points out, "are rendered all the more striking when one considers that one is talking of children and not of full-grown men. A difference of a stone in the weight of two men may not be a very great matter, but when the investigation shows such a discrepancy between two groups of boys of eleven, it means that one of the groups is deficient to the extent of one-fifth of the whole body weight, and the decadence is so progressive that the deficiency has by fourteen years 172of age almost reached a quarter of the whole body weight."^[461]

This malnutrition is to be attributed to many causes besides actual lack of food. Improper food and hurried methods of eating account for much malnutrition. So much has been written on the subject of the wrong feeding of children that it seems unnecessary to labour this point. One can, indeed, hardly open a report of a School Medical Officer without finding this evil deplored. In the poorest homes there are frequently no fixed meal times; the children are given "a piece" when they are hungry, and this is often eaten in the street or on the doorstep. Bread and tea figure largely in the dietary. Supper is frequently the principal meal of the day, with resulting indigestion for the children.

Employment out of school hours and want of sleep are again important factors. Indeed, in the eyes of some School Medical Officers, malnutrition is due more to want of sleep than to lack of food. The children are almost invariably kept up till late at night, it being a rare exception to find a child being sent to bed at anything approaching a reasonable hour.

A still more potent cause, perhaps, is to be found in bad housing conditions. Striking testimony as to the relation between the physique of school children and housing was adduced by Dr. Leslie Mackenzie and Captain 173Foster, as a result of an enquiry into the condition of 72,857 school children in Glasgow. "If we take all the children of ages from 5 to 18," they report, "we find that the average weight of the one-roomed boy is 52·6 lbs.; of the two-roomed, 56·1 lbs.; of the three-roomed, 60·6 lbs.; of the four-roomed and over, 64·3 lbs. The respective heights are 46·6 inches; 48·1 inches; 50·0 inches and 51·3 inches. For girls the corresponding figures are:—Weights, 51·5 lbs.; 54·8 lbs.; 59·4 lbs.; 65·5 lbs. The heights are 46·3 inches; 47·8 inches; 49·6 inches; 57·6 inches."^[462]

At East Ham also the nutrition of the children was found to vary in accordance with the number of rooms:—^[463]

The interpretation of these tables, as the School Medical Officer points out, must be guarded. But, he continues, "I think it is safe to assume that nutrition ... suffered the more confined the individual."^[464]

174Actual physical defects, such as decayed teeth,^[465] adenoids or enlarged tonsils, or definite diseases, such as phthisis, may account for malnutrition in many cases. Want of cleanliness again may be a cause.^[466]

The precise effect to be attributed to each cause is difficult to estimate. Often, of course, two or more factors will be present, concurrently and interdependently. In an enquiry made in 1910 by Dr. Chate, into the condition of 570 children (307 boys and 263 girls) in a rural or semi-rural district of Middlesex who were suffering from malnutrition, it was found that poverty was the principal cause in 29·5 per cent. of the cases among the boys, and 26·1 per cent. among the girls. Adenoids, worms, rickets, carious teeth and oral sepsis accounted for 32·7 per cent. among the boys, and 33·3 per cent. among the girls. Improper diet was the main cause in 2·3 per cent. of the cases. In 69 cases malnutrition was due to some disease such as tuberculosis, chronic bronchitis, etc., while in 13 cases it was attributed to overcrowding, and in 10 cases to overwork with insufficient 175sleep.^[467] In the following year a similar enquiry was made by Dr. Tate in a suburban residential area of the same county. Out of 167 cases, defective nutrition was found to be due to poverty and neglect in 23·3 per cent.; to rickets, adenoids, worms or digestive disorder in 28·5 per cent.; to lung affection in 5·4 per cent.; in 7·2 per cent. malnutrition "appeared to be associated with some previous or present condition of ill-health, to account for which no organic mischief could be found at the time of inspection"; while in 33 instances no obvious cause could be assigned.^[468]

At Bootle the School Medical Officer reports that out of 289 cases of sub-normal nutrition, the cause is to be sought in 78 per cent. in some definite disease or physical defect (including disturbances of digestion due to improper feeding); in 17 per cent. there are no definite signs of organic disease; while in 5 per cent. malnutrition is due to neglect.^[469]

At Wolverhampton Dr. Badger reports that, out of 131 cases, malnutrition is due to the influence or reaction of disease, convalescence from recent disease, or defective heredity in 64; to pampering in 4; to excessive growth in 1; to overwork and insufficient sleep in 11; to ignorance and poverty in 25; while in 26 cases there was strong evidence of neglect, dirt or drink.^[470] In his opinion, an opinion based upon a comparison of the clothing and footgear of the malnourished and normal children, "the malnutrition of the scholars examined was not primarily due to poverty."^[471] This, as Sir George Newman points 176out, "may well have been the case, but the fact that the examinations were 'routine' in character, when the children are apt to be specially dressed and boots even borrowed for the occasion, makes this particular item, unless subjected to further analysis, of little or no value as a criterion in forming a judgment as to the relation of poverty to the malnutrition."^[472]

Other School Medical Officers are of the same opinion as Dr. Badger. At Congleton the School Medical Officer visited the homes of a considerable number of children whose nutrition was defective, with a view to ascertaining the cause of their condition. He found that "actual poverty of the parents and inability to provide food was comparatively rare, that neglect was common, and unsuitable food probably the most frequent cause."^[473] At Hornsey in the majority of cases "some definite ailment was apparent to explain, at least partially, the condition. There were very few instances in which it could be certainly stated that insufficiency of food was the sole cause."^[474] At Manchester "the vast majority" of children whose nutrition was medium "and many of those who were poorly nourished were not in this condition through want of food.... Each year's work adds to the evidence that poverty is not responsible for more than about 50 per cent. of the cases."^[475] On the other hand, the School Medical Officer for Kidderminster reports, "I find that the better condition of trade and employment in the town was reflected in the improved nutrition of the 177children.... This also tends to show that the majority of cases of defective nutrition arise, not from carelessness and inattention on the part of the parents, but from inability on their part to provide the children with sufficient nourishment owing to want of means."^[476]

It is indeed impossible to say how much malnutrition is due to poverty. Though the immediate cause may be disease, overwork, or overcrowding, these evils are themselves largely the result of insufficient means.

The relation between the malnutrition of the children and the amount of the family income is strikingly illustrated by the results of an enquiry recently made into the diet of the labouring classes in Glasgow. A careful study was made of the family diet of certain selected families during a week, or in some cases a fortnight, and the energy value of each diet expressed in terms of the requirements of a man per day, a woman or a boy of 14 to 16 being reckoned as equivalent to ·8 of a man, a girl of 14 to 16 as ·7, and children of 10 to 13, 6 to 9, 2 to 5, and under 2 respectively as ·6, ·5, ·4, ·3. "If a family diet expressed in this way gives a yield of energy of less than 3,500 calories per man per day, it is insufficient for active work, and if less than 3,000 calories, it is quite inadequate for the proper maintenance of growth and of normal activity."^[477]

"Taking the average intake of energy and of protein in the various groups [comprising 52 families], the results are as follows:—

"These figures show conclusively that, while the labouring classes with a regular income of over 20s. a week generally manage to secure a diet approaching the proper standard for active life, those with a smaller income and those with an irregular income entirely fail to get a supply of food sufficient for the proper development and growth of the body or for the maintenance of a capacity for active work."^[478] "An interesting point in connection with these studies is the influence of the diet on the physical condition of the children." The weights of a number of children which were obtained "show very markedly the relationship between the physique and the food. When the weight is much below the average for that age, almost without exception the diet is inadequate."^[479]

179Dr. Larkins, late assistant School Medical Officer for Surrey, also came to the conclusion "that a steady wage of 20s. a week is required to produce and properly maintain average strong well-nourished children; that below this figure, the danger zone is reached." This conclusion was based on an enquiry he made into the wages of the parents of all children aged 13 that he examined during a considerable period.^[480] The results are seen in the following table:—

The wages are the total weekly income out of which everything has to be paid, including rent, which varies from 4s. to 7s. 6d. ("The Influence of Wages on the Child's Nutrition," by F. E. Larkins, M.D. Edin., D.P.H., late Assistant School Medical Officer for Surrey, in The Medical Officer, December 17, 1910, p. 347.)

The effect of education is, as was recognised thirty years ago, to intensify the evil of malnutrition. "To educate underfed children," says Dr. Leslie Mackenzie, "is to promote deterioration of physique by exhausting the nervous system. Education of the underfed is a positive evil."^[481] "Defective nutrition," says the School Medical Officer for Blackburn, "to a far greater extent than any other single cause, and probably more than all other causes combined, renders children incapable of education. In a growing child the demands of muscle and bone must be satisfied before those of nervous tissue, and consequently 180when there is deficiency, or what comes to the same thing, unsuitability of food or inability to assimilate it, the nervous system is the first to suffer, the brain is starved and anæmic, and the extra strain involved in school work can have only a harmful, and in some cases a disastrous result."^[482] "There is probably no disease of children," says another School Medical Officer, "which needs combating more than bad nutrition.... It is quite impossible for any child thus affected to compete mentally with normal children of similar age; in fact, mental defect is frequently found in association with malnutrition."^[483]

This relation of mental capacity to nutrition was exemplified in the figures quoted by Dr. Ralph Crowley at the Education Conference in 1907. He examined 1,840 children in elementary schools at Bradford, and classified them according to their nutrition and intelligence.

181Of the children of exceptional intelligence, 62·7 per cent. were of good nutrition, 35·6 per cent. were below normal, and 1·7 per cent. were of poor or very poor nutrition. Of the children who were exceptionally dull, only 24·9 per cent. were of good nutrition, 39·5 were below normal, and no less than 35·6 poor or very poor.^[484]

In an enquiry made at Manchester by the School Medical Officer a few years ago, it was found on examining 146 poorly nourished and 163 markedly badly nourished children, that 56·1 per cent. of the former were below par in mental capacity, and 4·8 per cent. were classed as bad; of the latter 63·2 per cent. were below normal, and 12·9 per cent. bad.

But the most remarkable results are recorded by Dr. Arkle, of Liverpool, in the enquiry to which we have already referred. He asked the teachers to give evidence as to the intelligence of the 2,111 elementary school children whom he examined. "The teachers in 'A' and 'B' both return about 60 per cent. of the children as normal in intelligence, but whereas the former returns 25 per cent. as above and 15 per cent. below normal, the latter only returns 5 per cent. above and 35 per cent. as below the normal. But it is in the return from the poorest school that we get the most curious result. In 'C' the master only feels justified in calling 22 per cent. of the boys normal, while he puts 33 per cent. above and 45 per cent. below normal." These figures, "it seems to me," writes Dr. Arkle, "can only be explained on one hypothesis. I believe, and my personal notes tend to confirm this view, that almost all the abnormal 182intelligences in the poorest school are due to the one factor—starvation.... Over and over again I noted such cases of children without an ounce of superfluous flesh upon them, with skins harsh and rough, a rapid pulse and nerves ever on the strain, and yet with the expression of the most lively intelligence. But it is the eager intelligence of the hunting animal.... I fear it is from this class that the ranks of pilferers and sneak thieves come, and their cleverness is not of any real intellectual value. On the other hand, with children of a more lymphatic temperament, starvation seems to produce creatures more like automata.... If I told one of these children to open its mouth, it would take no notice till the request became a command, which had to be accompanied by a slight shake to draw the child's attention. Then the mouth would be slowly opened widely, but no effort would be made to close it again until the child was told to do so.... I believe both these types of children are suffering from what I would call starvation of the nervous system, in one case causing irritation and in the other torpor. And, further, these cases are always associated with the clearest signs of bodily starvation, stunted growth, emaciation, rough and cold skin and the mouth full of viscid saliva due to hunger."^[485]

Somewhat similar results were observed by Dr. Badger, the School Medical Officer for Wolverhampton. In comparing 1,299 normal children of thirteen years of age with 100 mal-nourished children, he found that, while of the normal scholars 16·6 per cent. were of good intelligence, 68 per cent. of average intelligence and 15·5 per cent. dull, among the mal-nourished children the percentages 183were respectively 16, 59 and 25.^[486] This "record in respect of intelligence," points out Sir George Newman, "shows, what has been noted by other observers, that though the proportion of children considered as 'dull' by the teachers is considerably larger among mal-nourished children than among children generally, nevertheless there are children who suffer serious defects in nutrition whose mental powers are well above the average. It is naturally quick and keen children such as these who require care in order that their physical health may not be further injured by excessive mental application."^[487]

CHAPTER V THE EFFECT OF SCHOOL MEALS ON THE CHILDREN

Since the causes of malnutrition are so many and diverse it is obvious that this defect cannot be remedied or prevented solely by the provision of school meals. But that the provision of wholesome food at regular hours has a marked effect in the improvement of the physique of the children, there is abundant evidence.

Unfortunately, though the periodic weighing of children who are receiving school meals, in order to ascertain the effect produced, has been strongly advocated by the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education,^[488] this advice has rarely been acted upon. It is true that a few—a very few—Education Authorities profess to have a system of weighing children who are receiving meals, before they are put on, and after they are taken off, the feeding-list, but for the most part this weighing is only done spasmodically, and the records are not accessible.

Several such enquiries have, however, been made in the past, the best known being that made by Dr. Ralph Crowley at Bradford in 1907.^[489] The results of this experiment have been often quoted, but they are so important that they will bear repetition. Forty children were selected from two of the poorest schools in the city, the children being mainly those who appeared to be 185most in need of food, though a few were included primarily on the ground of their particularly poor home circumstances.^[490] To these children from April 17 to July 24 two meals a day were given—breakfast, consisting of oatmeal porridge with milk and treacle followed by bread and margarine or dripping, with hot or cold milk to drink; and a dinner comprising in rotation one of seventeen different menus specially drawn up so as to contain the amounts of fat and proteid necessary for a child's nourishment.^[491] Every effort was made to render the meals of as much educational value as possible, and special attention was given to such matters as the provision of table-cloths and flowers and the inculcation of good manners.

The children experimented on were weighed three times during the five weeks preceding the starting of the meals, and every week while they were receiving them. For the purpose of making comparative observations 69 children were selected who were being fed at home, and who in other respects were as comparable as possible with those who were receiving the breakfasts and dinners. These "control children" were also weighed weekly. During the four weeks, March 12 to April 9, before the feeding began, the forty children gained on an average ·17 kilos, and during the week previous to feeding ·008 kilos. At the end of the first week of feeding the average increase was found to be ·58 kilos (1 lb. 4 oz.).^[492] During the next week, there was a slight loss of ·001 kilos, followed by a gain during the next two weeks of ·15 and ·13 kilos respectively. During the ensuing eleven days, the Whitsuntide holiday, no meals were given. At the end of 186this period it was found that the "control children" who, during the three weeks preceding the holiday, had lost ·003 kilos on the average, had during these eleven days gained an average of ·23 kilos; in the case, however, of the children fed at school, not only had the lack of food neutralised the benefits of fresh air and exercise, but they had actually lost an average of ·48 kilos, a loss which it took them nearly a fortnight to make up, after the meals had been started again. During the eleven days after the holiday the "control children" only gained ·02 kilos. A group of "control children" from another school similarly gained ·21 kilos during the holiday, and only ·04 kilos during the subsequent fortnight. The same result was observed during the five weeks' summer holiday; the "control children" gained on an average ·37 kilos (i.e., at the rate of ·074 kilos per week), while the children fed at school lost ·46 kilos.^[493] The accompanying chart illustrates the rate of increase of the two groups of children. Apart from the increase in weight, the improvement in the general appearance and carriage of the children who received the meals "was more or less apparent in all, and very obvious in some of the children, who visibly filled out and brightened up."^[494] The reverse process was equally apparent after the summer holidays.

Chart illustrating the average gain or loss in weight—during the intervals shown—of the children who were fed at Bradford. The broken line shows the average increase in weight—during the same time—of the "Control Children."

At Northampton, in 1909, a similar experiment was conducted under the supervision of the Medical Officer of Health. Forty-four children were given breakfast and dinner for fourteen weeks, and weighed weekly, together 187with forty children of the same social class who were not receiving meals. At the beginning of the experiment the average weight of the fed children was 1·71 kilos less than that of the "controls"; in the second week their average gain was much greater, and by the end of the fourteenth week the difference in weight was reduced to 1·02 kilos. During the Easter holidays of ten days in which no meals were given, the children who had previously been fed lost in weight while the "controls" gained.^[495]

Another interesting experiment was conducted by Dr. Haden Guest in a poor school in Lambeth in the early part of 1908.^[496] A large number of children were selected—244—but the attendance of many of these was irregular and continuous records were obtained in the case of only 89 children. From January 24 to April 11 a midday meal was given six days a week. The meal consisted of two courses, a normal portion of which was calculated to be sufficient to supply the amounts of proteids, carbohydrates, fats and salts, physiologically necessary for children. The same meal was never given twice in succession, a variation of six menus being repeated over twelve consecutive days. The room in which the meals were served was bright and airy, the surroundings having, in Dr. Guest's estimation, an important physiological bearing on good digestion. All the children in the school were weighed before and after the experiment and again in the first week of July, the children who were receiving dinners being also weighed regularly during the experiment. Taking first the case of the elder children, we read that the results "showed a very decided and positive improvement both from the general standpoint and from that 188of increase in weight, the fed children increasing at a more rapid rate than the other children in the school with whom they were compared."^[497] "Starting a good deal below the normal of their own school mates, they tended, under the influence of one good meal a day, rapidly to approach that normal." And again, "the increase in the healthy appearance of the children and in their general alertness was marked. Children with sores, small abscesses, colds and blepharitis recovered from these ailments.... The amount of absence from school due to illness was considerably less during the course of the experiment." This testimony was fully borne out by the headmaster. "The effect of the feeding of the children," he declared, "is a marked improvement judging from the general appearance of the boys, who are almost all brighter. The improvement is particularly noticeable in their play. They are more vigorous and enter more heartily into the rougher games of boys and bear the knocks without coming to the teacher to complain. They certainly enjoy their play more and show less fatigue. There are few lads shivering against the walls with hands in pockets, sloping shoulders and pale faces. In school, the effect during the first few weeks was drowsiness. This was succeeded by improved tone and greater independence of character, and generally a greater individuality. The difference in mental condition is not so marked, and is certainly more difficult to measure. There is less fatigue in lessons, and the lads are capable of more continuous exertion." The teachers' reports on the girls were of the same character, though not so decided in tone, except on one point—that those who were fed were "more troublesome," that is to say, more full of spirits, 189a factor which appeared also in their play. Turning to the effect of the meals on the infants a most disquieting state of affairs was disclosed. It was found that, while the weight of the infants who were fed was less than that of the other infants of their own school, "the difference was much less than in the case of the bigger children, the increase in weight in each case correspondingly slow, and the amount by which both groups fell below the normal greater." During the first week there was a remarkable fall in weight among the infants who received meals, ascribable partly to the fact that they did not receive the necessary attention which was afterwards given them, partly to the fact that they were unfamiliar with good nourishing food (a factor operating in the case of the elder children also, though to a far less degree^[498]); largely, however, it was due to their being "actually unable to digest and assimilate this food." This slow progress on the part of the infants Dr. Guest attributed to improper feeding at home. In most Lambeth homes the younger children received the same diet (the staple articles being tea and bread and butter) as the older ones, but whereas the latter could manage on this diet, and, with a good midday meal in addition, even flourish, the former could not thrive. Dr. Guest therefore advocated that necessitous infants should be fed at least twice a day, on a diet different from that given to the elder children, and that more individual care should be devoted to each child, since in most cases they required coaxing before they would eat the wholesome food provided.

On the cessation of the meals we find the same result ensuing as we have already noticed at Bradford and Northampton. For when, in July, 1908, three months 190after the meals had been discontinued, all the children were again weighed and measured, it was found that there was a general decline in weight; the decline was so general that it was obviously due partly to a diminution in clothing, but "the necessitous children, who after the conclusion of the experiment were only fed spasmodically, show a greater decrease than the other children, pointing to either a stationary weight during the twelve weeks from April to July or a loss of weight."

Interesting figures as to the effects of different dietaries were obtained at Sheffield in 1910. Before this date the meals provided for necessitous children had taken the form of cocoa breakfasts. As an experiment at one school some of the boys were given porridge for several weeks. Their weights were compared with those of a group of other boys who were receiving cocoa breakfasts at school, and also with a group of boys who were being fed at home. The two groups of boys who were fed at school were drawn from equally poor districts, those who were fed at home being somewhat better off. It was found that the boys who were receiving cocoa breakfasts only gained on an average ·0451 kilos or 1·58 oz. per week; the boys who were being fed at home gained ·0594 kilos (2·09 oz.); while the boys who were receiving porridge breakfasts gained as much as ·0942 kilos (3·317 oz.). As a result of this proof of the superiority of porridge diet, porridge breakfasts were substituted for cocoa breakfasts in all the schools.^[499]

191At Brighton it has for the last few years been the practice to weigh before and after the course of meals the children who have been recommended for feeding on medical grounds. At the end of the last session, 1912-13, 269 children who had received meals for nine weeks or more were thus re-examined. It was found that 133 of these, or 50 per cent., no longer needed meals on medical grounds, that is, they had been brought over the average weight for a given height.^[500]

Where only milk or codliver oil is given a remarkable improvement is often effected. Indeed, several teachers told us that in their opinion the provision of milk was more beneficial than either breakfasts or dinners. At a Bethnal Green school, during the winter of 1909-10, it was found that out of 57 boys and 109 girls examined at the medical inspection, 24 of the boys and 61 of the girls were underfed. These children were given a tea-spoonful of codliver oil in a cupful of warm milk every day during the morning interval. At the end of the year the nutrition was re-assessed, with the following results:—^[501]

The results of these experiments are sufficient in themselves to establish conclusively the benefit to be derived from regular feeding even when no other factor in the child's environment is changed. "No doubt," says Dr. Haden Guest, "irregular and late hours, disturbed sleep, overcrowding, improper clothing and employment of children after and before school hours, do each and all exercise a very detrimental effect on the children of poor parents. But that the greatest influence for evil is exerted by improper and insufficient food is a matter over which it appears impossible to have great controversy."^[502]

And these results are corroborated by abundant testimony from School Medical Officers, teachers, Care Committee workers and others, of the benefit derived by the children where the Provision of Meals Act has been put in force. "The children derived an enormous amount of benefit" from the meals.^[503] "The physical appearance of the children speaks in pronounced terms" of the value of feeding.^[504] "Those who have any practical experience ... are all agreed that such meals [free breakfasts] are of the greatest value, not only from a humanitarian point of view but also as a necessary adjunct for successful education."^[505] "There is continuous evidence of the 193immense benefit conferred upon the children by the administration of this Act—both from the inspection of the scholars at the dining-centres and from the reports of the teachers."^[506] These are a few typical opinions culled from reports of School Medical Officers. At Manchester "the operation of the provision of free meals acts very largely ... not so much in the way of improving the physical condition of children already emaciated and debilitated, but of preventing their ever reaching that condition by stepping in when the home income fails. It is certain that since the organisation of the supply of free meals at centres covering practically all parts of the city where they are required, the number of underfed children—i.e., the number showing signs of underfeeding—has decreased markedly. It is also certain that the type of child at the feeding centres is gradually improving—i.e., there are fewer children found in the centres with signs of the result of bad nourishment, and there are fewer such children in the schools."^[507] At Bradford, where the Local Education Authority has systematically endeavoured to effect an improvement in the condition of the children both by the school medical service and the provision of meals, there has been in the last few years a very marked improvement in nutrition and "a fairly regular increase in weight amongst Bradford children as a whole. They are approaching nearer each year to the national average."^[508]

194The witness of the teachers is no less favourable. In London, for instance, the Education Committee in 1910 made enquiries among the head teachers of some of the schools where a considerable number of meals were provided; the majority of the teachers were enthusiastic as to the benefit derived. "Physical progress is most marked," said one headmistress. "The disappearance of chronic headaches, sores on faces, gatherings on fingers, pains in chest ... point to a more 'fit' condition, which the children can only express for me by saying that they 'feel better now,' for they 'are not hungry all the afternoons now.'"^[509] And a headmaster writes, "The change in the children after a month's provision of suitable and nourishing diet for breakfast and dinner has been distinctly beneficial. They have been more inclined to take part in the school sports, into which they have entered with considerable zest. Their appearance, too, has greatly improved. Their eyes have become brighter, their cheeks rounded. If, for any reason, such as temporary absence, they have lost the advantage of regular feeding, they have almost immediately shown signs of deterioration. When the period [of feeding] has been prolonged to three or six months, their health has permanently improved, and their capacity for work and play has still further developed."^[510] "The children on the necessitous register," says another headmaster, "now fully participate in these activities [games and sports] and supply rather above their proportionate number of prominent 195performers; this is equally true of swimming. It is indisputable that in the past lack of nourishment, where it did not entirely exclude, greatly limited the part taken by many children in this the most attractive side of school life."^[511]

We have ourselves questioned numbers of teachers, both in London and the provinces, on this point. Here and there are found, it is true, teachers who declare that no improvement is to be observed, perhaps because, being with the children day by day they do not notice any change. But the verdict as to the beneficial results of school meals is almost unanimous. At Bradford we were told that it used to be not uncommon for a child to faint in school from want of food; such an occurrence is now unknown. Often children who are dull and listless are found, after a course of regular meals, to become full of life and spirits. It is indeed frequently remarked that the children become "naughtier" after the meals, a sign, of course, of increased vitality.

We find that, as a result of the regular feeding, the resisting power of the children is increased and they are less susceptible to the contraction of infectious and other diseases.^[512] The attendance at school is thus improved. At a school in the Potteries, the headmaster informed us that during the coal strike in 1912, when three meals a day were given in the schools, there was far less non-attendance than usual through biliousness, headaches or other minor ailments.^[513] At Liverpool we were told that there has been a considerable improvement in the regularity of the children's attendance, as a result 196of the dinners.^[514] Non-attendance may be due, of course, not only to illness, but also to lack of food. When the parents have nothing to give the children for breakfast they will encourage them to sleep through the morning. The headmaster of a very poor school in Liverpool told us that some years ago, before the Education Committee had undertaken the provision of meals, the attendance was very bad. He raised a voluntary fund and provided breakfasts himself. As a result the attendance improved to such an extent that the increased grant amounted to £74, which more than covered the cost of the food (£63).

It would be interesting to compare the nutrition of the children in the Day Industrial Schools, where three meals a day are given. Since the children in these schools, who, it must be remembered, are drawn very largely from the poorest and most neglected class, return home in the evening, the only condition altered is the supply of food. We have, unfortunately, not been able to obtain any statistics as to the weights of these children, but we have received ample evidence from teachers and others as to the very marked physical improvement which is to be observed after they have been in the schools but a very short time. At Liverpool some time ago it was found that the children attending the Day Industrial Schools suffered much from sores and gatherings. On the diet being altered very considerably, these ailments entirely disappeared, and the children, we were told, are now in perfect health. At Leeds the School Medical Officer found that, while of 11,763 children from the ordinary elementary schools, 5·6 per cent. were of 197sub-normal nutrition, the percentage in the same condition among the Day Industrial School children (of whom 91 were examined) was only 1·1.^[515]

Let us turn now to the effect of the meals on the mental capabilities of the children. This effect is, from the nature of the case, less easy to assess, and the evidence is not so unanimous as on the question of the physical effect. A minority of teachers assert that no improvement is to be observed. At Hull, for instance, out of 165 head-teachers who were asked for their opinions on this point, 76 declared that there had been a considerable or distinct improvement, 53 that there had been a slight improvement, and 36 that there was no visible difference.^[516] At Bradford, 134 teachers were of opinion that there had been a considerable or distinct improvement, 35 that the improvement had been slight, 35 that no visible difference was to be noticed.^[517] "I cannot say," said the headmaster of a London school, "that the improvement in mentality has been in any way commensurate with the physical improvement."^[518] On the other hand, a headmistress declared, "there is undoubted improvement physically and educationally in the necessitous children 198supplied with meals at this school. But I confess the fact only came home to me vividly at our last terminal examination, when I found three of them headed the class in Standard III. (including all subjects)."^[519] Another wrote, "the girls receiving regular meals have become more alert, less apathetic, and consequently far more ready to respond to the teachers' efforts to gain their undivided attention. The interest thus aroused has led the girls to look upon all branches of their work with more favour than heretofore. The taste for knowledge once established, homework has followed with the inevitable results produced by voluntary effort rather than compulsory work."^[520] In North Kensington the "children who are supplied with milk at school or who are given breakfast and dinner respond at once to the better feeding, and show distinct improvement in their class work."^[521] At Darlington it was reported that, "generally speaking, the replies [from the teachers] were very definite to the effect that the provision of dinners had assisted the educational progress of the children."^[522] And a striking illustration of the benefit derived from a regular course of feeding is given us by a medical member of an Education Committee who writes, "I find the condition of the children much improved by feeding. Some children who, eighteen months ago, were considered half-witted are now monitors and monitresses, taking an intelligent interest in their work."

We have already noticed the improvement in attendance consequent on the provision of meals. This, of course, assists in the educational progress, not only of those children who before attended irregularly, but of 199the whole class, since the others are no longer kept back by the irregular attenders.

Too much importance cannot be attached to the training of the children in habits of self-control and thoughtfulness for one another. For this training the common meal furnishes an excellent opportunity. As we have seen, far too little attention is paid to this aspect of the question. It is true that, even where the meal is served in a somewhat rough-and-ready fashion, leaving, in the eyes of the educationalist, much to be desired, we have generally been informed that there has been an improvement in manners. At first the children, many of whom, probably, had rarely sat down to a meal before, would throw the food at each other or on the floor, and the scene was often a pandemonium. Some sort of order has been evolved out of this chaos. But how far this falls short of what might be effected is seen when one compares the great majority of feeding-centres all over England, not necessarily the worst, with a small minority, such as some of the Bradford centres, or one or two London centres, where the meal is truly educational. It is interesting to hear that, when recently a party of children were sent to the Cinderella Holiday Home from one of the Bradford schools and the supervisor was particularly requested to notice those who had been receiving meals, it was found that they alone knew how to behave at table, and that the others learnt from them.

In another direction the school meal may have an educational result of the highest importance. Children in all ranks of life are notoriously conservative in the matter of food and shy of venturing on unknown dishes, but with the poorest class of children it is not only "faddiness" which has to be contended with; the unaccustomed food, however wholesome for the normal child, actually does not agree with these chronically underfed 200children. As was pointed out at the time of the passing of the Provision of Meals Act, "one great merit of this Act ... will be the teaching and training of a child in the matter of taste. At present it is a well known physiological fact that the slum stomach cannot accommodate itself in a moment to good, wholesome food. The child has been accustomed to tea and jam and pickles, and to food that is often more tasty than nourishing. It will now eat under public and medical superintendence and gradually a pure and simple taste will be cultivated."^[523] That this prophecy is in process of being fulfilled may, we think, with justice be claimed. There still exists a certain amount of difficulty in inducing the children to take food to which they are unaccustomed, but that this difficulty can be surmounted by the exercise of tact and attention to individual needs has been practically demonstrated again and again. Over and over again we have been told the same tale, "at first the children would not eat this or that dish, but now they have learned to like it." Especially is this the case with porridge. At first, wherever this was given, it was found that many refused to eat it, but this antipathy was gradually overcome, and the children finally ate it with relish.^[524] It is amusing to find that at St. George's-in-the-East, where a porridge breakfast was devised as a test of need, it being thought that no child would come who was not really hungry, the children now like the porridge so much that this diet no 201longer furnishes a test. Where the children do not learn to eat what is provided, it always turns out, on further enquiry, that the supervisors have failed, either because of the large numbers whom they have to look after or, perhaps, through lack of enthusiasm, to devote that careful and detailed attention to the children without which it is quite impossible to bring about any change.

Moreover, it is encouraging to notice that this education of the children in the matter of taste is not without its effect on the home diet. This was observed as long ago as 1895. In giving evidence before the Committee of the London School Board, Mrs. Burgwin declared that, as a result of the porridge breakfasts given to the school children, there was "an increasing demand upon the local shop-keepers by the poor families themselves."^[525] "At first," said Miss Honnor Morten, "the children did not care for porridge, but the result of the breakfasts has been that many now persuade their parents to make it for them."^[526] "The children," says Lady Meyer, who has started penny dinners in connection with the Health Centre at Newport, "act as missionaries to their mothers, comparing the meals at the Health Centre with those at their homes, much to the disparagement of the latter, which quickly brought the more intelligent mothers to the centre to 'see how it was done.'"^[527]

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.

CHAPTER VI THE EFFECT ON THE PARENTS

The evidence which has been presented in the preceding chapter as to the benefits resulting from the feeding of school children would have evoked, fifty, or even twenty years ago, a simple and decisive retort. Granted, it would have been argued, that the health and educational capacity of the children is deteriorated by lack of nourishment, that irreparable and preventible damage is inflicted, and that the provision of meals by a public authority averts this evil for many and mitigates it for all; yet no plea of immediate expediency can stand against the ultimate loss involved in any public assumption of the cost of providing maintenance for children. If a local authority supplies part, even a small part, of their food, parental responsibility is, pro tanto, diminished, with results disastrous not only to the character of the parents but to the prospects of the children themselves. For if parents receive assistance in one direction from a public authority, they will soon clamour to receive assistance in other directions as well. In order to qualify for it, they will neglect their children, who will thus benefit in one way only to be victimized in others. The children themselves, having been fed from public funds, will be trained in habits of dependence, and, when they grow up, will insist on still further provision being made for their children in their turn. Thus one tiny breach in the walls of the family will insensibly be widened till it admits a flood in which domestic affections and 203the integrity of the home, "relations dear, and all the charities of father, son, and brother" are submerged.

If such anticipations seem exaggerated, they have nevertheless played an important part in determining the policy pursued in England towards more than one question, and lie behind many of the criticisms which are passed on certain recent forms of social intervention. The idea that relief given to the child must be regarded as relief given to the parent, and that, if given at all, it must be accompanied by severe restrictions, was enunciated emphatically in the Poor Law Report of 1834—indeed that famous document scarcely mentions children except in so far as the treatment of adults is influenced by these appendages—and has since become a settled part of Poor Law policy. The fear that parental responsibility might be weakened was a criticism brought against the Education Act of 1870, against the abolition of school fees in 1894, and against the provision of medical treatment for school children under the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act of 1907. Naturally, therefore, the public provision of meals for school children has not escaped the criticism that it would weaken the bond between parent and child and ultimately result in "the breaking up of the home." "To remove the spur to exertion and self-restraint," reported a special committee of the Charity Organisation Society in 1887, "which the spectacle of his children's hunger must be to any man in whom the feelings of natural kindness are not altogether dead, is to assume a very grave responsibility, and perhaps to take away the last chance of re-establishing the character and fortunes of the breadwinner, and, with him, the fortunes of the whole household. It is true, no doubt, that there are parents who are past redemption by influences of this kind, but the majority of the committee are of opinion that it is better in the interests of the community to allow, 204in such cases, the sins of the parents to be visited on the children than to impair the principle of the solidarity of the family and run the risk of permanently demoralising large numbers of the population by the offer of free meals to their children."^[528]

Now it is obvious that an economic policy which was determined primarily by a consideration for the "solidarity of the family" would lead to far-reaching measures of industrial reorganisation. If the ideal is a society in which "the bread-winner" is by his "exertion and self-restraint" to guarantee "the fortunes of his whole household," the immediate object of attack must be those industrial evils which effectually prevent him from doing so at present, and of which the principal are low wages, casual labour, recurrent periods of unemployment and bad housing. That a crusade conducted in the interests of the family against these regular features of modern industry is entirely desirable need not be questioned. But in its absence it is obvious that, so far from allowing "the sins of the parents to be visited on the children," what we are really doing is to allow the sins of the employer to be visited on the employed or the sins of the community to be visited upon future generations of unborn children, and it seems almost frivolous to ascribe the results of this constant and vicarious sacrifice to the measures which, like the provision of school meals, are directed merely to the partial mitigation of some of its worst effects. The truth is, to put the matter bluntly, 205that what breaks up the family is not the presence of food but its absence, and that, if the public conscience is unperturbed by the spectacle of numerous homes in which economic circumstances have deprived the parents of the means of providing meals for their children themselves, its sudden sensitiveness at the thought of meals being provided by some external authority would be ludicrous if it did not lead to such tragic consequences. The reader who reflects on the thousands of dock-labourers in London, Liverpool and Glasgow who, through no fault of their own, can obtain only three days' work a week, or on the 25 to 30 per cent. of the working-class population of Reading who have been shown by Professor Bowley to be receiving a total family income below the low standard fixed by Mr. Rowntree,^[529] and to be receiving it, in 49 per cent. of the cases, because they are "in regular work but at low wages,"^[530] will scarcely argue that the mere provision of meals, however injudicious he may regard it, is likely to contribute seriously to the weakening of family relationships which have been already strained or broken by industrial anarchy or industrial tyranny. Sublata causa tollitur effectus. But does any one seriously believe that a cessation of school meals would restore 206the desired "solidarity of the family" to the casual or sweated labourer?

If the suggestion that the provision of meals is a principal cause undermining parental responsibility is fantastic, is the suggestion that it must necessarily exercise some influence in that direction better founded? We shall deal later with such facts as can be used to throw light on this question. But we may point out here that the idea underlying it usually derives part of its cogency in the minds of many of its supporters less from any concrete evidence than from an implicit assumption that there is a "natural" division of duties between public authorities and the individual citizen, and that any redistribution of them between these two parties, which removes one function from the latter to the former, must necessarily result in the undermining of character, the weakening of the incentive to self-maintenance, the decay of parental responsibility, in short, in all the phenomena of the process known as "pauperisation." Now we need scarcely point out that, stated in this crude form, the theory that every assumption of fresh responsibilities by public authorities results in the undermining of character has no foundation in the experience of mankind. It is, of course, quite true that any sudden removal from an individual of duties which he has hitherto been accustomed to discharge may result in weakening the springs of effort. It is also quite true that any sudden addition to his responsibilities may result in crushing them, and that, as far as the more poorly paid ranks of labour are concerned, energies are far more often worn out in a hopeless struggle than sapped by an insidious ease. But by themselves these facts prove nothing as to the manner in which burdens, duties, responsibilities, should be distributed between the community and its individual members. What experience shows is that there is no 207"natural" allocation of functions, but that there has been throughout history at once a constant addition to, and a constant re-arrangement of them, and that the former process is quite compatible with the latter. Nor is there any ground for the idea that the extension of the activities of public bodies must necessarily result in accelerating the approach of the state of economic and moral inertia described by those who anticipate it as "Pauperism." If that were the case, all civilised communities would, indeed, have been hastening to destruction from a time "whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary." For our fathers had no elementary education, our grandfathers no municipal water, and few lamp-posts; while our great-grandfathers enjoyed the independence derived from the possession of relatively few roads, and those of a character sufficiently bad to offer the most powerful incentives to the energy and self-reliance of the pedestrian. On this theory the citizen of Manchester would be more pauperised than the citizen of London; both would be seriously pauperised compared with the peasant of Connemara; while the wretched inhabitants of German municipalities would be wallowing in a perfect quagmire of perpetual pauperism. Why indeed should one stop here? There have been periods in history in which not only these functions, but the organisation of justice and the equipment of military forces have been left to the bracing activities of private individuals; and an enquiry into the decline and fall of individual independence would, if logically pursued, lead us into dim regions of history far anterior to the Norman Conquest. The origins of modern pauperism, like the origins of modern liberty, are to be sought among "the primeval forests of Germany!"

While, however, there is no foundation for the doctrine that every extension of public provision results in a 208slackening of energy on the part of the individual, it is, none the less, possible that this may be the result of the particular kind of provision which consists in the supplying of meals to school children. In the event of that being proved to be the case, it is by no means easy to say what policy should be pursued. Public authorities, it may be argued, should cease to provide school meals. To this answer, which is at first sight plausible, there are two objections which are together almost insuperable. The first is that Education Authorities are under a legal obligation to provide education for the children in their charge and to carry out medical inspection with a view to discovering their ailments; while they may, if they think fit, provide medical treatment for them. They owe it to their constituents to spend their money in the most effective and economical manner. Education given to children who are suffering from want of nourishment not only is ineffective, but may be positively deleterious. When the extent of malnutrition is known, is it reasonable to expect the Authorities deliberately to shut their eyes to the fact that so far from benefiting the children who suffer from it they may be positively aggravating their misfortunes? If it be replied, ruat coelum fiat justitia, let the children suffer in order to improve the moral character of their parents, an Education Committee may not unfairly retort that it is elected primarily to attend to the welfare of the children, and that the wisdom of elevating parents, who ex hypothesi are demoralised, at the cost of the rising generation is, at any rate, too problematical to justify it in neglecting its own special duties. Moreover, even assuming that public bodies were willing to apply to the education of children the principles recommended in 1834 for the treatment of "improvidence and vice," there is no reason to suppose that they would succeed in averting the "pauperisation" which is dreaded. No fact is 209more clearly established by the history of all kinds of relief administration since 1834 than that the effect of refusing to make public provision for persons in distress is merely to lead to the provision of assistance in a rather more haphazard, uncoordinated and indiscriminate manner by private agencies. A purely negative policy is systematically "blacklegged" by private philanthropists. Rightly or wrongly the plain man finds his stomach turned by the full gospel of deterrence; with the result that, while the English Poor Law is nominally deterrent, enormous sums are spent every year in private charity in London alone; that in 1886 the Local Government Board recommended local authorities to provide relief for certain classes of workers apart from the Poor Law, on the ground that the Poor Law, for whose administration the Local Government Board is responsible, is necessarily degrading; and that, finally, a special Act had to be passed in 1905 creating authorities to administer assistance for unemployed workmen whom public opinion would no longer allow to be left to the tender mercies of a deterrent policy of Poor Relief. That the same result would follow with even greater certainty were public bodies to decline to provide for necessitous school children is obvious, inasmuch as to the foolish sentimentality of the ordinary person the sufferings of childhood make a special appeal. Indeed it has followed already. In the days when Education Authorities had no power to spend public money on the provision of meals for school children, what happened was that the provision of meals was begun by private persons, and in the towns which have not put the Act of 1906 into force such private provision obtains at the present day. Such extra-legal intervention has all the disadvantages ascribed to the public provision of meals, for one can scarcely accept the extravagant contention that while soup supplied by 210an Education Authority pauperises, soup tickets supplied by a philanthropic society do not. And it has few of its advantages. For private philanthropy tends to be more irregular and arbitrary in its administration than most public authorities. Since it cannot cover the whole area of distress, its selection of children to be fed is more capricious; since its funds are raised by appeals ad misericordiam they often fail when they are needed most; and when, as often happens, more than one agency enters the field, the result is overlapping and duplication. Nor will it seem a minor evil to those who care for the civic spirit that even the best-intentioned charity can never escape from the taint of patronage, can never be anything but a sop with which the rich relieve their consciences by ministering to the poor.

The statement that the feeding of school children weakens parental responsibility presumably means that the provision of meals at school induces parents to neglect to provide meals themselves. When one turns from these general considerations to examine how far this result has actually occurred, one is faced with the task of sifting a few grains of fact from a multitude of impressions. The first and most essential preliminary to the formation of any reasonable judgment is to determine the circumstances of those families one or more of whose members are receiving meals at school; and in order to throw some light on this point we give, in the following table, such particulars from six areas as are available:—^[531]

It will be seen that the four largest classes of families consist of those in which the father is casually employed, is disabled by illness or accident, is dead or is unemployed. If one adds to these 605 families the 41 in which the father is paid low wages or is working short time, there is a total of 646 out of 718 families in which distress is due either to industrial causes or to a misfortune. Since men do not usually contract illness or die in order that their children may be fed at school, there is no question of the responsibility of the father being weakened in the 285 cases in which death or ill-health was the cause which led to the provision of school meals.

It is often argued, however, that the public provision of assistance is itself one cause of the distress 212which it is designed to relieve, because it must necessarily exercise a deteriorating influence over industrial conditions. The knowledge that his children will be fed is likely, it is said, to lead a man to relax the demands which he makes on his employer. The knowledge that he need not offer a subsistence wage for a family leads the employer to offer worse terms to his employees, more irregular employment or lower rates of wages, with the result that the ratepayer relieves the employer of part of his wage bill. Cut off all public assistance, and "economic conditions will adjust themselves to the change." Now it is perfectly true that the need which prompts the provision of school meals does normally arise from bad industrial conditions, and that to allow those conditions to continue while merely mitigating their effects is an offence against morality and an outrage on commonsense. Whether school meals are desirable or not for their own sake, it is the right of the worker that industry should be organised in such a way that he should be able to provide for his children in the manner which he thinks best, and that he should not be compelled (as he often is at present) to choose between seeing them fed at school and seeing them half-starved at home. But the theory which we have stated goes much further than this. It holds that public provision is a cause of bad industrial conditions, and that the mere abolition of public provision would in itself result in those conditions being improved. It is obvious that, as far as certain economic evils are concerned, this doctrine does not hold good. Many children are underfed because their parents are suffering from sickness or accident incurred in the course of their employment. Clearly an employer will not be induced to render his processes safe merely by the fact that his employees' children will suffer if they are unsafe. Many children are 213underfed because their parents are casually employed or altogether unemployed. Equally clearly there is no reason whatever to suppose that casual labour would cease because of their starvation; for if that were the case it would have ceased long ago. Nor again does the more specious doctrine that the wages of men are lowered by the provision of food for their children rest upon a securer foundation. In the nature of things it can neither be verified nor disproved by an appeal to facts; for the controversy is not concerning facts but concerning their interpretation. If we point out that in Bradford, when the Education (Provision of Meals) Act was first adopted in 1907, the majority of children fed were children of woolcombers, dyers' labourers, carters and builders' labourers, and that since 1907 the first three classes of workers have all received advances of wages, it may, of course, be answered that the advance would have been still greater if the children had not been fed.^[532] In 214reality, however, the more this theory that the feeding of school children acts as a subsidy to wages is examined, the weaker does it appear. Historically it is traceable to the popular rendering of Ricardo introduced by Senior into the Poor Law Report of 1834, and it still contains marks of its origin. It assumes, in the first place, that wages are never above "subsistence level." For, clearly, if they are above it, there is no reason why they should be lowered if the cost of keeping a family is somewhat reduced. It assumes, in the second place, that they are never below the subsistence level of a family; for clearly, if they are, that in itself proves that the absence of public provision has not been able to maintain them. It assumes, in the third place, that the ability of workers to resist a reduction or to insist on an advance depends not upon the profitableness of the industry, nor upon the strength of their organisation, but solely upon their necessities. Of these assumptions the first two are untrue, and the last is not only untrue, but the exact opposite of the truth. In reality, as every trade unionist knows, the necessities of the non-wage earning members of a family do not keep wages up; they keep them down. A man who knows that a stoppage of work will plunge his family in starvation has little resisting power, and acquiesces in oppression to which he would otherwise refuse to submit. It is the strikers' wives and children who really break many strikes, and if the pressure of immediate necessity is removed the worker is not less likely, he is more likely, to hold out for better terms.

Nor is there much more substance in the theory that 215the provision of meals by a public authority weakens family life by "undermining parental responsibility." We are not, of course, concerned to deny that in the working classes as well as in the propertied classes there are a certain number of persons who are anxious "to get something for nothing." Cases, no doubt, do arise in which a parent who knows that the needs of his children will partially be met by the food supplied by an Education Authority may for that reason contemplate their fate when abandoned by him with less apprehension. At most, however, such cases constitute only 10 per cent. of those on the table, and the wisdom of withholding assistance from the remaining 90 per cent. merely in order to bring pressure upon this small fraction of all the families concerned is, to put the matter at the lowest, highly questionable. Moreover, even assuming that children who are neglected by their parents should be made to suffer in order to teach the latter a moral lesson, what probability is there that the lesson will be appreciated? In those families where a father is contemplating the desertion of his home, family relationships must obviously be weak and unstable. Is it seriously suggested that the mere fact that a public body is known to provide meals for children in attendance at school is sufficient to tilt the scale; that a man who is willing, ex hypothesi, to contemplate relinquishing his wife and younger children to the Poor Law will be deterred from leaving them merely by anxiety as to how the children of school age will obtain their midday meal; and that, when his apprehensions upon this point are removed, he will hasten to avail himself of his freedom in order to abandon them to much more serious evils than the loss of one meal per day? Such a suggestion carries its refutation on its face. When family life has been so disintegrated that a man is contemplating the desertion of his wife and 216children, he is not likely either to be encouraged to do so by the mere fact that meals for school children are provided by a public body, or deterred from doing so by the fact that they are not. And a similar answer may be made to those who argue that "the result of feeding children at school is merely to encourage their parents to spend more upon drink." No one, of course, would deny that, if a man has already formed the habit of indulging his tastes without regard to the consequences, an increase in his means will enable him to spend more upon such indulgence. But that is a very different thing from accepting the implication that every accession in the income of a class merely leads it to fresh extravagance. The evidence, indeed, points in the opposite direction. During the last forty years there has been a great extension of public provision and a rise in money wages. Yet it is a matter of common knowledge that the consumption of alcoholic liquor per head of population has diminished and is still diminishing.

In reality, however, the idea that any large number of parents misuse the public provision of meals appears to be quite without any solid foundation, and to be a hasty generalisation from exceptional cases, which, because they are exceptional, are recorded by charitable persons with pious horror, and are given an undeserved and misleading notoriety. Almost all the actual evidence available points in the opposite direction. Again and again has it been stated to us that parents withdraw their children from the school meals as soon as an improvement in their circumstances enables them to provide food at home.^[533] Indeed, it is often said that they withdraw them 217before they can properly afford to do so, and before the Canteen Committee thinks it wise for the school meals to be stopped, while many refrain from applying for meals until they are driven to do so by actual necessity. The truth is that behind the talk on parental responsibility which finds favour in certain sections of society—especially those where it is customary for parents to pay for their children to be fed at school during 30 to 40 weeks of the year—there is a considerable amount not only of ignorance but of hypocrisy. These critics are apt entirely to overlook the fact that during the last hundred years parental responsibilities, so far from being diminished, have been multiplied by the State. Middle-class parliaments have insisted that working-class parents should send their children to school, should dispense with the help of their earnings, should provide them with food, clothing and medical aid. More important, they forget that to insist on "responsibility" is meaningless unless the means of discharging it are available; for one cannot blame a man for failing to do what he wishes to do, but which he is prevented from doing by force majeure. Now this is precisely the position of the majority of such parents as are aided by school meals. They did not fix the wages of adult men at 18s. a week; they did not ordain that employment at the ports of London and Liverpool and Glasgow, and in a score of other trades, should be a gamble. They did not decree that those who direct industry should at intervals of five to seven years find it convenient to curtail production and turn their employees on to the streets. They are born into a 218world where this is the established social order, an order which, as individuals, they are impotent to alter. If some of them occasionally give up a struggle which must often seem hopeless, at whose door does the blood of these men and their children lie? If it is desired that every man should regularly provide the whole maintenance of his family, then industry must be organised in such a way as to make it possible. Till that is done, to blame working people for acquiescing in circumstances which they did not create and which they detest is not only cruel but absurd. When every competent worker is secured regular employment and a living wage, it may be desirable that forms of public provision which exist at present should cease—though, even so, it is possible that the educational value of school meals will lead to their being continued. Till that happy condition is brought about they must be not only continued, but extended and improved.

CHAPTER VII CONCLUSIONS — Summary of Conclusions

The provision of meals for school children is, as we have pointed out, merely an attempt to mitigate some of the evil effects of industrial disorganisation. The principal end at which Society should aim is the removal of the causes, low wages, casual employment, recurrent periods of unemployment, and bad housing, which make them necessary. But meanwhile, as long as economic conditions remain as they are, some provision must be made for the present generation of school children. And the provision of school meals is not merely a question of relief, it is also a preventive measure. "Every step ... in the direction of making and keeping the children healthy is a step towards diminishing the prevalence and lightening the burden of disease for the adult, and a relatively small rise in the standard of child health may represent a proportionately large gain in the physical health, capacity, and energy of the people as a whole."^[534]

Granted, therefore, that the school meal is, for the present at any rate, a necessity, the question remains, for what children shall this meal be provided. We have described the methods of selection at present in force. We have seen that, though a few children are given school meals because they are found by the School Doctor to be ill-nourished, the great majority are selected by 220the teachers on the ground of poverty, a method which involves an enquiry into the parents' circumstances. We have shown some of the disadvantages inherent in this method of selection. The enquiries deter parents from applying. It is impossible for the teachers to discover all cases of underfed children. If the child is told by its parents to say that it has plenty to eat at home, how is the teacher to know that it is underfed? It is difficult, and in many cases quite impossible, to ascertain the amount of income coming in. Even if this could always be accurately ascertained, it would be difficult to discriminate with justice since other circumstances vary so widely. The enquiry is demoralising for the parents, putting a premium on deception and creating a sense of injustice. So unsatisfactory, indeed, has this system of investigation into income proved to be that there is a general consensus of opinion among adherents of the most opposing schools of thought that it must be given up. "As a Guardian of the poor and a member of the Charity Organisation Society, and in many other ways," says the late Canon Barnett, "I have come to see that no enquiry is adequate. I would not trust myself to enquire into any one's condition and be just. Enquiry is never satisfactory and is always irritating.... I believe it is enquiry and investigation and suspicion which undermine parental responsibility."^[535] Even so firm a supporter of Charity Organisation Society principles as the Rev. Henry Iselin would, we gather, prefer to the present inadequate system of investigation the provision of a meal for all children who like to come, without enquiry, though he would, of course, make the conditions of the meal in some way deterrent.^[536] In discussing what is the 221best method to be adopted we must, therefore, rule out any plan which involves an enquiry into the family income.

(i) We may consider first the proposal that the selection should be made by the School Doctor, school meals being ordered for all children whom he finds to be suffering from mal-nutrition. This method, which is strongly recommended by the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education, has been adopted in a few towns, but only to a very limited extent and always in subordination to the system of selection based on the "poverty test." The selection by the "physical test" would obviate all the disadvantages arising from the demoralising enquiry into the parents' circumstances. On the other hand, the practical difficulties would be very great. At present a child is normally examined by the doctor only two or three times during the whole of its school career. Under the system proposed frequent examinations would be necessary, which would entail an enormous increase in the school medical staff. But, however frequent the examinations, the discovery of all underfed children would not be assured. It is not always possible for the doctor to determine the cause of malnutrition in any particular case; hence many children would be included who get plenty of food at home, but yet, from some other cause, do not thrive. More important, numbers of children would be excluded who fail to get sufficient food but who yet appear healthy. As a School Medical Officer points out, "temporary lack of food does not stamp the child in such a way that it is possible to detect past privations by ordinary inspection."^[537] The underfeeding might be prolonged for a considerable time before its effects were apparent. But it is essential that underfeeding should be discovered before the child shows definite signs of 222malnutrition, since the object to be aimed at is to prevent its ever getting into this state. The physical test, therefore, forms too narrow a basis to be satisfactorily employed, at any rate as the sole test, in the selection of children to be provided for.

(ii) We will consider next the plan to which we have already alluded, the provision of meals, free and without enquiry, for all children who like to come, it being understood that the meals are intended only for "necessitous" children, i.e., those children who through poverty are unable to obtain an adequate supply of food at home. Those who aim at making this provision in some way deterrent suggest a breakfast of porridge, the time of the meal and the nature of the food providing a test of need. "As the man inside the workhouse must not have better, but a decidedly worse, treatment than the man outside, so if the food be nourishing but not too palatable it may chance that only the truly necessitous may apply."^[538] Children who can obtain food at home will prefer to do so. But it is found in practice that it is not only the children who can get sufficient food at home who are deterred by such a device, but that the "truly necessitous" also refuse to come. Such a system, in fact, defeats its own ends. It is futile to provide meals for all underfed children and at the same time to make that provision so deterrent that those for whom it is intended decline to avail themselves of it. Even if there is no intention of making the provision deterrent, the idea that the meals are meant only for necessitous children will, in fact, make it so; many parents will prefer to feed their children at home on a totally inadequate diet rather than disclose their poverty by sending them to the school meals. The "poverty test" in fact, in 223whatever form it may be applied, will exclude numbers of children whom it is desirable to provide for.

(iii) The two methods that we have described would each leave a large class of children without provision. The first would fail to discover numbers of children who are underfed, but who do not show obvious signs of malnutrition. The second would not touch those cases where the children cannot get sufficient food at home, but where the parents are too proud to accept school meals for them. A combination of the two methods would remove both these objections. The provision of meals, free and without enquiry, for all necessitous children, would secure the feeding of the majority of those who are underfed, while the School Doctor would generally discover those cases where the parents try to conceal the fact that they cannot give their children sufficient food at home. For these children the doctor would, of course, order school meals. This method would not obviate the necessity of a great increase in the school medical service. Moreover, by any of the methods discussed, provision would be made only for underfed children. There would remain the hosts who are unsuitably fed; the worst of these cases would, of course, be discovered by the doctor, but only the worst cases. And, again, no provision would be made for the children whose mothers are at work all day and consequently unable to provide a midday meal, and for whom the school dinner would be a great convenience, for which the parents would, in many cases, be willing to pay.

(iv) There remains the only logical conclusion, the provision of a meal for all school children, as part of the school curriculum. Such a provision need not necessarily be compulsory, though it should be so in all cases where the School Doctor recommends it. From every point of view, the psychological, the medical and the educational, 224the advantages to be gained from such a course would be enormous. General provision for all would do away with all pauperising discrimination between the necessitous and the non-necessitous. On the medical side it would be difficult to over-estimate the benefits to be secured. On this point the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education has recently pronounced in no measured terms. "From a purely scientific point of view," he declared, "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."^[539] The beneficial results already observed in the case of children who have received a regular course of school meals would be extended to all. Then, again, the common meal would serve as an opportunity for the exercise of many little acts of consideration for one another. The teachers would be brought into more intimate relations with the children, for they get to know the children better at meal time than in any other way. The school meal would serve as an object lesson; taken in conjunction with the teaching of housewifery and cookery in the schools, it would speedily raise the standard in the homes. There would be another advantage. Adequate rest after the meal could be insisted on, followed by healthy play in the open air in the playground instead of in stuffy rooms and backyards. In the rural districts, as we have already shown, it is imperative that dinner should be provided for all who want to stay. Numbers of children are unable to return home, and it is almost impossible for the parents to provide suitable cold food for them to take with them; even when they can go home to dinner they 225frequently have a long walk, with the consequence that the meal must be eaten hastily and the children hurry back to school immediately afterwards.

If general provision is made, ought the parents to be required to pay or should the meal be free to all? The first plan has much to recommend it and has been advocated in many quarters. At the recent conference at the Guildhall on School Feeding, for instance, there appeared to be a general agreement in favour of this course. The experience of the Special Schools for Defective Children, and some of the rural schools, where a midday meal or hot cocoa is provided, shows that numbers of parents are able to pay, and there does not appear to be much difficulty in collecting the payment.^[540] And in the ordinary elementary schools, where little provision is made for paying cases, it would appear that there does exist a certain demand for such provision.^[541] On the other hand, it must be admitted that it is a question whether any large number of parents would voluntarily pay for their children's meals when it was known that provision was made for all and that other children were receiving the meal free. The payment would have to be left to the parent's conscience, for any attempt to try to decide in which cases payment should be insisted on and in which it should be remitted would introduce again the evils of the present system, with its demoralising enquiry into the parents' circumstances—though in a somewhat mitigated form, since no distinction would be made between the paying and the non-paying children, and the latter 226would not be marked off as a separate class as at present. Another difficulty, though a minor one, would arise in the fixing of the price to be charged. In the more prosperous districts the dinner might be self-supporting, but in the poorest localities it would hardly be possible to charge an amount sufficient to cover the cost of the food.

The provision of a free meal for all would obviate these difficulties. It will be objected at once that such a plan will undermine parental responsibility, but, as we have shown in the previous chapter, communal provision of other services has not had this result. And against this lightening of parental burdens must be set the continual increase of duties which are being placed upon them. A more serious objection lies in the expense. Taking the cost of a school dinner at 2-1/4d. per head,^[542] the provision of one meal a day for five days a week during term time for all the six million school children in England, Wales and Scotland would cost about £12,500,000. This is, of course, an outside estimate, for it would probably be found that a considerable number of parents would prefer to have their children at home to dinner rather than send them to the school meal; and the provision might be confined to schools in poor districts. 227To the actual cost of supplying the meals there must be added the initial outlay incurred in providing dining-rooms and appliances.^[543] On the other hand, there would be a great saving of time and energy which is now consumed in making enquiries. And the provision of school meals would tend to diminish the amount which will otherwise have to be spent in the near future on medical treatment. Food, as Sir George Newman has pointed out, is of more importance than drugs and surgical treatment, and if regular meals were provided there would be much less need for school clinics.^[544] The expenditure on the provision of school meals would, indeed, be nationally a most profitable investment; it would be amply justified by the improved physique of the rising generation and by the consequent increase in their efficiency. It would be far more productive, in fact, than much of the money which is now spent on education, than the outlay, for instance, on the erection of huge school buildings, an outlay the necessity of which is becoming more and more questionable in the light of the proved superiority of open-air education.

Unfortunately the general provision of a school dinner will not be a complete solution of the problem. There will remain the children for whom one meal a day will not be sufficient, while the discontinuance of the meals during the holidays will cause them serious suffering. Experience has amply shown the necessity of the meals being continued during the holidays and power must be 228given to the Local Education Authorities to make this provision when it is required. They must also be allowed to provide an additional meal for those children for whom dinner alone is not sufficient. Any proposal to limit the provision to one meal could not, indeed, be seriously entertained, for numbers of Local Authorities are already supplying this extra food and would resist any curtailment of their powers in this respect. But when we come to consider for what children this additional provision shall be made, we are face to face with all the old difficulties of selection. Obviously it cannot be made for all. Perhaps the best method would be to provide for all children who liked to come, whilst attendance should be obligatory on those for whom the School Doctor ordered extra nourishment. Such a prospect would be viewed with alarm by many, but the numbers to be provided for would probably not be excessive, if it was understood that this extra provision was intended only for necessitous or delicate children. It is found that the attendance drops off considerably during the holidays, and that it is always less for a breakfast than for a dinner; it requires more exertion to come in time for breakfast, while the fare provided is not so popular. Probably the danger would be rather on the side of too few children being provided for than too many.

No plan that can be proposed is free from disadvantages. And this brings us back to the point at which we started in this chapter. From the nature of the case, no attempt to deal with effects only, while causes remain untouched, can be wholly satisfactory. Provision must be made for the present generation of school children; their necessities must be relieved and future inefficiency due to underfeeding in childhood must be prevented. But at the same time, and above all, a determined attack must be made on the evils which lie at the root of the children's 229malnutrition. Industrial conditions must be so organised that it is possible for every man himself to provide for his children at least the requisite minimum of food, clothing and other necessaries.

1. That, so long as economic conditions remain as they are, the provision of school meals is a necessity.

2. That no method of selection of the children who are to receive the meals can be satisfactory, and that all attempts at picking and choosing should, therefore, be abandoned. The meal should be provided for all children who like to come, without any enquiry into their parents' circumstances. Attendance should be compulsory if recommended by the School Medical Officer.

3. That the meal should be regarded as part of the school curriculum and should be educational. It should be served, as far as practicable, on the school premises, in rooms which are not used as class-rooms; the plan of sending the children to eating-houses or to large centres should be discontinued. Some of the teachers should be present to supervise the children, who should be taught to set the tables and to wait on one another. The meal should be served as attractively as possible.

4. The dietary should be drawn up in consultation with the School Medical Officer, with a view to the physiological requirements of the children, special attention being paid to the infants.

5. The preparation of the food should not be entrusted to caterers, but should be undertaken by the Local Education Authority.

6. The meals should be continued throughout the school year, and, if necessary, during the holidays.

APPENDIX I EXAMPLES OF MENUS — (1) Bradford — Spring Dietary, 1913 — (2) Leeds — Winter Dietary — Summer Dietary — (3) West Ham. — Winter Dietary. — (4) Acton. — (5) London. — Winter Menu. — Summer Menu. — Dinners for Infants — (6) Grassington (Yorkshire) — Sample Menus [545]

Dinners to be repeated every four weeks

1st week:

Monday. Brown vegetable soup. Rice pudding.

Tuesday. Cottage pie; green peas. Stewed fruit.

Wednesday. Potato and onion soup. Plum cake (Cocoanut cake alternate months).

Thursday. Meat and potato hash; beans. Rice pudding.

Friday. Fish and potato pie; parsley sauce; peas. Ground rice.

2nd week:

Monday. Potato and onion soup. Rice pudding.

Tuesday. Shepherd's pie. Stewed fruit.

Wednesday. Yorkshire pudding; gravy; peas. Sago pudding.

232Thursday. Scotch barley broth. Currant pastry.

Friday. Fish and potato pie; parsley sauce; peas. Rice and sultanas.

3rd week:

Monday. Brown vegetable soup. Rice pudding.

Tuesday. Meat and potato hash; beans. Stewed fruit.

Wednesday. Potato and onion soup. Ginger pudding and sweet sauce.

Thursday. Stewed beef and gravy; mashed potatoes. Baked jam roll.

Friday. Fish and potato pie; parsley sauce; peas. Semolina pudding.

4th week:

Monday. Potato and onion soup. Wholemeal cake.

Tuesday. Hashed beef and savoury balls. Rice pudding.

Wednesday. Yorkshire cheese pudding; peas and gravy. Stewed fruit.

Thursday. Shepherd's pie; green peas. Sago pudding.

Friday. Fish and potato pie; parsley sauce. Rice and sultanas.

Repeated week after week.

Monday. Pea soup; brown and white bread. Parkin.

Tuesday. Shepherd's pie; brown and white bread. Buns or cake.

Wednesday (except during Advent and Lent)—Irish stew; brown and white bread. Parkin.

Wednesday (during Advent and Lent)—Lentil and tomato soup (alternately with fish pie); brown and white bread. Parkin.

Thursday. Crust pie; brown or white bread. Buns or cake.

Friday. Lentil and tomato soup (alternately with fish pie); brown and white bread. Parkin.

(Some other kind of cake or bun is now sometimes substituted for parkin.)

Monday. Rice pudding; stewed fruit. Currant cake.

Tuesday. Shepherd's pie; brown and white bread. Seed cake.

Wednesday. Crust pie; brown and white bread. Currant cake.

234Thursday. Potted meat sandwiches. Rice pudding.

Friday. Lentil and tomato soup; white and brown bread. Buns.

Monday. Irish stew. Brown bread and jam.

Tuesday. Lentil soup. Baked currant pudding.

Wednesday. Roast mutton; potatoes; haricot beans; bread.

Thursday. Mince. Suet pudding; jam or stewed fruit.

Friday. Soup. Rice with jam or treacle.

(During summer lighter food is substituted.)

Monday. Soup and bread. Currant roll.

Tuesday. Stewed meat; cabbage; potatoes.

Wednesday. Soup and bread. Plain suet pudding with syrup.

Thursday. Irish stew and potatoes. Plain pudding.

Friday. Soup and bread. Rice pudding.

Saturday. Stewed meat and two vegetables.

This menu is theoretically repeated week after week throughout the year, but in practice it is not always strictly adhered to.

Dinners which may be supplied by the Alexandra Trust. (See Minutes of the L.C.C., Dec. 17, 18, 1912.)

1. Haricot bean soup; bread. Treacle pudding.

2. Fish and potato pie; bread. Baked raisin pudding.

3. Pea soup; bread baked in dripping. Fig pudding.

4. Stewed beef or mutton; dumplings; steamed potatoes; bread.

5. Beef stewed with peas; dumplings; potatoes; bread.

6. Mutton stewed with haricot beans; steamed potatoes; bread. Suet pudding.

7. Meat and potato pie; bread.

8. Meat pudding.

9. Toad-in-the-hole; potatoes; bread.

10. Rice pudding; two slices of bread and butter.

1. Rice pudding; two slices of bread and butter.

2. Toad-in-the-hole; potatoes; bread.

3. Meat pies; potatoes; bread.

4. Meat pudding; potatoes; bread.

5. Cold meat pie; fruit roll.

6. Meat sandwich; piece of cake.

7. (For Infants) Hot milk and bread; fruit roll.

1 Liquid part of winter dinner menus, Nos. 4, 5, 6.

2 Rice, tapioca, macaroni or barley pudding, with two slices of sultana bread and butter.

3 Stew—very fine mince.

4 Baked custard, with bread and butter.

5 Savory custard, with bread and butter.

Monday. Haricot bean soup; bread. Steamed suet pudding and treacle.

Tuesday. Meat and potato pies with crusts on. Rice pudding.

Wednesday. Onion soup; bread. Steamed ginger pudding; sweet sauce.

Thursday. Meat and potato pie with crusts on. Sago pudding.

Friday. Yorkshire pudding; gravy; mashed potato. Marmalade pudding; sweet sauce.

Monday. Potato soup; bread. Steamed ginger pudding; sweet sauce.

Tuesday. Meat and potato pies with crusts on. Cornflour pudding.

Wednesday. Pea soup. Plain plum puddings; sweet sauce.

Thursday. Meat and potato pies with crusts on. Rice pudding.

Friday. Shepherd's pie (minced meat, mashed potato). Sago pudding.

APPENDIX II THE PROVISION OF MEALS IN SCOTLAND

The Provision of Meals Act of 1906 applied only to England and Wales. As we have seen, the attempt of the House of Commons to extend its operations to Scotland was defeated in the House of Lords, and it was not till 1908 that the Scottish School Boards were granted power to utilise the rates for the provision of food.^[546] By the Education (Scotland) Act passed in that year it was enacted that a School Board might, either by itself or in combination with other School Boards, provide accommodation, apparatus and service for the preparation and supply of meals.^[547] Where it appeared that a child was unable by lack of food or clothing to take full advantage of the education provided, the School Board should, after due warning, summon the parent or guardian to appear and give an explanation of the child's condition. If the explanation was not forthcoming or was insufficient or unsatisfactory, and the condition of the child was due to neglect, the Procurator Fiscal should prosecute the parents under the Prevention of Cruelty Act.^[548] If, however, it appeared that the parent or guardian, through poverty or ill-health, was unable to supply sufficient food or clothing, the School Board, if satisfied that the necessities of the case would not be met by voluntary agency, should make "such provision for the child 238... as they deem necessary" out of the school fund.^[549] Temporary provision might be made by the School Board pending completion of procedure against the parents, and the cost of such provision might be recovered.^[550] The powers conferred upon Scottish School Boards thus differed in several respects from those conferred on English Local Authorities by the Act of 1906. The School Boards were granted power not only to provide food but also clothing, and no limitation was placed upon the amount which might be spent out of the rates on the provision of these necessaries. Moreover, the Act was not permissive. In England, when in any area school children are suffering from lack of food, and voluntary funds are not forthcoming to meet their needs, the Local Education Authority may provide food out of the rates; in Scotland the School Board shall make such provision.

No report has yet been published by the Scottish Education Department as to the action taken either by the School Boards or by voluntary agencies in the work of the provision of meals. As far as we can gather from the reports of the Chief Inspectors, though several Boards co-operate with voluntary agencies and provide apparatus and service, in only some half-dozen towns, e.g., Edinburgh, Glasgow, Govan, Leith, Perth, has the system of providing food out of the rates been adopted to any extent.^[551] The increase in expenditure on the provision of meals, etc., for necessitous children under the Act of 1908 is shown by the following table:—^[552]

In Edinburgh, the necessity for feeding underfed school children was recognized^[553] very soon after the passing of the Education Act of 1872. The Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor early undertook to deal with cases reported by the Attendance Officers. In 1878 Miss Flora Stevenson started a scheme for feeding and clothing destitute children, on condition that children so assisted must attend school.^[554] Towards the close of the nineteenth century numerous other voluntary organisations appear to have been established.^[555] As in other towns the provision by these voluntary agencies proved inadequate and unsatisfactory. Meals were supplied only for about ten weeks in the year. They were served in eating-houses, where the food was poor and the arrangements of the roughest description. The children were selected by the teachers and attendance officers, and there was no adequate investigation into the cases. In the autumn of 1909 the Lord Provost summoned a conference to discuss the question, and a scheme 240of co-operation between the School Board and the two chief voluntary agencies, the Flora Stevenson Committee and the Courant Fund, was drawn up, by which the voluntary funds were pooled, and cases were decided by a committee consisting of representatives of the three bodies concerned. In the following year the School Board undertook the entire responsibility for the provision of meals, though it still relied on voluntary contributions. It decided to establish a cooking centre of its own instead of entrusting the supply of the meals to caterers. Care Committees of voluntary workers were to be appointed for each group of schools to investigate all cases of destitution, and to "keep in continuous and sympathetic touch" with the families. Cases were to be recommended by the medical officer, school nurses, teachers and attendance officers, in addition to applications made by the parents; the Care Committee was also itself to take the initiative in searching out cases of destitution. To secure uniformity of treatment a Central Care Committee, composed of representatives of the School Board and the voluntary agencies, was appointed to give the final decision on all cases; this central committee was also to supervise the collection of the necessary funds, and to rouse general interest in the problem of school feeding.^[556] The Courant Fund declined to act with the Board under this scheme, but the Flora Stevenson Committee co-operated cordially.

The cooking centre was opened in January, 1911, and by the end of the year the system of Care Committees was in working order. Voluntary subscriptions rapidly decreased, however, and in May, 1912, the Board resolved that recourse must be had to the rates. The Central Care Committee thereupon ceased to exist, its duties being 241transferred to the Attendance Committee. The local Care Committees, of which eight had been appointed, were continued for a time, but at the beginning of 1913 the duty of investigation was entrusted to the Attendance Officers,^[557] and the local committees also were given up. The system had not worked entirely without friction. The method of investigation was cumbersome and slow, and the local committees were not in sufficiently close touch with the Central Committee. The committees were too large; from one to nine schools were allocated to each, and the membership usually numbered about twenty-five. But it is to be regretted that the system has been entirely abandoned. Apart from the work of investigation, which, as we have shown elsewhere, is not a task which can suitably be entrusted to voluntary workers, there are many matters connected with the welfare of the school child in which the volunteer's services can be of the greatest value.

The meal given is always dinner, though in one of the poorest districts breakfasts have recently been started; for these a halfpenny is charged, except to those children who are on the free list. Till lately two courses were supplied at dinner, but now usually only one is given. The meals are served ordinarily in the schools, but in one or two places in halls hired for the purpose. From reports that we have received the arrangements seem to compare very favourably with those obtaining in most English dining-centres. The teachers frequently take a great interest in the question and supervise the meals. Some of the elder boys and girls help to serve the food and wait on the children. The infants are served at a separate table or, perhaps, in a separate room. Attention is paid to cleanliness and tidiness, and the children's manners are very good.

242Provision is made not only for necessitous^[558] children, but for those who can pay part or the whole of the cost. Non-necessitous children may obtain a dinner on payment of 2d., while the "semi-necessitous" may pay 1d. It is noteworthy that the number of free dinners is decreasing, while the number of penny dinners is on the increase. Of the 413,000 meals supplied during 1912-13, nearly 50 per cent. were supplied to "semi-necessitous" children on payment of 1d.; about 25 per cent. were given free, the remaining 25 per cent. being supplied to children whose parents were receiving relief from the Parish Council, children in Higher Grade and Special Schools, and the elder girls who helped in serving the meals.^[559] The work of investigation has been greatly reduced by the introduction of the penny dinner, and it has been suggested that the provision of a halfpenny dinner would still further diminish the need for free dinners, and consequently the need for investigation.

For many years before the School Board undertook the responsibility for providing for its underfed children, the Parish Council was supplying meals to the children of mothers who were receiving parish relief. The Report of the Royal Commission on Physical Training in 1903 had drawn attention to the question of underfeeding among children, and the Parish Council determined to provide meals for the children for whose relief it was responsible, in order to ensure that no complaint might 243be brought against it.^[560] Hot dinners were provided every day except Sunday.^[561] They were intended chiefly for children whose mothers were at work all day, but tickets were also given in cases where an increase of relief would not have benefited the children, or where the children had a consumptive tendency.^[562] The dinners were served in eating-houses where "the conditions as to the serving of the meals, and the manners of the children—entirely without supervision—" were "anything but civilising."^[563] When the School Board took over the general arrangements for feeding, it seemed at first as if the Parish Council would still continue its own methods, but the superiority of the Board's scheme was soon apparent, and the Parish Council made an arrangement with it by which children whose mothers were receiving relief would have meals at school, the Council paying 1-1/2d. per meal to the School Board.^[564]

In Glasgow, as in Edinburgh, the provision of meals was very early undertaken by voluntary societies. As far back as 1869 the Glasgow Poor Children's Dinner Table Society was founded,^[565] and in 1875 another philanthropic society established Day Refuges, which were intended chiefly for children of widows or widowers who were at work all day, and at which three meals were supplied daily.^[566] The Poor Children's Dinner Table 244Society continued to be the chief agency for supplying meals till 1910, when voluntary contributions proved inadequate and the School Board took over the provision of the meals. A central cooking centre, with modern labour-saving appliances, was built, the food being distributed to the different centres by motor waggon. The meals are served either in the schools or in halls hired for the purpose. The supervision is usually undertaken by the attendants; at some centres assistance is given by members of the old dinner societies, but the numbers are falling off. Only necessitous children are fed. Each case is decided on its merits, but dinners are not usually granted if the family income exceeds 3s. per head.^[567] The children are selected by the school doctors, nurses, attendance officers or teachers, and enquiries are made by the attendance officers, immediate provision being made in urgent cases. Boots and clothing, which up to 1912 were supplied by the Poor Children's Clothing Scheme, are now provided by the School Board.^[568] In the special schools for the physically defective, dinner is provided for practically all the children, and the parents pay. The food is good in quality and served in an attractive manner, tablecloths of some kind and flowers being provided. The supervision is undertaken by the nurses and teachers.

Perth was one of the earliest School Boards to use its powers under the Act of 1908 and to provide food and clothing out of the rates, the system being begun in 1909. A Care Committee was appointed in 1911 to assist the School Board in looking after the welfare of the children and to take part in the distribution of the meals; the 245members visit the homes, but apparently have no voice in the selection of the children.^[569] The dinners are mostly served in a Church Hall and are supervised by the Care Committee and members of the School Board. Most of the dinners are supplied free, only a small proportion being paid for.^[570] In the matter of boots, if a child is found improperly shod, a notice is sent by the Board to the parents. If they do not provide boots themselves, the Board supplies them and calls upon the parents to pay^[571]; about two-thirds of the money thus spent is recovered from the parents.^[572]

In most towns, as we have said, the cost of the food is still borne out of voluntary funds, whether the School Board itself undertakes the provision of meals, or whether this is done by a voluntary society.

In Dundee provision has been made by "The Free and Assisted Dinner Fund" since the winter of 1884-5.^[573] The meals are given usually in the schools, but sometimes in coffee houses. The prevailing menu appears to be soup. In view of the large number of married women who are industrially employed at Dundee, the school meal is a great convenience. A large proportion of the children, something like two-thirds in fact, make some payment towards the meal.^[574] But the price charged is very low; a single bowl of soup costs a halfpenny, while the payment of a penny a week secures a bowl daily.^[575] 246At Paisley also a large proportion of the children pay. Soup and bread, or, if the children prefer, cocoa and bread, etc., is provided for the sum of one halfpenny, the poorest children receiving it free. The balance of expenditure on food is met from voluntary funds; the School Board pays all expenses of administration.^[576] In Aberdeen the work of providing meals, which had formerly been undertaken by the Aberdeen Educational Trust, was transferred in 1909 to the School Board, together with the income which the Trust had devoted to this purpose.^[577] At Greenock the School Board have raised a voluntary fund for the provision of books, boots or food for necessitous children, but it has not been found necessary to supply any meals within the last two years. In Inverness provision is made by a voluntary organisation, the children being sent to local eating-houses.

Turning now to the rural districts, we may mention an early experiment somewhat similar to that at Rousdon, to which we have already referred. In 1878 the minister of the small country parish of Farnell came to the conclusion that the attendance at school would be more regular, and the children would derive more profit from the education given if a hot midday meal were provided. Accordingly a soup kitchen was instituted at the school, the plant being provided by voluntary contributions. A charge was made of a halfpenny per meal or 1d. per family, where there were more than two children. Practically all the children availed themselves of the provision. The effects were soon visible, not only in improved attendance—the grant earned rose from £89 in 1878 to £99 in 1883—but in greater immunity from epidemics and 247illness than in neighbouring schools, and in the greater buoyancy of spirits of the children.^[578]

In this matter of providing a midday meal for the children attending rural schools, Scotland would appear to be, on the whole, in advance of England, though the extent of the provision made varies considerably in different districts. Thus, in the Border Counties, very few schools make any arrangements,^[579] while in Fifeshire, where the Inspector "has consistently pressed upon managers" the necessity for providing dinners, the attitude of most of the rural Boards is one of "stolid apathy."^[580] In Aberdeenshire, on the other hand, a cup of cocoa or a plate of soup is provided in most of the country schools,^[581] and in the county of Inverness almost all the schools provide some sort of hot liquid.^[582] In Kincardineshire it was reported in 1906 that the soup kitchen was a "universal institution."^[583] The meals may be paid for by the children, these payments being supplemented by voluntary contributions in money or in kind.

But even where it is the rule to find cocoa or soup supplied, it is inadequate for the wants of many of the children, who require a more substantial and nourishing midday meal. Moreover, the provision appears as a rule to be confined to the winter months, a limitation patently absurd, since the raison d'être of the meals is not 248so much the poverty of the parents, a condition which may fluctuate according to the seasons, but the fact that the distances are, in many cases, too great to allow the children time to return home at midday—which condition is, of course, constant the whole year round.

APPENDIX III THE PROVISION OF MEALS ABROAD — (a) France — (i) The Cantines Scolaires in Paris — (ii) Provision in other French Towns. — (b) Switzerland — (c) Italy — (d) Germany — (e) Austria — (f) Belgium — (g) Holland — (h) Denmark — (i) Norway — (j) Sweden — (k) United States of America

We have not been able to make any original enquiry into the systems of school feeding existing in other countries. The following history of the "Cantines Scolaires" in Paris and brief notes as to the provision made in other foreign towns may, however, be useful for purposes of reference, and as showing how widespread has been the movement for the feeding of school children. The information as to foreign towns other than Paris is derived mainly from Prize Essays on Feeding School Children, 1890; Report of London School Board on Underfed Children attending School, 1899, Appendix ix., pp. 255-272; Feeding of School Children in Continental and American Cities (Cd. 2926), 1906; The Free Feeding of School Children, a reprint of the reports by the Special Sanitary Commissioner of the Lancet, 2nd edition, 1907; while fuller and more recent information is to be found in School Feeding, its Practice at Home and Abroad, by Louise S. Bryant, 1913.

Paris has long offered to other cities an inspiring example of an efficient and uniform system for feeding poor school children. She was the first to make systematic provision on a large scale. She had a basis of organisation ready to her hand in the Caisses des Ecoles. 250These bodies correspond in some degree to the English Care Committees, though with a far wider sphere of action. The original object of these school funds was to encourage school attendance by rewards to industrious pupils and help to the needy. The first Caisse was established in 1849 by the National Guard in the second arrondissement, and gradually the system spread. In 1867 a law was passed encouraging the formation of Caisses in every commune, and directing that their revenues were to consist of voluntary subscriptions and subventions by the commune, department or state.^[584] This law was merely permissive, but in 1882, by the Compulsory Education Law, the establishment of these organisations was made obligatory.^[585] A Caisse was accordingly set up in each of the twenty arrondissements of Paris. Attendance at school being now compulsory, and it being therefore no longer so necessary to provide incentives to attendance, the Caisses, though they still continued to grant prizes, turned their attention more and more to the physical needs of the children, boots, clothing, food, country holidays and, later, crèches, Savings Banks, skilled apprenticeship and medical treatment. The Caisse was a voluntary body, but was officially recognised by the municipality. The General Committee was composed of the Mayor, the members of the Municipal Council, and the school inspector for the district, together with from twenty to twenty-four persons elected by the subscribers.^[586]

As in other towns, the early attempts at feeding poor school children were due to private initiative; meals were provided by the Caisses des Ecoles or other voluntary 251associations or by philanthropic individuals. These attempts were unco-ordinated and inadequate to deal with the evil of underfeeding. In 1879 the Municipal Council made an enquiry into the whole question. As a result a scheme was drawn up to place the work on a more satisfactory and uniform basis under public control. The provision of meals was entrusted in each arrondissement to the Caisses des Ecoles, and a grant of 480,000 francs was voted by the Municipal Council to aid them in this work.^[587]

It is interesting to note that it was seriously considered whether the meals should not be supplied free for all children attending the schools. The Council, however, came to the conclusion that, "in freeing the parents of all responsibility with regard to their children, and in accustoming them to evade their duties, they would be running the risk of weakening the family spirit, to the great detriment of the morality both of the children and of the parents."^[588] It was, therefore, decided that free provision should be limited to necessitous children. At the same time it would be difficult to exclude children who were willing to pay for their meals, hence provision should be made for these too.

The voluntary subscriptions which had supported the work before 1880 continued in theory to be the chief resource of the new Cantines Scolaires. These voluntary subscriptions rapidly decreased, being either withdrawn altogether or diverted to the other objects of the Caisses. At the same time both the number of meals provided and the proportion of free meals increased no less markedly. In 1880, the first year in which meals 252were provided under the new system, only 33 per cent. of the meals were supplied free (the remainder being paid for by the parents); in 1898 this proportion had nearly doubled, being 63 per cent. The municipal subsidy rose correspondingly, and in 1899 amounted to 1,017,000 francs. The Council took fright and appointed a Commission to consider the question, with the result that the grant was restricted to 1,000,000 francs.^[589] This limit has been fairly strictly adhered to, for the grant amounts now to only 1,050,000 francs, though the proportion of free meals has continued slowly to increase.^[590]

Each Caisse is allowed a free hand in the actual details of administration, hence the arrangements vary in the different arrondissements. The want of uniformity has obvious disadvantages, and a proposal was recently made that the system should be centralised, but this would have necessitated the appointment of a large and expensive staff, and it was felt desirable to leave the initiative and responsibility to voluntary workers.^[591] Everywhere the meal is served on the school premises, a kitchen being established for each school or group of schools. The meal is cooked by the cantinières, and is sometimes provided by them at a fixed price per head; more often the Caisse prefers to purchase the materials itself, a more economical method, and one which ensures a better quality of food.^[592] The dinner may consist of one, two or three courses. The food is plentiful and good, well-cooked and well-served, and the menu sufficiently varied. The meals are made as attractive as possible to encourage 253the better-class parents to make use of them. The price charged varies from 1d. to 2d.; in almost all the arrondissements the charge appears to be below the cost price. No difference is made between the children who pay and those who are on the free list. The teachers do not assist in serving the food, as in England, but are always present to supervise the children, and, in some schools at any rate, they eat their dinner with them. At first the supervision was undertaken voluntarily, but since 1910 the teachers have received an extra remuneration of 1·50 francs a day for this duty.^[593] This sharing in a common meal by all classes alike, together with the presence of the teacher, has had a marked influence on the children's manners. Besides the mid-day meal, which is given by all the Caisses, breakfasts of soup are sometimes supplied to the children who are receiving free dinners, while in some arrondissements, e.g., the eighteenth, a small meal is also given at four o'clock to these children if they remain at school for the "classe de garde."^[594] A further extension has recently been made in the seventeenth arrondissement, where it was decided in 1912 to try the experiment of a "classe de garde" till eight o'clock in the evening, with a supper, for children of widows or widowers who were at work till late, or for other especially poor children, or children with bad homes, the object being both to secure them adequate nourishment and to remove them from the temptations of the streets. For this purpose the Municipal Council voted a sum of 10,000 francs.^[595] Weakly children have 254codliver oil given to them in winter and syrup of iodide of iron or phosphate of lime in the summer.

The methods of enquiry vary in the different arrondissements. Usually the enquiries are made by a paid investigator, but the numbers of children on the free list are so large that the investigation is as a rule very superficial. The necessity of keeping secret the fact that a child is receiving the meals free also militates against any effective enquiry into the parents' circumstances. The meals are granted for a school year, hence it frequently happens that a child continues to receive them long after the need has passed away.^[596] The enquiries are, as might be expected, the least satisfactory part of the Paris system. In granting the meals the Caisses usually take a generous view; it is held, for instance, that a man earning up to 30s. a week cannot adequately feed and clothe more than three children, and if his family is larger than this the Caisses are prepared to assist him; while widows' children are invariably fed if application is made.^[597]

An interesting feature of the Paris system is the provision of clothes. The municipality insists that the children shall come to school properly clothed; it is ready to provide the requisite garments, but it insists that they shall be kept clean and tidy. Frequent inspections are made for this purpose. The result is a notable raising of the level of cleanliness and tidiness in the schools, both the parents and the children themselves learning to take a pride in their appearance.^[598] So far, indeed, from the work of the Caisses having undermined parental responsibility, it would appear that the reverse 255is the case, the parents responding to the higher standard demanded of them.

What strikes one in comparing the Paris system with that obtaining in English towns is the thoroughness with which the problem is tackled in Paris and the widespread interest taken by the citizens generally in the work of the Caisses. No half measures content them. From the first the work has been educational, the primary object of the Caisses being to encourage school attendance rather than to relieve distress. The educational progress of the children, the improvement in their physique, the raising of the standard of manners and cleanliness, all show that the results have amply justified the expenditure.^[599]

Paris was not the first municipality in France to interest itself in the provision of school meals. The pioneer town in this respect seems to have been Angers, where as early as 1871 the Société de Fourneau des Ecoles Laïques was founded with the support of the municipality, to provide hot dinners, either free or at a cost of 10 centimes, during the winter.^[600] Towards the close of the nineteenth century many municipalities 256were providing meals, either directly or indirectly through voluntary organisations.

Thus at Havre, in 1898, the municipality was making a grant of £500 to a voluntary society; meals were provided for 10 centimes, or were given free in cases of poverty; about five-eighths of the children who attended paid for the meals.^[601]

At Marseilles Cantines Scolaires were organised by the municipality in 1893. Prior to this date meals had been provided in some three or four schools, but only in a haphazard manner by voluntary agencies. By the bye-law of 1893 a committee of twenty-two was to be appointed by the Mayor, and presided over by him or his representative; this committee was to investigate the demands made for free meals. In 1905 about 8 per cent. of the children in the communal schools were dining at school, about half this number paying for the meal; in the infant schools the proportion fed was much greater, viz., 18 per cent., while only about one-sixth of the parents paid. As in Paris, no distinction was made between the paying and the non-paying children. Dinner tickets could be bought at all the police stations; if the parents wished to receive the meals free, they had to make application personally or by letter to the education department; if on investigation they proved to be unable to pay, the municipality provided them with tickets.^[602]

At Nice also Cantines Scolaires were established by the municipality about 1896. Here the object was not so much to feed starving children as to provide a suitable meal for children who came such distances that they were unable to return home at mid-day. The municipality 257built kitchens, provided all the necessary apparatus, and paid the salaries of the cooks. A penny was charged for a dinner of soup, the meal being given free to those who could not afford to pay. Any deficit was supplied by voluntary subscriptions. In the infant schools, on the other hand, the municipality assumed the entire responsibility, and a hot meal was provided for all the children without payment.^[603]

By 1909 Cantines Scolaires of one kind or another had been very generally established. It appeared that at this date something like three-fifths were supported entirely by public funds, the remainder being so supported indirectly and partially. In many towns where regular cantines had not been instituted, the teachers or janitors served warm soup to the children at a nominal sum. In country districts or smaller towns, the children would bring the raw material for soup and the teacher would prepare it; the children would also bring their own bread, and sometimes wine and cake. Whether any organised provision was made or not, the great majority of the schools everywhere had a stove on which the children could warm any food they brought with them.^[604]

Switzerland was one of the first countries in which provision for necessitous school children became the subject of national legislation. The question early attracted attention. The long distances which many of the children had to walk to school rendered the provision of a mid-day meal of the greatest importance, while clothing and especially boots were little less necessary. After 1890 the system of providing food and clothing was 258greatly extended. The provision was everywhere made by voluntary societies, but assistance was given from the cantonal and communal funds. The cantonal contribution was derived chiefly from the alcohol monopoly profits and was devoted to this provision for the children's wants on the theory that their misery was in most cases the direct result of parental insobriety!^[605] This method of administration by voluntary societies, subsidised but not controlled by the municipal authorities, proved most extravagant, and led to much abuse, while it aroused sectarian jealousies. The municipalities began, consequently, to take over the direct management of the school meals.^[606] In 1903 the Federal Government issued an order making it obligatory for cantons to supply food and clothing to necessitous children in the public elementary schools. Three years later it authorised the use of state funds for this purpose, on the understanding that in no case should the cantonal or city support be lessened because of this federal support.^[607]

As in other countries, the early attempts at school feeding in Italy were made by voluntary agencies. In many towns, towards the close of the nineteenth century, Committees of Assistance and Benevolent Funds were instituted to assist poor pupils in the elementary schools, chiefly in the matter of books and clothing, but in several communes of Lombardy and Romagna meals were also given. A small grant, which in 1897 was raised to 120,000 francs (£4,800), was made by the Department of Public Instruction to the school authorities 259in the large cities, and especially Rome, who provided a mid-day meal for their children.^[608]

The first town in which the municipality undertook the provision of meals was San Remo, in 1896. This policy was inaugurated by the Socialist Council. It was temporarily abandoned in 1898, when a Conservative Council was appointed who preferred the subsidising of voluntary agencies to direct municipal action, but was re-introduced on the return of the Socialists to power some four years later.^[609]

In Milan an agitation for the provision of meals was set on foot in the last decade of the nineteenth century. The municipal authority declined to undertake the work themselves, but advocated the formation of charitable committees to raise subscriptions for the purpose, offering to supplement these voluntary funds with a municipal subvention. This grant amounted in 1897 to about £400.^[610] It was soon found that this system did not work satisfactorily, and the municipality was obliged, though somewhat reluctantly, to assume the responsibility.^[611]

But it is in the small rural town of Vercelli that we find the most remarkable experiment.^[612] Here for some years a charitable committee had been providing meals for children who lived too far from school to go home at mid-day, and the municipality had granted a small subsidy, but it was felt that this provision was entirely inadequate. In 1900 it was decided to provide a meal for all the children attending the elementary schools. 260The object was not the relief of distress but education in its fullest sense, as distinct from mere instruction. It was argued that the mid-day recess furnished an opportunity for moral education which could not be imparted in the class-room. The teachers would be brought into more intimate relation with the children, while the joining of richer and poorer alike in the common meal and in recreation afterwards would instil sentiments of brotherhood. The meal was to be free to all and attendance compulsory, for rich and poor were to be treated exactly alike. With the same object of preventing class distinctions, clothes were supplied for the poorer children, the municipality providing the material which was worked into garments by the sewing classes. The teachers were to have the same food, though they were allowed a double quantity, and were to eat it with the children. For this extra duty of supervising both the meals and recreation they only received an additional £2 a year. Since the moral rather than the physical welfare of the child was the primary consideration, too little attention was paid to the actual food that was given. The parents, it was argued, could in the great majority of cases amply feed their children at home, hence all that was needed was to supply sufficient food to compensate for the waste of energy during the two and a half hours of morning school. A cold meal of bread and sausage or cheese was given. This did not satisfy the more prosperous children, who would have preferred to pay for a hot meal, and some 10 per cent. of the children, chiefly the richer ones, obtained a medical certificate exempting them from attendance. Nor was the meal sufficient for the poorest children who were suffering from lack of food. To provide a really adequate meal free for all would have been too expensive an undertaking. Accordingly, after some six years, the general free provision 261was abandoned. Instead, hot soup was provided, which was given free to the poorest children, any others who wished being allowed to receive it on payment of 1·50 lire a month.^[613]

The "School Restaurant" seems to have been established in Italy to a greater extent than in any other country. A very large proportion of the children attend, and a great number of these pay for the meals. In 1908-9 it was found that in forty-three cities the average attendance amounted to 37 per cent. of the total school population; while in several towns the attendance rose to over 70 per cent.^[614]

In Germany little attention appears to have been paid to the question of feeding school children, apart from their parents, till the closing years of the nineteenth century.^[615] In some of the large towns, at any rate, the arrangements that were made were quite inadequate. In Berlin, for instance, there was in 1890 no society whose chief object was the provision of school meals. A society which provided food for the poor generally had a branch which devoted special attention to the needs of school children, and gave a small sum, generally only 15s. or 20s. a year, to the committee of each parish school, to be used at the headmaster's discretion. Generally milk and bread were given in the headmaster's house.^[616] About 1890 the subject began to attract more attention, especially in connection with the vacation colonies for school children; it was found that the children who were sent to these colonies, on returning to their homes, lost the benefit they 262had gained, owing to lack of food. On an attempt being made to continue the work of the colonies by feeding some of the children, it was found that thousands of others were also underfed.^[617] In 1897 a Bill was introduced in the Reichstag by the Social Democrats to make provision for school meals in the cities. The Bill was defeated on the ground that it would increase the migration to the cities from the rural districts.^[618] Some ten years later the agitation for national legislation was renewed, as a result of the discovery that from 44 to 46 per cent. of the conscripts for the Imperial Army were rejected on account of physical unfitness.^[619]

In 1909 it was found that out of 189 cities from which information was obtained, in 78 meals were being provided by voluntary societies, without any subsidy from, or control by, the municipal authorities, though these latter usually co-operated in the supervision and service, and often supplied rooms, gas and cooking free; in 68 cities, meals were provided by voluntary organisations, but the city governments subsidised, and usually exercised some control over, their work; while in 43 cities the provision of meals was undertaken entirely by the municipality.^[620]

In Austria school meals are provided in most of the large towns.

In Vienna the Central Association for feeding necessitous school children was founded in 1887, with the help and approval of the municipality, the Mayor acting as President and the Municipal Council being represented on its Administrative Council. Meals were given from November to April, occasionally at the schools, but more often 263in restaurants. All the meals were supplied free. The children were selected by the School Managers and the headmaster, and enquiry was made by Local Committees with the help of voluntary workers. The teachers supervised the meals.^[621] In 1888-9, the Municipal Council made a grant to this society towards the provision of food;^[622] by 1896 this municipal subsidy amounted to 50,000 frs. (£2,000), while 52,500 frs. were granted for the supply of clothing.^[623] In 1906 the food subsidy had risen to £3,350.^[624] The provision made was, however, inadequate. Meals were only given during the winter, and were not obtained by all the children who needed them. It was felt that the city ought to assume direct control. In 1909 kitchens and dining-rooms were built in four new public schools.^[625]

In most of the Belgian towns in the last decade of the nineteenth century voluntary organisations were to be found whose object was to provide food and clothing for poor school children. This provision was made to enable them to attend school instead of begging in the streets, since education was not compulsory.^[626] In Brussels the chief society was "Le Progrès" Club, which in 1888 commenced the provision of soup dinners in the schools. The Town Council assisted by providing tables and undertaking the carriage of the food to the different centres, and in 1891 by granting a subsidy of 5,000 frs. An application 264was very soon made for an increase of this subsidy, whereupon the municipality undertook a detailed enquiry into the whole question of the food, clothing, lodging, cleanliness and health of the children in the communal schools. It was found as a result that 16·89 per cent. were badly shod, 25·04 per cent. badly clothed, and 25·55 per cent. insufficiently fed.^[627] The work of medical inspection and treatment was very early undertaken by the local authority. At the date of this report (1894), a doctor and dentist were attached to each school; frequent inspections were made by the doctor, and preventive medicine, e.g., codliver oil, was provided from public funds.^[628] The provision of meals continued to be undertaken by voluntary organisations, aided by a municipal subsidy. In 1903-04, this subsidy amounted to 10,000 frs. for the communal schools, and 5,000 frs. for the clerical schools. In addition large quantities of clothing were supplied from public funds.^[629]

At Liège, as early as 1883, the municipality organised the provision of soup for all children in the kindergartens who wished to receive it.^[630] The dinner was only given on condition that the children were clean and tidy. Each child was expected to have clean linen twice a week and also to have a pocket handkerchief. A teacher was present to supervise the children, and share the meal with them. Each child brought a basket of bread and fruit to supplement the food provided, and at the end any bread that remained was packed in the baskets by the children, to 265prevent waste and to inculcate habits of thrift.^[631] The whole cost was borne out of municipal funds. In 1901 a voluntary committee was formed for providing soup in the communal primary schools. This committee placed at the disposal of the municipality a sum of 10,000 frs., in order that general provision might be made for the first year's scholars in the primary schools, on the same lines as in the kindergartens. In other classes in the primary schools soup was given only to necessitous children, or to those whose parents were at work all day; this provision was at first limited to three months during the winter, but in 1905 the municipality voted a grant of 7,000 frs. in order that it might be extended to six months.^[632]

Holland was the first country to enact national legislation for the provision of school meals. The law of 1900 enforcing compulsory education authorised municipal authorities to provide food and clothing for all school children, whether in public or private schools, who, owing to lack of these necessaries, were unable to attend school regularly. This provision might be undertaken directly by the municipality, or by means of subsidies to voluntary organisations.^[633]

In some of the cities of Denmark meals were provided by voluntary agencies in the 'seventies. In 1902 a law was passed allowing municipal authorities to subsidise these organisations. This system, however, proved 266unsatisfactory and, in 1907, a campaign was set on foot for compulsory national legislation.^[634]

In Copenhagen the municipality from 1902 made a grant of 25,000 kr. (about £1,400) to the "Society for Providing Meals to Free School Children," the voluntary contributions to which were rapidly diminishing. This society, though a voluntary organisation, was directly connected with the municipality, its Executive Board consisting of the seven municipal school inspectors and four private gentlemen, while the municipal school director was ex officio president. More than half the total expenditure was met out of the municipal subsidy, the balance being made up by voluntary contributions. Dinners were given three days a week to all the children in the free schools who wished to attend. No charge was made and no question raised as to the economic circumstances of the parents. About 33 per cent. of the total number of free school children availed themselves of this provision.^[635]

Christiania was the first town in Norway to make municipal provision for underfed school children. The system was started in 1897. A proposal was made to distribute food free to all elementary school children, but this was, at the time, rejected. In the winter of 1897-8, applications were made on behalf of 25.92 per cent. of the pupils in the school, the great majority of the meals being given free.^[636] The children made such marked progress as a result of this experiment that the system 267was extended and in Christiania and several other towns a good dinner was provided by the school authorities for all school children who cared to attend, the entire cost of the system being met by taxation.^[637] It was soon found that the advantages of this free provision outweighed the expense. At Trondhjem, when the proposal was first made by the Socialists, it was bitterly opposed, but by 1906 the system was unanimously supported by all sections.^[638]

In many towns in Sweden schemes for feeding poor school children were started in the 'eighties, these voluntary schemes being later subsidised by the local authorities.^[639]

In Stockholm several voluntary organisations were formed for supplying meals, the provision being usually limited to necessitous children. In order to preserve the self-respect of the children and parents, some of these societies adopted the plan of allowing the children to contribute to the expense of the dinner by performing some manual work, the making of baskets (which were sold), the mending of clothes, the sweeping out of the rooms, etc.^[640] Towards the close of the nineteenth century the School Boards of the several parishes resolved to build kitchens at the schools. The kitchens generally contained several fireplaces, at each of which dinners for a certain number of children were prepared by the elder girls.^[641] Each child only received a dinner three times a week.

268At Jönköping the free distribution of meals dates from 1887. The funds, which were derived from voluntary contributions and proceeds of concerts, were administered by the Board School Inspector, and the distribution of the food was supervised by the School Board. The children were usually sent for dinner to the houses of private ladies who undertook the catering.^[642] The poorest children were fed twice a week, those who were rather less poor only once.

At Gothenburg, besides the provision made by voluntary agencies, the Board of Education distributed bread to certain children who were selected by the School Board.^[643]

In America^[644] the movement for the feeding of school children is of comparatively recent date. It is true that in the numerous Day Industrial Schools which were instituted in the nineteenth century by voluntary organisations, e.g., by the Children's Aid Society, meals were always given,^[645] but it was not till 1904, when Mr. Robert Hunter in his "Poverty" stated that probably 60,000 or 70,000 children in New York City often arrived at school hungry and unfitted to do their school work well,^[646] that public attention was seriously directed to the question of under-feeding among school children.

In New York in 1908 a School Lunch Committee of physicians and social workers was formed with the object of ascertaining if a three cent lunch could be made self-supporting. This idea of making the meals self-supporting seems to be characteristic of the provision made in 269most of the American cities. Two schools were at first chosen, and the experiment proved so successful that two years later the Board of Education gave permission for lunches to be supplied in other schools. The Board provided rooms, equipment and gas; the cost of the food and service had to be met by the sale of tickets. The meals are served sometimes in the basement in the schools, and there does not appear to be always adequate accommodation. The meal itself is well cooked and served, the elder children helping the staff. A physician draws up the dietaries. These include one main dish such as soup, stew, rice pudding, etc., costing the child about four cents. There are besides "extras," such as dessert, cakes or other delicacies, which may be bought for one cent, but only by children who have had the main dish. The meals are not quite self-supporting, as a small number are given free.^[647]

In Philadelphia the Starr Center Association undertook school feeding in some schools over fifteen years ago, but it is now managed by the Home and School League. Several of the schools provide a meal, some at 10.30 a.m., others a fuller meal at midday. The cost is one cent for lunch and three to five cents for dinner. There is one hot dish of soup or rice pudding, etc., and the children may spend another cent on the "extra" dainty. The meals are self-supporting. The teachers co-operate enthusiastically, and sometimes eat with the children. The food is served on japanned trays in enamel bowls and a paper napkin is provided. The washing up is done by the children under supervision, and everything is carefully sterilised. Both the superintendent, who is responsible for planning the meals and purchasing the food materials, and the home visitor are trained dietists.^[648]

270In Boston the Hygiene Committee of the Home and School Association began to organise school dinners in 1909, at a school with a kitchen attached. By 1911 meals were being supplied at twenty-two schools. Equipment was given in the first place, and the meals are now self-supporting. In schools where there is a kitchen, the cooking classes prepare and serve the meals; here one cent amply covers the cost of the food. In other schools outside help is hired, and an extra cent per meal ticket meets this expense.^[649]

Throughout the rest of the States the system is gaining ground. By 1912 some thirty cities had organised the provision of school meals, while in at least twenty others the question was under consideration. Everywhere this provision was made by voluntary organisations.^[650] Public funds could not be utilised, but there was growing anxiety that the question should be made a national concern. The nearest approach to legislative action was taken by Massachusetts, where in 1912 the Committee on Education of the Lower House reported favourably a Bill to allow School Boards to spend part of the school funds on the provision of meals.^[651]

INDEX