The report of the Committee was published late in 1905. Meanwhile the Parliamentary agitation had continued. Two Bills were introduced in March by Mr. Claude Hay and Mr. Arthur Henderson.[[130]] These were withdrawn to make way for a resolution moved by Mr. (afterwards Sir Bamford) Slack—"that in the opinion of this House, the Local Education Authorities should be empowered (as unanimously recommended by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration, 1904) to make provision, under such regulations and conditions as they may decide, for ensuring that all the children at any public elementary school in their area shall receive proper nourishment before being subjected to mental or physical instruction, and for recovering the cost, where expedient, from the parents or guardians."[[131]] This resolution marks an important stage in the movement, for it received support from all sides of the House, and was passed by a considerable majority.[[132]] One feature of the debate was new. It was no longer said that the matter should be left solely to private charity. The main point at issue now was whether the money required should come from the Education rate or the Poor rate.[[133]]
(d)—Provision by the Guardians.
Following on this resolution came an attempt to deal with the question through the machinery of the Poor Law. By the Relief (School Children) Order,[[134]] issued in April, 1905, the Guardians were empowered to grant relief to the child of an able-bodied man without requiring him to enter the workhouse or perform the outdoor labour test.[[135]] Any relief so given was to be on loan if the case was one of habitual neglect, and might be so given in any case at the discretion of the Guardians.[[136]] Except with the special sanction of the Local Government Board proceedings were always to be taken to recover the cost.[[137]] The children of widows and of wives not living with their husbands were expressly excluded from the scope of the order.[[138]] The reason for this omission was that these children could already be dealt with by the Guardians and that, therefore, no further sanction was needed, but this was not clearly explained by the Local Government Board, and was indeed not generally understood.[[139]] It was recommended that, where charitable organisations existed, the Guardians should make arrangements with them for the supply of food; in other cases an arrangement might be made with a local shopkeeper.[[140]] A circular issued by the Board of Education to the Local Education Authorities, explaining how these authorities could co-operate with the Guardians in carrying out the order, classified underfed children under three heads:—(1) those whose parents were permanently impoverished; (2) those whose parents through illness, loss of employment, or other unavoidable causes were temporarily unable to provide for them; (3) those whose parents, though capable of making provision, had neglected to do so. It was suggested that the second of these groups of cases should be left to the voluntary agencies, the first and third being dealt with by the Guardians.[[141]]
In a large number of Unions this order was entirely disregarded.[[142]] In London the County Council, though ready to assist in carrying it out where local authorities desired it, declined to initiate proceedings, for they did not look upon the order as "materially helping the solution of the problem."[[143]] Where the Local Education Authority and the Guardians agreed on a scheme, there was constant friction. This was only to be expected. The opposing views of the two bodies—the one actuated by a desire to ensure that children should not be prevented by lack of food from taking advantage of the education provided for them, the other imbued with the spirit of deterrence—militated against any successful co-operation. When the Local Education Authority sent in lists of underfed children, the Guardians cut them down ruthlessly.[[144]] There was no serious contention that these children did not need food, but merely that their parents' circumstances were such that they could afford to provide it. Undoubtedly under the voluntary feeding system there had been much abuse, many parents obtaining the meals when they were in receipt of good incomes.[[145]] But in these cases, with very few exceptions,[[146]] no pressure was brought to bear by the Guardians on the parents to force them to provide adequate food for their children, and the children consequently remained unfed. In many cases the fathers of the children indignantly refused to allow them to receive the meals when they discovered that disfranchisement was entailed.
At Bradford, where the most systematic attempt was made to carry out the order, the disputes and difficulties proved endless. "The principles upon which the Guardians ... proceeded in selecting the children to be fed were," declared Mr. F. W. Jowett, "such as made not for the feeding of the children so much as for the saving of expense."[[147]] The quality of the food and the conditions under which the meals were served[[148]] were hotly criticised. The attempt on the part of the Guardians to recover the cost from the parents raised a storm of protest.[[149]] Finally, in May, 1907, the Guardians announced their intention of discontinuing the provision of meals and the Local Education Authority took over the work.[[150]] In no other town was the action of the Guardians prolonged to so late a date. By the end of 1906, indeed, the Order had become a dead letter. Meanwhile, the public having assumed that everything necessary would be undertaken by the Poor Law Authorities, voluntary contributions had declined.[[151]]
(e)—The Education (Provision of Meals) Act.
The Relief (School Children) Order having proved a "relative failure," to use Mr. John Burns' moderate expression,[[152]] and the evidence given before the Committee on Medical Inspection and Feeding of School Children having demonstrated once more the inadequacy of existing agencies to cope with the evil, it became imperative for Parliament to take action. Early in 1906 the Education (Provision of Meals) Bill was introduced.[[153]] The opposition to this Bill, both inside[[154]] and outside[[155]] the House, rested mainly on the familiar arguments respecting parental responsibility and the advisability of leaving all questions connected with relief to the Poor Law Authorities. We hear also the objection that free meals must lead to a reduction in wages.[[156]] The strongest argument, to which, however, little attention was paid, was that urged by the Edinburgh School Board before the Select Committee of the House of Commons to which the Bill was referred. "The Bill touches the fringe of very serious and comprehensive social problems with which the Imperial Parliament should deal, and it [the School Board] objects to so much power being placed upon a local authority before Parliament has dealt with serious principles underlying the questions involved."[[157]] "The causes of low physique and vitality, and inability to profit by instruction" are "insanitation, overcrowding, keeping the children out at night very late or all night, bad footwear, and homes where they have no ventilation at night," irregular meals, "uncleanliness and bad clothing and out-of-school employment."[[158]] This was very true, but it did not convince the public that nothing should be done. In the experience of Miss Horn, the secretary of the Westminster Health Society, where continuous feeding was combined with regular visits to the parents, there was a distinct improvement in the standard of the homes.[[159]]
During the Parliamentary debates, for the first time, much emphasis was laid on the educational value of the meals if served under proper conditions. Mr. Birrell "could conceive no greater service to posterity than to raise the standard of living in the children of the present day."[[160]] "It was desired that this work should be not a work of relief, but a work of education," declared Mr. Lough, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education. "They wanted wholesome food given to the children and they wanted the children taught how to eat it, which was a most useful lesson."[[161]] "This was not merely a question of providing the meals," said Mr. John Burns, "it was also one of teaching better habits and manners."[[162]] For this work the Local Education Authorities were better fitted than the Guardians, for they "would attract, in a way which Boards of Guardians would not, the services of voluntary agencies, of leisured people ... and of managers and teachers, whose assistance was absolutely essential."[[163]] For these reasons it was essential that the Local Education Authorities should have power to provide meals, not only for necessitous children but also, on receipt of payment, for the children of all parents who desired it.[[164]]
The new attitude of Society towards the child and the family was brought out by Lord Grimthorpe during the debates in the House of Lords. "The children are the paramount consideration.... In a great many cases the parents are already demoralised owing to having themselves been insufficiently nourished in their youth. Because they suffer from those conditions there is no reason why we should inflict similar conditions on the children.... Experience in this matter shows us that the sense of parental responsibility will be increased rather than decreased. When the parent sees that his child is regarded by the nation as a valuable national asset he himself will think more of his child."[[165]]
The Bill received the Royal assent on December 21, 1906.[[166]] It provided that the Local Education Authority might associate with themselves any committee (called a School Canteen Committee) on which the Authority was represented, who would undertake to provide food, and might aid that committee by furnishing buildings and apparatus and the officers and servants necessary for the organisation, preparation and service of the meals.[[167]] The parents were to be charged such an amount as might be determined by the Local Education Authority, and, in the event of non-payment, the Local Authority, unless satisfied that the parent was unable to pay, should recover the amount summarily as a civil debt.[[168]] Failure on the part of the parent to pay was not, however, to involve disfranchisement.[[169]] Where the Education Authority resolved "that any of the children attending an elementary school within their area are unable by reason of lack of food to take full advantage of the education provided for them, and have ascertained that funds other than public funds are not available or are insufficient in amount to defray the cost of food," they might, with the sanction of the Board of Education, provide for food out of the rates, the amount thus spent being, however, limited to what would be produced by a halfpenny rate.[[170]] The teachers might, if they desired, assist in the provision of meals but they were not to be required as part of their duties to do so.[[171]]