[118]. "At present," declared one witness, "the funds are wasted through their being distributed over too large a number of children.... At one school ... the headmaster asked the boys whether they would like to have their ticket this week or next week." (Ibid., Vol. II., Q. 1780, evidence of Mr. T. E. Harvey.) At Norwich, a child received a meal only once a week. "There was no system of feeding the children regularly. They had to take it in turns." (Ibid., Q. 4228, evidence of Mrs. Pillow.) At Hull it was "a rough rule given to the teacher" that a child should be fed every other day. (Ibid., Qs. 6157, 6158, evidence of Mr. G. F. Grant.) See also evidence given by Mrs. Adler (Qs. 135-136), Mrs. Burgwin (Q. 446), and the Rev. J. C. Mantle (Q. 2452). It was even urged by Mr. Hookham, of Birmingham, that the insufficiency of the provision was a positive advantage. The fact "that there are more children wanting meals than can get them ... is the main safeguard against imposition." Without this safeguard, he declares, "you will lose the evidence which the children give against one another when imposition takes place, which I think is the most valuable of all evidence" (Ibid., Q. 1253.)
[119]. Ibid., Vol. I., pp. 75-76, pars. 280-281. The meals given at Bradford were continued all through the year, and so were the breakfasts given by Mr. Hookham at Birmingham (ibid.).
[120]. Ibid., p. 59, par. 208.
[121]. Ibid., p. 75, par. 279.
[122]. Ibid., pp. 84, 85, par. 306, secs. 3, 4.
[123]. Ibid., p. 85, pars. 5, 6.
[124]. Ibid., pp. 60, 61, pars. 210, 215.
[125]. Ibid., pp. 62, 85, pars. 220, 306 (secs. 9, 10).
[126]. Ibid., p. 66, par. 236. So far as the committee could discover, "the question of malnutrition and underfeeding has attracted very little attention in connection with medical inspection. There appears to be no area where the Medical Officer works in close touch with the organisations for the feeding of children." (Ibid., p. 25, par. 97.)
[127]. Ibid., p. 68, par. 242.