[128]. Ibid., p. 71, par. 258.
[129]. Ibid., p. 58, par. 205. This was already being done in some rural schools. At Siddington, for instance, a hot dinner had been supplied for the last two years, the parents' payments more than covering the cost of the food. (Ibid., par. 202.) We have already alluded to the experiment at Rousdon, where dinners were provided throughout the year in a specially provided dining-room, as a part of the school organisation. Here the cost of the food was not quite covered by the parents' payments. (Ibid., par. 203.)
[130]. Hansard, March 27 and 29, 1905, Vol. 143, pp. 1307-9, 1543.
[131]. Ibid., April 18, 1905, Vol. 145, p. 531.
[132]. Ibid., March 2, 1906, Vol. 152, p. 1394.
[133]. Ibid., April 18, 1905, Vol. 145, p. 554. The balance of opinion was at this date in favour of the latter. Sir John Gorst thought that where the parents could not pay for the meals "reference should be made to the Poor Law authority, and the natural consequences of the receipt of public relief would follow." (Ibid., July 9, 1903, Vol. 125, p. 197.) In the Bill introduced by Mr. Claude Hay in March, 1905, provision was made for payment of the cost of meals by the Guardians, but any parent receiving such relief from the Guardians might apply to a court of summary jurisdiction and the court, "if satisfied that the parent's ... inability to pay is temporary and arises from no fault of his own," might make an order that he should not be disfranchised. (Elementary Education (Feeding of Children) Bill, 1905, clause 3.)
[134]. For a description of the working of this order see the Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, 1909, 8vo. edition, Vol. III., pp. 160-162.
[135]. Relief (School Children) Order, 1905, Article V. (in 35th Report of Local Government Board, 1905-6, p. 322).
[136]. Ibid., Article II., sec. 2.
[137]. Ibid., Article VI. Whether the amount was recovered or not the parent became a pauper, and was disfranchised.