The Feeding of School Children

by M. E. Bulkley

[138]. Ibid., Article VII.

[139]. "The whole Order," declared Mr. Wyatt, the Director of Elementary Education at Manchester, "was a most perplexing thing. Very early in the year there came down to Manchester a Poor Law Inspector who said that the construction of the Order was that the children of widows or deserted women should not come under the Order. That swept away a great many of those we had been feeding." (Report of Select Committee on Education (Provision of Meals) Bills (England and Scotland), 1906, Q. 1208.) Miss Margaret Frere was of opinion that the Order would be a dead letter in that it ruled out the two most difficult classes, one being widows and deserted wives. (Report of Inter-Departmental Committee on Medical Inspection and Feeding, 1905, Vol. II., Q. 483.)

[140]. Circular of Local Government Board accompanying Relief (School Children) Order, in 35th Report of Local Government Board, 1905-6, p. 320.

[141]. Circular issued by the Board of Education to the Local Education Authorities re Relief (School Children) Order, April 28, 1905.

[142]. The order "has been so far practically a dead letter in this district" [the counties of Bedford, Hertford, Huntingdon, etc.]. (35th Report of Local Government Board, 1905-6, p. 452.) Such seems to have been the case also in Yorkshire and the northern counties, in Wales, in Essex and in Surrey, for we find no mention of the Order in the reports of the Inspectors for these districts.

[143]. Minutes of the London County Council, July 11, 1905, p. 297. The Council objected to the introduction of a dual authority in every district, which would cause delay and possibly friction; the absence of any provision for uniformity of rules in the different districts; and the radical error of allowing the cost to fall on the local authorities instead of on Government funds, or at least on the rates of London as a whole. The risk of fathers being disfranchised as a result of meals being supplied by the Guardians to their children without their knowledge, would militate against the usefulness of the scheme (ibid.). As a matter of fact very few cases were relieved in London under the Order. (Hansard, July 31, 1906, Vol. 162, p. 680.) In two unions, Fulham and Wandsworth, where the Guardians offered to assist, the Council allowed lists to be sent from the schools, but the great majority of these children were reported by the Relieving Officers not to be underfed. (Report of Joint Committee on Underfed Children for 1905-6, p. 4.)

[144]. At Bristol out of 129 applications from the Local Education Authority, the Guardians felt justified in giving relief in 12 cases only. (35th Report of Local Government Board, 1905-6, p. 480.) At Chorlton, relief was given in 219 cases out of 1,295 applications; at Salford in 175 out of 1,086. (Ibid., p. 504.) At Stoke-on-Trent, out of 72 cases reported 4 were relieved, and at Ecclesall Bierlow 51 cases were reduced after careful investigation to one. (Ibid., pp. 488, 520.) At Kettering, on the other hand, practically all the cases referred to the Guardians were relieved. (Report of Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, 1909, Appendix, Vol. I., Q. 6443.) This, however, was exceptional.

[145]. At Birmingham it was found that many parents "were earning over 30s. a week, and in one case the parent was in constant employment with an average rate of £3 17s. 6d. a week." (35th Report of Local Government Board, 1905-6, p. 495.) At Bolton, some of the parents were receiving from £2 to £3 a week. (Ibid., p. 506.)

[146]. In the Bolton Union, in cases where the father's income was considered sufficient to provide meals without assistance, "the children were specially watched and reported upon by the Cross Visitor each fortnight, until the Guardians were satisfied that the parents were carrying out their responsibility in this respect.... The Relieving Officer visits the home at meal time, or in the evening, to see what provision is made for feeding the children." (35th Report of Local Government Board, 1905-6, p. 503.) At Birmingham the head teachers were of opinion that the children were being better looked after by their parents than formerly owing to the way in which the Order was being carried out. (Ibid., p. 495.)

[147]. Bradford City Council Proceedings, September 26, 1905.