[317]. This was the opinion of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Medical Inspection and Feeding in 1905. (See ante, p. [37].) "If no distinction is made between the paying children and the non-paying children," declared one witness, "I feel sure that the Birmingham artisan would not send his children. He would not let them go to receive a meal in regard to which it was not known whether it was given free or not." (Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Medical Inspection and Feeding, 1905, Vol. II., Q. 1246, evidence of Mr. George Hookham.) See also the evidence given by Mr. F. Wilkinson, the Director of Education for Bolton. (Ibid., Qs. 3115-3119.)
[320]. The amount recovered after prosecution in 1911-12 was £42 10s. 6d. for the whole of England and Wales, London accounting for more than half this sum. (Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for 1911, pp. 325-7.) To this we must add the amount recovered with more or less difficulty, but without prosecution.
[322]. Report of the West Ham Education Committee for the year ending March 31, 1912, p. 54.
[323]. In 1911 proceedings were taken against parents in only eight towns, including London. The number of cases was 219, of which 147 were in London. (Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for 1911, pp. 325-327.)
[324]. Report on the work of the Bootle School Canteen Committee, 1910-11, p. 21. Since this date the Committee have accordingly made no attempt to prosecute parents for repayment of the cost.
[325]. Extracts from Annual Reports of Bradford Education Committee for the four years ended March 31, 1907, 1908, 1909 and 1910, p. 13.
[326]. At Bradford a child who is underfed through neglect is put on the feeding-list for a month before the bill is sent to its parents, so that it may receive the benefit of the meals for this period at any rate.