We have reserved the treatment of London for a separate chapter since, owing to its size and the diverse conditions prevailing in the different districts, it presents problems of special difficulty. We shall describe in this chapter the provision made in the early years of this century by voluntary agencies, and the final assumption by the London County Council of the whole responsibility of dealing with its underfed children; we shall trace the gradual building up of a vast and complex organisation to deal not only with the question of school meals, but also with other matters affecting the general welfare of the children; and we shall discuss the actual methods of working at the present day.

(a)—The Organisation of the Voluntary Agencies.

We have already sketched the early history of the movement in London, and described the attempts made by the London School Board to organise the host of voluntary agencies.^[372] The proposal put forward by a Committee of the School Board in 1899 to make that body responsible for providing food for all its underfed children was, as we have shown, defeated by a large majority, and a renewed attempt was made by the establishment of a central organisation, the Joint Committee on Underfed Children, to organise the voluntary agencies.

This attempt met with but little more success than the earlier endeavours. The functions of the Joint Committee were limited to receiving reports from the Relief Committees, pointing out defects in their methods of working, and acting generally as a medium of communication between these committees and the collecting agencies. If the Relief Committees failed to send reports, the Joint Committee had no power to compel them to do so, nor could the Committee insist on the remedying of the defects which they pointed out. By 1907 the Committee were able to report that only one school had been discovered in which meals were provided but no report received. "We may hope, therefore," they continue, "that ... the instructions of the Council ... have at last reached all head teachers and are being obeyed. But in default of any executive and inspecting machinery, it has taken the persistent efforts of the Joint Committee, during six years, to effect this result, if indeed it has really been effected."^[373] The greatest difficulty was experienced in getting Relief Committees established in every school or group of schools in which underfed children were provided with meals.^[374] Even when these committees were appointed, the meetings of many of them were held infrequently and for formal business only, the selection of the children and the enquiry into the parents' circumstances being left entirely to the teachers.^[375] Consequently the methods of selection differed widely, even in the same school, the different departments paying no attention to what the others were doing.^[376] The enquiry was generally totally inadequate, and in some cases was not even attempted.^[377] The Joint Committee urged that, when meals were given at all, they should be given regularly at least four if not five days a week, and should be continued throughout the year if necessary.^[378] But in 1907 we find that "there are still a good many schools where meals are only provided on one or two days, and more where they are only given on three days, the average number throughout the schools being 2-3/4 meals per child per week."^[379] In only sixteen schools were the meals continued for more than twenty weeks during the year.^[380]

The Joint Committee strenuously opposed the theory, which was now steadily gaining ground, that the rates should be utilised for the supply of food. In 1904 they report that, in their opinion, "all real distress on any considerable scale has been effectually met.... They have never been restricted in their efforts for want of funds, and there is no reason to think that any organisations dealing with public money would be more efficient than these bodies dealing with charitable money. On the other hand, there is reason to believe that, even as things are now, relief is often given to children who are not really in want, and there is no doubt that if the public purse were being drawn upon, relief would be distributed more lavishly."^[381] The County Council could hardly, however, remain unmoved by the disquieting report of the Committee on Physical Deterioration published in the same year. Dr. Eichholz, in his evidence before the committee, had indeed described the existing method of feeding in London as "entirely in the nature of a temporary stop-gap. There is," he declared, "but little concentrated effort at building up enfeebled constitutions, school feeding doing little beyond arresting further degeneracy."^[382] In April, 1905, the Council accordingly resolved "that, with a view to checking the physical deterioration among the London population and securing the best result from the expenditure on education, it be referred to the Education Committee to consider and report as to the necessary Parliamentary power being obtained for the provision of food where necessary for the children attending rate-supported schools in London."^[383] The Education Committee, however, while admitting that there were numbers of underfed and ill-fed children attending the schools and that in the case of these children it was impossible to secure the best results from an educational standpoint, were nevertheless of opinion that, "while the necessity for feeding children as the last resort out of public funds is a proposition endorsed by the whole spirit of the Poor Law," there were strong arguments against seeking power to utilise the rates at present. The provision of school meals out of public funds must tend to lessen parental responsibility, and the expense entailed would be very serious, since the numbers, though small at first, would inevitably tend to increase.^[384] The Committee recommended, therefore, that the experiment should be tried of utilising the food prepared at the cookery centres. The advantages of this course would be twofold. The experiment would prove whether there was a demand on the part of the better-off parents for the provision of cheap dinners at school, while the training at the cookery centres would be improved by receiving a more practical trend.^[385]

The experiment was accordingly tried at five^[386] selected schools. In three of these schools, which were situated in poor districts, dinners were supplied at 1-1/2d each. In the other two schools, situated in better-class neighbourhoods, the cost was 2d. and 3d., the parents preferring the more expensive dinner.^[387] The Council having no power to spend the rates on the provision of food, the meals had to be paid for by the parents or by charitable agencies. The teachers were instructed not to choose only necessitous children, but to distribute the tickets fairly between the children in the schools, the object being to try the experiment of a common dinner.^[388] From an educational point of view the dinners were very successful. The children were taught to eat properly,^[389] and the girls attending the cookery class benefited by the practical training. It appeared, too, that there was a demand, in certain districts at any rate, for the provision of cheap dinners at school.^[390] But the experiment was on too small a scale to have much practical bearing on the question of feeding necessitous children. For large numbers the cookery centres were quite inadequate and any attempt to use them primarily for the object of providing children's meals would interfere with the instruction given.

(b)—The Assumption of Responsibility by the County Council.

No further serious attempt was made for some years to place the provision of food upon the rates. On the passing of the Provision of Meals Act the County Council took over the whole responsibility for the provision, the Joint Committee on Underfed Children, which had been composed partly of representatives of voluntary organisations,^[391] giving place to a Sub-Committee of the Education Committee^[392]; but voluntary funds were still relied on. In 1908, however, the supply began to fail. In July of that year a conference of the Mayors of the London boroughs had declared that there was no reason to fear that voluntary contributions would be insufficient to defray the cost of food.^[393] The appeal subsequently issued met, however, with a very meagre response, only some £6,000 being subscribed.^[394] By the end of the year it became clear that recourse must be had to the rates, and application was accordingly made to the Board of Education. The new system was put in force early in 1909.^[395]

Meanwhile the constant complaints of the varying methods pursued by the different Care Committees^[396] in the selection of the children, and the rapid increase in the number of children fed,^[397] led the Sub-Committee on Underfed Children to call for a report on the circumstances of these children, so that the cause of the distress might be ascertained and some light thrown on the question how far the provision of free meals was really an effective remedy for the evils which existed.^[398] An investigation was accordingly conducted by the two officials who had been appointed by the Council to organise the work of the local Care Committees. Twelve schools were selected in different districts, and a careful enquiry made into the circumstances of all the children at these schools who were receiving free meals. In all 1,218 families were dealt with, containing 3,334 children.

In a small number of the cases, 3·9 per cent., the distress was found to be due to illness or some other temporary misfortune; unemployment of the wage-earner accounted for 5·7 per cent., and under-employment for 19 per cent., of the cases; in 44·7 per cent. the cause of the distress was attributed to the intemperance or wastefulness of the parents.^[399] The necessity of providing school meals, at any rate as a temporary expedient, was clearly proved. It was found that, though 21·12 per cent. of the children were not necessitous, the remaining 78·88 per cent. were necessitous "in the sense of lacking sufficient food," and that they would require school meals "until effective Care Committees are able to check the diseases attendant on partial employment, bad housing and other evils."^[400] So far little attempt had been made to improve the conditions of the homes by systematic visiting. With the majority of the Care Committees, declared the organisers, "their only active members are the head teachers and their only visitors are the attendance officers."^[401] The complaints as to want of uniformity in the selection of the children were corroborated. In many schools "each department has its own system of enquiry, its own method of selection, its own standard of necessity, and the result is that it is seldom that all the school children of one family are on the necessitous list."^[402] The extent of overlapping between the Education Authority and the Boards of Guardians was shown by the fact that out of the 1,218 families 39 were in receipt of out-relief while no fewer than 165 had been in receipt of relief recently.^[403]

To put an end to all this want of uniformity it was recommended that a responsible secretary visitor should be appointed for each school or group of schools, who would organise bands of voluntary workers, and co-operate with all existing local agencies for social improvement. It was urged that the duties of the Care Committees should not be confined to the provision of meals, but should include everything pertaining to the health and general well-being of the child.^[404] This latter recommendation was carried out. The Care Committees were re-organised and given additional duties, the supervision of medical treatment and the work of after-care,^[405] and it was resolved that a committee should be appointed for every elementary school, not only for those which contained "necessitous" children.^[406] The suggestion that a paid secretary should be appointed for every school or group of schools was not adopted. The Council decided merely to appoint twelve paid lady workers for the whole of London, whose duties would be to strengthen the Care Committees. At the same time, as a further step towards uniformity, local associations of Care Committees were formed. Several such associations had already come into existence voluntarily, but they were now made uniform and permanent. The functions of these associations, which numbered 27, were to make all the arrangements in connection with the feeding centres, and to collect voluntary contributions. They were also to act as advisory bodies. At their meetings would be discussed such questions as the selection of children to be fed, after-care, medical treatment, and any other duties falling to the Care Committees to be performed. They would thus, it was hoped, initiate a common policy and serve as a means of co-ordinating the work of the various Care Committees. Two-thirds of their members were to be representatives of Care Committees, one-sixth were to be nominated by the Teachers' Local Consultative Committees, and one-sixth appointed by the Children's Care (Central) Sub-Committee.^[407]

There are thus to-day three distinct, though interdependent, organisations—the Children's Care (Central) Sub-Committee, the Local Associations of Care Committees and the local Care Committees appointed for each school.

In considering the development in London of the movement for the provision of meals, one is struck by the haphazard way in which the vast organisation has been built up. The County Council has from the first been reluctant to undertake the responsibility for its underfed children. "The whole question of deciding which children are underfed, and of making special provision for such children," declared the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Underfed Children in 1908, "should really be one for the Poor Law Authority to decide, and not the Education Authority."^[408] The attempt to make the Guardians carry out their duty having signally failed, the London County Council was forced to undertake the task, but it has done so in a half-hearted fashion. The results of this failure to grasp the problem in a statesmanlike manner are conspicuously evident in the conditions prevailing to-day.

(c)—The Extent of the Provision.

The total expenditure on the provision of meals in London amounted, for the year 1912-13, to £99,805. Of this by far the greater part, £98,111, was derived from the rates, voluntary contributions amounting to only £3. Apart from these voluntary contributions collected by the Local Associations, however, a few schools "contract out" and supply the meals from their own private sources.^[409] Moreover, large sums were collected by voluntary organisations for the provision of meals during the holidays, especially during the summer holiday of 1912, owing to the distress caused by the dock strike. And besides this holiday feeding, which, since it cannot be met out of the rates, must be paid for out of voluntary funds, there are still a certain number of voluntary agencies which are providing meals quite independently of the County Council.

Amongst the most important of these is the London Vegetarian Association. One of the chief objects of this Association, which has been in existence many years, is the popularisation in the homes of the poor of a vegetable diet which is at once both cheap and wholesome. Dinners are provided consisting of a bowl of vegetable soup, a slice of wholemeal bread and a slab of pudding. As a rule the meals are given during the winter only, being continued during the Christmas holidays and, if necessary, during the Easter holidays, and on Saturdays also. The number of centres opened varies according to the state of the Association's finances and the need that exists. During the present winter some half-dozen have been established, besides the central depôt in Whitechapel, about 900 children on an average being fed daily. Since the passing of the Provision of Meals Act the activities of the Association, as far as the children are concerned, have been confined theoretically to the supply of dinners to children under school age or to children who wish to pay for the meals. But school children who prefer to be fed by the Association rather than by the school are also given meals, as in addition are those who are not considered necessitous by the School Care Committee. Any child can have a dinner on producing a halfpenny. Free dinners are only given to children for whom application is made by some charitable agency, district visitors, Little Sisters of the Poor or other persons interested, no enquiry being made by the Association itself in these cases. It is clear that there is much danger of overlapping—in fact it has been found that, in some cases, children have obtained a dinner at school first and have then gone on to the depôt. In other cases it seems that the Association feeds some children of a family, the Care Committee others.

The total number of individual children fed during the year 1912-13 was 100,771,^[410] the average weekly number being 41,529. The numbers fed during the last thirteen years are seen in the following table:—^[411]

(d)—The Care Committee.

In the selection of the children the County Council has throughout pursued the policy of keeping the numbers fed as low as possible. The School Doctor may recommend for meals, or more frequently for milk or codliver oil, under-nourished children whom he discovers in the course of medical inspection,^[412] but the number of such cases is comparatively small. As a rule the children are selected by the teachers (either on their own initiative or, more frequently, on the application of the parents) on the ground of poverty.

The enquiry into the home circumstances of these children and the final decision as to which of them shall be fed, devolve upon the Care Committees. These Care Committees form the most striking feature of the administration of the Provision of Meals Act in London. In no other town have the services of the volunteer worker been utilised to such an extent.^[413] As we have seen, the County Council decided in 1909 that a Children's Care Committee should be formed for every elementary school, and there is now practically no school for which a committee has not been appointed.^[414] The committees consist of two or three of the School Managers, together with not less than four voluntary workers appointed by the Children's Care (Central) Sub-Committee.^[415] The head teachers, though not members,^[416] usually attend the meetings, and in some cases undertake a considerable amount of clerical work. The members of these committees number some 5,600,^[417] but of these many take little or no part in the work, and the effective membership amounts perhaps to not more than two-thirds of this total.

The functions of the Care Committees are numerous and important. They do not merely decide which children shall receive school meals. They have also to "follow up" cases of children who are found by the School Medical Officer to need medical treatment, and, by visiting the homes, induce the parents to obtain this treatment; often they arrange for the supply of spectacles at reduced rates and collect payment from the parents by instalments. Further, they have to advise parents in connection with the employment of their children, referring suitable cases to the Local Juvenile Advisory Committee, Apprenticeship Committee or other agency, and generally befriending the children leaving school. Some committees undertake the work in connection with the Children's Country Holidays Fund. Frequently the Care Committee makes arrangements for the supply of boots,^[418] and sometimes also clothing, gratuitously or at reduced rates.

The advantages of such a system of voluntary workers, acting in connection with, and under the guidance of, the Local Authority are many. The volunteer worker, as has often been pointed out, can bring to bear on individual cases a patience and an enthusiasm which the official has no time to bestow. By getting into friendly relations with the mother, the volunteer visitor will often be able to help the family in numberless ways. The Care Committee system represents, indeed, one of the most hopeful movements of the time, denoting, as it does, an awakening of the social conscience and a revolt against the old system of district visiting, which meant too frequently merely the giving of a dole, a system which encouraged a patronising attitude on the one hand, and a cadging habit on the other. From the Care Committee visitor little in the way of material gifts is to be expected. Instead, some effort is demanded from the parent. He, or more usually she, is asked to co-operate with the Care Committee in doing what is necessary for the child's welfare. Moreover, the Care Committee is invaluable as a means of educating public opinion. Many will be found who, though perhaps strongly opposed in theory to the whole system of the provision of free meals, are yet willing to work for the children, and by contact with the children and their homes will learn something of the life and struggles of the poor, and a better mutual understanding will be brought about. As the Warden of a Settlement in Liverpool has pointed out, "it is a constant lament of administrators of education that the public care more for saving the rates than making citizens. The complaint is justified. We only care about what we understand; the public understands the money it has to pay, but it does not understand what happens to it. As a matter of fact ninety per cent. of the ratepaying public have never been at a feeding centre or seen a medical inspection; and their own education was of such a scanty nature that one cannot expect their general imagination to supply the deficiency. Hence they grumble at paying for a service of which they are ignorant. The remedy lies in making them understand. From the young men and women of these families we can recruit Care Committee workers. They will visit the homes of the people, the feeding centres and the school; their imagination will be stirred and their intellects quickened; finally, the time will come when an enlightened public opinion will be the critic of the education policy of our city."^[419] Splendid work is now being done in many parts of London by the Care Committees and it is greatly to be regretted that the system has not been more widely adopted in the provinces.

On the other hand, the disadvantages of relying only on voluntary help must not be overlooked. In the first place there is the difficulty of securing enough workers. Remarkable as has been the response to the appeal of the County Council for helpers, yet many more are needed. In the residential parts of London this difficulty is not so much felt, but in the poorer districts, where the need is greatest, it is impossible to find enough people with leisure to devote to the work. From every Care Committee that we have visited comes the cry for more helpers. If the friendly relations with the parents are to be established, which are essential if the maximum amount of good is to be derived from the various activities which are undertaken by the school authorities, it is of the greatest importance that the homes should be visited; but it is rare to find a sufficient supply of workers forthcoming for this visiting to be undertaken regularly. It is true that some committees visit the homes once a month or sometimes even, in doubtful cases, once a fortnight, but more frequently visits are paid at long intervals, and in some districts many of the homes are never visited at all. At a school in East London, for instance (and this is typical of many others), we were told that it is found in practice quite impossible for every case to be visited, since there are only two members of the Care Committee to undertake this work. A committee in another district reports, "visits in doubtful cases are made twice a year, supplemented by quarterly visits," while another committee in the same district reports that, "owing to the lack of sufficient help, it is often necessary to receive parents instead of visiting homes."

Still more difficult is it to obtain honorary secretaries. The functions of a Care Committee are, as we have seen, many and varied, and involve an enormous amount of work, if they are to be performed efficiently, especially in districts where few volunteers can be obtained and where, in consequence, a disproportionate amount of visiting falls to the lot of the secretary. The secretary of a Care Committee in Stepney found that it was necessary to give three quarters of her time to the work, and "even so, outside help had to be called in to keep the clerical work even approximately up to date."^[420] The secretary of another school in East London informed us that he had to give four full days a week, besides some hours devoted to clerical work in the evening; while another secretary, in Central London, gives about four hours' work on an average five days a week. Obviously it is impossible to secure enough volunteers. Many who undertake the work of secretary find after a few months that they are obliged to give it up. The history of too many Care Committees is a record of ever-changing secretaries, interspersed with more or less prolonged interregna. In one district—and this appears to be typical of London as a whole—we were told that, out of 91 schools, some 10 or 15 were at the time without secretaries, and the duties had to be undertaken by the Assistant Organisers. These officials are already overburdened, and the result is that all but the most urgent work is left undone. Nothing is more disheartening for an energetic secretary who has laboured hard to effect some improvement in the condition of the children than to find, when forced by stress of circumstances to give up the work, that no one can be found to undertake the secretaryship and that, consequently, much of the devoted labour of months, perhaps of years, is undone.

The need for the appointment of paid secretaries for each school or group of schools was, as we have seen, pointed out as long ago as 1908.^[421] Since that date the activities of the Care Committees have been enormously extended, and, in certain districts at any rate, if the work is to be done with any degree of efficiency, the necessity for such paid secretaries is becoming absolutely imperative.

But apart from the difficulty of securing enough voluntary workers, there are inherent disadvantages in the present system. The enquiry into the circumstances of the parents is not a duty for which the ordinary volunteer worker is fitted. And the necessity of making these enquiries may endanger those friendly relations which it is of such importance to establish between the visitor and the parent. The enquiry is generally totally inadequate. In the majority of cases the visitor is not trained for the purpose, and frequently finds this work distasteful. Each visitor has a different standard. No enquiry is made from the employer^[422]; indeed, in the large number of cases where the father is casually employed such enquiry would be impracticable. In many cases there is little or no knowledge of what other help is being given to the family. Many committees insist on the parents appearing before them to answer enquiries as to their circumstances. This is sometimes, as we have seen, rendered necessary by the lack of workers and the consequent impossibility of visiting the homes. But even if the homes are visited some committees consider that the obligation on the part of the parents to apply in person furnishes a test of the genuineness of their need. The attendance of the father, where it can be secured, is useful as it proves a means of bringing home to him his responsibility. It is not infrequently found that the mother has applied for meals without the husband's knowledge. On the other hand, as we have already shown, the insistence on the parents' attendance may result in considerable hardship to them, entailing perhaps the loss of half a day's work. They are often kept waiting for a considerable time. Moreover, the assembling of numbers together, all for the purpose of making application for meals, tends to diminish the sense of self-respect. For this reason many committees consider it undesirable to summon the parents, or they only summon them in special cases. When the parent is summoned and does not attend, the Council lays down that, if no immediate home visit is possible, a notice shall be sent to the parent that if he or she fails to attend before the committee or to show some good reason for not attending, the committee will be obliged to charge for the meals supplied to the children.^[423] As far as we can discover, this is very rarely done. The far more usual course is for the committee to send a notice to the effect that the meals will be discontinued unless the parent appeals.

Another disadvantage arising from the utilisation of the service of voluntary workers alone, is that no sufficient control can be exercised by the Central Authority to enforce a common policy. A certain amount of latitude is desirable so as to allow scope for individual initiative and experiment. But in the matter of selection of the children to be fed want of uniformity is wholly to be condemned. The diversity in methods that prevails is in effect amazing. In two schools situated almost side by side, and drawing their children from the same streets, the percentage fed may be, in the one case, two, in the other ten, fifteen or even more.^[424] We have found this lack of uniformity in other towns, since the numbers fed depend very largely on the views taken by individual teachers, but in London there is superadded the diversity produced by the divergence of views of the different Care Committees. In one Care Committee the socialist element will be predominant. In another the work may be done on strictly "C.O.S." lines; the meals are regarded simply as a form of relief, and the feeding-list is cut down to the lowest limit.^[425]

The County Council has not found it possible to lay down any uniform rule for the guidance of the committees.^[426] Though, in a small number of cases, the committee professes to have a scale, usually that laid down by Rowntree,^[427] in practice this is a very rough criterion, frequently departed from, and the cases are all virtually decided on their merits. Moreover, the policy of the same Care Committee even will not always be a consistent one. The decision as to any particular case will vary with the presence or absence of particular members of the Committee.

Where children from the same family attend different schools—a frequent occurrence in London—meals may be granted at one school and refused at another. The County Council have issued elaborate regulations for ensuring that in such cases each Care Committee concerned shall know what the others are doing.^[428] But though many Care Committees do communicate with one another, or notify cases to a Mutual Registration Committee, the County Council's instructions are frequently disregarded. The secretary of one committee informed us that during the whole time of her secretaryship—a period of over a year—she never once received any notification from another committee. Even where the cases are notified, it by no means follows that the several committees concerned adopt the same plan of action; often we have found that the one committee did not know in any particular case what the result of their notification had been. One secretary even told us that though all the committees in her district mutually notified cases to each other, this was solely for information; they pursued their own policy, merely noting that some of the children of the family were receiving meals at another school.^[429]

To the parents this diversity of treatment of similar cases can only appear as capricious. Successive visits by the Care Committee visitors from different schools, all making the same enquiries, are a needless source of irritation to the parent, while being at the same time unnecessary expenditure of time and energy for the visitors. Attempts have been made in some districts to put an end to this waste of energy and overlapping. In Camberwell, two or three years ago, it was decided that the Care Committee visiting should be organised by streets instead of by schools. The Care Committees of the different schools all sent on their cases to the secretary of the organisation, who referred them to the visitor for the particular street.^[430] This scheme worked very well for about eighteen months, but was then given up chiefly because the secretary could not continue the work. Now three Care Committees in this district have been amalgamated, so as to secure some measure of uniformity.^[431] In a few other districts also, the Care Committees for groups of schools, though nominally separately appointed for each school, are in effect composed of the same people. Quite recently an attempt to prevent overlapping has been made by the County Council on a larger scale. In Whitechapel the Council have provided a Central Office where case papers will be kept, and paid assistants have been appointed who will notify to each Care Committee any assistance which is being given to the brothers and sisters of the children with whom they are dealing.

(e)—The Provision for Paying Children.

The County Council from the first has not looked with approval on the proposal that meals should be provided as a matter of convenience to parents who are willing to pay for them. "Only cases of exceptional hardship," declared the Education Committee, "e.g., children of widowers or of widows who are compelled, owing to their work, to be away from home all day—should be so dealt with."^[432] In such cases payment must be made in advance and a week's notice be given, the full cost of the meals being charged.^[433] Consequently, in most schools we find that no parents or only an insignificant number are voluntarily paying for the meals.^[434] But that there is a certain demand for such provision is shown by the number of applications received where the Care Committee encourages such a plan. In one school, for instance, we were informed that a number of parents paid; sometimes when the children had been receiving free meals the parents wished the children to continue having them when the home circumstances improved, and were quite willing to pay the cost. In such cases they preferred the children to go to the Cookery Centre, this being looked on as superior to the feeding-centre. In another district we were told that, though there was a demand on the part of the parents, this was not encouraged, partly because the staff of supervisors was inadequate to cope with larger numbers. There is frequently an unfortunate difference in the treatment of the paying and the non-paying children. At one centre, for instance, the "necessitous" children are placed at one table, and are supplied with food provided by the Alexandra Trust; the paying children are placed at another and are given food cooked at the Cookery Centre. At another school we were told that the paying children were fed at one end of the room, the necessitous children at the other; incidentally the paying children had to stand, since there were no chairs available, while the necessitous children sat on forms. In several schools the parents pay for milk or codliver oil when this is recommended by the doctor. In at least one school, however, we were told that though some of the parents would be willing to pay for this milk, it was too much trouble to collect the money, so no payment was asked. In one or two schools milk is provided for any child who likes to pay a halfpenny, and this provision is very largely taken advantage of.

In the special schools for mentally defective children, where the provision of meals is carried on on the same lines as in the ordinary elementary schools, the proportion of children who pay for the meals is greater, since, owing to the distance from school of many of the children's homes, provision has to be made for non-necessitous as well as necessitous. In the Cripple Schools special provision has for many years been made by the Cripple Children's Dinners Committee. This body provides the food, the County Council supplying the apparatus and attendance. Dinners are supplied for all the children at a charge of 2d. each. The parents appear thoroughly to appreciate the provision made, and the great majority of them pay the full cost, only a few of the children receiving the dinner free or at a reduced price.^[435]

(f)—The Service of the Meals.

The results of the half-hearted fashion in which London undertook the responsibility for its underfed children are seen nowhere more clearly than in the arrangements made for serving the meals. The County Council seems to have been actuated throughout rather by the desire to keep the expense down to the minimum than to supply the children with the most suitable food and to see that the meals were served under civilising conditions. In the early years after the Council took over the provision, the Local Committees were left to make the best arrangements that they could. Little encouragement was given them in any endeavour to provide wholesome and varied meals under conditions likely to exercise an educational influence over the children. Still less was any attempt made to enforce such a policy. The reports are almost silent on this aspect of the question, though the scanty references which are to be found show a far from satisfactory state of affairs. In 1908, for instance, it was reported that at thirty schools, where 3,090 children were fed, plates and mugs were not provided. "This has meant generally," reports the Executive Officer, "that the children brought their own mugs and ate the food out of their hands." In twenty other schools insufficient provision was made for washing up the utensils used and, "as food was served to the children in successive relays, two or more children used each drinking vessel or plate before it had been washed." "The usual meal has been a dinner of soup (sometimes containing meat), with, in certain cases, a form of pudding as an alternative. In the great majority of cases this was the daily meal for months without variety."^[436] The Care Committee organisers, in their Report on the Home Circumstances of Necessitous Children in the same year, remark that, considering "the poor accommodation and the inferior quality of the meals often provided for the children," together with the fact that the highest average number of meals per child was 4·4 per week, it could not be expected that there would be much noticeable improvement in the physical condition of the children."^[437]

Since the formation of the Local Associations of Care Committees in 1909 conditions have improved, but they are still far from satisfactory. As we have already mentioned, these Associations were formed in order to introduce some measure of uniformity into the work of feeding the necessitous children of the metropolis. They were from henceforth to be responsible for the arrangements made for the actual serving of the meals. The selection of a suitable centre rests with them, and it is their duty to arrange for the requisite supply of food and for the proper service of the meals and supervision of the children during the meal time.

The food may be supplied by the Alexandra Trust, a local caterer, a cookery centre or a kitchen managed by the Local Association. The quality of the food varies according to the arrangements made by each Local Association. The food specially prepared for the Jewish children appears to be generally good. At the cookery centres again, though complaints are occasionally heard that the dinners are badly cooked, they are as a rule appetising, and the menu is varied. The great majority of the meals are, however, supplied by the Alexandra Trust. Ten different dinner menus have been drawn up by this Trust, with a slight variation for summer,^[438] but in practice there is very little variety, practically the same dietary being repeated week after week; usually there is a deficiency of proteids and fats. The quantity supplied for each child varies considerably in different centres. In one that we visited, for instance, each child was given a large helping of suet pudding with minced meat, followed by a large plateful of rice, and second helpings were given if required; at another, where the dinner consisted of only one course, with a piece of bread, the portions were very small; the cook admitted that some of the children could eat more, but if any were allowed a second helping all would ask for it, whether they wanted it or not, and the food would then be left uneaten.

How far the infants' needs are specially catered for depends on each Local Association. Sometimes they are fed by themselves at the Cookery Centre, where it is easier to provide suitable food and to pay individual attention to their wants. More often they go with the elder children to the feeding-centres. The Alexandra Trust has drawn up a special menu for infants, and in centres where the food is supplied otherwise than by the Trust the Council have instructed the Local Association to make special provision.^[439] But it is rare to find any such provision made. As a rule the infants have the same food as the elder children, though in centres where there is careful supervision, and where the infants are placed at a separate table,^[440] the size of the helping is suited to their appetites. In many centres the number of infants is so few as to make the preparation of a separate diet hardly worth while, and the provision of special food has been known to give rise to jealousy on the part of the elder children.

Ordinarily one meal a day is provided, this meal being almost invariably dinner, but in cases of special necessity or delicacy an additional meal may be given. This meal may be either breakfast, milk or codliver oil. The practice varies in each school. In some schools breakfast is never given, or given only in very rare cases. In others breakfasts as well as dinners are given to the most necessitous children. At St. George's-in-the-East formerly only breakfasts were given, but now dinners are given in addition to all the children on the feeding-list; the breakfast is used as a test, the theory being that if the child does not come for breakfast it shall not receive dinner, but in practice this plan is not strictly carried out. Milk and codliver oil are given in most schools, when recommended by the School Doctor; in some schools milk is also given on economic grounds, as an additional meal to specially necessitous children, instead of breakfast. In a few schools a quantity of milk is supplied in the middle of the morning, and any child who pays a halfpenny can have it, the children, especially the infants, being encouraged to spend their halfpence on milk instead of on sweets.

Where no other suitable accommodation is available, the meals may be served in the School Hall, but this method is not encouraged by the Council, and is frequently objected to by the teachers, and it is only occasionally utilised. Often, as we have already mentioned, the meals are served in the cookery centres, but the number of children that can be thus accommodated is necessarily limited, and the centre may be closed during the summer. Till recently some Local Associations arranged for their children to be sent to small eating-houses. We have already pointed out the disadvantages—the impossibility of making the meal in any sense educational, and the lack of control over the dietary—inherent, even under the most favourable conditions, in this system. But in London, in many of these cookshops, the conditions were the reverse of favourable; they could, indeed, only be described as deplorable. For instance, at one eating-house, where the children were sent for their dinners up to the spring of 1912, the room used was hardly larger than a cupboard, and only six or eight children could be fed at a time; the children had to go in relays and, when the numbers were very large, had to sit on the stairs eating their food. In others the conditions were equally bad. The plan of utilising restaurants is, we are glad to say, falling into disfavour, but it is not yet entirely abandoned.

The most usual method is for the children to be sent to centres. These centres are frequently basement rooms, dark and cheerless. Occasionally plants or flowers are provided, but it is very rare to find any attempt at table decoration. Since the average cost of serving the meals is much less proportionately if the number of children is large, the County Council has, for the sake of economy, decided that, where possible, schools shall be grouped, and the children from them fed at one centre.^[441] As we have already pointed out, the herding together of large numbers of children from different schools deprives the meal of much of its educational value. The children from the different schools will come in at different times. Often the centre is not large enough for them all to be accommodated at once, and they have to be served in relays, with the consequence that the meal must be hurried through. They are usually seated at long tables, and are often crowded together, so that adequate supervision is rendered very difficult.

The supervision is occasionally undertaken voluntarily by teachers, and in many centres by other voluntary workers. Where their regular attendance can be secured the good results are soon apparent. But the visits of voluntary supervisors are too often irregular, and it may happen that no one is present to supervise the meal, except the women who serve the food. In many districts it is impossible to obtain the services of volunteers at all, and paid supervisors are appointed.^[442] These may be assistant teachers, retired teachers or other suitable persons. One supervisor may be appointed for every hundred children, but frequently the number to be looked after by one supervisor far exceeds a hundred. Thus, in three centres we visited, there were 140 to 160 children present, whilst in two others the numbers were well over two hundred; in all these there was only one supervisor.

The County Council has drawn up regulations for the management of the centres,^[443] but these regulations are largely disregarded. The Council, for instance, has laid it down that boys and girls are to be appointed to act as monitors, to assist in laying the tables and serving the meals. In many centres this is not even attempted, and occasionally where their services are utilised, owing to the large number of children present, the supervisor is unable to devote much attention to the training of the monitors, and their presence rather adds to the prevailing confusion than conduces to the orderly and quiet service of the meal. Another of the Council's regulations directs that a separate mug shall be provided for each child.^[444] But it appears to be the exception rather than the rule for this instruction to be observed. Though a sufficient supply of mugs is, or can on application be, supplied for every centre, the women who serve the meals, being only employed and paid for a fixed time, object to the extra labour involved in washing up. Frequently no mugs are placed on the table at all, though we were told that the children could have water if they asked for it; when mugs are provided there is often only one to every two or three children, perhaps to every five or six! At one centre that we visited, though the girls were allowed mugs, the boys were not trusted, and mugs of water were placed on a side table for their indiscriminate use after the meal.

The actual management of each centre varies, of course, very largely according to the personality of the supervisor. We have visited some two or three centres where all the arrangements were admirable; the children were quiet and well-behaved, there was little or no waste of food, and attention was paid to individual wants. But these cases are unfortunately exceptional. Out of twenty centres in different parts of London that we have seen,^[445] in at least half the educational advantages to be derived from the common meal are imperfectly realised.^[446] In a few cases the supervisors appear to consider this aspect as but of secondary importance. So long as the children are fed and some sort of rough order preserved, they are satisfied. The meal may be eaten in a babel of noise. Food which the children do not fancy they will throw on the floor, little attempt being made to prevent waste. But in any case, in many centres, owing to the large number of children to be attended to, the task of inculcating table manners is an almost impossible one. Though the supervisors do their utmost, for instance, to teach the children to use spoons and forks, it is not uncommon to observe children eating with their fingers—even occasionally licking their plates! It is impossible for the supervisor to give that individual attention which is absolutely essential if the meal is to be in any sense educational.

(g)—Overlapping with the Poor Law Authority.

We have already described the extent to which, in the provinces, the provision of meals by the Local Education Authority overlaps the granting of relief by the Poor Law Authorities. London is no exception to the general rule. In 1908 it was found that out of 1,218 families investigated, 3·2 per cent. were at the time in receipt of out-relief, while 13·54 per cent. had recently been receiving such relief.^[447] In February, 1910, it was reported that, of the children who were being fed all over London, 4·6 per cent. were from families to whom Poor Law relief was being granted.^[448] The confusion was the greater since the practice of the Guardians varied in each Union. "There is no uniformity of policy or action amongst the Boards," reports the Education Committee of the County Council in 1910. "For example, there could hardly be a wider divergence of principle and practice between public bodies than that which exists between such Boards as Paddington, Fulham, and St. George's-in-the-East on the one hand, and Islington and Poplar on the other. In the case of Fulham, the Guardians, when assessing the relief to be granted, take into account the extent to which school meals are already being supplied to children of the family ... but in the case of Poplar, the Guardians have informed the various school Care Committees that 'the fact that a family is in receipt of poor law relief should not be considered as a reason for the children not being supplied with meals.'"^[449] To put an end to all this overlapping and diversity of practice, the Council proposed that the Guardians should purchase school meals for the children of families who were in receipt of relief. The Local Government Board, however, declined to agree to this course. In practice, they thought, it was hardly possible to avoid all difficulty of overlapping, "though it should be feasible, with careful administration, to restrict it within reasonable limits"; the only suggestion they offered towards the solution of the difficulty was that, if it appeared to the Education Authority that a child whose parents were receiving out-relief required supervision by the Guardians, the Education Authority should communicate with the Guardians with a view to an investigation of the circumstances.^[450] This suggestion was acted upon, and the Care Committees were instructed in future to notify to the Guardians all cases in which, to their knowledge, necessitous children belonged to families in receipt of poor law relief.^[451] But such notification had little practical result. The Guardians continued to grant inadequate relief, and the Council felt compelled to continue to provide these children with food. How necessary school meals were was, indeed, clearly shown by a resolution of the Hammersmith Guardians, who themselves actually declared that, "when school children's parents are in receipt of outdoor relief, that fact should in general be taken as an indication that such children would be benefited by school meals, and not as an indication that they are adequately fed, since, as a matter of fact, outdoor relief is seldom or never adequate"!^[452]

Though the Council's proposal that the Boards of Guardians should repay the cost of the meals was rejected by the Local Government Board, as far as London generally was concerned, individual Boards have agreed to the plan. In Lambeth and Chelsea the Guardians have consented to pay the cost of meals supplied to the children of parents who are receiving out-relief, if they consider that school meals are necessary.^[453] At Hampstead, where the funds for the provision of school meals are supplied by the Council of Social Welfare,^[454] an informal arrangement has been made with the Guardians. Where the mother can stay at home and can be trusted to expend the relief given in food for the children, the Guardians have agreed to give ample relief. Where the mother goes out to work or cannot be trusted to feed the children properly, or where it is undesirable for the children to go home, the Council of Social Welfare pays for school dinners.

But as a rule no definite arrangement is made. A few Care Committees refuse to feed children whose parents are receiving relief, but in the great majority of schools cases are to be found where children are being fed by the Care Committee, while their parents are being relieved by the Guardians.^[455] Frequently no official communication passes between the two authorities concerned. The Guardians may learn indirectly through the Relieving Officer, or perhaps through some member of their Board who happens also to be a member of the Care Committee, that the latter are feeding the children. Where a system of mutual registration has been established, each authority will, theoretically, be informed of what the other is doing. How far all cases are actually notified will depend on the secretary of each individual Care Committee. And this system of mutual registration does not prevent overlapping in many cases where the children are on the feeding-list for a short time only, since cases are often notified only once a month, by which time the necessity for feeding may have ceased. Occasionally the Guardians ask the Care Committee to inform them if they discover any cases where the relief appears inadequate, so that they may increase it, if necessary. In other Unions the Guardians deliberately count on the provision of school meals to supplement the relief given; they tell the parents to apply for dinners and grant less relief in consequence, thereafter priding themselves on keeping down the rates.