CHAPTER III

THE PROVISION OF MEALS IN LONDON

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.

Footnote 372:

See ante, pp. 16-27.

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]

Footnote 373:

Report of the Joint Committee on Underfed Children, for 1906-7, p. 2.

Footnote 374:

Fourth Annual Report of the Joint Committee on Underfed Children, 1904, pp. 1-2; Report of Inter-Departmental Committee on Medical Inspection and Feeding, 1905, Qs. 1649, 1650 (evidence of Mr. T. E. Harvey). Even in 1908 there were 74 schools at which feeding took place which had not a properly constituted committee. (London County Council, Report by Executive Officer (Education), Appendix A to agenda of Sub-Committee on Underfed Children, July 6, 1908.)

Footnote 375:

"There is supposed to be a committee in every school," said one headmaster, "but the committees never meet in the vast majority of cases, and if they do, they never undertake personal investigation." (Report of the Select Committee on the Education (Provision of Meals) Bills (England and Scotland), 1906, Q. 849, evidence of Mr. Marshall Jackman.) "There is [a Relief Committee] in accordance with the rules," declared another headmaster, but "the Committee acts really through the head teachers.... The Committee say that the teachers have their confidence, and they could not do any good by attempting themselves to help as a committee, and therefore they do not help." (Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Medical Inspection and Feeding, 1905, Q. 5149 (evidence of Mr. T. P. Shovelier.) See also _Ibid._, Qs. 4773 A, 4937-4939, 6233, 6265.

Footnote 376:

See, for instance, Report of Inter-Departmental Committee on Medical Inspection and Feeding, 1905, Qs. 185, 5154.

Footnote 377:

"The duty of making enquiries by the managers, or by outsiders working for them, into the home conditions of the children is, with some remarkable exceptions, seldom well done, and often not done at all. They are authorised to invite assistance from attendance officers, ... from Charity Organisation Society visitors, district visitors, country holiday fund visitors, and similar persons, but we have very seldom found that this class of person has been consulted." (Report of the Joint Committee on Underfed Children for 1906-7, p. 23.)

Footnote 378:

_Ibid._ for 1904-5, p. 5.

Footnote 379:

_Ibid._ for 1906-7, Appendix G., p. 23.

Footnote 380:

_Ibid._, p. 2.

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]

Footnote 381:

Fourth Annual Report of the Joint Committee on Underfed Children, 1904, p. 2. Evidence was given before the Inter-Departmental Committee on Medical Inspection and Feeding in 1905, which showed that difficulty was experienced in collecting sufficient funds. The London Schools Dinner Association found that people would contribute at Christmas time, but in the early spring, when the work was heaviest, the subscriptions ceased. (Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Medical Inspection and Feeding, 1905, Qs. 2074, 2081-2083.) See also evidence of Mr. Marshall Jackman before the Select Committee on the Education (Provision of Meals) Bills (England and Scotland), 1906, Qs. 780, 788-790.

Footnote 382:

Report of Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration, 1904, Q. 477.

Footnote 383:

Minutes of the London County Council, April 11, 1905, p. 1381.

Footnote 384:

_Ibid._, July 11, 1905, p. 297.

Footnote 385:

_Ibid._, p. 298.

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.

Footnote 386:

The experiment was later extended to fifteen schools.

Footnote 387:

Report of the Select Committee on the Education (Provision of Meals) Bills, 1906, Qs. 451, 500, evidence of Mr. A. J. Shepheard.

Footnote 388:

_Ibid._, Q. 327.

Footnote 389:

The tables were "nicely laid and with tablecloths, with all the ordinary appliances and requirements of a table put there, such as salt cellars, knives and forks, and everything of that kind. The tables were laid out with flowers ... I think I may quite certainly say that some of these children had never sat down to a meal of that description in their lives." (_Ibid._, Q. 331.)

Footnote 390:

Minutes of the London County Council, December 19, 1905, p. 2138. About eighty per cent. of the meals were paid for by the parents, the remaining twenty per cent. being paid for by friends or voluntary agencies. (Report of the Select Committee on the Education (Provision of Meals) Bills, 1906, Q. 326.)

(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 L6,000 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]

Footnote 391:

When, in 1904, the London School Board was superseded by the London County Council, the Joint Committee on Underfed Children had been continued by the latter body, its constitution remaining practically unaltered. (London County Council, Report of Education Committee, 1908-9, Part II., p. 3.)

Footnote 392:

This Sub-Committee was known at first as the Sub-Committee on Underfed Children. In December, 1908, the name was altered to the Children's Care (Central) Sub-Committee. (_Ibid._, p. 4.)

Footnote 393:

See Minutes of the London County Council, November 24, 1908, p. 1120.

Footnote 394:

"State Feeding of School Children in London," by Sir Charles Elliott, in _Nineteenth Century_, May, 1909, p. 866.

Footnote 395:

London County Council, Report of the Education Committee for 1908-9,