(Ebook) Insurance: From Underwriting to Derivatives:

Asset Liability Management in Insurance Companies

(Wiley Finance) by Eric Briys, Francois de Varenne
ISBN 9780471492276, 0471492272 download pdf

https://ebooknice.com/product/insurance-from-underwriting-to-
derivatives-asset-liability-management-in-insurance-companies-wiley-
finance-1846100

Visit ebooknice.com today to download the complete set of

ebook or textbook
We have selected some products that you may be interested in
Click the link to download now or visit ebooknice.com
for more options!.

(Ebook) Asset and Liability Management for Banks and Insurance

Companies by Marine Corlosquet-Habart, William Gehin, Jacques
Janssen, Raimondo Manca ISBN 9781848218833, 1848218834

https://ebooknice.com/product/asset-and-liability-management-for-banks-and-
insurance-companies-5258558

(Ebook) ALU 101 TEXTBOOK: BASIC LIFE INSURANCE UNDERWRITING by

Academy of Life Underwriting

https://ebooknice.com/product/alu-101-textbook-basic-life-insurance-
underwriting-43666224

(Ebook) Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook by Loucas, Jason; Viles,

James ISBN 9781459699816, 9781743365571, 9781925268492,
1459699815, 1743365578, 1925268497

https://ebooknice.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-6661374

(Ebook) Tort Law and Liability Insurance (Tort and Insurance

Law) by Gerhard Wagner ISBN 9783211244821, 9783211306314,
3211244824, 3211306315

https://ebooknice.com/product/tort-law-and-liability-insurance-tort-and-
insurance-law-1676510
(Ebook) Laços de afeto - 3a Ed. by Wanderley Oliveira ISBN
9788563365552, 856336555X

https://ebooknice.com/product/lacos-de-afeto-3a-ed-50394824

(Ebook) Risk Management, Liability Insurance, and Asset

Protection Strategies for Doctors and Advisors: Best Practices
from Leading Consultants and Certified Medical Planners by David
Edward Marcinko (Editor); Hope Rachel Hetico (Editor) ISBN
9780429257940, 9781498725989, 9781498725996, 0429257945,
https://ebooknice.com/product/risk-management-liability-insurance-and-
1498725988, 1498725996
asset-protection-strategies-for-doctors-and-advisors-best-practices-from-
leading-consultants-and-certified-medical-planners-12041180

(Ebook) Statistical Inference in Financial and Insurance

Mathematics with R (Optimization in Insurance and Finance Set)
by Alexandre Brouste ISBN 9781785480836, 1785480839

https://ebooknice.com/product/statistical-inference-in-financial-and-
insurance-mathematics-with-r-optimization-in-insurance-and-finance-
set-34452396

(Ebook) Handbook of Asset and Liability Management, Volume 2:

Applications and Case Studies (Handbook of Asset and Liability
Management) (Handbook of Asset and Liability Management) by
Stavros A. Zenios, William T. Ziemba ISBN 9780080548562,
9780444528025, 0444528024, 0080548563
https://ebooknice.com/product/handbook-of-asset-and-liability-management-
volume-2-applications-and-case-studies-handbook-of-asset-and-liability-
management-handbook-of-asset-and-liability-management-1670208

(Ebook) Policy Issues in Insurance Financial Management of

Large-Scale Catastrophes (Policy Issues in Insurance) by OECD
ISBN 9789264040786, 9264040781

https://ebooknice.com/product/policy-issues-in-insurance-financial-
management-of-large-scale-catastrophes-policy-issues-in-insurance-2451306
Other documents randomly have
different content
 3 6·85 3 3·9 3 2·16
8-1/2 3 8 3 5·5 3 4·7
3 10 3 7·9 3 6·5
9-1/2 3 10·85 3 10·5 3 8·05
4 1·5 3 12·3 3 10·75
10-1/2 3 13·46 4 3·57 3 11·2
11 4 5·28 4 6·5 4 0·25
11-1/2 4 4·7 4 5·2 4 4·57
12 5 1·31 4 11·07 4 11·7
12-1/2 5 7·3 4 11·7 4 13·12
13 5 0·3 5 3·16 5 3·3
13-1/2 5 10·5 5 5·8 5 4
14 6 9·3 5 4·57 5 12
A is a school where the parents were comparatively well-to-do and
the children mostly had comfortable homes.
B is a school where the parents were mostly small shopkeepers or
labourers in constant employment.
C is a school where the parents were mostly unemployed or casually
employed.
 CHAPTER I
THE HISTORY OF THE MOVEMENT FOR THE
PROVISION OF SCHOOL MEALS

The latter half of the nineteenth century was remarkable for the
birth of a new social conscience manifesting itself in every kind of
social movement. Some were mere outbursts of sentimentality,
pauperising and patronising, others indicated real care and sympathy
for the weaker members of society, others again a love of scientific
method and order. Thus in the early 'sixties there was an enormous
growth in the amount spent in charity, leading to hopeless confusion.
An attempt to introduce some order into this chaos and to stem the
tide of indiscriminate almsgiving was made in 1868 by the formation
of the "Society for the Prevention of Pauperism and Crime," which
split the following year into the Industrial Employment Association
and the better known Charity Organisation Society. In the 'eighties
"slumming" became a fashionable occupation, while 1884 saw the
beginning of the Settlement movement in the foundation of Toynbee
Hall. Meanwhile the working classes were becoming articulate,
learning more self-reliance and mutual dependence. The growth of
Trade Unions, of Co-operative and Friendly societies, showed how
the working people were beginning to work out their own salvation.
Towards the close of the century methods of improvement were
nearly all on collectivist lines—in sanitary reform, in free education,
in the agitation for a legal limitation of labour to eight hours a day,
for a minimum wage and for Old Age Pensions.
Amongst the most characteristic of these activities was the
movement for the feeding of poor school children. In the early years
of the movement the motives were chiefly philanthropic. The
establishment of the Ragged and other schools had brought under
the notice of teachers and others large numbers of children,
underfed and ill-clothed. Still more was this the case when education
was made compulsory under the Education Act of 1870. It was
impossible for humanitarians to attempt to educate these children
without at the same time trying to alleviate their distress. Education,
in fact, proved useless if the child was starving; more, it might be
positively detrimental, since the effort to learn placed on the child's
brain a task greater than it could bear. All these early endeavours to
provide meals were undertaken by voluntary agencies. Their
operations were spasmodic and proved totally inadequate to cope
with the evil. Towards the end of the century we find a growing
insistence on the doctrine that it was the duty of the State to ensure
that the children for whom it provided education should not be
incapable, through lack of food, of profiting by that education. On
the one hand some socialists demanded that the State ought itself to
provide food for all its elementary school children. Another school of
reformers urged that voluntary agencies might in many areas deal
with the question, but that where their resources proved inadequate
the State must step in and supplement them. Others again objected
to any public provision of meals on the ground that it would
undermine parental responsibility. The demand that the State must
take some action was strengthened by the alarm excited during the
South African war by the difficulty experienced in securing recruits of
the requisite physique. The importance of the physical condition of
the masses of the population was thus forced upon public attention.
It was urged that the child was the material for the future
generation, and that a healthy race could not be reared if the
children were chronically underfed. In the result Parliament yielded
to the popular demand, and by the Education (Provision of Meals)
Act of 1906 gave power to the Local Education Authorities to assist
voluntary agencies in the work of providing meals, and if necessary
themselves to provide food out of the rates.
 (a)—Provision by Voluntary Agencies.

The first experiments in the provision of free or cheap dinners for

school children appear to date from the early 'sixties.[1] One of the
earliest and most important of the London societies was the
Destitute Children's Dinner Society, founded in February, 1864, in
connection with a Ragged School in Westminster.[2] This Society
quickly grew and, between October 1869 and April 1870, fifty-eight
dining rooms were opened for longer or shorter periods.[3] The
motive, though largely sentimental, was from the first supported by
educational considerations. "Their almost constant destitution of
food," write the Committee in their appeal for funds, "is not only
laying the foundation of permanent disease in their debilitated
constitutions, but reduces them to so low a state that they have not
vigour of body or energy of mind sufficient to derive any profit from
the exertions of their teachers."[4] The influence of the newly-formed
Charity Organisation Society is seen in the nervous anxiety of the
promoters to avoid the charge of pauperising. "Our object is not the
indiscriminate relief of the multitude of poor children to be found in
the lowest parts of the metropolis. Our efforts are limited to those in
attendance at ragged or other schools so as to encourage and assist
the moral and religious training thus afforded."[5] The dinners were
not self-supporting,[6] but a great point was made of the fact that a
penny was charged towards paying the cost. Nevertheless the
promoters admitted that "it has been found impossible in some
localities to obtain any payment from the children."[7]
The methods adopted by other societies were very similar. A
common feature of all was the infrequency of the meal. As a rule a
child would receive a dinner once a week, at the most twice a week.
[8]
It is true that the dinners, unlike those supplied at the end of the
century, when the predominant feature was soup, seem always to
have been substantial and to have consisted of hot meat.[9] But
making all allowance for the nutritive value of the meal, its
infrequency prevents us from placing much confidence in the
enthusiastic reports of the various societies as to the beneficial result
upon the children. "Experience has proved," writes the Destitute
Children's Dinner Society in 1867, "that one substantial meat dinner
per week has a marked effect on the health and powers of the
children."[10] "Not only is there a marked improvement in their
physical condition," reports the same society two years later, "but
their teachers affirm that they are now enabled to exert their mental
powers in a degree which was formerly impossible."[11] The Ragged
School Union in 1870 reports to the same effect. "The physical
benefit of these dinners to the children is great; but it is not the
body only that is benefited; the teachers agree in their opinion that
those who are thus fed become more docile and teachable."[12]
Meals were given only during the winter, though one society at any
rate, the Destitute Children's Dinner Society, realised the importance
of continuing the work throughout the year—an importance even
now not universally appreciated—their object being "not to relieve
temporary distress only, but by an additional weekly meal of good
quality and quantity, to improve the general health and moral
condition of the half starved and neglected children who swarm
throughout the poor districts of London."[13] Funds apparently did
not permit of their achieving this object.[14]
After the passing of the Education Act of 1870, educational
considerations became the dominant motive for feeding. Teachers
and school managers as well as philanthropists found themselves
increasingly compelled to deal with the problem. It was not only that
compulsory education brought into notice hundreds of needy
children who had before been hidden away in courts and back alleys,
[15]
but the effect of education on a starving child proved useless.
The Referee Fund, started in 1874, was the result of Mrs. Burgwin's
experience when head teacher of Orange Street School, Southwark.
She found the children in a deplorable condition and on appealing to
a medical man for advice was told that they were simply starving.
With the help of her assistant teachers she provided tea, coffee or
warm milk for the most needy. Soon a small local organisation was
started, and a year or two after Mr. G. R. Sims drew public attention
to the question by his articles on "How the Poor Live," and appealed
for funds through the Referee.[16] The operations of the fund thus
established were at first confined to West Southwark—"in that area,"
Mrs. Burgwin triumphantly declared, "there was not a hungry school
child"[17]—but were gradually extended to other districts. As a result
of the meals thus provided it was said that the children looked
healthier and attended school better in the winter when they were
being fed than they did in the summer.[18]
The standard example, however, constantly quoted as evidence of
the value of school meals, was the experiment started by Sir Henry
Peek at Rousdon in 1876. The children in that district had to walk
long distances to school, "bringing with them wretched morsels of
food for dinner," with, naturally, most unsatisfactory results. Sir
Henry Peek provided one good meal a day for five days, charging
one penny a day. The system was practically self-supporting. The
experiment was declared by the Inspector to have "turned out a very
great success. What strikes one at once on coming into the school is
the healthy vigorous look of the children, and that their vigour is not
merely bodily, but comes out in the course of examination. There is
a marked contrast between their appearance and their work on the
day of inspection, and those of the children in many of the
neighbouring schools. The midday meal is good and without stint. It
acts as an attraction, and induces regularity of attendance.... Before
the school was started the education of the children of the
neighbourhood was as low as in any part of the district."[19]
About 1880 another motive for school meals emerges. Public opinion
began to be aroused on the subject of over-pressure. It was said
that far too many subjects were taught and that the system of
"payment by results" forced the teachers to overwork the children
for the sake of the grant. It was pointed out that not only was it
useless to try to educate a starving child, but the results might be
positively harmful. Numerous letters from school managers, doctors
and others appeared in The Times. "In dispensary practice," writes
Dr. Sophia Jex-Blake, "I have lately seen several cases of habitual
headache and other cerebral affections among children of all ages
attending our Board Schools, and have traced their origin to
overstrain caused by the ordinary school work, which the ill-
nourished physical frames are often quite unfit to bear. I have
spoken repeatedly on the subject to members of the School Boards,
and also to teachers in the schools, and have again and again been
assured by them that they were quite alive to the danger, and
heartily wished that it was in their power to avert it, but that the
constantly advancing requirements of the Education Code left them
no option in the matter."[20]
The Lancet spoke strongly on the subject[21] and in 1883 it was hotly
discussed in Parliament. Mr. Mundella spoke in warm praise of Sir
Henry Peek's experiment, while Mr. S. Smith, the member for
Liverpool, went so far as to say that "if Parliament compelled
persons by force of law to send their children to school, and the little
ones were to be forced to undergo such a grinding system, they
ought not to injure them in so doing, but should provide them, in
cases of proved necessity, with sufficient nourishment to enable
them to stand the pressure."[22] Such a proposition sounds
"advanced" for the year 1883, but he added the still more modern
suggestion—"that not only should we have a medical inspection of
schools, but that the grants should be partly dependent upon the
physical health of the children.... We were applying sanitary science
to our great towns, and we should apply the same science also to
the educational system of the country."[23] At last Mr. Mundella
instigated Dr. Crichton Browne to undertake a private enquiry into
the subject. The report was somewhat vague and rhetorical, and Dr.
Browne's judgments were said to be based on insufficient data, so
that little fresh light was thrown on the question. It is, however,
noteworthy that he too recommended medical inspection and also
that a record of the height, weight and chest girth of the children
should be kept.[24]
In spite of conflicting opinions, one point became increasingly clear.
Whether the amount of mental strain necessitated by the
Educational Code was exaggerated or not, there was no doubt that
good educational results were dependent upon health and could not
be attained where the children were seriously underfed. The
situation was summed up by Mr. Sydney Buxton during a conference
of Managers and Teachers of London Board Schools in 1884. The
School Boards, he said, had by their compulsory powers been "year
by year tapping a lower stratum of society, bringing to light the
distress, destitution and underfeeding which formerly had escaped
their notice. The cry of over-pressure had drawn public attention to
the children attending elementary schools, and he thought it was
now becoming more and more recognised that 'over-pressure' in a
very large number of cases was only another word for
'underfeeding.'"[25]
The principle that compulsory education involved some provision of
food being thus generally admitted,[26] the question remained how
was this to be done? Should the meals be provided free or should
they be self-supporting? A keen controversy ensued as to the merits
of penny dinners. The Times quoted with apparent astonishment
and alarm the view of the Minister of Education that it would not be
enough to provide meals for those who could pay for them, and that
whatever might be the vices of the parents the children ought not to
suffer.[27] The Charity Organisation Society held more than one
conference on the subject and emphatically contended that the only
means of avoiding "pauperisation" was to insist on payment for the
meals. Indeed some members felt so strongly that penny dinners
were bound to be converted into halfpenny or free dinners, that they
were reluctant to give the movement any support at all.[28] The
attitude of the society was, as The Times said, "one of watchful
criticism."[29] Yet there were some, at any rate, who recognised that
the obligation on the part of the parent to send his children to school
involved a very real pecuniary sacrifice which might often more than
counterbalance any advantage to be obtained from free meals. "We
must not teach poor children or poor parents to lean upon charity,"
says the School Board Chronicle in 1884. "But, on the other hand, it
ought never to be forgotten that this new law of compulsory
attendance at school, in the making whereof the poorest classes of
the people had no hand whatever, exacts greater sacrifices from that
class than from any other. We hear a good deal sometimes ... of the
grumbling of the ratepayers ... as to the burden of the school rate....
But do these grumblers ever reflect that the very poor of whom we
are speaking never asked to have education provided for their
children, never wanted it, have practically nothing to gain by it and
much to lose, and that this law of compulsory education is forced on
them, not for their good or for their pleasure, but for the safety and
progress of society and for the sake of economy in the
administration of the laws in the matter of poor relief and crime."[30]
Amidst all the discussion on the needs and morals of the poor from
the standpoint of the superior person, it is refreshing to find so
honest and sympathetic a criticism.
The outcome of this lengthy public discussion was a great increase
in voluntary feeding agencies all over the country about the year
1884.[31] At the Conference of Board School Managers and Teachers
in that year, Mr. Mundella stated that, since he referred in the House
of Commons to the Rousdon experiment, provision for school meals
was being made in rural districts to an extent which he could hardly
believe.[32] In London the Council for Promoting Self-supporting
Penny Dinners was established and the movement spread rapidly. In
August, 1884, there were only two centres where penny dinners on
a self-supporting basis were provided. By December such dinners
had been started in thirteen other districts.[33]
Meanwhile the promoters of free meals continued their work
unabashed. The Board School Children's Free Dinner Fund declared
in 1885, "our work does not cross the lines of the penny dinner
movement. It was started before that movement and has been in
some cases carried on side by side with it, its object being to feed
those children whose parents have neither pennies nor half-pennies
to pay for their dinners. Free dinners are restricted to the children of
widows, and to those whose parents are ill or out of work."[34] The
Referee Fund now supplied schools over a large part of South
London and had always given free meals. In most provincial towns,
whether the dinners were nominally self-supporting or not,
necessitous children were seldom refused food on account of
inability to pay. Private philanthropists saw the suffering and tried to
alleviate it, not enquiring too closely into the consequences.
It was generally taken for granted that the meals, whether free or
self-supporting, should be provided by voluntary agencies. The Local
Education Authorities sometimes granted the use of rooms and
plant,[35] but seldom took any further action. It is remarkable that
the Guardians, whose duty it was to relieve the destitution existing,
seem to have paid but the scantiest attention to it. Even where they
attempted to deal with it by granting relief to the family, this relief
was generally inadequate and the children were consequently
underfed, with the result that they were given meals by the
voluntary feeding agencies.[36] There seems indeed to have been no
co-operation whatever between the various voluntary agencies
established all over the country and the Boards of Guardians.[37] By
an Act of Parliament passed in 1868 it was enacted that where any
parent wilfully neglected to provide adequate food for his child the
Board of Guardians should institute proceedings.[38] This Act seems
to have remained almost a dead letter. In giving evidence before the
House of Lords Select Committee on Poor Law Relief in 1888, Mr.
Benjamin Waugh, Director of the National Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Children, in speaking of the Act, stated, "first, that the
Guardians do not act upon it to any very great extent; secondly, that
the police know that it is not their business, and they do not act
upon it; and, thirdly, the public have an impression that they are
excluded from taking cognisance of starvation cases because the
term used is 'the Guardians shall' do it." "There are cases in which
they are habitually doing it, chiefly where ladies are upon the board,
but in a very small number of cases indeed throughout the country."
[39]
The part taken by the State in the matter of relieving the wants
of underfed children was thus as yet a small one.[40]
 (b)—The Organisation of the Voluntary Agencies.

The history of the movement for the next ten years or so is mainly
concerned with organisation. In London, with the number of feeding
centres growing so rapidly, with many different agencies whose
principles and methods conflicted, some plan of organisation and co-
operation was the crying need. In May, 1887, at the instigation of Sir
Henry Peek, a committee, composed of representatives of the
various voluntary societies,[41] was formed to consider in what ways
co-operation was feasible. This Committee recommended that (i)
self-supporting dinner centres should be opened in as many districts
as possible in London, and the various societies for providing dinners
for children should be invited to make use of them; (ii) free dinners
to children attending public elementary schools should only be given
on the recommendation of the head teacher; (iii) when free dinners
were given a register should be kept of the circumstances of the
family.[42]
This attempt cannot have been very effective, for when, at last, the
London School Board took the matter in hand, feeding arrangements
were as chaotic as ever. In 1889 a special committee was appointed
to enquire into the whole question and report to the Board. The
report shows that the supply of food was extraordinarily badly
distributed. "In some districts there is an excess of charitable effort
leading to a wasteful and demoralising distribution of dinners to
children who are not in want, while in other places children are
starving."[43] In most cases the provision was insufficient to feed all
the indigent children every day, many getting a meal only once or
twice a week.[44] Only a rough estimate of the number of necessitous
children could be obtained, but it was calculated that 43,888 or 12·8
per cent. of the children attending schools of the Board were
habitually in want of food, and of these less than half were provided
for.[45] The Committee recommended that a central organisation
should be formed "to work with the existing Associations with a view
to a more economical and efficient system for the provision of cheap
or free meals."[46] As a result the London Schools Dinner Association
was founded. Most of the large societies were merged into this body,
one or two retaining their separate organisation, but agreeing to
work in harmony with it.[47]
Another committee appointed by the School Board in December,
1894, was just as emphatic as to the general inefficiency and want
of uniformity. The work of giving charitable meals, they found, was
still in the experimental stage, as was shown by the "extremely
divergent views ... both as to the nature and extent of the distress
... and as to the efficiency of the methods employed in meeting it."
[48]
They were struck by "the apparent want of co-ordination
between the various agencies which were dealing with distress in
London" (i.e., the Poor Law, the Labour Bureaux established by the
London Vestries, etc.). "The local committees in connection with the
schools seem to have had no knowledge whatsoever of what was
being done by these other bodies, except in the few cases where
more or less permanent out-door relief was being given, and where
the children presented attendance cards to be filled up by their
teachers."[49] "Our work," remarked one witness, "is carried on
without paying heed to what may be done under the Poor Law
Authorities."[50] Relief was "often given without any connection with
the managers or teachers of Public Elementary Schools." In one
instance tickets for meals "were distributed without enquiry at the
door of a Music Hall ... the proprietor of which had been one of the
chief subscribers to the Fund."[51] In another case "tickets issued by
an evening paper fund were sold over and over again by the people
to whom they were given; sold in the streets and in the public-
houses."[52] Even when the arrangements were nominally controlled
by the Education Authorities the methods of selection were
haphazard and the provision often totally inadequate. A number of
witnesses gave evidence of this. "It was found that one child of a
family was given fourteen tickets during the season, whilst another
child of the same family had only one or two."[53] "It might have
been well to have taken one or two children in hand for the purpose
of observations," remarked the head-master of a Stepney school,
"but I remember one of my instructions was that the same child was
not to be given a meal too often."[54] In one school the number of
children needing a dinner on any day was ascertained by a show of
hands. Each child was then called out before the teacher and asked
about its parents' circumstances.[55] In another case the teachers
merely asked the children in the morning which of them would not
get any dinner at home that day.[56] Of course there were seldom
enough tickets to go round. For the parents this haphazard method
was most bewildering. "No arrangement is made with the parents as
to whether or not a child will have a meal on any day .... In many
cases the parents hardly know whether the children are having a
meal at school or not, as they constantly come home for something
more."[57]
In 1889 the self-supporting meal was still regarded as the normal
type although the number of free meals was on the increase. In
1895 the committee recognised that self-supporting penny dinners
were a failure. Only 10 per cent. of the meals were paid for by the
children.[58] This had one rather curious effect. The meals were much
more uniform in type than in 1889, and this uniformity was
distasteful if not harmful to the children. The chief reason was
perhaps that the need to attract the children was not so great as
when it was hoped to establish the meals on a self-supporting basis.
Another reason was that the National Food Supply Association,
which did most of the catering, desired to encourage the use of
vegetable soup as well as to relieve distress.[59]
Apart from the question of more efficient organisation, the
recommendations of this committee were somewhat indefinite. They
urged that, as a guide for future action, continuous records should
be kept of all children fed.[60] On the adequacy of the existing
voluntary organisations to cope with the distress the majority
declined to commit themselves. The minority asserted emphatically
that these charitable funds were amply sufficient. The Committee
questioned how far the supply of food was the right way of dealing
with distress. "Actual starvation," they said, "was undoubtedly at one
time the chief evil to be feared by the poor. But now that rent in
London is so high and food so cheap conditions have changed."[61]
Other forms of help, they felt, were possibly more needed, e.g.,
medical advice and clothing. Indeed, during the last sixty years there
had been such an improvement in the economic conditions of the
working classes as had not been known at any other period of
history. Comparisons between conditions obtaining at the beginning
and at the end of the nineteenth century are to some extent vitiated
by the fact that the former was a period of extraordinary social
misery. Nevertheless, the improvement is striking. Sir Robert Giffen,
speaking on "The Progress of the Working Classes in the Last Half
Century," in November, 1883, showed that, while the wages of
working men "have advanced, most articles he consumes have
rather diminished in price, the change in wheat being especially
remarkable, and significant of a complete revolution in the
conditions of the masses. The increased price in the case of one or
two articles—particularly meat and house rent—is insufficient to
neutralise the general advantages which the workman has gained."
[62]
By further statistics he showed "a decline in the rate of mortality,
an increase of the consumption of articles in general use, an
improvement in general education, a diminution of crime and
pauperism, a vast increase in the number of depositors in savings
banks, and other evidences of general well-being."[63] Up to 1895 the
cost of living steadily declined, and in that year real wages were
higher than they had ever been before. This did not mean, as some
urged, that Society might slacken any of its efforts to improve the
condition of the poorer classes. Even from the most optimistic
standpoint the improvement was far too small, and there was still a
residuum whose deplorable condition demanded "something like a
revolution for the better."[64] But now that the more prosperous
working men were consciously striving to improve their own
position, the community, or the philanthropists among it, were more
able to assist the submerged remainder. The history of school
feeding illustrates how "one of the least noticed but most certain
facts of social life is the fact that Society very seldom awakes to the
existence of an evil while that evil is at its worst, but some time
afterwards, when the evil is already in process of healing itself....
Society can seldom be induced to bother itself about any suffering,
the removal of which requires really revolutionary treatment. It only
becomes sensitive, sympathetic and eager for reform when reform is
possible without too great an upheaval of its settled way of life."[65] A
higher standard of living was now required and the real question
was whether feeding the school child was the right way to attain to
it, or only a following of the line of least resistance. If it was a
healthy movement, then clearly it was time to set about feeding in a
more thorough fashion.
In 1898 a third attempt was made by the London School Board to
deal with the question. It was referred to the General Purposes
Committee to enquire into the number of underfed children and to
consider "how far the present voluntary provision for school meals is,
or is not, effectual."[66] The evidence given before the committee
shows the prevalence of a state of affairs very similar to that of the
earlier years. There is the same complaint about "the want of any
general plan, the utter lack of uniformity ... the absence (except in a
few places) of any means of enquiring into doubtful cases, and
above all the non-existence of any sort of machinery for securing
that where want exists it shall be dealt with."[67] But the report and
recommendations of the majority of the Special Committee show an
astonishing advance on the views of the two former committees.
The necessity for feeding was not now denied, they thought, "even
by those ... who are keenly anxious to prevent the undermining of
prudence or self-help by ill-advised or unregulated generosity."[68]
They were most emphatic as to the good effects on the children
when the meals were nicely served in the schools under proper
supervision, and they considered "that food provision and training at
meals should in particular form part of the work of all Centres for
Physically and Mentally Defective children, and that the Government
grant should be calculated accordingly."[69] One or two of the
members of the committee and some of the witnesses urged that
meals should be continued in the summer.[70] As to the effect on the
parents, "it appears to the sub-committee ... that its concern is with
the well-being of the children, and even if it were the case that it
was, in some way, better for the moral character of the parents to
let the children starve, the sub-committee would not be prepared to
advise that line of policy. The first duty of the community to the child
... is to see that it has a proper chance as regards its equipment for
life."[71] "If they come to school underfed ... it would seem to be the
duty of those who have a care of the children to deal with it, and to
see that the underfeeding ceases. It is, of course, obvious, in any
case, that this, like all other social evils, may be gradually eliminated
by the general improvement, moral and material, of the community.
But apart from the fact that that is a slow process and that many
generations of actual school children will come and go in the
meantime, it is obvious that the prevention of underfeeding in school
children (with its results of under-education and increasing
malnutrition) is itself one of the potent means of forwarding the
general improvement."[72] At the same time the idea that school
dinners pauperise the parents or destroy the sense of parental
responsibility "appears to the sub-committee to be a mere theoretic
fancy entirely unsupported by practical experience."[73] Parents who
could feed their children and would not should "simply be
summoned for 'cruelty.'"[74]
The majority of the committee declared themselves convinced "by
the consideration of the subject, and by the special information now
obtained from Paris and from other foreign countries,[75] that the
whole question of the feeding and health of children compulsorily
attending school requires to be dealt with as a matter of public
concern."[76] They therefore recommended that a Central Committee
should be formed, which should be authorised to call for reports and
general assistance from the Board's staff, facilities being granted for
the use of rooms at the schools for meals, and they made the
following important statement of principle:—"It should be deemed to
be part of the duty of any authority by law responsible for the
compulsory attendance of children at school to ascertain what
children, if any, come to school in a state unfit to get normal profit
by the school work—whether by reason of underfeeding, physical
disability or otherwise—and there should be the necessary inspection
for that purpose; that where it is ascertained that children are sent
to school 'underfed' ... it should be part of the duty of the authority
to see that they are provided, under proper conditions, with the
necessary food;" that "the authority should co-operate in any
existing or future voluntary efforts to that end," and that, "in so far
as such voluntary efforts fail to cover the ground, the authority
should have the power and the duty to supplement them." Where
dinners were provided, it was desirable that they should be open to
all children, and that the parents should pay for them, unless they
were unable by misfortune to find the money, and that no distinction
should be made between the paying and the non-paying children. If
the underfed condition of the child was due to the culpable neglect
of the parent, the Board should prosecute the parent, and, if the
offence was persisted in, should have power to deal with the child
under the Industrial Schools Acts.[77]
The Board rejected these proposals and acted on the more cautious
recommendations of the minority, who were convinced that there
was no necessity for any public authority to undertake the work, the
voluntary associations being entirely capable of dealing effectively
with the need, if they were properly organised. They considered,
therefore, that the duties of the School Board should be confined to
co-operation in the organisation of these associations.[78] This
decision was hailed with relief by The Times, which rejoiced that
"the attempt of the 'Fabian' School of Socialists, assisted by some
philanthropic dupes, to capture the London School Board has been
decisively repelled."[79]
As a matter of fact the Fabian Society seems as yet to have paid
little attention to the question, and, in so far as these proposals had
been due to socialist influence, the agitation had come from the
Social Democratic Federation. This body had, since the early
'eighties, made the provision of a free meal for all children attending
elementary schools one of the fundamental planks of its platform.[80]
Several memorials were sent to the School Board,[81] urging that all
children whose parents were unemployed should be fed and clothed
out of the rates, but this proposal was too sweeping to meet with a
favourable reception.
The recommendations, which were finally adopted in March, 1900,
provided for the establishment of a permanent committee, to be
known as the "Joint Committee on Underfed Children." This was
composed partly of members of the School Board, partly of
representatives of various other bodies. Sub-committees, consisting
of managers, teachers, School Board visitors and one or more co-
opted outsiders, were to be appointed in each Board School, or
group of Schools, where the necessity for providing meals for
underfed children was felt, and these sub-committees were to make
all necessary arrangements for the provision of meals.[82] The
functions of the Joint Committee were limited. It was to receive
reports from the sub-committees, to draw their attention to any
defect which might appear in the selection of the children or the
arrangements made for providing relief, to give them assistance by
placing them in communication with a source of supply so as to
enable them to obtain the necessary funds, to communicate with the
chief collecting agencies when there was reason to fear that the
funds might not be sufficient, and "generally to keep the public
informed of what is being done to provide relief for underfed
children, and to stimulate public interest in the work."[83] How far
this effort to meet the need was successful we shall relate in a
subsequent chapter.[84]
 (c)—The Demand for State Provision.

Soon after the beginning of the new century the agitation for some
form of State feeding grew urgent and widespread. There was no
attempt to deal with the matter in the Education Act of 1902, but
from about this date onwards the question constantly recurred in
Parliamentary debates, a sure indication that the question was
interesting others besides the expert and the philanthropist. And to
the old motives of sentiment and educational need was added a new
motive, a motive specially characteristic of the present century and
one which in some other directions threatens to become almost an
obsession. This was the desire for "race regeneration," the
conviction of the supreme importance of securing a physically
efficient people. Formerly the tendency had been to sacrifice the
needs of the child to the supposed moral welfare of the family, now
the child was regarded primarily as the raw material for a nation of
healthy citizens.
The South African war had been partly instrumental in producing this
extreme anxiety about physical unfitness, and two public enquiries—
the Royal Commission on Physical Training in Scotland, and the
Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration—furnished
abundant proof of the harm which was being done in this direction
by the mal-nutrition of school children.
The report of the Royal Commission on Physical Training showed
indisputably the necessity for better feeding. On this point a large
number of important witnesses were unanimous.[85] The
Commissioners were, however, cautious in their recommendations.
Though fully convinced of the necessity for feeding, they were
doubtful as to how far the responsibility for dealing with the need
should be placed upon the Education Authorities. "It is matter for
grave consideration," they declared, "whether the valuable asset to
the nation in the improved moral and physical state of a large
number of future citizens counterbalances the evils of impaired
parental responsibility, or whether voluntary agencies may be trusted
to do this work with more discrimination and consequently less
danger than a statutory system."[86] On the other hand, they urged,
"it must be remembered that, with every desire to act up to their
parental responsibility, and while quite ready to contribute in
proportion to their power, there are often impediments in the way of
the home provision of suitable food by the parents."[87] They
considered, therefore, that "accommodation and means for enabling
children to be properly fed should ... be provided either in each
school or in a centre; but, except a limited sum to provide the
necessary equipment, no part of the cost should be allowed to fall
on the rates."[88] The meal should be educational in character. "An
obligation for the proper supervision of the feeding of those who
come for instruction should be regarded as one of the duties of
school authorities."[89]
The findings of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical
Deterioration were more definite and striking. To take first the
evidence as to the extent of underfeeding, Dr. Eichholz, after careful
investigation, estimated that the rough total of underfed children in
London was 122,000 or 16 per cent. of the elementary school
population. These figures were based on the assumption that all the
children being fed at schools and centres would otherwise have gone
unfed; but, considering the loose method of enquiry prevalent, this
was questionable. The London School Board put the number at
10,000, but this seems to have been grossly understating the case.
[90]
In Manchester, according to the estimate of the Education
Committee and the Medical Officer of Health, not less than 15 per
cent. were underfed.[91] The evidence given was, however,
conflicting, and indeed little reliance can be placed on these
statistics.
With regard to the effect of underfeeding on the physique of the
children, the doctors gave striking testimony. Dr. Robert Hutchison
was of opinion that, if a child had not sufficient food during the
period of growth, that is during the school years, it would be
permanently stunted.[92] "Apart from infectious diseases," said Dr.
Collie of the London School Board, "malnutrition is accountable for
nine-tenths of child sickness."[93] Dr. Eichholz pointed out that at
Leeds Dr. Hall had found that fifty per cent. of the children in a poor
school suffered from rickets, the true cause of which was poor and
unsuitable food, whilst in a well-to-do school the proportion was only
eight per cent.[94] In the opinion of this witness, an opinion "shared
by medical men, members of Education Committees, managers,
teachers and others conversant with the condition of school children
... food is at the base of all the evils of child degeneracy."[95] "The
sufficient feeding of children," declared Dr. Niven, Medical Officer of
Health for Manchester, "is by far the most important thing to attend
to and ... specially important in connection with the Army.... When
trade is good," he argued, "you will have to rely for the Army upon
this very poor class, and in order to get good soldiers you must rear
good children, you must see that children are adequately fed."[96]
Such were the arguments on the negative side—on the positive side
there was ample proof of the good effects of a regular nutritious
diet. Dr. Eichholz referred to Dr. Hall's experiment in feeding poor
children at Leeds. "Taking sixty poor seven-year-old children, at the
beginning of the period they totalled 455 lbs., below normal
weight.... They gained in three months forty lbs. in addition to the
normal increase in weight" for that time, "and they looked less
anæmic and more cheerful."[97] Too much importance must not be
attached to these figures since the data on which they are based are
not sufficiently known to gauge their value, but that the
improvement was very considerable cannot be doubted. Moreover, in
the special schools for mentally defective children where meals were
regularly provided, the results were astonishing. Dr. Collie told how,
"in a large number of instances after the careful individual attention
and midday dinner of the special schools," the children "returned
after from six to eighteen months to the elementary schools with a
new lease of mental vigour. These children are functionally mentally
defective.... Their brains are starved, and naturally fail to react to
the ordinary methods of elementary teaching."[98] "Bad nutrition and
normal brain development," he added, "are incompatible."[99]
There was indeed, as the Committee pointed out, "a general
consensus of opinion that the time had come when the State should
realise the necessity of ensuring adequate nourishment to children in
attendance at school ... it was, further, the subject of general
agreement that, as a rule, no purely voluntary association could
successfully cope with the full extent of the evil."[100] In a large
number of cases such voluntary organisations would be sufficient for
the purpose, "with the support and oversight of the Local Authority,"
and, as long as this was so, the Committee would "strongly
deprecate recourse being had to direct municipal assistance."[101] But
in cases where "the extent or the concentration of poverty might be
too great for the resources of local charity ... it might be expedient
to permit the application of municipal aid on a larger scale."[102] As a
corollary to the exercise of such powers on the part of the Local
Authority, the law would have to be altered to make it more possible
to prosecute neglectful parents.[103] The Committee were also in
favour of establishing special schools of the Day Industrial School
type in which feeding would form an essential feature. To these
definitely "retarded" children might be sent.[104] They recommended
that the funds for these experiments should be found through the
machinery of the Poor Law,[105] for they were anxious to guard the
community from the consequences of "the somewhat dangerous
doctrine that free meals are the necessary concomitant of free
education."[106]
Following on these reports came a strenuous agitation in Parliament
and in the country. The National Labour Conference on the State
Maintenance of Children, held at the Guildhall in January, 1905,
declared unanimously in favour of State Maintenance "as a
necessary corollary of Universal Compulsory Education, and as a
means of partially arresting that physical deterioration of the
industrial population of this country, which is now generally
recognised as a grave national danger. As a step towards such State
Maintenance," the conference called upon the Government to
introduce without further delay legislation enabling Local Authorities
to provide meals for school children, the cost to be borne by the
National Exchequer.[107] The National Union of Teachers, at a largely
attended conference at Llandudno in the same year, were agreed as
to the urgent need for legislation.[108]
In Parliament the agitation was led by Mr. Claude Hay, Sir John Gorst
and Dr. Macnamara. It was urged that a large part of the money
spent on education was wasted. To teach children who were
physically quite unfit to receive instruction, was, as Sir John Gorst
pointed out, "the height of absurdity."[109] Thirty years' compulsory
education had, Mr. Claude Hay declared, resulted in disappointment.
"The gain in intelligence was, to say the least of it, equivocal, while
the physical deterioration of the people was obvious. The reason
was largely that we had taken education as an isolated factor,
whereas it was part of an absolutely indivisible unit.... We had
assumed that ... the intellect could act independently of all other
parts of the total human being. We had ignored the body, the soul
and the will, and the result had been a fiasco."[110] Compulsory
education involved free meals, but only for the "necessitous child."
[111]
It was declared that many parents would gladly pay if they were
thereby assured that their children were adequately and properly
fed.[112]
For some time the Government remained obdurate, and declined to
take any action. At last, however, it became clear that something
must be done. The findings of the Royal Commission on Physical
Training and the Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical
Deterioration had created too profound an impression to be ignored.
Yet even now the Government were not prepared for legislation.
They were of opinion that there still existed a wide divergence of
views as to the extent of underfeeding and the remedies to be
applied. Accordingly, in March, 1905, another Departmental
Committee was appointed to collect further information.[113]
The reference of this Committee made it clear that the Government
had no intention of allowing the rates to be utilised for the supply of
food. In the matter of feeding, the Committee were merely to
enquire into the relief given by the various voluntary agencies, and
report "whether relief of this character could be better organised,
without any charge upon public funds."[114] The Report was,
therefore, mainly concerned with questions of administration. A
careful and elaborate account was given of the existing agencies all
over England, the methods employed, the sums expended, and the
kind of relief given. Evidence was received from representatives of
all the more important societies in London and the provinces. It was
found that outside London feeding agencies existed in 55 out of the
71 county boroughs, in 38 out of the 137 boroughs and in 22 out of
the 55 large urban districts.[115] In addition to these there were
numerous efforts of a spasmodic character, school meals being often
started hastily during some special emergency. The Committee
estimated that the total amount spent on the provision of meals in
England and Wales was approximately £33,568, of which £10,299
was spent in London.[116] But these figures were "very far from
representing the full amount of money spent out of charitable
sources."[117] No account was taken of the innumerable philanthropic
agencies existing all over the country, such as Soup Kitchens, District
Visiting Societies and the like, who were incidentally spending large
sums on the provision of food for school children. Moreover, the
impracticability of obtaining returns from all the feeding agencies
and the varying methods in which their accounts were made up,
made any exact computation impossible.
In the evidence given before the Committee, we note the same evils
prevailing as had been discovered in former years. There is the same
diversity in the method of selection and the same inadequate
provision. We find still the practice of giving a child a meal two or
three days a week only.[118] In the great majority of cases the
feeding was confined to the winter months, though many witnesses
were of opinion that meals should be obtainable in the summer also.
[119]

The Committee were convinced that, in all county boroughs and

large towns, no voluntary agency which extended beyond the limits
of one or two schools could be worked properly, except in intimate
connection with, if not directly organised by, the Local Education
Authority. To avoid overlapping and abuse it was essential that
managers and school teachers should be required to supply full
information, and only the Local Authority had power to insist on this
being done.[120] The Committee deprecated "the proneness for
starting school meals hastily upon some special emergency."[121] It
was essential that any organisation for feeding school children
should be of a permanent character and provision should be made
for enabling meals to be given where necessary throughout the year.
[122]
It was desirable that meals should be obtainable on every school
day, and it should be the object of the feeding agency to feed the
most destitute children regularly rather than a larger number
irregularly.[123] The Committee recognised the valuable help which
had been given by the teachers. Many of the systems for feeding the
children had in fact originated entirely with them, whilst in many
more the whole brunt of the work had fallen upon them. But this
work involved too great a strain upon the teachers and they should
not be required to supervise the meals unless their attendance was
indispensable.[124] Nor in the matter of the selection of the children
should the teachers be asked to do more than draw up the
preliminary list. They had no time for visiting the homes nor were
they always the most competent persons for making enquiries. The
final selection of the children should be in the hands of a Relief
Committee, which should be formed for each school or group of
schools.[125] The increasing attention paid to the medical side of the
question is shown by the recommendation that, wherever possible,
the advice and guidance of the school doctor should be obtained.[126]
The Committee refer with approval to the proposal that a system of
school restaurants should be established, at which meals could be
supplied at cost price. "Not much attempt," they say, "has yet been
made through the medium of school meals towards raising the
standard of physical development among the children and promoting
a taste for wholesome and nourishing food."[127] In view of the very
divergent opinions expressed by witnesses, the Committee were
unable to come to a clear conclusion whether or not such
restaurants would succeed, but they would "welcome experiments
made in this direction."[128] The restaurants, they thought, would
probably have to be kept separate from any system of free dinners,
for attempts to combine free and cheap meals had always ended in
failure. In country districts, where the children often lived at a great
distance from the school, the need for school restaurants was
distinctly felt. The lunches brought by the children were generally of
a most unsatisfactory nature. The Committee were of opinion that
the managers should arrange for the provision of a hot dinner, or at
any rate soup or cocoa, for those children who were unable to go
home at midday. A charge should be made which should at least
cover the cost of the food.[129]
The report of the Committee was published late in 1905. Meanwhile
the Parliamentary agitation had continued. Two Bills were introduced
in March by Mr. Claude Hay and Mr. Arthur Henderson.[130] These
were withdrawn to make way for a resolution moved by Mr.
(afterwards Sir Bamford) Slack—"that in the opinion of this House,
the Local Education Authorities should be empowered (as
unanimously recommended by the Inter-Departmental Committee on
Physical Deterioration, 1904) to make provision, under such
regulations and conditions as they may decide, for ensuring that all
the children at any public elementary school in their area shall
receive proper nourishment before being subjected to mental or
physical instruction, and for recovering the cost, where expedient,
from the parents or guardians."[131] This resolution marks an
important stage in the movement, for it received support from all
sides of the House, and was passed by a considerable majority.[132]
One feature of the debate was new. It was no longer said that the
matter should be left solely to private charity. The main point at
issue now was whether the money required should come from the
Education rate or the Poor rate.[133]
 (d)—Provision by the Guardians.

Following on this resolution came an attempt to deal with the

question through the machinery of the Poor Law. By the Relief
(School Children) Order,[134] issued in April, 1905, the Guardians
were empowered to grant relief to the child of an able-bodied man
without requiring him to enter the workhouse or perform the
outdoor labour test.[135] Any relief so given was to be on loan if the
case was one of habitual neglect, and might be so given in any case
at the discretion of the Guardians.[136] Except with the special
sanction of the Local Government Board proceedings were always to
be taken to recover the cost.[137] The children of widows and of
wives not living with their husbands were expressly excluded from
the scope of the order.[138] The reason for this omission was that
these children could already be dealt with by the Guardians and
that, therefore, no further sanction was needed, but this was not
clearly explained by the Local Government Board, and was indeed
not generally understood.[139] It was recommended that, where
charitable organisations existed, the Guardians should make
arrangements with them for the supply of food; in other cases an
arrangement might be made with a local shopkeeper.[140] A circular
issued by the Board of Education to the Local Education Authorities,
explaining how these authorities could co-operate with the
Guardians in carrying out the order, classified underfed children
under three heads:—(1) those whose parents were permanently
impoverished; (2) those whose parents through illness, loss of
employment, or other unavoidable causes were temporarily unable
to provide for them; (3) those whose parents, though capable of
making provision, had neglected to do so. It was suggested that the
second of these groups of cases should be left to the voluntary
agencies, the first and third being dealt with by the Guardians.[141]
In a large number of Unions this order was entirely disregarded.[142]
In London the County Council, though ready to assist in carrying it
out where local authorities desired it, declined to initiate
proceedings, for they did not look upon the order as "materially
helping the solution of the problem."[143] Where the Local Education
Authority and the Guardians agreed on a scheme, there was
constant friction. This was only to be expected. The opposing views
of the two bodies—the one actuated by a desire to ensure that
children should not be prevented by lack of food from taking
advantage of the education provided for them, the other imbued
with the spirit of deterrence—militated against any successful co-
operation. When the Local Education Authority sent in lists of
underfed children, the Guardians cut them down ruthlessly.[144] There
was no serious contention that these children did not need food, but
merely that their parents' circumstances were such that they could
afford to provide it. Undoubtedly under the voluntary feeding system
there had been much abuse, many parents obtaining the meals
when they were in receipt of good incomes.[145] But in these cases,
with very few exceptions,[146] no pressure was brought to bear by
the Guardians on the parents to force them to provide adequate
food for their children, and the children consequently remained
unfed. In many cases the fathers of the children indignantly refused
to allow them to receive the meals when they discovered that
disfranchisement was entailed.
At Bradford, where the most systematic attempt was made to carry
out the order, the disputes and difficulties proved endless. "The
principles upon which the Guardians ... proceeded in selecting the
children to be fed were," declared Mr. F. W. Jowett, "such as made
not for the feeding of the children so much as for the saving of
expense."[147] The quality of the food and the conditions under which
the meals were served[148] were hotly criticised. The attempt on the
part of the Guardians to recover the cost from the parents raised a
storm of protest.[149] Finally, in May, 1907, the Guardians announced
their intention of discontinuing the provision of meals and the Local
Education Authority took over the work.[150] In no other town was
the action of the Guardians prolonged to so late a date. By the end
of 1906, indeed, the Order had become a dead letter. Meanwhile,
the public having assumed that everything necessary would be
undertaken by the Poor Law Authorities, voluntary contributions had
declined.[151]
 (e)—The Education (Provision of Meals) Act.

The Relief (School Children) Order having proved a "relative failure,"

to use Mr. John Burns' moderate expression,[152] and the evidence
given before the Committee on Medical Inspection and Feeding of
School Children having demonstrated once more the inadequacy of
existing agencies to cope with the evil, it became imperative for
Parliament to take action. Early in 1906 the Education (Provision of
Meals) Bill was introduced.[153] The opposition to this Bill, both
inside[154] and outside[155] the House, rested mainly on the familiar
arguments respecting parental responsibility and the advisability of
leaving all questions connected with relief to the Poor Law
Authorities. We hear also the objection that free meals must lead to
a reduction in wages.[156] The strongest argument, to which,
however, little attention was paid, was that urged by the Edinburgh
School Board before the Select Committee of the House of Commons
to which the Bill was referred. "The Bill touches the fringe of very
serious and comprehensive social problems with which the Imperial
Parliament should deal, and it [the School Board] objects to so much
power being placed upon a local authority before Parliament has
dealt with serious principles underlying the questions involved."[157]
"The causes of low physique and vitality, and inability to profit by
instruction" are "insanitation, overcrowding, keeping the children out
at night very late or all night, bad footwear, and homes where they
have no ventilation at night," irregular meals, "uncleanliness and bad
clothing and out-of-school employment."[158] This was very true, but
it did not convince the public that nothing should be done. In the
experience of Miss Horn, the secretary of the Westminster Health
Society, where continuous feeding was combined with regular visits
to the parents, there was a distinct improvement in the standard of
the homes.[159]
During the Parliamentary debates, for the first time, much emphasis
was laid on the educational value of the meals if served under
proper conditions. Mr. Birrell "could conceive no greater service to
posterity than to raise the standard of living in the children of the
present day."[160] "It was desired that this work should be not a work
of relief, but a work of education," declared Mr. Lough, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education. "They wanted
wholesome food given to the children and they wanted the children
taught how to eat it, which was a most useful lesson."[161] "This was
not merely a question of providing the meals," said Mr. John Burns,
"it was also one of teaching better habits and manners."[162] For this
work the Local Education Authorities were better fitted than the
Guardians, for they "would attract, in a way which Boards of
Guardians would not, the services of voluntary agencies, of leisured
people ... and of managers and teachers, whose assistance was
absolutely essential."[163] For these reasons it was essential that the
Local Education Authorities should have power to provide meals, not
only for necessitous children but also, on receipt of payment, for the
children of all parents who desired it.[164]
The new attitude of Society towards the child and the family was
brought out by Lord Grimthorpe during the debates in the House of
Lords. "The children are the paramount consideration.... In a great
many cases the parents are already demoralised owing to having
themselves been insufficiently nourished in their youth. Because they
suffer from those conditions there is no reason why we should inflict
similar conditions on the children.... Experience in this matter shows
us that the sense of parental responsibility will be increased rather
than decreased. When the parent sees that his child is regarded by
the nation as a valuable national asset he himself will think more of
his child."[165]
The Bill received the Royal assent on December 21, 1906.[166] It
provided that the Local Education Authority might associate with
themselves any committee (called a School Canteen Committee) on
which the Authority was represented, who would undertake to
provide food, and might aid that committee by furnishing buildings
and apparatus and the officers and servants necessary for the
organisation, preparation and service of the meals.[167] The parents
were to be charged such an amount as might be determined by the
Local Education Authority, and, in the event of non-payment, the
Local Authority, unless satisfied that the parent was unable to pay,
should recover the amount summarily as a civil debt.[168] Failure on
the part of the parent to pay was not, however, to involve
disfranchisement.[169] Where the Education Authority resolved "that
any of the children attending an elementary school within their area
are unable by reason of lack of food to take full advantage of the
education provided for them, and have ascertained that funds other
than public funds are not available or are insufficient in amount to
defray the cost of food," they might, with the sanction of the Board
of Education, provide for food out of the rates, the amount thus
spent being, however, limited to what would be produced by a
halfpenny rate.[170] The teachers might, if they desired, assist in the
provision of meals but they were not to be required as part of their
duties to do so.[171]
The Bill, when it left the Commons, applied to Scotland as well as
England and Wales. The Lords, however, struck out the clause
extending its application to Scotland.[172] The Commons, in view of
the fact that the session was so far advanced, agreed to this
amendment, but under protest.[173] It was not till two years later that
the Scottish School Boards, by the Education (Scotland) Act of 1908,
[174]
received power to spend the rates on the provision of food.
The Provision of Meals Act marks an important point in the history of
school feeding. The experiments of forty years had amply
demonstrated the impossibility of dealing with the evils of
underfeeding through voluntary agencies alone. Parliament was
indeed still convinced that voluntary organisations were the best
bodies to supply the necessary food. The proposal that the duty of
providing meals should be cast entirely upon Local Education
Authorities, relying only on public funds, had indeed, as the Select
Committee of the House of Commons declared, not been "seriously
suggested." Such a course would obviously result in the extinction of
all voluntary societies, a result "from every point of view ... much to
be deplored."[175] Only where voluntary subscriptions failed might the
Local Authority provide the necessary funds. Even in this case there
was no compulsion on the authority to take any action whatsoever.
Still, with all these limitations, the Act involved the assumption,
however partial and incomplete, by the State of the function of
securing to its children, by one means or another, the necessary
minimum, not only of education, but also of food.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebooknice.com