[To TER EDITOR OP THZ SPECTATOR."1 Bra,—No one can resist
the cry of the underfed or starved children, and to the question whether the State which educates them should also see that they are fed there can be but one answer.
But this is a very different matter from the view that the education authorities should provide free meals for all and sundry. I suppose that no one will dispute the fact that the underfeeding or starvation in many—probably in most—cases is due, not to the poverty of parents, but to their ignorance, incompetence, or thriftlessness.
As vice-chairman of the Hospital for Sick Children in Great Ormond Street, I have had for a good many years past excep- tional opportunities for forming an opinion as to the ravages caused by the shortcomings of parents in this respect. The policy of the hospital has always been not only to afford medical treatment to the child, but also to teach the mother the rudiments of the knowledge of the care of children, of which in very many cases she is entirely ignorant. The result has been. most satis- factory; the mothers are glad to learn, and the benefit conferred by the practice of teaching them is widespread.
Now surely it is wrong that the State should undertake to deal with the symptoms without endeavouring to go to the root of the disease. The parents who could, but do not, feed their children should be gradually taught that they must do so. I entirely agree with you, Sir, in thinking that this duty. should be entrusted, not to the education authorities, but to the Poor Law officers. The children of parents who cannot, or do not, or will not feed them should be fed by the State, but while this is done the parents should be made paupers so as to stimulate them to carry out one of their first and chief duties without the assistance of the State. I consider that to restore the spirit of thrift and independence among the people should be one of the main objects of social legislation in these days • and I think that few more wanton crimes have beca committed than the abolition of school-fees last year by the London County Council. In a district like London, where every parent has a choice of schools, the payment of fees was an unqualified success : the parents liked it, the managers liked it, and when consulted voted almost unanimously in favour of retention of the system, and the fees brought in 226,500 per annum, a great part of which went in relief of rates. I hope you will use your valuable influence in promoting the practice of encouraging parents to fulfil the duties of feeding and teaching their children, instead of looking to the State to relieve them of these inalienable responsibilities.
50 Albemarle Street.
Previous page
