[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
knew I could count on any criticism that I might receive from Mrs. Osler being personally friendly to myself. I was sure, further, that we should be in agreement as to the
complete ideal. The complete ideal I take to be every hungry child fed, and every parent possessing the means forced, if necessary, to feed his child. But what if the complete ideal cannot be realised ? The question then arises, which element of it will we forego ? Here our opinions may, and apparently
do, differ.
If I wished to be controversial, which I do not, I might reply to Mrs. Osler that I do not "advocate relieving all neglectful and unnatural parents from any obligation to maintain their offspring" (Spectator, April 7th), any more than Mrs. Osler advocates the starvation of children. She would think me very unfair, and I should be very unfair, if I said that. What I have said, and, I think, proved as far as Birmingham is concerned—and I am ready to repeat the proof if necessary—is that we cannot, either of us, under existing conditions, realise our ideal; that if we attempt to coerce the parent, the child in five cases out of six (taking my census as substantially correct) remains unfed. Though no doubt my individual feeling in the matter has appeared in what I have said and written, I have not intentionally attempted to decide the issue, but only, to the best of my ability, to make it quite clear what the issue is, as shown by actual experi- ence. I have said, and I maintain, that we may attempt to bring the parent to book, or we may feed the child ; but we cannot do both,—the parent will take good care of that. What is to be done when the parent declares that the child has had a good breakfast, and can force the child to declare the same? It is difficult to say. I may have expressed surprise that any one should choose the alternative of leaving the child unfed, but certainly not condemnation. I am myself too much in sympathy with the motives that influence Mrs. Osler. So much so, that I object to giving two meals from public funds. I would give breakfast only, and only to the underfed. Of course, what the experience here shows is merely that the two elements of the ideal have not been reconciled as yet, not that they are irreconcilable; and any one who should suggest a method by which we might feed the child—and, I must insist, feed it without delay—and at the same time bring effectual pressure to bear on evil parents, would earn the gratitude of the public, and no one's more than mine. I have sometimes thought that the difficulty might be got over by wholesale medical inspection and meals given by doctors' orders. The- draw- back, apart from the cost, would be that inevitably mis- takes would be made, and injustice occasionally suffered by parents who were doing their duty; but perhaps this might be thought by far the less of two evils. I should myself so consider it, if it appeared the only solution. At the moment, however, my great anxiety is that the situation should be realised, that it should be understood that if the methods, or anything analogous to the methods, which the Guardians have been obliged to use in administering the Local Government Board Order in Birmingham are adopted under the new Act, it will be inoperative in the case a eighty per cent. of underfed children. Mrs. Osier does not desire this any more than I do.
[We cannot publish any further correspondence on this subject at present.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
