CHILDREN'S DINNERS, [To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOE."1 STR,—The

serious allegations which the writer of the article in the Spectator of January 31st makes against the work of the London Schools Dinner Association, must be my apology for asking you to insert this reply.

The writer bases his article upon a report of a committee of the Charity Organisation Society, and he sums up his con- clusions in these words : " The best advice we can give our readers in regard to the .London School Dinners Association is, to keep their money for worthier objects."

I venture respectfully to demur both to this conclusion and to the statements by which it is supported. Personally,

I always welcome well-informed criticism. Whether your criticism is well informed, still less " grave and damaging," or the reverse, is the question I desire to examine.

There are over 1,000 elementary schools in London, with over 650,000 children upon their rolls. In 150 of these schools, the Association helped to provide over 260,000 cheap or free meals. The Charity Organisation Society's committee's report relates to five schools only, and to 101 families. Charitable in- vestigation by sample may perhaps be justifiable, but it is well at the outset to realise what proportion the sample bears to the bulk. Anyhow, upon inferences drawn from the results of this sampling, condemnation is passed wholesale upon the work of the Association.

I desire to test, so far as I can, the relation which the sample bears to the bulk. Of the first of the five schools, the report states that "the groundwork of the inquiry was a list, made up by the teachers, of the children who would have been recommended by them bad the plan sanctioned by the London School Board in the autumn of 1889 been in operation." I refrain for the present from more than a passing comment upon the confusion of ideas which claims the sanction of the London School Board for the " plan " of the London Schools Dinner Association. For the fact is, that neither the Board nor the Association had anything to do with the particular " plan " in operation at this school. Neither an individual nor an Association ought to be condemned for the results of a series of acts which somebody thinks they might have done, but which confessedly they did not do. With this one school disappear 44 of the 101 families.

There remain to be considered the cases of four schools and 57 families. Up to the present, I have not obtained the in- formation as to the names of these schools for which I have asked the Charity Organisation Society. So I assume that in these cases, the Association really had their own "plan," and not somebody else's idea of their "plan," in operation. Now, of these 57 families, the investigating committee's report states that there were 17 " families in which not all the children are sufficiently nourished." Of the remaining 40 families, 13 are reported to require "treatment other than dinners." The remaining 27 families are reported not to require "treatment," as "an the children were sufficiently nourished." The " grave " and " dam aging " criticism resolves itself into a consideration of these cases. If your space per- mitted, I would gladly ask you to print the report given of each of the 27 cases. I will ask you to print one from each school :- " E. H. (girl). Thin, but otherwise looked well and nourished, Father temporarily .out of work through accident, consequently a pinch at home. Steady-going, respectable people, whom one would have been glad to help. They took a night to think it over, and decided that they could get along without charitable assistance."

If the investigator " would have been glad to help," why con- demn the Association which did help I' " Lucy M. Family consists of father, mother, and three children. Father, a cabman, with very casual, earnings, rarely brings home more than 3s. a day, and sometimes less or nothing. Eldest boy ets 4s. a week, and mother something by cleaning rooms. Probably the family earn enough to beep themselves tolerably, but they are all delicate, and Lucy especially so."

"All delicate, and Lucy especially so." Does this go to prove that " all the children were sufficiently nourished " ? " Ellen and — R. Two children dependent on their mother, a widow. Rent, 3s. 6d. Promised to pay id. a meal ; paid aid. in all."

What did the mother's earnings amount to ?

" M. Declined to come to Charity Organisation Society's office. Some kind lady called and gave flannel ; they never asked for help."

Is willingness " to conic to Charity Organisation Society's office to be the test of requiring treatment "? Or is "asking help" to be a condition precedent to the giving of help ?

• The writer thinks that if the report had been in my possession before the meeting, my " attitude" would have been different. The report, however, was not then in my possession. But that was not my fault. It appears to have been sent to the news- papers so as to appear in them on the day of the meeting ; but I did not receive a copy until I asked for one after the meeting was over. But I now ask your readers, as I would have asked the meeting if I could have done so, whether the cases I have quoted are eases which bear out the description "not requiring .treatment " P And, further, I ask whether, assuming the Association spent some money upon these cases, there is the slightest evidence that the money was ill spent P Even if mistakes were made, and bore no less a proportion to the whole than 10 out of 50, I would, for my part, rather risk the injury involved in the 10 mistakes than allow the 40 to he passed by on one side until a perfectly infallible system had been invented.

I am conscious of having made great demands upon your space, but I wish to place upon record two axioms which ap- parently enshrine the principles upon which the Charity Organisation Society's committee's report is based :—(1.) " It is impossible to help effectually the children of vicious or neglectful parents, except by changing the character of the parents." (2.) " Food and medicine will be wasted on the child unless the family condition can be improved." If the Council of the Charity Organisation Society approved of these prin- ciples on January 5th, 1891, I shall, knowing something of the internal administration of that Society, watch with interest the practical application of them. Meanwhile, I leave the so- called " grave and damaging criticism with the observation that it appears to possess some of the qualities of the boomerang, which " damaging " missile has the singular quality of recoiling upon him who hurls it.—I am, Sir, So., JOSEPH R. DIOGLE, Chairman of Council of London Schools Dinner Assoc.

19 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, February 3rd.

[The only difference we can see between the first and the other schools is the one mentioned in the Report,—that in the first the list of children recommended for relief had been drawn up, but had not been acted on. The field for inquiry by the committee was the same. We will concede that in the case of Lucy M— the visitor may have made a mistake. The other three cases, as fax as they go, seem to us to show either that free dinners are considered a right, or that dinners nominally paid for are often not paid for. These were the points to prove which they were quoted.—En. Spectator.]