for fifteen or sixteen hours a day. When he attempted to alter this state of things he was told that the prosperity of the nation depended on the cotton industry and that any legislation in the interests of the children would paralyse it, that he was interfering with the rights of the parents and with the freedom of labour. It was not till 1819 that an Act was passed which forbade the labour of children under 9 in. factories.

Most of us are old enough to remember Lord Shaftesbury and his work. The conditions of child labour in his day were a scandal and disgrace to our boasted civilization, to say nothing of Christianity. It was a memorable day in the history of England, nearly fifty years ago, when, owing to the work of Shaftesbury and others like him, Parliament declared that no matter how poor, how ragged, or how neglected a child might be it should have an elementary education, and we are now reaping the benefit of that wise and far-reaching measure. To-day we are faced with another great Education Bill, and I would suggest that all workers among the young should make themselves familiar with its proposals. Every year nearly six million children pass through our elementary day schools, and at 14 years of age, in a large majority of cases, their education ceases. Each year over half a million leave school and pass into some kind of employment. The new Bill seeks to improve very largely our present day school system, and should be heartily welcomed by everybody interested in child welfare. Amongst other things it proposes to make the school age from 5 to 14, or to 15 with certain exemptions. No child employment for profit under 12 years. No child under 14 to be employed before school or after 8 p.m., or on holidays before 6 a.m. or after 8 p.m. Continuation schools from 14 to 18 years, except for those who have received continuous education up to 16. To provide nursery schools for those from 2 to 5 years of age. To provide holiday or school camps, swimming baths, and recreation facilities, especially for senior scholars. Medical inspection to be extended so as to cover all in schools from 2 to 18 years.

I know there has been an outcry on the ground of expense, but education is the very last thing in which we ought to economize. Not only must there be mental equipment for every child, but the health of our boys and girls must be safeguarded. There is an enormous amount of child wastage going on every year, and most of it could easily be prevented. It has been stated that a million children of school age are so physically diseased or mentally defective as to

be unable to derive reasonable benefit from the education which the State now provides. In the highest interest of the nation and the British Empire the Gospel of a healthy childhood should be preached all over the country.

Sir George Newman, the chief medical officer of the Board of Education, in his annual report recently issued, makes some valuable suggestions respecting the treatment of all scholars. He recommends that all defective children shall be referred to a medical practitioner. We require the organization of school clinics everywhere. The establishment of special schools for blind, deaf, dumb and feebleminded is necessary.

Whilst many of the proposals, both of Dr. H. A. L. Fisher and Sir George Newman, are new, we must not forget that the State has in many ways during the past few years recognized its obligations to the dependent child. I need only mention one of these, namely: the Provision of Meals Act. It was only in 1906 that the State felt it to be incumbent upon it to feed the bodies as well as to instruct the minds of its poor children. This Act gives to local educational authorities statutory powers in regard to the provision of meals for children attending our public elementary schools. It empowers these authorities, when sufficient funds for the purchase of food from voluntary contributions and parents' payments are not forthcoming, to spend money from the rates for the provision of such meals within the limit of a halfpenny rate. Like most of our progressive legislation, however, the Act is permissive, but gradually it is being adopted all over the country.

Now whilst all children are more or less dependent on the State, there is always a class which is so in a special manner, where the parents or natural guardians are removed by death, or rendered incapable by sickness, poverty, or crime. The children then become dependent upon others, and their very needs give them the right to protection and care. The child's claim on the community for this is absolute, and the nation that ignores or neglects this duty stands selfcondemned. Let us ever remember that wherever a child suffers through this neglect the community always suffers too, perhaps more.

Whenever speaking of these boys and girls and in all our dealings with them, might I suggest that we give up calling them "waifs and strays," "street arabs," guttersnipes," &c.? Such terms rather show a want of true self-respect on the part of the community. I much prefer the title adopted by Canada, " dependent children "; it is

dignified, correct, and certainly much more sympathetic. Much, of course, is now being done by the community for these children in need.

The great work of the Poor Law Guardians all over the country deserves our fullest recognition and sincerest gratitude. The new spirit which has entered into this work, the more humane treatment of the children, the recognition of the individual needs of each child, are matters calling for thankfulness. The days of such treatment in our workhouses as Oliver Twist received are gone for ever so far as the children are concerned. In addition to the work of the guardians there is the vast amount of charitable effort carried on by orphanages, refuges and homes, supported by voluntary contributions, and these make provision for a very large number of dependent children who otherwise would have to be supported by the State.

I have sometimes asked myself what would become of all these children if they were not helped by these voluntary agencies. The only answer is that the State would have to provide for them. On the Continent this is being done to a very much larger extent than in England. Some time ago an interesting article on this question appeared in the Contemporary Review, and the following facts were then stated: "In Hungary, for example, every child whose parents are either unwilling or incapable, is taken over by the State, fed, clothed, housed with foster-parents at the public expense; and at a cost per child to the State of something between £6 and £7 a year. Under our Poor Law administration the cost of the care of a child is often

£30, and sometimes more, per annum. The Continental system of 'boarding-out' has been well tried, and for the most part with conspicuous success. In Switzerland they have a peculiar method of allowing a farmer to provide a home for a State child in lieu of paying the poor rate. The community pays maintenance expenses. These parents and foster-parents are subject to strict inspection, and are punished for neglect of duties by being sent, in the case of strangers, to prison; or, in the case of parents, to a penal workhouse. The energies of voluntary service which, in this country, are so often dissipated, or at best restricted by the necessity of collecting charitable funds, are utilized in Switzerland in another and more fruitful direction. The State will provide the funds, but accepts the services of patrons. and patronesses who are willing to give personal oversight to one or more of the State's children just at the time when they are starting life on their own; these friends are in touch with the Poor Department, to which they send annual reports of the children under their wing,

and the department backs them up with its almost unlimited power in dealing with refractory boys and girls, or with otherwise unsatisfactory case."

Whilst it may not be easy for us to adopt all the methods of our friends on the Continent, I do think the State should consider every child who may be in need as a dependent child, and to make to all registered and fully accredited voluntary institutions caring for such children a grant towards the cost of maintenance, &c. Most of those who are responsible for the upkeep of these institutions are frequently burdened with anxiety as to the financial position of the charity and, in addition to their sacrifice of time and thought in planning and thinking and caring for the children they are worried by this shortage of funds to carry on the work. If such a principle of subsidizing institutions engaged in this particular kind of work could be adopted, it should also be made to apply to individual home life of the people. Why should not the nation make public provision for women left with children through the death or desertion of the husband? Under existing circumstances such women have to seek the aid of some charitable institution to relieve them of their children, or they have to compete in the labour market, accept low wages, and leave their children at home neglected. It would pay the State in the long run to give each such woman a widowhood pension on condition that she stays at home and looks after her children. Of course, where there was a defaulting husband or in case of desertion, he should be made to pay a part or the whole of the pension. Wherever possible the home life of the people should be conserved, and under present conditions many a family is broken up for want of some little assistance in times of special stress and need.

Mr. H. G. Wells has suggested, in dealing with this question, that we should secure a public endowment of motherhood. He has said, " People of that excellent class, which spends over a hundred a year on each child, ought to get about that much from the State, and people of the class which spends 5s. per week per head would get about that, and so on." Now whilst the State has granted some allowance under the Insurance Act and has made some remissions of the income tax, I do not think public opinion is prepared for such an elaborate and costly scheme as Mr. Wells puts forward. I do think, however, that the provision which has already been made for the assistance of the mother in her time of need requires extending. It is a scandal that, owing to lack of suitable nourishment, proper nursing and other

necessaries, one child out of every eight in our large towns and out of every four in our slums should die within a year of birth.

The difficulties in dealing with necessitous and dependent children have become very much greater since the War. The young people are getting out of hand, and the problem how to deal with them is growing every day. With the father away at the Front or in training, and the mother in so many cases engaged on munition work or some other kind of employment, the boys and girls are exposed to all sorts of perils, and which are greatly increased by the absence of parental control and home discipline. The orphanhood of so many of our soldiers' children is also creating another serious problem. These children have a special claim upon the nation, and provision will have to be made for every one of them. I cannot but feel that the State will deal sympathetically with these little ones and make ample provision for their maintenance and upbringing.

I am fully aware that to carry out these recommendations means money. Many of them, if put into operation, will be costly, but I venture to submit they will be well worth the price. In fact, they cannot be discussed in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. It is a matter of gain or loss both to the child and to the nation. The question is, what are these dependent children to become thief, or honest-man, traitor or patriot, pauper or producer, loafer or artisan, a menace or a blessing? These are the alternatives, and it is our business to see that every child shall have the chance of becoming a worthy and useful citizen of our great and growing Empire.

Central Refuge,

Frances Street,

Strangeways,

Manchester.