"The whole Order," declared Mr. Wyatt, the Director of Elementary Education at Manchester, "was a most perplexing thing. Very early in the year there came down to Manchester a Poor Law Inspector who said that the construction of the Order was that the children of widows or deserted women should not come under the Order. That swept away a great many of those we had been feeding." (Report of Select Committee on Education (Provision of Meals) Bills (England and Scotland), 1906, Q. 1208.) Miss Margaret Frere was of opinion that the Order would be a dead letter in that it ruled out the two most difficult classes, one being widows and deserted wives. (Report of Inter-Departmental Committee on Medical Inspection and Feeding, 1905, Vol. II., Q. 483.) Footnote 140: Circular of Local Government Board accompanying Relief (School Children) Order, in 35th Report of Local Government Board, 1905-6, p. 320. Footnote 141: Circular issued by the Board of Education to the Local Education Authorities re Relief (School Children) Order, April 28, 1905. 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. Footnote 142: