The order "has been so far practically a dead letter in this district" [the counties of Bedford, Hertford, Huntingdon, etc.]. (35th Report of Local Government Board, 1905-6, p. 452.) Such seems to have been the case also in Yorkshire and the northern counties, in Wales, in Essex and in Surrey, for we find no mention of the Order in the reports of the Inspectors for these districts. Footnote 143: Minutes of the London County Council, July 11, 1905, p. 297. The Council objected to the introduction of a dual authority in every district, which would cause delay and possibly friction; the absence of any provision for uniformity of rules in the different districts; and the radical error of allowing the cost to fall on the local authorities instead of on Government funds, or at least on the rates of London as a whole. The risk of fathers being disfranchised as a result of meals being supplied by the Guardians to their children without their knowledge, would militate against the usefulness of the scheme (_ibid._). As a matter of fact very few cases were relieved in London under the Order. (_Hansard_, July 31, 1906, Vol. 162, p. 680.) In two unions, Fulham and Wandsworth, where the Guardians offered to assist, the Council allowed lists to be sent from the schools, but the great majority of these children were reported by the Relieving Officers not to be underfed. (Report of Joint Committee on Underfed Children for 1905-6, p. 4.) Footnote 144: At Bristol out of 129 applications from the Local Education Authority, the Guardians felt justified in giving relief in 12 cases only. (35th Report of Local Government Board, 1905-6, p. 480.) At Chorlton, relief was given in 219 cases out of 1,295 applications; at Salford in 175 out of 1,086. (_Ibid._, p. 504.) At Stoke-on-Trent, out of 72 cases reported 4 were relieved, and at Ecclesall Bierlow 51 cases were reduced after careful investigation to one. (_Ibid._, pp. 488, 520.) At Kettering, on the other hand, practically all the cases referred to the Guardians were relieved. (Report of Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, 1909, Appendix, Vol. I., Q. 6443.) This, however, was exceptional. Footnote 145: At Birmingham it was found that many parents "were earning over 30s. a week, and in one case the parent was in constant employment with an average rate of L3 17s. 6d. a week." (35th Report of Local Government Board, 1905-6, p. 495.) At Bolton, some of the parents were receiving from L2 to L3 a week. (_Ibid._, p. 506.) Footnote 146: