¹ See for example Ministry of Health, Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer for 1920, HMSO, London, 1921, p. 21.Google Scholar

² Gibbon, J. G., Report on Existing Schools for Mothers and Similar Institutions, published for the National League for Physical Education and Improvement (NLPEI) by P. S. King, London, 1910, p. 8.Google Scholar

³ See for example the work of Beaver, M. W., ‘Population, Infant Mortality and Milk’, Population Studies, 27 (1973), 243–54CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; and Winter, J. M., ‘The Impact of the First World War on Civilian Health in Britain’, Economic History Review, 30 (1977), 478–507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

⁴ See the comments of DrPorter, Charles reported in the British Medical Journal, 7 July 1900, 38.Google Scholar See also Newman, George, Infant Mortality: A Social Problem, Methuen, London, 1906, p. 47.Google Scholar

⁵ Rosen describes such confusion as ‘common’ – Rosen, George, A History of Public Health, MD Publications, New York, 1958, p. 288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed See also Wright for the late-nineteenth-century background to this and for the slowness with which germ theory was applied to the problem of diarrhoea – Wright, Peter W. G., ‘The Birth of Child Rearing as a Technical Field and Its Importance as a Form of Social Control’, paper given at the annual conference of the British Sociological Association, Manchester, 1976, pp. 11–12.Google Scholar

⁶ Newsholme, Arthur, A Contribution to the Study of Epidemic Diarrhoea, Rebman, D., London, 1900, p. 26.Google Scholar

⁷ Richards, H. M., ‘The Factors which Determine the Local Incidence of Fatal Infantile Diarrhoea’, Journal of Hygiene, 3 (1903), 325–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

⁸ ‘Summer Diarrhoea’, editorial in Public Health, 28 (1915), 222–3.Google Scholar

⁹ Newsholme, , A Contribution to the Study of Epidemic Diarrhoea, pp. 28 and 63.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Annual Report of the Medical Officer of Health (MOH) for Hull, 1922, p. 26Google Scholar; and Annual Report of the MOH for Hull, 1924, p. 30Google Scholar, Hull Public Archives.

¹¹ Local Government Board, Return as to Scavenging in Urban Districts, HMSO, London, 1914, p. iv.Google Scholar

¹² Parliamentary Papers (PP), XXXIX:973 (1910), 39th Annual Report of the local Government Board, 1909–1910: Supplement to the Report of the Board's Medical Officer, containing a Report by the Medical Officer on Infant and Child Mortality, Cd 5263, p. 64.Google Scholar

¹³ See especially PP XXXII:1 (1913), 42nd Annual Report of the Local Government Board, for 1912–13: Supplement in Continuation of the Report of the Medical Officer of the Board, containing a Second Report on Infant and Child Mortality, Cd 6909, pp. 65–6.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Cameron, J. Spottiswoode, ‘Sanitary Progress in the Last Twenty-Five Years and in the Next’, Public Health. 15 (1902).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵ Wright, op. cit. p. 25, n. 21.

¹⁶ See for example, Mellander, Olof, Vahlquist, Bo and Mellbin, Tore, ‘Breast Feeding and Artificial Feeding’, Acta Paediatrica Scandinavia, 48 (1959), 55–70.Google ScholarPubMed

¹⁷ Newman, George, Report on the Milk Supply of Finsbury, Thomas Beam, London, 1903, p. 49.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Howarth, William J., ‘The Influence of Feeding on the Mortality of Infants’, The Lancet, 22 07 1905, 210–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁹ Blagg, Helen M., A Statistical Analysis of Infant Mortality and Its Causes in the United Kingdom, P. S. King, London, 1910, Table IX.Google Scholar

²⁰ James Niven, MOH for Manchester, drew attention to the fly problem; see his Feeding in Relation to the Health of the Young, Sheratt and Hughes, London, 1904, p. 31.Google Scholar See also ‘A National Anti-Fly and Vermin Campaign’, National Health, 6 (1919), 11.Google Scholar

²¹ Newman, , Infant Mortality, p. 173.Google Scholar

²² Oakley fairly condemns the ‘anti-dirt’ campaign for placing the burden of responsibility on women, but passes over the significance of this point – Oakley, Ann, ‘Wisewoman and Medicine Man: Changes in the Management of Childbirth’, in Oakley, Ann and Mitchell, Juliet (eds), The Rights and Wrongs of Women, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1976, pp. 38–42.Google Scholar

²³ See 8th Annual Report of the Women's Labour League, 1913Google Scholar; and Glasier, Katherine Bruce, ‘Wanted: A New Order of Knighthood! To Battle with Dirt and Darkness’, Labour Women, 1 (1913), 85.Google Scholar

²⁴ Reeves, Magdalen Stuart Pember, Round about a Pound a Week, G. Bell, London, 1913, pp. 46–64Google Scholar; Eyles, Leonora, The Woman in the Little House, Grant Richards, London, 1922Google Scholar; and PP XII (1919), Report of the Inquiry into the Coal Industry, Cmd 360, evidence of MrsHart, May, pp. 1,016–18Google Scholar; MrsAndrews, Elizabeth, pp. 1,019–20Google Scholar; and MrsBrown, Agnes, pp. 1,023–4.Google Scholar

²⁵ PP XVIII:277 (1914–16), Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for 1913, Cd 7730, p. 19.Google Scholar

²⁶ Board of Education, ‘Education and Infant Welfare’, Circular 940, HMSO, London, 1916, p. 2.Google Scholar

²⁷ Moore, S. G., ‘Infant Mortality and the Relative Practical Value of Measures Directed to Its Prevention’, The Lancet, 22 04 1916, 852.Google Scholar

²⁸ PP XXXIX:973 (1910), p. 70Google Scholar. Newsholme quoted Newman, 's similar views on p. 72.Google Scholar

²⁹ Pearson, Karl, ‘The Chadwick Lecture’Google Scholar, Pearson Papers, Item 73, D. B. Watson Library, University College, London.

³⁰ ‘On the Relative Value of the Factors which Influence Infant Welfare: An Inquiry by Ethel M. Elderton based on data provided by Dr A. G. Anderson, MOH Rochdale; Dr William Arnold Evans, MOH Bradford; Dr Alfred Greenwood, MOH Blackburn; Dr H. O. Pilkington, MOH Preston; and DrTattersall, C. H., MOH Salford, Part I, Annals of Eugenics, 1 (1925–6), 175.Google Scholar

³¹ Paton, D. Noel and Findlay, Leonard, Poverty, Nutrition and Growth: Studies of Child Life in Cities and Rural Districts of Scotland, Medical Research Council Special Report Series no. 101, HMSO, London, 1926, pp. 190Google Scholar, 197, 209, 227 and 250.

³² For the relation of eugenics to social policy, see Rosenberg, Charles E., ‘The Bitter Fruit: Hereditary Disease and Social Thought in Nineteenth Century America’, Perspectives in American History, 8 (1974), 181–235.Google Scholar

³³ PP XVIII:277 (1914–16), p. 16Google Scholar.

³⁴ A similar point is made by Figlio, Karl in his paper, ‘Chlorosis and Chronic Disease in Nineteenth Century Britain: The Social Construction of Somatic Illness in a Capitalist Society’, Social History, 2 (1978), 176.Google Scholar

³⁵ PP XXXIX:973 (1910), pp. 8–24 and 54Google Scholar.

³⁶ PP XIII:493 (1912–13), 74th Annual Report of the Registrar General for 1911, Cd 6578, p. xlii.Google Scholar

³⁷ DrDuncan, Jessie, Report on Infant Mortality in St. George's and St. Stephen's Wards, City of Birmingham, 1912, pp. 12–13Google Scholar, Birmingham Reference Library.

³⁸ Public Record Office (PRO), MH 48:183, Robertson, John, Report of the Medical Officer of Health on Child Welfare, City of Birmingham, 1913.Google Scholar

³⁹ Annual Report of the MOH for Liverpool for 1912, p. 13Google Scholar, Liverpool Reference Library.

⁴⁰ PP XXXII: 1 (1913), p. 19Google Scholar.

⁴¹ PP XXXIX:973 (1910), p. 55Google Scholar.

⁴² PP XVI:1 (1917–18), 45th Annual Report of the Local Government Board: Supplement in Continuance of the Report of the Medical Officer of the Board for 1915–16, containing a Report on Child Mortality at Ages 0–5, Cd 8496, p. 67.Google Scholar

⁴³ PP XXXII:1 (1913), p. 76Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ ‘The Ignorance and Fecklessness of Mothers’, National Health, 2 (1910), 174.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ ‘Infant Welfare in Warwickshire’, National Health, 6 (1915), 215.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Davin, Anna, ‘Imperialism and Motherhood’, History Workshop Journal, Spring 1978, 9–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

⁴⁷ Bentham, Ethel, ‘Wage-Earning Mothers’, League Leaflets, 04 1916Google Scholar, Labour Party Archives.

⁴⁸ 14th Annual Report of the Baby Clinic, 1925, pp. 8–9.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Routh, Amand, ‘How the Health of the Urban Babe can be Safeguarded’, in National Association for the Prevention of Infant Mortality (ed.), Mothercraft, NLPEI, 1915, p. 20.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Annual Report of the MOH for St. Pancras, 1914, p. 42.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Annual Report of the MOH for Birmingham, 1914, p. 20Google Scholar, Birmingham Reference Library.

⁵² Karn, Mary Noel and Pearson, Karl, Study of the Data Provided by a Baby-Clinic in a Large Manufacturing Town, Draper Company Research Memoirs, Studies in National Deterioration X, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1922, pp. 20–5.Google Scholar

⁵³ Quoted in Newman, , Infant Mortality, p. 237.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Blackman, Janet, ‘Baby Scales and Tin Openers’, Mother and Child, 45 (1973), 15–16.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Reeves, op. cit. p. 54; and McNally, C. E., Public Ill-Health, Gollancz, London, 1935, pp. 181–91.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ PP XXXII:145 (1904), Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration: Minutes of Evidence, Vol. II, Cd 2210, p. 293Google Scholar – evidence of Miss Eves. For import figures for condensed and dried milks, see Whetham, E. H., The London Milk Trade, 1900–39, Research Paper no. 3, Institute of Agricultural History, University of Reading, 1970, p. 16.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Coutts, F. J. H., Report to the Local Government Board on an Inquiry as to Condensed Milks, with Special Reference to their Use as Infant Foods, HMSO, London, 1911, pp. 31–5.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See for example the extensive charts in Liddiard, Mabel, The Mothercraft Manual, J. A. Churchill, London, 1924, pp. 80–95Google Scholar; and Pritchard, Eric, Physiological Feeding, third edition, Henry Kimpton, London, 1909, pp. 65–81.Google Scholar Liddiard was the matron of the Mothercraft Training Centre founded by Truby King.

⁵⁹ Fordyce, A. Dingwall, Diet in Infancy, William Green and Sons, London, 1908, p. 2.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Home Notes, LX (1908), 141.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Mellanby, Edward, Nutrition and Disease: The Interaction of Clinical and Experimental Work, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, 1934.Google Scholar

⁶² Pritchard, Eric, Infant Education, Appendix, Henry Kimpton, London, 1911, p. 174.Google Scholar

⁶³ Enock, Arthur Guy, This Milk Business, H. K. Lewis, London, 1943, p. 33.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ PRO, MH 56:62, Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Condensed Milk, 1920Google Scholar, shows the decline in the use of condensed milk to have been greatest between 1919 and 1920.

⁶⁵ Report of the Proceedings of the National Conference on Infantile Mortality, 1906, P. S. King, London, 1906, p. 93.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ British Medical Journal, 29 January 1910, 253–4Google Scholar. See also Coutts, F. J. H., Report upon an Inquiry as to Dried Milks, with Special Reference to their Use in Infant Feeding, Reports to the Local Government Board on Public Health and Medical Subjects no. 116, HMSO, London, 1918.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ ‘The Disease-Producing Milk Supply of a Great City’, editorial in The Lancet, 31 October 1908, 1,310–11Google Scholar; and ‘The Manchester Milk Supply’, editorial in The Lancet, 18 June 1910, 1,702.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Beaver, op. cit. p. 252.

⁶⁹ Newman, , Report on the Milk Supply of Finsbury, p. 21.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ For example Woman's Dreadnought, 3 (1916), 494Google Scholar; and Women's Co-operative Guild, The Milk We Want, London, 1925.Google Scholar

⁷¹ DrHarris, Drew, ‘The Supply of Sterilized Humanized Milk for the Use of Infants in St. Helen's, British Medical Journal, 18 08 1900, 427.Google Scholar

⁷² McCleary, G. F., Infantile Mortality and Infants' Milk Depots, P. S. King, London, 1905, p. 132.Google Scholar

⁷³ Discussion following Chalmers, A. K.'s paper, ‘Infant Mortality’, Public Health, 18 (1906), 436.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ The Lancet, 25 February 1911, 543.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Pritchard, , Physiological Feeding, p. 51.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Lane-Claypon, Janet, Milk and Its Hygienic Relations, Longman, London, 1916, pp. 63–75.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Scharlieb, Mary, Womanhood and Race Regeneration, Cassell and Company, London, 1912, p. 26.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Saleeby, C. W., Women and Womanhood, Mitchell Kennedy, New York, 1911, p. 177.Google Scholar Saleeby trained under J. W. Ballantyne at Edinburgh and was a popular public speaker.

⁷⁹ PP XXXII:1 (1904), Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration, Vol. I, Cd 2175, p. 50Google Scholar; and Heath, H. Llewellyn, The Infant, the Parent and the State, P. S. King, London, 1907, p. 24.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Scurfield, Harold, ‘The Need for Infant Management Being Given a More Important Place in the Medical Curriculum’, Public Health, 26 (1913), 111–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸¹ Naish, Lucy, ‘Breast-Feeding: Its Management and Mismanagement’, The Lancet, 14 01 1913, 1, 657–9.Google Scholar

⁸² Editorial in The Lancet, 14 January 1913, 1, 677.Google Scholar

⁸³ See for example Ballantyne, J. W., Expectant Motherhood, Cassell, London, 1914, p. 198Google Scholar; Ballin, Ada, The Expectant Mother, n.d., p. 17.Google Scholar Ballin was the editor of Baby. Such practices apparently persist in some areas today – see Lipshitz, Susan, ‘The Mother and the Hospital’, in Lipshitz, Susan (ed.), Tearing the Veil, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1978, p. 34.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ MrsHewer, J. Langton, Our Baby, John Wright, Bristol, 1910, p. 19.Google Scholar Mrs Hewer was a certified midwife and registered nurse.

⁸⁵ Pritchard, , Infant Education, pp. 172–3.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Waller, Harold, Clinical Studies in Lactation, Heinemann, London, 1938, p. 140.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Davis, Frederick, Childhood: Its Nurture, Nature, Psychology and Education in Relation to Social Life, Bale and Danielsson, London, 1912, p. 5.Google Scholar David was a trained pharmacist, but does not appear to have had any training in psychology.

⁸⁸ Bell, Lady Florence E. E., At the Works, Edward Arnold, London, 1907, p. 171.Google Scholar See also MrsMacDonald, J. R., Player, , DrBentham, Ethel, DrClaydon, Olive, MrsDonaldson, F. L. and MrsWood, G. H., Wage Earning Mothers, Women's Labour League, n.d., p. 24Google Scholar; and Bosanquet, Helen, The Family, Macmillan, London, 1906, p. 259.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Newman, , Infant Mortality, p. 257.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Ballantyne, op. cit. p. 72.

⁹¹ PP XXVIII:437 (1906), Special Report on Educational Subjects, Vol. 16: School Training for the Home Duties of Women, Part III, Cd 2963, p. iii.Google Scholar

⁹² PRO, ED 12:41, Minute, 3 November 1907.

⁹³ Blagg, op. cit. p. 15.

⁹⁴ DrLeslie, Murray, ‘Woman's Progress in Relation to Eugenics’, Eugenics Review, 2 (1910–1911), 282–98.Google Scholar See also Booth, Meyrick, ‘The Myth of the Modern Woman’, English Review, 45 (1927), 705–9.Google Scholar Dyhouse analyses these attitudes more fully – Dyhouse, Carol, ‘Social Darwinistic Ideas and the Development of Women's Education, 1810–1920’, History of Education, 5 (1976), 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For more general information on doctors' attitudes towards women's education, see Haller, John S. and Haller, Robin M., The Physician and Sexuality in Victorian America, Norton, New York, 1974, pp. 38–9 and 60–1Google Scholar; and Smith-Rosenberg, Carroll, ‘Puberty to Menopause: The Cycle of Femininity in Nineteenth Century America’, in Banner, Lois and Hartman, Mary (eds), Clio's Consciousness Raised, Harper, New York, 1974, pp. 23–7.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ British Medical Journal, 7 July 1900, 38.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ PRO, ED 24:279, Note of a Deputation, 27 February 1906.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ National Health, 1 (1909), 99.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ PRO, ED 11:51, ‘Memo on the Teaching of Infant Care and Management in the Public Elementary Schools’, Circular 758, 1910.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Board of Education, Circular 1,353. See also National Health, 17 (1925), 365Google Scholar – editorial praising the more didactic tone of the new Memo.

¹⁰⁰ Annual Report of the MOH for Liverpool, 1912, p. 47.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Annual Report of the MOH for St. Pancras, 1909, p. 31Google Scholar; and Annual Report of the MOH for St. Pancras, 1910, p. 24.Google Scholar

¹⁰² These two divergent trends in infant welfare work were referred to in ‘The Prevention of Infantile Mortality’, British Medical Journal, 12 September 1908, 775.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Bunting, Evelyn M., Bunting, Dora E. C., Barnes, Annie E. and Gardiner, Blanch, A School for Mothers, Horace Marshall, London, 1907, p. 9.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Local Government Board, Maternal and Child Welfare: Report on the Provision made by Public Health Authorities and Voluntary Agencies in England and Wales, HMSO, London, 1917, pp. v and x.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Gibbon, I. G., Infant Welfare Centres: The Work of Infant Consultations, Schools for Mothers and Similar Institutions, NLPEI, London, 1913, pp. 30–1.Google Scholar Booth's eight social classes were: Class A – lowest class of occasional labourers, loafers and serai-criminals; Class B – casual earnings, very poor; Class C – intermittent earnings, poor; Class D – small regular earnings, poor; Class E – regular standard earnings, above the poverty line; Class F – higher-class labour; Class G – lower-middle class; and Class H – upper-middle class – Booth, Charles, Life and Labour of the People, Vol. 1, Williams and Norgate, London, 1889, pp. 33–61.Google Scholar For a commentary on this division of the poor into the deserving and the undeserving during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, see Jones, Gareth Stedman, Outcast London, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1976, pp. 303–14.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Gibbon, I. G., Report on Existing Schools for Mothers and Similar Institutions for the National League for Physical Education and Improvement, P. S. King, London, 1910, p. 8.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ ‘66 Records of Newborn Babies from the St. Marylebone Health Society, sent by Dr. Flora Murray and Dr. Christine Murrell, 1909’, Pearson Papers, Item 297.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ 2nd Report of the North Islington Maternity Centre and School for Mothers, 1916, pp. 21–2.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ 8th Report of the North Islington Maternity Centre and School for Mothers, 1922, pp. 19–20.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Russell, Alys, ‘The First School for Mothers Comes of Age’, National Health, 21 (1927), 8–14.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Gibbon, , Report on Existing Schools for Mothers and Similar Institutions, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

¹¹² Bunting et al., op. cit. p. 4.

¹¹³ 1st Annual Report of the North Islington School for Mothers, 1914 p. 3.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Bunting et al., op. cit. p. 47.

¹¹⁵ ‘The Story of the North Islington Infant Welfare Centre and Schoo for Mothers, 1913–75’, Mother and Child, 45 (1973), 17.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Interview with MrsDavis, A. of the North Islington Welfare Centre, 9 November 1977.Google Scholar The MOH for Liverpool complained of women's inability to mix dried milk – Proceedings of the Council, 1916–17, 10 May 1917, p. 667Google Scholar; and Report of the MOH on Maternal and Infant Welfare, p. 5Google Scholar, Liverpool Reference Library.

¹¹⁷ Pearson Papers, Item 297.

¹¹⁸ ‘The Mortality of Children from Overlaying or Accidental Burning’, The Lancet, 15 September 1906, p. 749.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Reeves, op. cit. p. 51.

¹²⁰ ‘Elementary Mothercraft Examinations’, National Health, 6 (1915), 283.Google Scholar

¹²¹ 4th Annual Report of the Mothers Welcome, Metropolitan Borough of Wandsworth, 1918–1919, p. 5Google Scholar, Greater London Council Archives.

¹²² 2nd Annual Report of the North Islington Maternity Centre and School for Mothers, 1916, p. 4.Google Scholar

¹²³ Dowling, W. C., The Ladies Sanitary Association and the Origin of the Health Visiting Service, Master's dissertation, London School of Economics and Political Science, 1963.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Bunting et al., op. cit. p. 39.

¹²⁵ Gibbon, , Report on Existing Schools, p. 4.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Pankhurst, Syivia, The Home Front, Hutchinson, London, 1932, p. 213.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Women's Labour League, The Baby Clinic, pamphlet, n.d., p. 1, Labour Party Archives.

¹²⁸ Gibbon, , Report on Existing Schools, pp. 7–8.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Ministry of Health, Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer for 1919–20, HMSO, London, 1920, p. 108Google Scholar; and Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer for 1929, HMSO, London, 1930, p. 26.Google Scholar After 1929 local authorities received block grants, and no further breakdown of monies is available after that date.

¹³⁰ Wright makes this point – op. cit. p. 16.

¹³¹ Dowling, op. cit. pp. 163 and 195.

¹³² Jones describes the founding and aims of the Charity Organization Society – op. cit. pp. 256–7. The society attempted to organize charitable relief and to ensure that only the deserving poor were helped.

¹³³ Charity Organization Society, Health Visiting, n.d.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ PP XXV:23 (1914–16), 44th Annual Report of the Local Government Board: Supplement containing the Report of the Medical Officer, 1914–1915, Cd 8153, p. 1.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Chesser, D. Elizabeth Sloan, Woman Marriage and Motherhood, Cassell, London, 1913, p. 168.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Moore, S. G., ‘Infant Mortality in Huddersfield’, National Health, 10 (1918), 16–17.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Cassie, Ethel, Maternal and Child Welfare, H. K. Lewis, London, 1920, pp. 11 and 16.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ Kanthack, advised visitors, ‘I always approached my East End patients with my very best manners and extended the same little courteous consideration to them that I would have served towards a lady’ – Kanthack, Emelia, The Preservation of Infant Life, H. K. Lewis, London, 1907, p. 2.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ ‘The Baby Week Exhibition at Central Hall’, Woman's Dreadnought, 4 (1917), 793.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ PRO, ED 11.278, Minute, 18 June 1937Google Scholar, blamed the shortage of domestic servants on the education given to girls.

¹⁴¹ This phenomenon has attracted widespread attention. See for example Freymann, John Gordon, ‘Medicine's Great Schism: Prevention v. Cure: An Historical Interpretation’, Medical Care, 13 (1975), 525–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Rosen, George, ‘Historical Trends and Future Prospects in Public Health’, in McLachlan, Gordon and McKeown, Thomas (eds), Medical History and Medical Care, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1971, pp. 59–81.Google Scholar On the separation between preventive and curative practice in infant care especially, see Williams, Cicely D. and Jeliffe, Derick B., Mother and Child Health: Delivering the Services, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1977, p. 19.Google Scholar

¹⁴² Annual Report of the MOH for Hull, 1923, p. 25.Google Scholar