Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2009
During the years following the Boer War, infant mortality became an issue of national importance, and increasing emphasis was placed on the provision of infant welfare clinics and health visitors. The infant mortality rate declined steadily throughout the period, and officials attributed the improvement to the new services. But just as the causes of infant mortality were complex, so were the reasons for the decline in the mortality rate. What needs explanation therefore is why health officials concentrated so exclusively on one particular form of solution. It is argued that this was a consequence of, first, the way in which infant welfare was perceived as a problem of mortality and especially as a problem of diarrhoeal mortality and, secondly, the philosophy of the infant welfare movement, which held that responsibility for infant mortality rested with the individual mother. Infant welfare services were thus compartmentalized as a set of personal social services, and kept separate from broader socio-economic issues.
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