The daily morning journal and courier., 1901-12-28
SOME ENGLISH REFORM.

courage "Rushing tho Growler" by ChiIdren-Negiected chtld-Life in Lond0n-Child Insurance.
 London, Dec. 1S. To the Editor of the Journal and Courier:
 New Years day will bring into ope- ration in England two acts of parlia- ment, both of which are intended to ameliorate the lot of unfortunate child hood and it is a happy fact that in each of these new codes the lash of penalty is held, as it has never been be- fore, over those who, when children go wrong, are chiefly to blame for it, viz, the criminal or neglectful amongst pa rents. One of these new laws is called '"The Youthful Offenders Act" Under this act many offences which have hitherto laid upon child life the inera- dicable felon's brond will infiict this stigma no longer. So carefully does this new law guard children from the taint of the prison that 1t discourages their detention in such place for even the brief period of their arraignment and such remands os may be necessary in the police court. Instead of commit - ting him to prison, the magistrates, hereafter, may commit child or young person. who is remanded or sent for trial, into the custody of any fit person who is willing to receive him.
 This will afford an opportunity for Dr. Barnardo, or some other pubic friend of children, to get hold or the youthful transgressor, for experience proves that generally, though not al ways, the parents of the child culprit would scarcely meet the legal require ments of being fit to have him in charge. More frequently than not the childs natural guardians are found in London and the other large cities of England, to have contributed, directly or indirectly, to the youthful offenders downfall. Hence the provision in this new law which holds these to account. Have the parents or guardians of the accused child wilfully neglected to exer- else due care over him? Then, says the new code, let them be summoned, and let the pains and penalties of the court be applied as warning to themselves and others that children are largely what they are made by training and en- vironment.
 The other new law in behalf of child hood which the new year will put into operation Is that which Is intended to discourage the employment of children in the questionable practice which IS best known in America as rushing the growler." One can hardly say that this new law will really discourage this practice, so use the phrase Intended to discourage" It certainly will not stop it. and many question whether such an emasculated thing as this act was when it finally emerged from the legislative mills at Westminster will very much diminish this evil. The act, when first introduced to parliament, was drastic. It forbade parents or any one else to send to the public house for beer or any other beverage, in any quantity, any child under sixteen years of age. The feeling underlying this measure was a very wholesome one. To familiarize young life with the in- terior of drinking saloons would surely vitiate it and give the youthful steps start in the wrong direction. This was the argument, and those who made It were able to punctuate 1t with some startling facts In working class dis tricts children go in droves to the cor ner public. Two hundred have been counted entering a single drinking place at noon time of one ordinary day, sent by their parents for the pint or half hint of "fourpenny'' with which father and mother are intending to wash do"n their noon- tide meal.
 Legislation which should efectually stop this practice would surely be God-send, and there was hope for a time that such legislation would be op- tained. But temperance reformers have uphill work in England. The new act. as it came from the House ot Commons was so different from what if was when 1t made it's initial bow to the House of Lords, that it's friends have been inclined to disoWn 1t. The age limit is fourteen instead of sixteen, and there isn't child in England old enough to walk who, subject to cou- ple of provisos, may not still be legally sent to fetch beer, or whiskey, or any other sort of intoxicant from the neigh boring public house at any parent sweet will. Everything, therefore, as to the good resulting from this act must depend upon what the two quail fying provisos are and how fully they are regarded.
 One of these stipulates that the pub rcen shall serve intoxicants to children in bottles only, and requires him to see that these bottles are securely corked and sealed. This is to prevent any leakage of the beverage into youthful stomachs, and one may well say upon this point "so far, so good" But the advantage of the other proviso is not so apparent. This stipulates that chil- dren sent to the public house for li- ouor or beer, shall never be served to any less than a pint, an arrangement which even if it sessens the number of visits made by youthful steps to the jug and bottle department, will hardly in a general way conduce to temper ance, but is more likely, one would think, by encouraging sales in the pint rather than half pint, to stimulate over indulgence.
 For infractions of this law parents will be fined ten dollars for first of fence. and for every subsequent off, fense twenty-five dollars, and to the same penalties, if he shall transgress will the publican be subjected When one observes. too, how publicans are