The Press.
London, England, 1854-02-18 00:00:00

LORD PALMERSTON IN THE HOME

OFFICE.
WHETHER Lord PALMERSTON be well placed in
the Cabinet may be doubtful, but there is no
doubt of his value as a Home Secretary. In
truth, there was need of such a Minister in
that department. Sir JAMES GRAHAM is a good
man of business, but when he resigned his
post in '46 we asked what, after all, had he
done ? Where were the results of his five
years' tenure ? His successor, Sir GEORGE
GREY, made immense capital out of the foolish
panic of April, '4B ; and his courtesy to indivi
duals disarmed opposition. But neither was
he in action a reforming Minister, though at
times he talked like one. Mr. WALPOLE
planned many good measures, and carried out
some ; but his career was prematurely cut
short, less to his own regret than to that of the
country, for all men rated him higher than he
rated himself. The present Secretary, though
untrained to the work of his new department,
seems bent on crowding into his short remain-
der of years reforms that might make the re-
putation of a life. Sanitary amendment—
cab fares—protection of wives—and now the
regulation of burial clubs and friendly societies
—all have in turn engaged his attention. Nor
has he handled any question with a feeble or
unequal grasp. Perhaps in a Minister a little
inexperience is a good thing. Your very prac-
tised men, whose whole training has lain
in one department, are apt to magnify diffi-
culties, and imagine obstacles. The first view
of a subject is often the best, at least it is
always that with which the people outside will
most readily fall in ; afterthoughts are fre-
quently refinements—ingenious, but unprac-
tical. So in this case. A hundred acute ob•
jections may be raised to the dealing with
those infanticidal institutions of which we
have several times treated, but the people
want them regulated ; they want murder sup-
pressed, and they expect their agents in Par-
liament to go to work by the shortest and most
effectual way.
What is that way? We repeat, and we be-
lieve that Parliament will bear us out—the
prohibition of all money payments on the
death of children, confining the operation of
the burial societies to the provision of the
actual funeral, the expenses whereof to he
defrayed directly by the society, without the
intervention of the parents.
" But," we may be told, "this is the law
" already. Even now, under the Joint-stock
" Companies Act, such payments are forbidden
" in the case of a child under ten years of age."
True ; but this proviso, though existing, is
unknown and unexecuted ; it forms no part of
the Friendly Societies Act ; and its operation
is clogged with many technical difficulties.
We want it enacted in a new form—we want
the penalties made such that they can be
enforced—and we want it extended to persons
of all ages. These provisions, in all probabi-
lity, will suffice for the present purpose.
Again—unenrolled societies, though clearly
illegal, exist to a vast extent. Yet no person
can establish one under a penalty ; and every
person insuring in one is liable to lose his
money without legal redress. Why are these
laws a dead letter? Mainly because of the
cost of putting them in force. Make prosecu-
tions cheaper—make the penalty recoverable
without expense or loss of time (for which a
mere change in the wording of the act will be
enough)—and these public pests will be put
down at once.
"But the insurance-offices will complain."
They have no cause : the law will not practi-
cally affect them. For, in the first place, they
refuse to insure infant lives; their tables are,
we believe, not calculated below the age of ten