The Press. — 1854-02-18 (London, England)

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 remainder of years reforms that might make the reputation 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 practised men, whose whole training has lain in one department, are apt to magnify difficulties, 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 frequently refinements—ingenious, but unpractical. 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 suppressed, and they expect their agents in Parliament to go to work by the shortest and most effectual way. What is that way? We repeat, and we believe 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 probability, 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 prosecutions 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 practically 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