The Sun.
London, England, 1864-04-16 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TlMEB.—There never was a more eager or volu-
minous controters7 that that carried on now for
many months between the iespticti7e advocates of a
uniform and an ad valorem duty on sugar;. It has
beaten off our tables the whole literature of Schles-
wig-Holstein, and several theological and Biblical
questions thought to be of some importance half a
year ago. An immense variety of facts and opinions
have been laid before the public, and some of the
writers have supplied very remarkable accessions to
the popular stock of knowledge. But perhaps the
most remarkable feature of the question is the very
strong belief of the different sides that their own
view is the only one which a reasonable man can
take, and that will besupported by results. But what
is all this about, and what is the real question ? It
is simply whether there shall be the difference of a
halfpenny a pound between the duty on the very
best and the very worst sugar, or no difference at
all, but the same duty for all kinds. The latter is
the alternative loudly maintained to be most in harm
mony with the principles of free trade, and is in
favour with the merchants. The former is the new
tariff proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The difference between them is neither more nor less
than a halfpenny in the pound. The proposed duty
on the very lowest quality of sugar that can be made
and imported is seven eighths of a penny a pound.
It then rises four steps by one-eighth of a penny
at a time, till the highest duty in the scale is a
penny and three-eighths—that is, one halfpenny
above the lowest duty. The different qualities of
sugar sold by the grocers vary in price as much as
twopence or more. The proposed duty, then, is
only one-quarter of this difference in the selling
price. This must be borne in mind, and is necessary
to a fair consideration of the matter. We all of us
see the greatest difference between the pure crystal-
line cube we drop into our tea and the heaps of dirty
brown stuff we see piled in shop windows for in-
ferior uses or humbler customers; and when we
are told that the new tariff is still ad valorem, and
only a slight modification of its predecessor, we
conclude at first that the difference of duty may
be nearly equal to the natural difference of value.
That,however, is very far from the case, as we have
said. The difference of duty is just that halfpenny
in the pound between the very highest and the very
lowest qualities. It certainly does cross the mind
that a tariff so approximating to entire uniformity
cannot work so very differently from one quite uni-
form. The tariff aims at justice by taxing, not the
rude mass, but its saccharine value. It proposes to
tax sugar, not the rough material containing sugar
among its ingredients, and minus the value of its
ingredients by the cost of their separation. The
tariff assumes that the sugar comes over in the forms
adapted to the convenience of the producers and
consumers, anart from fiscal considerations, much as
if it were naturally produced in that variety, and
we therefore received the various qualities direct
from nature's own hands. Were this the case, there
could be no doubt as to an ad valorem duty. But

the supposition is only partially and incompletely
true, inasmuch as art has tampered with the mate-
rial and arranged the varieties to evade fiscal laws.
So we are told very positively that, there is a world
of cheating going on, and that vast quantities of
sugar are and have been adulterated or purposely
kept down at a low mark, in order to come in, as it
were, m jornza pauperis. But all this mass of sus-
picion and downright accusation shrinks into a very
small compass, and falls itself under the suspicion of
not being quite truthful, when we find that while
the actual difference of the selling value of sugar
ranges over 2d. a pound, the differential duty, said
to be so mischievous by creating a premium on bad
cultivation and bad manufacture, is only just a half-
penny a pound. If the rise in duty upon each step
of supposed value were equal to that step, or nearly
equal, or half that step; that is, if the duty rose a
halfpenny for the penny of higher value, then we
might imagine a good deal to depend on the discern-
ment of the officer of
toms. in that case Mr.
Crawford's motion would have been important.
It puts before us an officer unabl.? to tell by the
most delicate tests, or such tests as he can apply,
whether the pound of sugar before him is Worth a
penny more or less. and whether it is to pay, we
will say, a halfpenny more to the Queen. But the
successive increments of duty have not that ratio to
the increments of value, for while the value rises a
halfpenny the duty only rises an eighth of a penny.
Will Mr. Crawford tell us that these men, long
accustomed to examine sugar by the eye, the touch,
the taste, and the weight, cannot tell so wide a
difference as a halfpenny in the pound? The only
mishaps that we can see likely to follow from their
want of infallible discernment is that they will be
occasionally wrong by half a farthing a pound. We
are quite at a loss to see how the ordeal of this
tariff can keep any fine sugars out of' the market,
for the worst evil that can befall them is that they
may possibly have to pay half a farthing a pound
more than they ought. In theory, a tax upon
quality is a premium to inferiority ; and what is
true in theory has, no doubt, some truth also in
practice. But a careful and systematic keeping
down of qualities just below certain standards, in
order to come in at a lower rate of duty, is no such
great injury to the manufacture or loss to trade.
In each case it is only the question of half a
farthing a pound. We have yet to receive more
positive and exact information than we now pos-
sess as to the large quantities of fine sugar excluded
from the market ; and Mr. Crawford has not
contributed much under this head. What are they ?
Where are they ? On the other hand, it is unde-
niable that a uniform duty, by charging the duty
on the weight, and not on the quantity of crystal-
lizable saccarine matter, would keep out an im-
mense quantity that now comes in under a more
indulgent and accommodating system of duties.
Mr. Crawford could not convince the House that
any great harm was likely to arise from a con-
tinuance of the ad valorem tariff, and, with all this
world of talk, only carried with hit, t 17 members.
After all—and Mr. Crawford may detive from it
consolation for his very poor following—tile great
argument for this tariff is that of a just and gentle
policy. In these matters it will no do to advantSe
by too violent changes. Legislation must walk ; it
cannot jump; it must not run. It must always
reserve the command of its movements, and even the
power to recall them if necessary. It would not do
to leap at one bound from the tariff under which
many classes and interests have made all their
arrangements for many years past, and came to a
uniform duty, the evident tendency of which will
be to restrict the importation to those qualitie3 of
sugar that give the most value in the least weight.
We hope that the prophets may turn out as wrong
in this case as they have in many others, but they
assure us that a uniform duty would prevent im-
mense quantities of interior and inconvertible stuff
from competing with the best qualities, and that it
would all perish in the plantation, just as mountains
of small coal are destroyed at the pit's mouth because
it will not pay for carrying any distance.
POST.—Mr. Horsman has given notice that on
the first open day he will move four resolutions, the
terms of which he has already announced. He
cannot be in earnest. He has been too long in Par-
liament not to know the relation in which an Ad-
ministration stands to the Crown on the one hand
and to Parliament on the other, and it is impossible
that he can seriously intend to ask the house to
affirm what his resolutions express. It is not to be
supposed that he has no object in moving the re-
solutions, but that Parliament should accept them
cannot be either his object or his hope. He may
wish to create an opportunity for a debate on the
foreign policy of the Government; he may wish to
have the command of the occasion for the expres-
sion of his own opinions; he may wish to raise
some questions, or draw out some information ; he
may, in short, have a variety of objects ; but to get
the resolution passed cannot be one of them. He
will make a speech and provoke a discussion, after
which 11,; will avow himself to be entirely or par.
tially satisfied with the result, and then withdraw
the resolutions, ,;:hich so far will have served their
purpose.
'To perseve:_e in pressing them, and to
divide the house upon the: would be to ask for an
interpretation of the position of Ministers, which
would be perfectly revolutionary, and would give
quite a new reading to our constits."ti". Mr.
Horsman cannot seriously think of this, -,:nless he
has taken leave of his senses or has unread a.. 1 his
political and Parliamentary experience. The firs,
resolution is in these terms :—" That this house,
animated by sentiments of loyalty to the
Throne and respect for its prerogative, will be
anxious at all times dutifully to give effect to any
engagements by which her Majesty, iu the exer-
cise of her prerogative, may bind the country."
Mr. Horsman is not happy in the choice of
words, or he would have spared us the awkward-
ness of its prerogative, as applied to the throne.
It is correct to speak of the prerogative of the
Crown or of the Sovereign, but the Throne is never
so used, but is the embodiment of quite a different
idea. But let that pass. The resolution in itself is
otherwise unexceptionable. But it is wholly un-
called for and unnecessary. 'Why should the House
of Commons affirm its loyalty and its determination
to back the Crown in the exercise of its preroga-
tive ? Who doubts it ? Is there any screw loose—
or any weakening of the links that bind the Queen
and her people together ? Was the country ever
more loyal, or more affectionately devoted to the
Queen than at this present moment ? Does her
Majesty for one instant dream that the country
would not support her to the last in any demand
which she might make upon them in the name of
honour and duty ? The resolution therefore is, in
itself, wholly superfluous. But the second is much
more serious, and involves a principle not only un-
known to the constitution but subversive of it. It
is in these terms--" That While it is the duty of her

her prerogative, it is no less the duty of Parliameny
Ministers to advise her Majesty in the exercise or
to advise Ministers as to the counsel with 'schlep.
they shall approach the Sovereign." This, we arm,
is an entirely new reading of the functions of Par-
liament. The rationale is this—the Crown must
Zee
advised by Ministers, and Ministers by Parliarae_ite
There is only one step further—Parliament by the
people. The theory of our constitution is the othes
way, The Queen acts on the advice of Minister;
Parliament, if necessary, passes its iudg
that advice, and the country, if necessariri
passes its judgment upon Parliament.
Parliament is not satisfied with Ministers,
Ministers go out. if the country is
tt
satisfied with Parliament, it has its remedy u..f.
petition in the first instance, and at the hustings 117_
the last. But that the country should dictate VO
meet 0
policy to Parliament beforehand is about as reason
able as that Parliament should advise Ministebrst
what they shall advise the Crown. No about
Ministers cannot govern without the consent 0:
Parliament, nor Parliament exist against the for_ex
of public opinion. One of the great duties of
Minister is to read aright the course and bent
the public mind ; to know clearly how far it svl_'..`
support him, and where his risk begins when.,7
feels bound to go forward on his own reepontuul:
lity. If he miscalculates he will have to pay cter .-
penalty. He is responsible because he hasa
tain freedom in deciding his policy. Take swar
that freedom, make him the mere channel of not;
veying the decision of the House of Comreees
the Crown, and he is no longer responsible --td
responsibility rests on Parliament. He is an in;
strument, a vehicle, a delegate, but he is no looge
a Minister or a statesman. He may have geeiuge.'
experience, sagacity, all the grand qualitiee 6!
make a great administrator and patriot ; but these
tb
qualities are in abeyance if Parliament takes
power of original action out of his hands. But it
to
DP
useless to go on arguing apriors'; it is enough
say that the whole practice of Parliament is agsinsa
Mr. Horsman's theory. Ministers have not, 104
matter of precedent and. practice, been in t",
habit of taking their instructions from Parliamen"
They endeavour to interpret the Parliaments,rl
mind ; when they have done this to their own
l"
006:
faction they act upon it. If Parliament apPre
their conduct, they are glad of it; if it disappref'
they resign. But in no case do they go to Pal:
went to ask what advice they shall tender to the"
Sovereign. Mr. Horsman speaks of Parliament
if it consisted of only one House. He seems te
get that there is a House of Lords, and that, if 1;1;
resolutions affirms a constitutional truth, hP'.
Houses must agree in the advice which they gin;
to Ministers, and which Ministers are to give totes
Queen. By the third and fourth resolutions We s„
what Mr, Horsman is aiming at. He wishes t;
limit the discretion of Ministers in dealing with tb.,,
Dano-German question. The resolutions are;:i
these terms :—" That this House has heard vc".
regret of the violation of their engagements by see?:
of the Powers that signed the Treaty of Louder'!"
1852, and that a Conference is about to meet 11
which the questions supposed to have been settle
by that treaty are to be reopened." Again,,r;
Horsman is clumsy in his wording, and the DA%
may well ask him whether the expression of regr%
is intended to apply to the meeting of the Confetti
ence as well as to the breaking of the engagenleet
of 1852 ? This, however, by the way. The stil
of the whole is in the tail—i e., in the fourth OA
last resolution—" That in the opinion of this iletls;
her Majesty ought not to be advised to give 13,,e;
consent to any new arrangements affecting tut)
integrity and independence of Denmark until the,,
engagements have been made known to Parliameet't
Was such a resolution ever known jn Parliamen
before ? According to it, not the plenipotentiarlw
of the English Crown, but members of the gel°
of Commons, are to bit at the Conference !