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

SPIRIT OP THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

TlMEs.—There never was a more eager or volu-
minous controversy than that carried on now for
many months between the respective 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 r,„;:rkable accessions to
the popular atoek of knowledge. Bat p,;.haps the
most remarkable feature of the question is the vet;
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 quesion ? 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 hare
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 rides 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 um-
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
tariffassumes that the sugar comes over in the forms
adapted to the convenience of the producers and
consumers, apart 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 mlorem duty. But

the supposition is only partially and incompletely
true, in ismuch 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
_forma 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 bed manufacture, is oniTlust a half-
penny a pound. If the rise in duty upon each step
of supposed value were equal to that step, or nea:lY
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 Customs. In that case Mr.
Crawford's motion would have been important.
It puts before us an officer unable 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 lees, 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 rarthiog 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 tarthjng a pound
more than they ought. In theory, a te.x 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
Awn 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 riot
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 him 17 members.
After all—and Mr. Crawford may derive from it
consolation for his very poor following—the great
argument for this tariff is that of a just and gentle
policy. In these matters it will no do to advance
by too violent changes. Legislation must walk ;it
cannot jnrop; 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 inttin,sts have made all their
arrangements for many years past, and cella() to a
uniform duty, the evident tendency of which will
be to restrict the importation to those qualities 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 inferior and inconvertible stuff
from competing with the best qualitieo, 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 bag 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 ono of them. He
will make a speech and provoke a discussion, after
which he will avow himself to be entirely or par-
daily satisfied with the result, and then withdraw
the resolutions, which so far will have served their
purpose. 'i'o persevere in pressing them, and to
divide the house upon them, 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 constitution. Mr.
Horsman cannot seriously think of this, unless he
has taken leave of his senses or has unread all his
political and Parliamentary experience. The first
resolution is in these terms :—" That this honse,
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, in 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 an any demand
which she might make upon them in the name of
honour and duty ? The resolution therefore is, in
itself, wholly superfluoes. But the second is much
more serious, and involves a principle not only un-
known to the constitution but subversive of it. It
ot the t Teat while it is the duty of

Ministers to advise her Majesty in the exercise of
her prerogative, it is no less the duty of Parliament
to advise Ministers as to the counsel with which
they shall approach the Sovereign.."lbis, we affirm,
is an entirely new reading of the functions of Par-
liament. The rationale is this—the Crown must be
advised by Mieisters, and Ministers by Parliament.
There is only one step further—Parliament by the
people. The theory of our constitution is the other
way, The Queen acts on the advice of Minister:).
Parliament, if necessary, passes its judgment on
that advice, and the country, if neceesaryry
passes its judgment upon Parliament. If
Parliament is not satisfied with 111inisters,
min;b- :ers go out, if the country is nut
satisfied Parliament, it has its remedy by
petition in the first: instance, and at the hustings in
the last. But that the
country should dictate a
policy to Parliament beforehan,e2 is about as reasoue
able as that Parliament should ajvise Minister
what they shall advise the Crown, No doul.
Ministers cannot govern without the consent o
Parliament, nor Parliineent exist against the force
of public opinion. One of the great duties of a.
Minister is to read aright the course and bent !).:
the public mind ; to know clearly how far it vrii
support him, and where his risk begins when be
feels bound to go forward on his cwn responsibi-
lily. If he miscalculates he will have to pay tha
penalty. He is responsible because he has a ore
tain freedom in deciding his policy. Take away'
that freedom, make him the mere channel of con'
veying the decision of the House of Commons t°
the Crown, and he is no longer responsible--the
responsibility rests on Parliament. He is an
strument, a vehicle, a delegate, but he is no longer
a Minister or a statesman. He may have genius'
experience, sagacity, all the grand qualities thaV
make a great administrator and patriot ; but these
qualities are in abeyance if Parliament takes the
power of original action out of his hands. But it is
useless to go on arguing aprion ; it is enough t')
say that the whole practice of Parliament is against
Mr. Horsman's theory. Ministers have not, as a
matter of precedent and practice, been in the
habit of taking their instructions from Parliament'
They endeavour to interpret the Parliamentavi
mind ; when they have done this to their own sstise
faction they act upon it. If Parliament approve
their conduct, they are glad of it; if it disapprove,
they resign. But in no case do they go to Parlia-
tnent to ask what advice they shall tender to their
Sovereign. Mr. Horsman speaks of Parliament as
if it consisted of only one House. He seems to Dl!'
bothresolutions that there is a House of Lords, and that, if toa
resolutions affirms a constitutional truth, oth
Houses must agree in the advice which tbey give
to Ministers, and whi,sl Ministers are to give to the
Queen. By the third and fourth resolutions we e°
what Mr. Horsman is aiming at. He wishes t°
limit the discretion of Ministers in dealing with the
Dano-German question. The resolutions are in,.
these terms :—" That this House has heard with
regret of the violation of their engagements by sane
of the Powers that signed the Treaty of London i°
1852, and that a Conference is about to meet
in
which the questions supposed to have been settled
by that treaty aro to be reopened." Again, Mr'
Horsman is clumsy in his wording, and the House.
may well ask him whether the expression of regreh
is intended to apply to the meeting of the Confer
ence as well as to the breaking of the engagement!
of 1852 ? This, however, by the way. The sting'',
of the whole is in the tail—i e., in the fourth an'
last resolution—" That in the opinion of this House
her Majesty ought not to be advised to give her
consent to any new arrangements affecting tbe
integrity and independence of Denmark until 001
engagements have been made known to Parlianaent.,
Was su:,sh a resolution ever known in Parliamen"
before ? According to it, not the plenipotentiaries
of the English Crown, but members of the 1-1010
of Commons, are to bit at the Conference !

COUNTRY MARKETS.

---------,t

LIVERPOOL—FRIDAY.
There was a thin attendance of the town and countrl
trade to-day, and wheat again met a limited consumpl
demand at a further reduction of Id per cental cornpar,e,
with last Friday. Flour was neglected. and last Nve€l‘l
prices declined 6d per sack and barrel. Oats and oat
in better demand, at the low prices current. Indian Co,
offered sparingly, with a firmer trade. Beans and Pe''
steady.

WAKEFIELD—FRIDAY.
The wheat trade was dull, and although factors would
concede a decline of Is, there was little duing. Barley Q'„
easier terms.

Averages for the week :
Wheat 593 qrs., at 39s pla
Eye — —s Od
8ar1ey,....„,. 36 .. 30s Gd
Beaus 2O .. 32s 9d
Peas ....
Oats

STAMFORD—FRIDAY.
White wheat, 40s to 42s ; red, 36s to, 40s per 36 stone.
Barley, malting, 33s to ;iss ; grinding, 29s to 32s per ilr;
Oats, 18s to 22s per 24 stone. Beans, old, 40s to
qr. ; new, 34s to 365.

LINCOLN,
White wheat new, 44s to 40s I
Red do. 36s to 406
Old white —s to —s
Red do. —s to —6
Barley, malting 33s to 3.5 s

—FRIDAY.
Oats, old,
I Barley, cling 27s to 00
grin
249 to 00
Newdo 196 to `t`2ll
I Beans. 409 to 42,1
I Beans, now 34s to 30
..

CORK-THURSDAY.

The following were the quotations this morning
wheat, 8s Od to 8s 10(1; whitk, 8s Od to 9s 8d , „
6d to 88 Od ; oats, 4s I.od to 6s 2d ; black do,, 4s 4cl t"
58 3d.

BRISTOL SUGAR—FRIDAY. 01°
The sales of the week have been confined to a few pare,
to meet immediate consumption, at full prices. There PA
been little doing in rum, and prices are rather 13wer.