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

SPIRIT OF 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 satiety 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 ques ion ? It
is simply whether there shall be the difference of a
halfpenny a leonnd between the duty on the very
best and the very worst stagers 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 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 tee
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 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, zn 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 equal 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-
meet 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 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 those 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
farthieg a pound, Wo have yet to receive more
i,osiiive and exact information than we now pos-
ess as to the large tie:entities of fine sugar excluded
from the market ; an,2 Mr. Crawford has not
contributed much under this Lead. 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 o: crystal-
lizable saccarine matter, would keep out art im-
mense quantity that now comes in under a mo:e
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 al:--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 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 inn rests have made all their
arrangements for many years past, and c Are 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, hut they
assure us that a uniform duty would prevent im-
mense quantities of inferior 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, bat that Parliament should accept them
-et be either his object or his hope. He may
Carib,
-to an opportunity for a debate on the
wish to ere..
Lhe Government; he may wish to
foreign policy or.
,e occasion for the expres•
I'
have the command of IL
Moe of his own opinions; hb may
nformation ; he
wish to raise
i
some questions, or draw out some .
may, in abort, have a variety of objects: but to get
the resolution passed cannot be one of thea'n He
will make a speech and provoke a discussion, arZer
which he will avow himself to be entirely or par-
tially satisfied with the result, and then withdraw
the resolutions, which so far will have served their
purpose. To 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 hes unread all his
political and Parliamentary experiende• The first
resolution is in these terms :—" That thid 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, 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 in any demano
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 hut subversive of
is in terms-1' That while it is the duty of her

•
•
Ministers to advise her Majesty in the exercise of
her prerogative, it is no less the duty of Parliamenitt
to advise Ministers as to the connael with whie
they shall approach the Sovereign.'' This, we affirms
is an entirely new reading of the functions of Par-
liament. The rationale is this—the Crown must
advised by Ministers, 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 Ministers.
Parliament, if necessary, pass its judgment on
that advice, and the countrY, if necessary
panes its judgment upon -Parliament'
t
Parliament is not satisfied with Ministers,
Ministers go out. If the country is 130
satisfied with Parliament, it has its
petition in the first instance, and at the .hue.tiegte,,,ll:
the last. But that the country should Pt'
policy to Parliament beforehand is about as re'ae°e;
remedy b 1
able as that Parliament should advise Miniehri.,
what they shall advise the Crown. No deli.
Ministers cannot govern without the consent 0'
Parliament, nor Parliament exist against the force:
of public opinion. One of the great duties of 0
Minister is to read aright the course and bent
the public mind ; to know clearly how far it 'NI"'
support him, and where his risk begins when he
feels bound to go forward on his own responsihi"
lity. If he miscalculates he will have to Pay the
penalty. He is responsible because he has a ee"
tain freedom in deciding his policy. Take Oval
that freedom, make him the mere channel of con
veying the decieion of the House of Commons to
the Crown, and he is no longer responsible--tll6
responsibility rests on Parliament. He is all
strument, a vehicle, a delegate, but he is no log°
a Minister or a statesman. He may have genies,*
experience, sagacity, all the grand qualities that
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 le
useless to go on arguing aprion ; it is enough te;
say that the whole practice of Parliament is Wine'
Mr. Horsman's theory. Ministers have not, es
matter of precedent and practice, been in th°
habit of taking their instructions from Parliatneet'
They endeavour to interpret the Parliamentary
mind ; when they have done this to their own setts-
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 Parliir
meat to ask what advice they shall tender to their
Sovereign. Mr. Horsman speaks of Parliament ee
if it consisted of only one House. He seems to for
get that there is a House of Lards, and that, if ills
resolutions affirms a constitutional truth, both
Houses must agree in the advice which they gico
to Ministers, and whieh Ministers are to give to the
Queen. By the third and fourth resolutions wee°
what Mr. Horsman is aiming at. He wishes le'
limit the discretion of Ministers in dealing with the
Dano-German question. The resolutions are.ie
these terms :—" That this House has heard
regret of the violation of their engagements by 00
of the Powers that signed the Treaty of London in
1852, and that a Conference is about to meet
tic
which the questions supposed to have been settle
by that treaty are to be reopened." Again.
Horsman is clumsy in his wording, and the liottse.
may well ask him whether the expression of regte°
is intended to apply to the meeting of the Cont'er,
ence as well as to the breaking of tne engagemeoPr
of 1852 ? This, however, by the way. The still,'
of the whole is in the tail—i e., in the fourth 6"
last resolution—" That in the opinion of this 110ele
her Majesty ought not to be advised to give he'
consent to any new arrangements affecting the
integrity and independence of Denmark until WI
engagements have been made known to Parliament',
Was sueh a resolution ever known in Parliamee"
before ? According to it, not the plenipotentiaries
of the English Crown, but members of the Ilouss
of Commons, are to sit at the Conference !