The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-19 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS I
FROM TIM EVENING rArßas OF YESTERDAY.
GLOBE.—If Mr. Goulburn had but a little wit he would
exemplify Falstaff's notion of valour. The worthy knight,
deeming discretion "the better part" of that quality, gave
to it the better place—he put it foremost. Mr. Goulburn,
being a bungler, puts the cart before the horse—he is coura-
geous first, and discreet afterwards. If charged with
a blunder, he first stoutly swears it is not one ; but
press him home, and he clumsily confesses and amends
it. When the Sugar Duties Bill was in Committee on
Friday night, clause 13 was objected to, as an unnecessary
and unwise interference with the provisions of the Ware-
housing Act. Hitherto the sugar has been weighed
both on entering and on being cleared from bond,
and the duty levied on the weight cleared. It was pro-
posed, by the Cause in question, to discontinue the
practice of weighing on clearing the sugar, and to
charge the duty on the weight as entered in the first
instance, without any allowance for loss, by drainage or
otherwise. The only reason Mr. Goulbum could assign for
this was a probable saving of some 8,0001. a year in
the salaries of officers, &c. The effect upon the merchant
was not -deemed worthy of consideration. The loss
of weight in bond was lost sight of altogether, and
the duty was to be taken upon more than could reach
the consumer. This loss has always hitherto been recog-
nised and allowed for. By 3 and 4 W. IV., c. 57, sec.
19, the maximum allowance for drainage, sc., unless
the sugar has been stored in a warehouse of special security,
is fixed at 3 per cent. for the first three months, and 1 per
cent. for each succeeding month. Now the average period
for which sugar remains in bond is about seven months.
Seven per cent. upon 145., the duty on Muscovado sugars,
amounts to about lid. ; and this upon the quantity imported
last year (say 125,000 tons) gives 109,895/. as the amount of
duty upon sugar not delivered to the merchant. Of course,
this would, in effect, have formed an additional tax
upon the article ; and, like the rest, must have been
paid by the consumer. But its bearing would have been
most heavy upon the lowest qualities of the article, these
being most liable to loss of weight from drainage and eva-
poration. All this was, by the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, either unseen or unheeded ; and it was not until he
caught a glimpse of the possibility of an adverse division
upon it, that he gave up the clause. This he did last night,
without hazarding a debate on the subject. He covered his re-
treat, however, with a threat of introducing it in some other
form. There are those in the City who are obliged to him
for the hint, and will keep their eye upon him. We should
advise Mr. Goulburn to make a different disposition both
of his courage and his caution. They are sadly misplaced
at present, and the result is a waste of both, while none can
doubt that both need careful husbanding. To keep the
former ever in the van—to make it bear the shock of every
eacounter—is the way to wear it out ; not to mention that a
weapon battered by use so constant and indiscriminate soon
ceases to be effective for more creditable purposes.
STANDARD.—Mr. Miles's motion was last night rejected
by a majority of 213 to 78—a pretty plain proof that it was
not considered a motion the success of which could be calcu-
lated to benefit the agricultural interest. Mr. Miles, in-
deed, narrowed his proposition to a point bearing no pro-
portion to the magnitude of the principle asserted
in his original resolution, and scarcely reconcileable with
the arguments of his speech. The point was a transfer
to the Consolidated Fund of 300,000/. or 400,0001., now im-
posed on the county rates, to cover the expense of criminal
prosecutions, &c. Mr. Miles's speech, however, canvassed the
whole commercial policy of the present Government, treating
it generally as unfavourable to the agricultural interest, and on
this ground challenged a very full reply from Sir
James Graham ; but let us say it with all respect, the speech
of Mr. Miles and the reply of Sir James Graham were alike
beside the practical question before the House ; and, though
both very able addresses, concerned topics too familiar to com-
mand much interest. The practical question to which we
refer is the propriety of a transfer of the expense of criminal
prosecutions from local to general taxation. Now,
on this point there is something more to be considered than
any question between what may be regarded as rival inte-
rests. We must consider the whole subject of the
administration of the criminal law. It undoubtedly does
appear a hardship that the innocent people of a
district should be fined, in county rates, for
the crime of an individual who, perhaps, never
visited that district, but for the few minutes neces-
sary for the perpetration of the act that involves
it in a heavy expense—as in a very recent case, a
man may proceed from the City of London by railway into
Buckinghamshire, and commit a crime, for the successful or
unsuccessful prosecution of which the people of Bucks
will have several hundreds of pounds to pay. At
first sight it may seem that such a manifest injustice--
an injustice which, if the effect were upon a greater
scale, would render local authorities less vigilant
and alert in the vindication of the law—ought to be re-
medied by transferring to the whole public the burthen of
defending what is a common interest. • We are, however,
to look to the other side. Justice may be a little too
active, as well as being too sluggish ; and certainly
the activity of justice might be sometimes stimulated
by an assurance that all her expenses must come from
toe public purse. Is it quite certain that the present
three hundred thousand or four hundred thousand
pounds charged upon county rates might not grow to much
larger dimensions when supplied from the Consolidated Fund ?
and this without any corresponding advantage ; for it may
b 3 that we have already fully enough of prosecutions and
commitments, notwithstanding the (we were going to
call it salutary) check of county rates. Suppos-
ing the cost of prosecutions to be only increased fifty
per cent. by • the proposed change, would not the
agriculturists, who undoubtedly, in one shape or another,
pay greatly more than two-thirds of the taxes, be losers by
the bargain ? But it may be said, a public prosecutor, with
a staff of solicitors, other officials, tee., &c., under the imine-
, diate control of the Home Secretary, might be appointed to
control the expenditure of the public money. Now, we think
that a public prosecutor at the Old Bailey and in, perhaps,
half-a-dozen other very large towns, as well as London, would
be a very great improvement ; but we have seen enough of the
administration ofjustice in France and other countries in which
the whole administration—of criminal justice is in thismanner
engrossed by the executive, to feel convinced, that such a
monopoly is neither the most economical nor, for the pure
administration of justice, the most effectual system
It is enough, however, to open this slight view
of the consequences, wholly unconnected with the
money question which must follow the adoption of 'Mr.
Bliles'a only practical proposition last night, to show that
that proposition deserves very deliberate and serious con-
sideration before adopting it ; it is in truth a question
involving the whole foundation of the system upon which the
criminal laws are administered in this country. Mr. D'lsraeli
took the opportunity of the discussion to recite a scene
from " Vivian Grey," or some other of his
trashy novels, half fustian slang, half personal provocation.
Mr. &Israeli is fond, as all novelists ought to be, of illustra-
tions from /a belie passion, and drew an analogy between Sir
Robert Peel's cenduct towards the Conservatives before his ac-
cession to office and since, and that conduct which distin-
guishes a lover from a husband. We are not aware of
any truth in the analogy. Sir Robert seems to us to
ect towards the Conservative party .precisely as he acted
from 1831 to 1841, supporting all their substantial interests,
protecting them from all wrong and insult, and differingfrom any of them only upon those points on which he,
fifteen years ago, declared he must differ from
them—
more emphatically declared it in his administration
of 1835, when he opposed the proposition of the
Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, and, indeed,
gave a faithful outline of the system of financial and com-
mercial policy which he is now realising'. This may be the
conduct of a husband. but it is the conduct of an affec-
tionate and faithful husband, and we hope that all our
fair and unmarried readers may find such ; but, though
we are not aware that Sir Robert Peel ever played
" the passionate lover " to any party, we know that
the Right Honourable Baronet has been the object of
uncommon ardour and tenderness from at least one poli-
tical Cloe (please pronounce the word as a dissylla-
ble)—witness the following fragment of a billet-doux
written under the name of " Runnymede," in 1836 :---
"They cannot taunt you now with your vague promises
of amelioration ; you can appeal to the deeds of your
Cabinet, and the plans which the applause of a nation sanc-
tioned, and the execution of which the intrigues of a faction
alone postponed. Never, too, since the peace of Paris, has
thegreat national party of this realm been so united 'as at
the present moment. It is no exaggeration to say, that
among its leaders not the slightest difference of opinion
exists upon any portion of their intended policy. Pitt
himself in the plenitude of his power, never enjoyed
more cordial confidence than that which is now extended to
you by every alleged section of the Conservative ranks ;
all private opinions, all particular theories, have merged
in the resolute determination to maintain the English con-
stitution in spite of Irish rebels, and to support, with-
out cavil and criticism, its eminent champion in that
great course of conduct which you have expounded to
them." Poor Clog Runnymede, however, sighed in vain,
like the Mrs. Felix Lorraine of " Vivian Grey' was, it
appears, slighted, and we all have read that
"Hell has no fury like a woman scorned."
And to this root of bitterness may, we apprehend, be traced
some recent ebullitions of virulence that have lately reflected
little credit upon the House of Commons.