The Express.
London, England, 1864-04-15 00:00:00

DRILL INSTRUCTORS OF VOLUNTEER CORPS.

—...—
General BUCKLEY asked the Under Secretary of Stubs
ter War whether it was in oomatemPletiou to Provide the
drill instructors of volunteer corps clothing and accoutre•
nest% is the same maim as it they were in a regiment of
the line.

The llawinis of HARTINGTON said the pay of 2.0. 7d.
we 2a. 4d. which the drill instructors of the volunteers re.
wised was regulated aimording to their being peotioiters or
noa•pentioners. It was 2s. 7d. to non.pensionere ; being
St Id., the tame as the pay of sergeants of the line, 4•1. for
lodging money, and 2d. for oompensation for clothirg. If,
therefore, in addition to the compensation for clothing, the
geeeromeot were to andertake to clothe the drill tristroc-
lora, they would he plied in abetter position than aergiante
of the line. There wow intention, therefore, of providing
them with clothing.
THE INCOME-TAX.
. _

Mr. HUBBARD asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether proposed to remiact the income-tax as it stood
at the close of 1863, or whither he proposed any, and, if
any, what charge in its provinces.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied that
be had so intuition whatever of making any material
dame io the provisions of the income-tar, but there wee
see point under ososidsration last year in relation to remora
employed. under railway companies which would require the
Minium ot the legislature. He arse not aware of soy other
point.

THE CONFERENCE ON DANISH AFFAIRS.
Mr. B. OSBORNS repeated the questions which he had
pet on Tuesday, namely, whether the hoo. llnder•Secretary
far Foreign Affairs would lay upon the table a copy of the
breech despatch of Name 20th, and also the answers of the
vanona powers to the invitation of our government to attend
Um conference.

Mr. LAY ARD replied that the French despatch, u be
b 4 before stated, was not communicated by document to
the governmeet, bat merely read to toe noble lo:d the Se.
unitary for Foreign Affairs. With regard to the other
question, there was no intention to lay aay further papers
upon the table of the house.
THE MALT DUTY.
-••-- - • - -

Upon the order of the day for going into committee of
ways and means,
Colonel BARTTELOT rose to move that the °antidote-
tioa of the duties upon sugar be postponed until the house
shall have had the opportunity of considering the expe-
diency of the reduction of the duty upon malt. Looking
at this matter aa a landlord'. question, be said that if
by removing this Mx they enabled the mad to he
letter cultivated, they indirectly beaefited the land.
lard, but directly beirefitted the tenant, became be
Gould dispose of his produce to tbs greatest advantage.
He appealed to boo. members who farmed their owe land,
whether is coonqueace of the malt tax they were not
obliged to deviate from the ordinary rotation of crops, and
grew wheat or oats when they ought to grow barley ? But
the benefit to the labourer would be still greater, as he
weld be stabled to drink in his own cottage or home that
pare nod wholesome beverage which was the natural drink
of every Englishman. (Cheers.) What would both. effect
upon 1410 labouren whims services were required to get in
the le where they were offered tea and sugar
es one side aid beer on the other ? Would
say gentleman noosed in getting in his harvest without
giving the men bear! Certainly not. ( Hear, hear.) The
bigher elms of men who bad good coppers to on brewed
their owe beer now became they could not get a wholesome
beverage at the public-how; and what would be the
affect if the malt lax were Wee off ? He appealed to his
boa friend the member for Derby whether in that ow a
pod wholesome beer amid not be brewed at 4d. a gallon,
and very superior to the stuff sold at public.houses (or 4d.
• pot" He did not say that the repeal of the tax would
prevent men going he the beerehop, but if they could get
good beer wittiest vies there, they would be more likely
te stay at beam, and a peat dale( crime and misery among
the lower clears he pot a stop to. (Hoer, hear.)
And what we. likely he be the result epos the revenue
The duty out es m, brisk., soap, paper, and bops had bee
%hes off, and the nuns. Ms more flourishing than ever,
wed a. this tax pressed oe the agricultural interest, they
ni
gh] if wasasary, mrtail their expenditure is order to
it.

Kr. COBBITT said If anything could be done to bring
back to the labouring man the habit of brewing his own beer
be thoeght they would do more to regenerate the labouring
clause than they could do by any other means. And with
regard to wawa ta • higher coedtlion be thought they
were isiilskon whi Xmas& that a nduntios of e peony in
the poand to the biome tax wee a winter boa& than
would be the repeal of the malt tax. H seconded the
motion of kis boa. friend with • view to He
the fins
stop to the total repeal of the malt tax. From_Ause to
time they bad • easplus of revenue. Recently a soiMlon and
• quarter was &meted to the repeal of the duty on paper.
It was sow proposed to devote a lame sum to the reduction
of the sugar duties. He thought it desirable that the sur-
plus should from dine to time be devoted to the reduction
of the duty on malt, and at the sod of four or five years the
entire repeal of the tax might be effected.
- - - - -

Mr. BiTRIRES said, baying the hooour to represent a
county which prodimed a Tut quantity of barley, he wee
1111110011 to give hie support to the motion.
Mr. PEEL (Taniworth) mid he believed the farmers of
Eel/land, as a body, utterly disclaimed any immunity for
thew own dam, and all they deified wee that the same
principle of free trade which had been ao happily adopted
with regard to commerce should be extended to agricul-
ture.

B. STANHOPE supported the amendment se a
step towards the repeal of the duty, and becalms he be-
lieved that in Sikh* that mune he was doing what was
best for the welfare of all classes of her Majesty's subjects.
Sir E. DIMING thought it much to to regretted that a
question of so much importance as the reduction of the
duty oa malt should be presented to the hones in a shape
which made it perfectly iroposeible that they could arrive at
any satisfactory coo:lmam is respect t. it. The advocates
for the repeal of the duty were placed in a very diaadvan.
teems position in having to *neonate' the united opposi-
tioa of those who objected to the nieseur• on financial
grounds, and also of the representatives of the great sugar
sonsumers in the !country. (Hear, hear.) There were
many who were favourable to the repeal of the malt duty,
but with whom the sugar duty bad stronger claims, and be
trusted that the country would not be led to the belief that
those who went into the lobby with the hon. and gallant
gentleman comprised all who desired the repeal of the
duty. He wet much astoolahed to hear hon. members who
were in favour of the repeal express an opinion as to the
iaddity of abstract resolutions, because the experience of
Um past few years is the caeca of the paper duty and the
fire insurance duty had shown that no Chancellor of the
Exchequer, however gifted, could loni contend against the
recorded opinion of that house. If the people were
only in earnest about the repeal .of this malt
duty, and if the question were not takes up
for perky purposes, to be allowed to drop an
son as those purposes were accomplished, it was utterly lei.
possible that minister, could long remain deaf to the demand
of the country. He should vote with the hon. and gallant
palliation (Colonel Barttelot), but he should hare gone into
the lobby with much greater satisfaction if the hone had
been raised upon the intrinsic ments of the question itself,
instead of being mixed up in an antagoaistic way with the
sugar duties.
Mr. BEACH observed that unrestricted competition was
the law of this country, and when the agriculturist was
called upon to compete with every quarter of the globe in
the production of corn, it was marvellous that any Judah:a-
fire should be needed for the repeal of an oppressive malt
tax. _ _ _

Mr. ALCOCK said he remembered that in 1833 a prepo-
sitioa for the repeal of the malt tax was carried in the
House of Commas by a majority of 10, end Lord Altborp
told the house that if they persevered be should be com-
pelled to put an • property tax. Thereupon the House of
Commons reversed their -decision ; but the government of
that day, he thought, committed a breach of trust with the
house, and every government had done so linos that bed
mrictioued a property tax without taking off the malt duty.
For his pert he would gladly resign to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer the paltry penny on the income tax
if this offensive duty were removed. But instead of doing
this the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a ridiculous
proposal. enabling farmers to malt barley for their cattle.
He del not believe that the fernier' would think him for
the measure. (Hear, bear.) On his part be (Mr. Aloock)
should vote for the repeal of the tax whatever government
were in office.

Lord R. MONTAGU said he begged to dispute the
statement of the hoe. umber for Oldham, that by the re-
peal of the malt tax the price of beer would be reduced one
half. He bad read is the dcononiet, a news-
paper which was considered to be an authority
in such matters, a statement that the whole amount of
beer consumed in England and Wales amounted to
60,000,000/. Now, the malt tax produced about 6,000,0001.,
or about one-teeth of the price of the beer consumed. Now.
the labourer paid about 3d. for his quart pot of beer ; and
hence the amount of the tax be paid for the malt wee about
• farthing. That caleulatioo Was even favourable to the
hoe. member who made this motion ; for it could not be
supposed that all the malt went to the beer—a great deal
must go to the makiog of spirits ; hence the amount of tax
in the price of a pot of beer was much len than a farthing.
Now, supposing the tax reputed, did any boo. member
believe that that amount of profit would go to the °Guntur?
—(hear, hear)—would the labourer get even hie
gallon of beer Id. cheaper ? (Hear, hear.) He main-
tained that it wan thinnest and ishonourable in hon.
members to come forward and support the repeal of this
tax when they knew it could not be repealed—thou, hear)—
when they attempted to mislead instead of instructing their
coostituents—(bear. bur)—and advocated the repeal of this
tax, when they knew that the roped of the sugar duties
would be far more bene6cial to them. (Hear, hear.) He
support
could sot the motion of the hon. member.
Mr. POLL&B.D.URQUHART considered this to be a
moat oppressive tax, and most injurious to the ioterene of
agriculture ; but be could not support the repeal of the malt
tax when the question came to be wandered as between
that earl the remission of the eager duties.
Colonel NORTH thought the noble lord the mealier for
Huntingdoashire (Lord R. Montagu) was very much mis-
takes in the view he had taken of agricultural onestitase-
ana (Hear, hear.) He coosidered this was the prepsr
moment for the agricultural interest to brieg its claims
under the consideration of parliament, because it had seen
almost every other interest taken in hand by that house.
Mr. PUGH said that althou4b be could not support the
motion of the bon. and gallant colonel, be felt the time
mast shortly come when the repeal of the malt duty would
present superior claims to the consideration of the home.
Mr. ViTTERN was desirous that the malt tax should be
repealed when the revenue would permit it, and be hoped
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to
make in course of time still further reductions in our ex-
peditors, by which he would be enabled not ally to reduce
the malt duty bat to repeal it altogether. He must oppose
the motion of the hoc. and gallant colonel, beating he
thought the reduction of the tax by one-fourth would not
advance the interests of the agriculturists.
Lad INGESTTEEsoupported the motion. He could as-
sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that to the barley
growing districts this question was one of the greatest im-
portance. There could be no doubt that if the malt tax
were taken off better beer would be drunk by the working
classes, and good wholesome beer would prevent many
fro n having recourse to ardent spirits, which were one of
the great canon of crime.
Sir B. BRIDGES said that the character givers by the
noble lord (Lord R. Montagu) of the agricultural districts
was quite new to him as a representative of anagricultural
part of the country. With regard to the merits of
the question, he thought the tax weighed wholly on • par-
Menu class of agricultural produce, and that the inferior
barley would be brought forward very much mon in malt-
* if the duty were lees.

Sir F. CROSSLEY said he bad on a previous ooriasioo
expremed the opinion that the malt tax was not injurious
to the agricultural interest. It was a consumer's question
and a consumer's question only. No doubt where wages
were partly paid is money ►nd partly in beer the tax might
press on the agricultural interest, but a great amount of
the tax was miaed in the manufacturing district& (Hear,
bear, from the oppositioo.) The argument that the tax
doubled the price of beer was very eflooeous. A great deal
had been said as to beer being a necessity of life, but he
denied that it was. He bad himself for 12 years been •
total abstainer—(a laugh)—and he knew that hundreds
and thousands of working men is the country were total
abstainers from all intoxicating liquors, and could stand as
much or more work than those who took beer. No doubt
beer was a pleasant thing when they were aceustomed to it,
but to talk about its being a necessary of life was mere
moomhise. He believed that if farm labourers drask tea
or coffee they would be much better off and healthier,
while the harvest operations would be conducted with quite
as much expedition as at present. He would uedertake to
say that for every ten men who were killed by taking too
much beer there was only coo killed by taking too little,
and be was weeniest' the working classes had made the dis-
covery that for healthy permute aU alcoholic drinks were not
a necessary of life.

Mr. PACKE was glad to see the hoe. hart. who had just
spokes lookieg so well—(langhter)—but he echoed the sen-
timent of the hon. and learned member for Oldham when
he said that it was impossible to get in the henget in hot
weather, and when men were worked very hard, without a
certain quantity of beer. (Hear, bear.) Doubtless, SCOW
persons ►bstaind from malt liquor and thrived very well
upon it, but the labouring man who worked from early in
the morning till late at night, especially in harvest time,
could not get on without the stimulus of such a drink. He
thought the agricultural daises had a fair right to ask for •
portion of the surplus revenue which the Chancellor of the
P.zehrquer intended to apply to the lowering of the sugar
duties, but soh there was to be • remission of tar-
atioe the farmers went to the wall, and the right hoe.
gentleman dealt with some taxes in which they were in
DO way conoerned. He should give his cordial support
to the motion of the hon. and gallant member for West
Sussex.

Mr. DU CANE was glad that his hon. friend had put
this Mese before the house. lt was of no nes holdieg
county meetings and deputations waiting on the Cloaca Her
of the Exchequer. If they wanted to produos any impres-
glop they most, as they wen going to do to-eight, submit
their proposition fairly to the boons, and take the sense of
the hones upon it.
Mr. COBDEN admitted the ability with which the motion
had been brought forward, but se an experienoed agitator
he could my that the mover had sinned grievously in tactic
by bringing the malt tax into coltish,* with another duty,
and thus raising a comparison between their reepectivis
claims to reduction . As a 000eumene q usetioo he should prefer
the nye.' of the sugar duties to that of the malt tax. But
if it could be shown that the operatima of the melt tax low-
land wick the prairies of husteadry, it had a ektis to

THE EikREK FRIDAY EVENII4IO, APB 15;

consideratios in the interests of the producer and the
onesesser. He stated the grounds on which the serial-
twist reeds his disks for the remission of the duty,
and admitted its validity. He also admitted, from the
000anniers' point of view, that the reduction of the duty
would be a great relief to the poorest of the labouring
chews. With reprd to the lissauthl part of the utiestica,
he argued that if the malt tax was ultimately abolished no
other tax could be substituted for it. hat it would be ex-
peeled that the revenue would pin by the consequent
Increase in the consumption of other exoissable articles ; but
the main hope of the eotoplete repeal of the duty must be
based on • steady reduction of expenditure. He advised
that the mottos should not be permed to a division, as he,
in common with many others, though favourable to its
object, could sot vote for it, as it inciedthe malt tax is an-
tagonism with the anger duties. This parliament (said the
boo. gentleman) haa bees unpenalielol itsextraveganes.
(Hear, hear.) There have been some parliaments which
have bad names gives to those, such as the • Low Paths-
meet " and the " Uslearned Parliament,' and this parlia-
ment ought to be called the "Prodigal Parliament"
("Hear, hear." and laughter.) We have given up the
principle of socroiny is our expenditure—(hear hear)—and
we do not sufleilinUy look to tie natural growth of income
front diminishing our taxes. (Hear, bear.) Now ell this
leads me to believe that if hos. gentians. opposite are in
eareest, they will bring this matter which they have
taken in hand to a satisfactory esectiumicia. (Hear, hear.)
But if the hon. and gallant member will take my advice
he will cot take a vote to night upon his tootle' is. (Hear.)
If he does, I shall be in the WOO predicament as many
other hon. member,- that is, I shall be obliged to vote
spinet his motion ; and, therefore, I will venture to
gamest to him that he should withdraw hi motion, and
be satisfied with the advantage which he has obtained in
the discussion of the question, and which is all he an ex-
pect at this moment. One or two hon. gentlemen have
spoken of the free trade in wen agitation. We were seven
yeast endeavouring to remove the corn duties, but hoc.
gentlemen have only just begun to agitate for • repeal of
the malt duty. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) But if
they will matinee to prom this question as one which affects
the producers of barley, as well as *se which affects the
consumers of bow and malt, and if they would prom it with
the characteristie zeal and energy possemed by hoe. gentle-
men opposite, they will soon accomplish the object which
they have in view, and no doubt to the satisfaction of all
slimes of the community. ("Hear, hear," and cheers.)
After sea Amenities from Mr. BARROW in favour of
the repeal of the malt tax,
Mr. M. GOWN said he did sot understand whether it
was intended by the motion to raise a general view of the
question or to obtain • deficits opinion as to what ought to
be the immediate redaction in the duty on malt. He was
not favourable to the malt tax, nor did he object to obtain
the opinion of the bones on items of taxation by means of
resolutions, but he did object to the passing by of
• proposition to reduce a Sax, and to substitute for
it • diminution of another. The proposed reduc-
tion in the sugar duties would absorb 1.310,0001. of
the available surplus, while the Media of • quarter
of the malt tax would require 1,800,0001., and he wanted to
know where the means to meet that reduction were to come
from. No appreciable advantage could be derived from •
small reduction in the malt tax, either to the prod's= or
consumer, sad it mild not be desirable to give up the po-
sitive advantage to be derived from the degrease of the
sugar duties for so questionable • remit as such • diminu-
tion of the malt tax as could sow be obtained.

COMMON LAW PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT (1853)
AILENDMANT BILL.
This bill paned through oommittee.
PARTNERSHIP LAW AMENDMENT.
Mr. SCHOLEFIRLD moved for sad obtained LISTS to
being fa a hill to mama Ow law of partaanhip.
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY.
On the motion of Sir 0. Wool), Lava was gives to being
in a 641 to warm the appointment of Hilary Peodock St.
George Tooker as one of the judges of her Majesty's High
Court at Bombay, sod to establish the validity of certain
proceedings therein.
The house adjourned at a quarter past 1.

Mr. BASS urged that the house and the country bad
accepted the budget, and it was therefore impossible now
to deal with the melt tax, however previously he and
others might have preferred a reduction of that tax. It
wee not possible to accommodate the arrangements of trade
to a leer redaction of the tax than onebalf.
Mr. BENTINCH suggested prudence ia dealing with this
question, and care lest the amount of revenue which would
be lost by the repeal of the malt tax should be reimposed
in a different acid worse @lieu—perhaps in that of direct
tuatioa. Anything lees than the total repeal of the tax
would produce no advantage to the agricultural interests,
and that was an impossibility in our present financial con.
ditioo, and without a complete revision of taxation.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER urged that
in any Magna dealing with the malt tax its ourntion
on the throe kingdoms must be taken into oonsl&ration.
He pointed out that the motion, if adopted, would pledge
the honest* a future reduction of a tax which it might never
be in a financial position to redeem. A quarter of the tax
we. all that could now be dealt with, it it was touched
at all, and that would be one wholly ineffective
and inoperative. This subject could not be dissevered from
the consideration of the duties on spirits, tea, tobacco, and
all other luxuries of the people. In outemplatiog the
total repeal of the malt tax, the only mode in which it
I could be Wide:lardy manipulated, it was seceseary to
be with • substitute for five milliou of revenue.
It could only be provided by means of a reduction of public
expediters, an wooed& party which was practically
repudiated by those very members of the opposition who
were the most strenuous advocates of the repeal of the
malt tax. As between the malt tax and the sugar duties,
the house and the country had unequivocally decided in
favour of the claim of the latter to reduction.
Mr. DISRAELI declared himself to be unfavourable to
the *akimbo* and hicideste of the malt tax, and he waa not
surprised that those who felt themselves aggrieved by it
should draw attention to it. When the cost of liquors
used by the wealthier classes was observed, it was only
natural that some effort should be made to lower the price
of that beverage which was familiar to the less endowed
part of the population. He was, however, always of
opinion that the malt tax must be dealt with in a large and
comprehensive spirit. No proposition had been made for
it, total repeal; and in considering the sutstitntioe of
even a partial repeal of this tax for the prowled reduction
in the sugar duties, it would be neoemary to trench on the
decrease in the income tax, which had bees adopted, and
DO one bad ventured to advocate than, He was of opinion
that it was entries to bring the question of the repeal of
the malt tax into satagoniont with the proposd reduction in
the sugar duties. He argued that the bones had glue •
pledge to the country to remove the war taxes on income,
tea, and sugar. That promise had been redeemed with
regard to the two fist, and the third reduction being sow
proposed, the question was not one of the malt
tar, but whether the pledge by which the house was
bound, and by which he personally was bound, to repeal the
war tax on sugar should be redeemed. At any fair oppor.
Unity be was prepared to give the repeal of the malt tax
his best consideration ; his opinions es to the desirability of
that repeal being precise, and of long studio'.
Mr. momurr, who bad given Dodos of a motion for
the repeal of the malt tax, said that although he objected
to the await in which the question was brought forward,
in coliseum he must vote for it. He should homelier
take the sew of the how on an abstract propcnition with
regard to the tax.
On • divide= Colonel Barttelot's motion was lost by 347
to 99.