The Express.
London, England, 1860-08-08 00:00:00

Tom"' PIPSESS,

IllissqueatlY ebiffreimd with this change *mhos Aed.
it was DM t ate to meiniain a local army ia
Wk. In reply to various exceptlons taken to the
amenre, he entered very hilly into its merits? edmitting
that Wien authorities differed es to the expediency ut an
nmalgamatima of the Zuropma army.
The amendment was then negatived, and the bill wee
1 NM • third time and peeped.

mums sorb.—MALT DUTY.

Oa the motion for the further consideration of resolu-
Mr I.) relating to the malt duty,
. KELLY rose to move that the resolution be re-
iniennitted as to the duty upon the importation of foreign
malt. His motion was necessarily formal in its terms, but
Y substance at was • proposal that the duty on foreign malt
should be 266. instead of 255. par quarter. This might ISM
a small matter, but it was really a matter of great import-
ance to the raltsters and manufacturers of malt in this
eratry. In Recce malt was only made by brewers tar
the purpose of their business, and was not manufactured as
• separate branch of trade. The question which be sub-
mitted to the house was, whether it was sufficient or or-
latent with the principle laid down last night with
respect to the. paper duties, to add 4a. per
quarter to the e excise duty on malt, or whether,
in order to do justice to the manufacturer of
malt in this country, it was not absolutely necessary to put
another shilling to that mon so as to make the duty Ns.
From his communieriam with maltstees in all parts of the
country he arrived at the conclusion that the avenge ta-
per of manufacturing malt here was 4s. per mosirter, to
which had to be added 2a 801, the coat of cm:milder to
market. The price of barley being 425., it followed that
the cost of malt would be 21. Bs. Bd. per quarter. Now in
Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, and the north of Germany, the
price of barley was 2s. lees, or 40s. per quarter, and the
difference in the colt of manufacture prodigious. In no
case did the cost of manufacture exceed 2a per quarter,
and as the expense of conveyance did not amount to more
than Is. 61, foreign malt might be brought into this
kingdom at 42e. 6d. per quarter, making • difference of Is.
in favour of foreign and against British manufacture. That
fact alone ought to induce her Majesty's government to
deal with the question, even if there should be doubt as to
what surtax should be added. He wished, also, to call the
attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to further ad-
vantages poreased by the importer of foreign melt. If he
did not olltein on immediate maraca, ciao foreign importer
might keep his malt in bead in this country for three, six,
IF, or even twelve months, waiting for • favourable op
unity to dispose of it, and only paying the duty when
• had received the price. On the other hand, the manu-
facturer here had to pay the duty three, four,
five, or six months before he could sell his malt.
The foreign manufacturer might sell his malt on the spot,
transmit it to a distance, or export it at his pleasure
without expense, duty, or restriction, while the British ma-
nufacturer was exposed to • series of difficulties, which, If
not absolutely involving the expenditure of money, in-
volved money's worth, azel, really added to the pecuniary
cost of the malt. One inconvenience was that the duty in
this country was for the most part paid long before the
malt was sold, inasmuch as it could only be manufactured
during the winter menthe' from November to April, and
it was necessary to pay the duty by the 30th of 'kne-
lt was not the loss of interestXdone of which the British malt-
star complained, but the still greater loss entailed by the
want of capital in trade. Other inconveniences were also sus-
tained, which had the effect of raising the actual or of the
malt fully 4s. per quarter. He earnestly appealed to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the position in
which the British enlister was placed, and .to afford him all
the relief in his power.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said three
ware one or two point, in the speech of his boo. sad
learned friend which he did not entirely understood
The hon. and learned gentleman bad made • make*
appeal to the house in the interest of the
poor man as the universal consumer of beer, but i
enough, from the interest tithe poor man as the t=
wormer of beer, he drew an argument that it was MOW
essay to raise the price of foreign malt so that idhiollit eam-
pete it ever could compete, with that the
British manufa:turer. laugh.) The and herald
gentleman also said that the question was totally unim-
portant to the midterm not only .4 France, but of all
other countries abroad ; but he added that it was a
question of vital importance to the British malt.
eters. Now he (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) could not see how the matter could
be unimportant to the =Haters abroad, unless the
importations were few or oone, and if few or none it would
require all the ingenuity of the hon. and learned gentleman
to show how the interests of the British manufacturer could
be affected. With ft.t to the French treaty, the mute-
tion was • very simple one. He spprehended that the
article of malt was distinctly within the commercial treaty,
but at the same time it was entirely open to the hour to
discuss the question raised by the hon. and learned gentle-
man, provided that they discussed it in reference to that
addition oak which was proper to be mails in the excise
duty. He believed that t e maitre', of this country were
of opinion that in this trade they bad nrhiag
whatever to dread from foreign competition, and it
would be • delusion if be were to hold out any
expectation of large supplies of malt being derived from
abroad. (Hear.) What the house were called upon to do was
rather to satiety the dictates of equity and justice than
to provide for any new and considerable trade. He believed
that the malt/item generally were perfectly satisfied with the
arrangement which the government had made, and the com-
parative indifference with which they regarded this parti-
cular vote was a proof thst no alarm was felt. (Hear, hear.)
A part of the speech of his hon. and learned friend had been
founded upon an entirely erroneous basis. The hon.
and learned gentleman entered into a computation of the
price at which the British maltster could bring his malt to
market, and then into a computation of the price at which
the foreign maltster could bring his, and he left the house
to draw the °occlusion that the difference of fia a quarter,
which his calculations appeared to exhibit, was • differear
which ought to be made good. But surely that would be
simply a return to protection in • pure and unlaidgeherl
form. (Hear, hear.) The house had nothing whatever le
do with the price at which the foreign manufacturer could
get his barley, or the cost of carriage, except within the
narrow view to which they were confined by the treaty--
namely, whet portion of the charges on the British mum-
facturerare due to the imposition of an excise duty. The
hon. and learned gentleman hail endeavoured to show that
the foreigner, who was out of the country, could bring his
malt to market in this country for Is. per quarter
Les than the English manufacturer. Now he (the
Chancellor 44 the Exchequer) bed thought that England
was celebrated for its improved communication, and it was
certainly 'a dismal result to find that Englishmen Grid
only take their malt fora short distance at a cost of 2s. IL
per quarter, while the foreigner could cover the expense of
shipping and port-charger, and deliver his malt in the mar-
ket at a cost of Is. 6.1. per quarter. (Laughter.) Ile de-
precated the further prosecution of this discussion, and
thought that if the government had committed any mistake
it was in allowing a larger amount of surtax than the
British manufacturer was entitled to claim. In point of
fact, if they had been dealing with the French government
in the case of malt, as in the case of spirits,
they could not . have proposed so large a surtax.
Without further going into the details he thought he bed
proved enough to leadly the government in dealing largely
and liberally in the ease, that they bad made arrangements
which were more favourable to the British maltster than
otherwise, and that they could not consent to make any
further alteration in the duty.
Major W. PARSER said the British farmer was not
satisfied with the present state of things, for it Inverted
him from using malt in fattening his cattle, and thus he
' wee not allowed to compete with the foreigners. He be-
lieved that no lees than 400 petitions had been presented
this aesion against the arrangements made under the treaty
of Free in reeard to the wine duties. The farmers
complained that some reduction or consideration had not
been made or shown towards them as malt growers, pro-
! &mere, and coneumers. The men who toiled from morning
to night were three whom the house ought first to consider,
and or these who dined well and drank wine. (Hear,
hear.) He felt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was
hardly prepared to abolish the duty on malt, but he might
tell him that the days of that duty were numbered. (Hair.)
Mr. BASS said it would Dot be very difficult to show that
ovalsten, brewers, and growers of barley had received hard
measure from the Chancellor of the F.:Chequer. The right
hon. gentleman had raised the duty on malt and lowered it
on wire, and to him the increase made a difference of no
less than 1,8001. a year. (Hear, hear.) He complained
that Mr. Cobden had not even mentioned that to the French
government, although the latter would have been most
willies to make concessions in return for the remission on
wine. With respect to the mein question he would state a
few facts. The price of barley was 33a. a quarter, end the
duty was 28a. The foreigner paid no duty, so that he
could do as much brines with 3,3001. as the English
maltster with 1,50 W. Five per cent. wee no compensation,
as any tradesman would glaellygive more thin five per cent.
for money. The result of the, duty would be that British
mohair, would go sad establish malt-houses in Hamburg
and in thiee parts of France where they grew the fin/barley.
As to the credit given, be (Mr. Bus) was making malt which
he should not me until December, whilst he would have to
pay the duty in six weeks. They would never have dealt
fairly with the Ebel& insister until they allowed him to
malt: the barley is bond. His fear was that • great deal of
our malting would be transferred to the continent. It
might not perhaps make much difference to him, but still
he sheet,' prefer to lave his malt made 41 this country.
The house divided :
For the anseadment 49
Against it.. B6-37
The resolution was then agreed to.
CUSTOMS ACTS—REPORT.
the report of the resolutions agreed to last night was
brought up and received.
TITLES TO LAND (SCOTLAND) ACT AMENDMENT

BILL.
This hill was road s thin) tine.
SUPPLY.

- -
The report of supply woo brought u_p_and_agrosa to•
THE CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved to diseherge the
order fat the committal cif the following bill:—The
offences against the Permit Bill ; the Malicious Injuries
to
.Property Hill ; the Coinage Offences Bill; the Acces-
sories and Atwttors Bill ; the Forgery Bill ; the Larceny,
he. Bill ; and the Criminal Statutes Repot! EtilL The hoe.
gentleman laid that tho measi,res had certainly been pre-
tared with great deliberation and cars, and be believed that
they would be a great improvement 'pun the criminal
statute law of the cowrie"' ; but they were not merely
tuosolaintian bWo—w7 wort bills to me extoot