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

large scale, the production was familiar to the habits of the
people, and so long as it was conducted with skill and capi-
tal, the home producers had nothing to fear from foreigners.
Moreover, the maltsters themselves were generally satis-
fied with the arrangements which the Government had
made and which the committee had adopted. The hon.
and learned gentleman seemed to think that the difference
of ss. a quarter, which he said the British maltster lost,
was a difference they were bound to make good. Now
whether that was intended or not, he must say that it was
a doctrine to which, according to his hon. and learned
friend's argument, they could not subscribe. They had
nothing whatever to do with the cost of the manufacture or
carriage of malt, except what charges the maltster was
subjected to in the imposition of the Excise duty. But that
was not all. His hen. and learned friend said that the
foreign maltster could bring his malt to the British market
at a shilling a quarter less than the English maltster who
was in this country could. Now he (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) thought that the facilities oft oads and canals,
and of 10,000 miles of railways, would have given the
British maltster all the advantage over the foreign. (Hear,
hear.) It was strange that, after they had expended
£36,000,000 upon the construction of railways, the
foreigner, who had to bring his malt across the sea, with
all the charges of shipping and so forth incident to his
venture, should be able to come into the British market
and sell his malt at Is. 6d. a-quarter less than the British
maltster, who was at home in his own market, and who,
not subject to such charges, could not bring it to market at
a less cost than 2s. 6d. He (the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer) was bound to say that, after having heard his hon.
and learned friend's arguments, he must deprecate those dis-
cussions contrasting the British with the foreign mister.
If they had committed an error, that error had been in
asking the British maltster for the surtax. He could con-
vince his hon. and learned friend that the British maltsters
had all the advantages on their side, and he felt assured
that they were not dissatisfied. The cost imposed upon the
British maltsters was in conformity to the regulations as a
security for revenue. If they had dealt with the British
maltster, in the French commereial treaty, as they had with
the British distiller, he might, perhaps, with some eason,
say he had ground for complaint ; but with regard to the
foreign maltster coming into the British market in compe-
tition with him, he had nothing whatever to fear. A quar-
ter of barley made a good deal more than a quarter of malt ;
but if he wjre to allow Is. on it, he should only get is. 6d.
towards the surtax. It was only 3s. 4d,, and he had ac
counted for Is. 6d. of it already. There was Is. 10d. more
of it to be accounted for, and that was allowed as surplus.
The right hon. gentleman having referred to the hardships
to which the British distiller was subjected as com-
pared with the maltster, said they would be guilty of a
breach of faith if they were to accede to the proposal of his
right hon. and learned friend.
After a few words from Major PARKER and Mr. BASS,
The question was then put, when the house divided—
For the motion B6 •
Against it
Majority —37
The resolution was agreed to.
The report of the resolutions agreed to last night was
brought up and agreed to.
TITLES TO LAND (SCOTLAND) ACT (1858)

AMENDMENT BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated that at that late
period of the session it was absolutely impossible to give
this bill, and the following bills relating to the amendment
of the criminal law, that consideration which their import-
ance deserved.
Mr. JAMES was surprised that the bills were with-
drawn after thousands of pounds had been spent on a com-
mission,

Sir F. KELLY also expressed his regret that the bills
were withdrawn, but he was glad to hear they would be
brought forward again in the next session of Parliament.
Mr. MALINS concurred in the regret expressed by his
hon. and learned friend that these excellent bills were with-
drawn. There were 100 bills on the subject to be passed,
and if six or seven bills could not pass, what chance was
there of having 100 becoming law ? He trusted in future
the noble lord would not allow valuable time to be lost in
the beginning of the session in useless reform bills.
Lord PALM ERSTON regretted that the bills were with-
drawn, but at that late period of the session it was impossible
to do otherwise. There was no intention of abandoning the
principle of consolidation, because a great deal of time, la -
bour, and money were expended on the subject, and it would
be a pity to abandon it. It would be a question next session
whether it might not be better to refer them to a select com-
mittee rather than a committee of the whole house, but
that was for further consideration.
After a few words from Mr. DEEDES the order was dis-
charged.
The following orders were also discharged :—Malicious
Injuries to Property Bill—committee; Coinage Offences
Bill—committee ; Accessories and Abettors Bill—commit-
tee; Forgery Bill—committee; Larceny, &c., Bill—com-
mittee ; and Criminal Statutes Repeal Bill—committee.
The Lords' amendments to the Police and Towns Im-
provement (Scotland) Act Amendment Bill were considered
and agreed to.
The order for the second reading of the Emblements (Ire-
land) Bill was discharged.
The order for the second reading of the Law Improve-
ment (Ireland) Bill was discharged.
The adjourned debate on the further consideration of the
Metropolis Local Management Act Amendment Bill was
adjourned to Thursday.
The house adjourned at a quarter past one o'clock.