Star.
London, England, 1828-06-27 00:00:00

drunkenness, there hark bien twesidartee that the cider
counties were in tilis Woke TON, than oihers. to Lls
(Sir R. Wilson's) opinleili,;thsi tilt Was a mist detestable
one, and would press.on those Who hid already misery
enough to contend with. Tie *44. tberelbre, oppose
the Bill, and move that thetbairdiantolease the Chair.
The motion hieing been pat,
Mr. Alder Man WOOD dehied that the Bill cnuld in.
anyway check as it was not intended to
give the Magistrates'any contronl inthe licensing houses
in the sale of cider.
Mr. DAWSON observed, that the only object of the
Bill was to apply to cider and perry the principle
that had been invariably applied to beer and ale;
and thus to contuse the number of low sale houses
which infested the cider counties. He regretted that
the Members for Somersetshire and Herefordshire *tie

not in the Hou,e, for no persons had been more pressing
on Government as to the necessity forthis Bill.
Mr.GORDON could not conceive that the Bill would
tend to the increase of morality.
Mr. BENETT observed, that many of the person
who Ad cider, did not grow more than 51. worth of
the article. In case, therefore, of this Bill becoming a
law, they could not sell it, but mint send it to be sold
by others, which would inevitably lead to nunopoly.
He wanted to give luxuries to the poor as cheaply as
possible, and he .thought every inducement should be
held out to them to enjoy those luxurie's at their own
rather than at public houses. He would oppose the BBL
Mr. W. SMITH said he was sure that more vice existed in
London in consequence of the consumption of spirits then hi all
the cider counties, in consequence of the consumption of that article.
Mr. WOOD opposed the Motion. on the ground that the tax
would press heavily on the small farmer.
Mr. LITTLETON thought it very inconsistent to impose a
duty on best., and not upon eider consumed under similar dr
comstances.

Mr. WARBURTON was of opinion that the consistent course
would be to place the duty on the liquor drank on the premises,‘
rather than on that carried away.
Mr. GEORGE LAMB thought this new duty might be a very
gond one for the Chancellor offite Exchequer, but he could not see
that morality had any thing at all to do with k.
Mr. SLA N EY opposed the Resolution.
Mr. WYNN could see no reason why the sale of elder should
not be placed under the same regulations as the sale of beer.
.Nlr. ASTELL supported the Resolution, tie sale .f eider being
in hie opinion injurious to the. publicans. He also supported the
duty on the score of morality, for he bad himself witnessed the
most disgraceful scenes of intoxication in the cider districts.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained.
Sir R WILSON thought the House ought not to proceed with
this business in the absence of. the Members for Herefordshire and
Sornersetshire. A Bill of Indictment had been preferred against
their constituents, as a drunken and disorderly sets and he thought
they ought to be here to support the charge by evidence.
Sir T. D. ACLAND said, that Ms constituents did not bear a
worse character in these respects than the constituent. Hon.
Member for Southwark. But undoubtedly the M es and
Clergy,and respectable itihabit sots of Devonshireorere most anzions
on the score of morality, and of fair dealing to the Licensed Via
,tastier., that a measure of this kind should be introduced.
Mr. BERN A L opposed the Resolution.
Lord EASTNOR had not heard any complaints respecting the
eider shops from those counties where they existed. He should,
therefore, oppose the measure.
Mr. ESTCOURT thought the measure necessary, owing to the
many abuses practised by the cider shops.
Sir F. BLAKE had an objection to all new taxes, and would,
Oterefore, divide against this.
Mr. BIRCH defended the population of the cider counties
against the charge of drunkenness and demoralization.
Mr. LIU UE hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would
done this question till, they had further information. If it
lassod for six hours longer, he would oppose the imposition of this
alreir•tax.
'tar T. ACLAND expressed a wish that the question should be
postponed for the present.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER expressed great
surprise at the sentiments of the Hon. Baronet; for of all men he
had then the most mamas to have some measure for the remedy
of the growing abuses of the cider shops. It was not as a fiseil •
Measure he had brought this forward. It was the only one within
his jurisdiction, as he could do nothing with the police regulations
a these counties. He therefore was quite ready to abandon the
measure, if the Hon. Baronet was, or move that the Chairman
report progress, in order to give time.
Sit 1. ACLA ND thought the lauer course would be the best.
The CHAIRMAN then left the Chair, the House resumed,
and the Chairman repotted progress.
On the motion of Mr. STUART WORTLEY, the Route re-
solved itself into a Committee on the Sale of Game Bill.
Sir JOHN BR Y DOES, having previously expressed himself se
hostile to the measure, moved as an Amendment, "that the order
of the day should be postponed to that day three months ;" but this
was negatived without a division.
Lord Viscount CLIFTON proposed as an amendment in Com-
mittee •' that no person having the qualification of 1001. in land
should be authorized to grant more than one deputation."
After a few words from Sir J. 611ELLIT Mr. Taatencix, Mr.
ESICOURT Mr. SWETT, Lord STAIIILCT, *C. &gallery was cleared
for a division, but none took place.
The House then divided upon the question of adjournment—
For the Adjournment . . . . . 18
Against it . • • . • -
Majority

. 97
. -9

The consideration of tie dauses consequently went on.
The CHAIIUUJI then reported progtess, and obtained leave to sit
Itie this day.
The Distillation Regulation /3111 was read the third time and

r TiteAlebottse Licensing Bill was readapt tbird time and passed.
The other Orderkof the Day were disposed of. and the House
adjeuntad at a QRAJITIIi PAIR Two o'r.ssicr.

.6'.s.':-.1i1ii..*.N114..q.-_Bl7.Arlt:.,