, adverting to the position of the bill, and to the little chance he had of getting it passed in the present Session, moved the order of the day for going into Committee on it, for the purpose of having it discharged.

having moved the order of the day for the adjourned debate upon receiving the report of the Sale of Beer Bill, No. 2,

said, he could not agree that any such clause should be added to the bill, and even if it were, he doubted whether a provision of that nature could have the effect which his noble Friend anticipated. He fell perfectly convinced, that that new mode of dealing with a very difficult question would be most extensively evaded. He was opposed to the clause, but, though his opinion happened to be otherwise, he still apprehended that the opinion of the House would eventually be rendered adverse to the whole measure, in case his noble Friend succeeded in effecting the proposed alteration.

said, it appeared to him that the clause would create a new class of privileged houses. An attempt was made to reconcile the interests of beerhouse-keepers and licensed victuallers, while the consideration of the public interest was altogether omitted. The effect of the bill, should it pass into a law, with the clause proposed, would be equivalent to an entire repeal of the existing Beer Act. The whole system of monopoly would be again revived, and the old abuses re-enacted. A free trade in beer had been established; if they attempted to put an end to that, an illicit trade would, he feared, immediately arise, which the police would be unable to repress.

proposed, that the words "two-thirds of quantity" be omitted, and "three-fourths of occupiers" substituted.

said it conferred arbitrary power upon the commissioners, without any guarantee for its due exercise. He moved that the words "to make" be omitted, leaving them only the power to continue and improve present drains.

supported the clause.

objected to the amendment, alleging that its adoption would render the whole bill inoperative.

supported the motion of the hon. Member for Kent, and said, that if it were not carried, he would move a clause exempting the county of Sussex from the operation of the bill.

, in moving that this bill be read a second time, wished to say a few words in consequence of what had fallen from the Attorney-general upon the introduction of the bill. His hon. and learned Friend then stated it to be his decided opinion, that the benefits of this measure ought to to be extended to Ireland and Scotland, and in that opinion he (Mr. Kelly) entirely concurred. It having appeared to him also that at the time that opinion was expressed, it had met with the sanction of a great ma- jority of Gentlemen who represented those two portions of the country, he had felt it his duty to cause two separate bills to be prepared, in order to extend the benefit of this measure to Ireland and Scotland. As the matter had been fully discussed on a former occasion, without, as it appeared to him, any objection to the principle of the present bill, he should feel it an unwarrantable trespass on the time of the House if he were to do more than move that the bill be read a second time.

would not oppose the motion, but would give the hon. and learned Gentleman warning of his intention to propose many alterations in the bill when in committee, upon which he should take the sense of the House. He was opposed to capital punishment in every case where it was not likely to be attended with a good effect as an example; because he held that it was not an act of vengeance, but an act which was resorted to for the purpose of deterring others from following in the footsteps of those who suffered the extreme sentence of the law.