moved, that the passing of the bill be deferred till to-morrow, in order that he might have an opportunity of bringing up a clause relating to Lady Westmeath's pension. It was quite impossible that any man could say a word in disparagement of that lady, but he thought, under the peculiar circumstances of her case, that her pension should not be continued during the lifetime of her husband. Lady Westmeath had lately passed through a most afflicting ordeal; she had obtained from an ecclesiastical court a decree of separation from her husband, on the ground of his cruelty against her. It was therefore, he thought, right that the pension should be suspended, inasmuch as it was in fact paid to her husband, not to herself. Sir John Nicholl, on decreeing a separation between the parties, had assigned Lady Westmeath, besides her pension of 385l. an alimony of 700l. a-year. Against that decree the Marquess of Westmeath had appealed, and the Vice-Chancellor before whom the case was heard, sustained the sentence of the inferior court as regarded the separation, but reduced the alimony to 315l., on the ground that Lady Westmeath was in the receipt of a pension of 385l. a-year. Nobody could think it proper that Lord Westmeath should be rewarded by the amount of this pension for having acted with cruelty towards his wife. He contended, that the lady's income should remain intact, but that it should be paid by the person who had maltreated her, otherwise the continuance of the pension would only be a mitigation of a deserved punishment. It might be said, that this was a legal pension, being granted out of the Irish revenue. He was not disposed to dispute the accuracy of the opinion given as to these pensions by the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, in opposition to the views of the hon. Member for Middlesex, but he was of opinion that in peculiar cases the holders could be proceeded against by information or scire facias, and indeed a case of that kind had already occurred.

was glad to find that the hon. and learned Member agreed with him in the opinion he had given respecting the Irish pensions, but on that very ground, he must see that such a clause as he suggested, would be inexpedient and even unjust. This was a legal pension, to which Lady Westmeath was entitled during her lifetime, of which nothing but an Act of Parliament could deprive her, and surely it would not be just to deprive an individual by an Act of Parliament of a vested right.

resisted the proposition. If such a clause were permitted, it would overturn the unanimous decision of the Committee.

moved the restitution of what had been Clause three in the original bill, and which was omitted by the Lords. The object of the Clause was, to prevent persons holding a benefice of the amount of 1,000l. yearly value from holding along with it another of 500l. yearly value, and vice versâ, and by its omission, there would be no legal objection to persons holding two such pieces of preferment as Stanhope and Durham together.

agreed that the Clause was a very useful Clause, and regretted its omission. Hereafter it might be proper and necessary to legislate on the subject, but at present he was not inclined to disagree with the Lords' Amendment in this particular.

wished for the restoration of the clause and he moved to disagree with the Lords. The clause had received the general assent of the House of Commons, and ought not to be omitted.

admitted, that the clause was generally approved of by that House, but as it appeared from the discussion in another place that it might excite great jealousy amongst the curates originally appointed, he should support its omission.

repeated his objections to the bill, on the ground of the immoral effect of the practice it sanctioned. As Government must be convinced of the pernicious consequences of the practice, and as two years' warning had been given, with a clear understanding that no further indulgence would be granted, there was no reason for this Bill. He moved, that it be committed that day three months.

supported the bill. There had been ten or eleven divisions on the bill already; and he thought the House ought not to countenance the system of opposition pursued by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to this bill. A Committee of that House had reported in favour of the grocers, and when it was proposed to take from them the privilege of selling spirits, a deputation from that body had satisfied the Government of the injustice of such a proceeding. The grocers in Dublin might be prepared for terminating their retail trade in spirits, but in the country towns an immediate prohibition would be productive of ruin to many, as they were not aware that such a measure was even contemplated. All they wanted was one year more, to enable them to take their capital out of this branch of their trade, and to dispose of the stock on hand. He might mention to the House, that not a single grocer had lost his licence for misconduct, and he did therefore hope, that they would consent to allow the bill to proceed.

would give his most determined opposition to the measure, as he believed the mischiefs of the system of permitting grocers to sell spirits could not be got rid of in any other way than by throwing out the bill. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had stated, that no grocer had lost his licence for misconduct, but it was impossible to find the grocers guilty of improper conduct, because they had not the same power over them as over the keepers of public-houses.

would give his vote in favour of going into Committee upon the bill, because he wished the grocers to have an opportunity of disposing of their stock; but he thought the system of permitting grocers to sell spirits ought to be put an end to.