HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
‘and Mr. Frankland, supported the 
bill: Mr. Grey and lord George 
Cavendish opposed it, as interfering 
with the rights of election. 
Mr. Rose said, if the riots of 
Nottingham had been accidental, 
he should not have thought it ne- 
cessary to bring inthe bill; but it 
had appeared that rioting was so 
established as a system at Notting- 
ham, that the interference of the 
legislature was absolutely neces- 
sary: he therefore was a warm 
friend to the bill, and only regret- 
ted that the attorney general had 
pot been ordered, to prosecute those 
who had conducted themselves so 
gximinally. 
After some observations from 
Mr. Hawkins Brown, (the mover of 
the bill) and Mr. Shaw Lefevre, 
the question on the third reading 
was carried bya majority of 164 to 
29. The mode in which the pre- 
sent bill was calculated to obtain 
its object, was by allowing the ma- 
gistrates of the county a concur- 
rent jurisdiction in the town of 
‘Nottingham, with the magistrates of 
the town. 
The house then went into a com- 
mittee on the clergy bill, and there 
was a considerable difference of opi- 
nion expressed, about that clause, 
which allowed spiritual persons. to 
hold farms; Sir William Geary was 
against this indulgence. Sir Robert 
Buxton feared that it would turn 
the principal attention of the cler- 
py to avocations that yielded more 
emoluments than their profession. 
Mr. Keene said, that the virtue of 
“charity which the parson should 
inculcate, might be somewhat lost 
in the profession of a farmer ; and 
that in the event of a hard season, 
the parson might, like other far- 
193 
mers, keep his granary full till the 
prices were at the highest: the 
attorney general, sir William Scot 
and Mrg Windham, supported the 
clause, as did also Mr. Bastard, 
who thought the nation would de~ 
rive great benefit from the improves 
ments in the system of agriculture, 
which might be expected from so 
enlightened a body as the clergy 3. if 
hike other people, they were per- 
mitted to direct their attention to 
it. 
The clause was then adopted, and 
the further proceedings of the com- 
mittee postponed till a future day. 
Onithe 4th of May, the house 
ef Lords having gone into a com- 
mittee on the Rev. Mr. Markham’s 
diyorce bill, 
Lord Auckland rose, pursuant ti 
a notice he had formerly g given, to 
oppose that clause in the bill which 
went to restore the lady to the pos- 
session of all her original fortune ; 
such clauses he considered, as like- 
ly to lead to collusion between a 
husband and wife, in order to ob- 
tainadiyorce. In the present case, 
where the lady had borne ten 
ehildren to her husband, and was 
afterwards unfaithful, there was no 
reason for extraordinary indul+ 
gence. 
Lord Alyanley had no objection 
to the clause being omitted, if it 
appeared, that the lady had suffi- 
client proyision to enable her to live 
yirtuously for the future. 
Lord Auckland replied, that to 
his knowledge, the lady would have 
a sufficient provision. 
The lord chancellor disapproved 
of the clause entirely, and said, 
that the more correct way of pro- 
ceeding, would be, that if the lady 
had not a sullicient proyision to 
e 
keep 
