those who supported the bill. On a division, ministers had a majority of
thirty-nine; the votes for the second reading being three hundred, and
for Lord Stanley's amendment, two hundred and sixty-one. A motion was
made on the 1st of July for going into committee on the bill, on
which day the ultimate designs and the real wishes of the Papists were
disclosed by Mr. Crawford, who moved the following resolutions:--"1.
That it is expedient that tithes, and all compositions for tithes in
Ireland should cease, and be for ever extinguished, compensations being
first made for all existing interests, whether lay or ecclesiastical;
and that it is also expedient that measures should be adopted to render
the revenues of the church lands more productive, and more available
for the support of the working clergy of the establishment; and that all
persons not in communion with the established church of Ireland should
be relieved from all assessment for its support. 2. That it is expedient
that the moneys necessary for the aforesaid compensation (estimated at
L2,500,000) should be advanced out of the public revenue, and afterwards
repaid by instalments from the proceeds of a tax to be imposed on
profit-rents; such tax to cease and determine as soon as the said debt
shall be paid." These resolutions, however, were rejected by a majority
of fifty-one against eighteen. In the committee the Irish leader
betrayed his conviction that it would be impossible either to pass the
bill, or to make it the means of raising any popular excitement against
the house of lords. On the discussion of the first clause, he said, that
to discuss anything was only waste of time; for it was clear that no
measure for the pacification of Ireland, whether respecting tithes or
anything else, was likely to pass. Any bill containing solid relief
was sure to be destroyed; they were legislating in despair. He himself
intended to have proposed several amendments; but he should not do so,
as there could be no doubt the lords would throw out the bill. The only
debate which took place in the committee arose on the question, whether
the appropriation clause should stand part of the bill. The arguments
adopted were a repetition of all that had been formerly urged,
diversified with a few new illustrations, and some acrimony of
expression. The clause was retained on a division by a majority of two
hundred and ninety against two hundred and sixty-four. The bill was
finally read