roposed postponement as inconvenient in
itself, and dangerous in the motive on which it was grounded. There was
no connexion between the church and corporation bills; and if the
house of commons should follow the example of the lords, and refuse to
consider one set of bills until the lords had passed another to their
satisfaction, he apprehended their lordships would not have the best of
the struggle. As for the appropriation clause, he denied, as his grace
had intimated, that it had been abandoned; it existed in the new bill
as strongly as in the former one. The Duke of Wellington replied, that
though he objected to much of the present measure, he was not adverse to
the establishment, under certain circumstances, of local jurisdictions
in Ireland. The Earl of Wicklow and Lord Fitzgerald made yet ampler
concessions than his grace; and the Marquis of Lansdowne argued on this,
that they assented to the principles of the bill; and that, therefore,
no further delay should take place in its progress. Lord Brougham said
that he drew no happy augury of the fate of the bill from the very
significant speech of the Duke of Wellington. He would not say any
sinister motive lurked in his proposition for delay; but if he was
averse to the present measure, as he appeared to be, why did he not
throw it out altogether? It was very well to talk of amendments; but
their lordships would so alter the bill, that the man who drew it would
not know it again. Although the different sections under the duke's
command might move by different routes, they would all meet in the end.
On a division the motion for postponement was carried by a majority of
one hundred and ninety-two against one hundred and fifteen.

Although the postponement decided on was for more than one month, there
appeared to be little probability that either the tithe or the poor-rate
bill would be before the lords by the assigned period for resuming the
municipal corporations bill. Under these circumstances, when the 9th of
June arrived, Lord Lyndhurst rose to move a further postponement of
the bill till the 3rd of July next. His lordship took occasion again to
state his objections to the measure. Lord Melbourne opposed the further
postponement of the bill; but on a division the motion was carried by a
majority of two hundred and five against one hundred and nineteen.

QUESTION OF ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM OF POOR-LAWS IN IRELAND.

A board of commissioners had been for some t