.
it advisable to form one additional Union (Dingle, in the county Kerry); and
about the same time a Special Commission was issued by the Government to
investigate the complaint then very loudly and generally urged—that both the
Unions and electoral divisions as originally constituted were too large, and that
the size of the former militated against general convenience and good manage¬
ment, and that of the latter against the profitable employment of the poor by
individual proprietors.
The tribunal selected for the investigation of these important questions was Boundary-
one of undoubted strength and authority, consisting of Sir Thomas Larcom, Commission,
afterwards Under Secretary for Ireland ; Major-Genei-al Broughton, r.k ; and
Charles Sharman Crawford, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, and Poor Law Inspector.
As the result of the labours of this Commission the creation of fifty new
Unions was recommended, and of these the Poor Law Commissioners, acting
in the exercise of the general powers vested by law in them in this respect, i & 2 Vic. c. 56,
finally adopted and formed thirty-two, thus raising the total number from 1-31
to 163 ; and the number of electoral divisions was at the same time increased sec. 17.
by them from 2,049 to 3,438, or an average of twenty-one to each Union,* in * See Appendix A,
accordance with the recommendations of the Commissioners of Inquiry.
The principle on which the Poor Law Commissioners proceeded in making
these alterations in the arrangements that had been adopted on the introduction
of the Poor Law into Ireland in 1838 is thus clearly explained in their third
annual report, dated 25th May, 1850 :—
" In carrying out the recommendations contained in the successive repori.s of the Com¬
missioners appointed to inquire into the number and boundaries of Poor Law Unions and
electoral divisions in Ireland, we have given effect to the general principles laid down in
the instructional circular addressed to the Boundary Commissioners by Secretary Sir
George Grey on the 27th March, 1848, in accordance with which we have understood
that the Commissioners have framed their recommendations.
" In the formation of electoral divisions we have nowhere deviated from the precise
arrangement of the boundaries which the Boundary Commissioners have recommended
except only in two instances, one of which occurred in Cork and the other in Athlono
Union, and in these cases we did so on the ground of the practical inconveniences which
have been found to arise in the administration of relief from a fine of division being taken
through the centre of a populous town.
" In the formation of new Unions we have not thought it necessary to carry into effect
the entire number which were recommended in the first instance by the Boundary Com¬
missioners, and we have specially refrained from forming such new Unions in districts
where it appeared to us there was a preponderance of opinion against the proposition on
the part of those who would be locally affected by the change, unless where the necessity
for new Union centres appeared to us, in a territorial point of view, to be placed beyond
â– doubt."
The change thus efiected in the number and size of the areas of chargeability
was one of considerable importance in many respects in the history of the Irish
Poor Law.
It took place under the circumstances that have been just explained, not
through the ordinary action of the central Poor Law authorities in Irelan
