In addition to the two schedules of ‘Reasons’ already noticed, another document was appended to the Report, entitled ‘Remarks on the Evidence &c., by one of the Commissioners.’ This was prepared by Mr. Bicheno, as an exposition of his own peculiar views, and fills upwards of forty closely printed folio pages. It contains a good deal of information upon the state of the country, and the condition and habits of the people, selected from the evidence furnished by the assistant-commissioners; but is too long for insertion. The concluding paragraph however indicates the spirit in which the ‘Remarks’ were written, and may therefore have a place; it is as follows—“After all the assistance that can be extended to Ireland by good laws, and every encouragement afforded to the poor by temporary employment of a public nature, and every assistance that emigration and other modes of relief can yield, her _real_ improvement must spring from herself, her own inhabitants, and her own indigenous institutions, irrespective of legislation, and English interference. It must be of a moral nature; the improvement of the high and the low, the rich and the poor. Without this, her tenantry will be still wretched, and her landlords will command no respect; with it, a new face will be given to the whole people.” [Sidenote: Mr. G. C. Lewis’ remarks on the third report.] Another paper, entitled ‘Remarks on the Third Report of the Irish Poor Inquiry Commissioners,’ was submitted to government shortly after the delivery of that Report. It was dated in July 1836, and was drawn up by George Cornewall Lewis Esq.,[70] who had been one of the assistant-commissioners for prosecuting the inquiry in Ireland. The objections to the system, or rather the several systems of relief recommended by the commissioners, are stated by Mr. Lewis with great force and clearness, and he comes to conclusions on the whole question very similar to those contained in the ‘Suggestions’ which had been submitted by the author in the month of January preceding.[71] He proposes to apply the principle of the amended English Poor Law to Ireland, including the workhouse, with regard to the rejection of which by the commissioners, he remarks—“as the danger of introducing a poor-law into Ireland is confessedly great, I can conceive no reason for not taking every possible security against its abuse. Now if anything has been proved more decisively than another by the operation of the Poor Law Amendment Act in England, it is that the workhouse is an all-sufficient test of _destitution_, and that it is the only test; that it succeeds as a mode of relief, and that all other modes fail. Why therefore, this tried guarantee against poor-law abuses is not to be employed, when abuses are, under the best system, almost inevitable, it seems difficult to understand. If such a safeguard were to be dispensed with anywhere, it would be far less dangerous to dispense with it in England than in Ireland.” ----- [70]