Early in the session of 1849, a select committee on the Irish Poor Laws was appointed in the commons, and empowered “to report their opinion and the minutes of evidence taken before them from time to time, to the house.” Many intelligent witnesses were examined, and much information was elicited with regard to the immediate object of the inquiry, and as to its bearing upon the state of the country generally. The recommendations of the boundary commissioners were also much canvassed, and there appeared to be considerable diversity of opinion on the subject, some preferring large areas both for unions and electoral divisions, and others being favourable to small ones. This is of course in some measure a question of degree, and must likewise depend very much upon local circumstances. [Sidenote: Size of the unions.] The size of a union or an electoral division might be perfectly suitable at one time, or under one class of circumstances, and yet may be unsuitable at another. When the unions were formed, we were aware that some of them were too large, and we reckoned upon these being afterwards divided, and the district readjusted. For instance, in the case of Ballina, the materials for constituting two efficient boards of guardians could not be found, and so an extent of territory sufficient for two unions, was formed into one, until adequate executives could be found for two, when a division might readily be effected. It was so likewise in other cases, that of Dingle, now taken from Tralee union and constituted a separate union, being one; and for my own part I always reckoned upon five or six additional unions being created after the law had come into orderly working. I certainly never thought it likely that 50 new unions, or anything like that number, would be required; but neither did I foresee the fearful visitations to which Ireland has latterly been subjected, or the sanctioning of out-door relief under the Extension Act. [Sidenote: Amount of expenditure, and numbers relieved.]