[79]. It was laid on the table of both houses on the assembling of parliament.
[80]. Ante, pp. 137 to 146.
[81]. The Report was printed, and laid before parliament.
[82]. Now Sir James Kay Shuttleworth, Bart.
[83]. This quotation is from a journal which I had kept of the proceedings with regard to the Irish Poor Law, from the commencement of my connexion with the question in August 1836, and which has been very useful in framing the present narrative. In this journal is recorded from day to day, the progress of my inquiries in Ireland and elsewhere, the deliberations and consultations with government on the subject, the discussions with different public men in reference to it, and also the various interviews with the Duke of Wellington after the bill had passed the commons, in which it was my good fortune to be the medium of communication for settling the points at issue be tween his grace and the government. I say “my good fortune,” for without the duke’s assistance the bill would not have passed the house of lords, and without the part taken by myself in negotiating and bringing about a right understanding on the subject, I doubt if that assistance would have been accorded. If therefore the enactment of the Irish Poor Law was, as I believe, a measure of great social importance, and as subsequent events have moreover I think shown it to be, it cannot but be regarded as a great privilege to have been permitted to assist in any way towards the accomplishment of such an object. With this privilege I was so fortunate as to be invested, and I feel happy in the consciousness of having spared no pains to fulfil the obligations it involved.
[84]. See the author’s Histories of the English and Scotch Poor Laws.
[85]. In altering the bill to localise the charge upon the electoral divisions respectively (see ante, p. [220]) it was omitted to substitute the term Electoral Division for that of Union in the 81st sect.; so that a person who might pay a rate in every electoral division of the union, could only as the clause stood vote in one, although each electoral division was separately chargeable. This would be contrary to what was intended by the Duke of Wellington’s amendment, and the error was remedied as soon as discovered by the 2nd Vict. cap. 1, sec. 5. See post, p. [233].
[86]. A rate was excepted from such removal by the Amendment Act passed shortly afterwards, 2nd Vict. cap, 1. See post, p. [233].
[87]. The gentlemen selected for this purpose, were Mr. Gulson, Mr. Earle, Mr. Hawley, and Mr. Voules.
[88]. These were Mr. Clements, Mr. Hancock, Mr. O'Donoghue, and Mr. Phelan, the latter with an especial view to the medical charities. Mr. Stanley had been appointed secretary to the board in Dublin.