Chapter XV (1)

The Soup-kitchen Act--The harvest of 1847--Out-door Relief
Act--Great extension of out-door relief--Number
relieved--Parliamentary papers--Perplexing--Misleading--Sums
voted--Sums expended--Sums remitted--Total Treasury advances under
various Acts--Total remissions--Sum actually given as a free gift to
meet the Famine--Charitable Associations--Sums collected and
disbursed by them--Two Queen's Letters--Amount raised by
them--Assisting distressed Unions--Feeding and clothing school
children--Feeling about the Irish Famine in America--Meetings
throughout the Union--Subscriptions--Money--Food--Number of Ships
sent to Ireland with Provisions--Freight of Provisions--Ships of
War--The "Jamestown" and "Macedonian"--Various Theories about the
Blight--The Religious Theory--Peculiar--Quotations--Rev. Hugh
M'Neill--Charles Dickens--The Catholic Cantons of
Switzerland--Belgium--France--The Rhenish
Provinces--Proselytism--Various causes for Conversions assigned--The
late Archbishop Whately's Opinions--His Convert--He rejects the idea
that Converts were bought--Statement of the late Archdeacon
O'Sullivan--Dr. Forbes on the Conversions in the West--Mr. M'Carthy
Downing's Letter--The Subscription of £1,000--Baron
Dowse--Conclusion.

The Temporary Relief Act, popularly known as the Soup-kitchen Act, was limited to the 1st of October, 1847. The Government determined that after its expiration relief should be given through the Poorlaw system only. In preparation for this arrangement, an Act (the 10th & 11th Vic. cap. 31,) was passed in June, sanctioning outdoor relief. The harvest of 1847 was a good one, but so utterly prostrate was every interest in the country, that the outdoor relief system soon expanded into alarming proportions. In February, 1848, the cost of outdoor relief was £72,039, and in March it rose to £81,339. The numbers and cost were then both at their maximum, and according to the best estimate which can be formed, the number of outdoor poor relieved was 703,762, and of indoor 140,536, making an aggregate of 844,298 persons, irrespective of more than 200,000 school children, who were, as stated above, fed and in part clothed by "the British Association." So that the total number receiving relief in March, 1848, exceeded a million of persons; being about one out of every seven of the population.

The parliamentary papers issued from time to time, detailing the sums granted on account of the Irish Famine, are, for the most part, very perplexing; because, being usually printed on the motion of some member of parliament, they only give the precise information called for, and only up to the period at which it was called for; so, not only are they perplexing, but they are often misleading, although correct enough in themselves. Then again, it sometimes happens, that the sum voted by parliament is not entirely expended on the object for which it was granted. To give an instance of this: there is a parliamentary paper before me, ordered on the 2nd of December, 1847, which says, the amount voted under the Temporary Relief Act was £2,200,000, of which sum there was _expended_ £1,676,000. Sir Charles Trevelyan gives the sum expended as £1,724,631. The only way of accounting for this seeming discrepancy is, that Sir Charles's statement was published later than the blue book, and that an outlay was still going on under the above Act, after the blue book had been published, which brought the expenditure up to the sum stated by him.

Here, besides the difference as to the actual sum expended, we have a considerable difference between the sum voted and the sum expended. But there is yet another thing connected with the Famine advances, which is very likely to mislead. The usual course was, that the money issued from the Treasury to meet the Famine, was in part a free grant, and in part a charge upon the land. It is only simple justice to state clearly how much of this money was a free grant, and how much of it was levied off Ireland, as a tax. The proportion is given in the Acts of Parliament, but it happens that the proportion eventually paid was less than what was levied: so that the proportions as given in the Acts of Parliament have to be altered to the extent of the remissions made.

In the short statement I am about to give, I follow Sir Charles Trevelyan's figures; being Secretary to the Treasury, he must have known the sums actually advanced by the Treasury, and the sums returned to it in payment of the loans granted.

_Amount_
_finally charged under_
_Amount advanced from the Treasury_. _the Consolidated_
_Annuities Act_.

_£ s. d. £ s. d._
Under 9th Vict., cap. 1, 476,000 0 0 238,000 0 0
Under 9th and 10th Vict., cap.
107,"The Labour-rate Act," 4,766,789 0 0 2,231,000 0 0
Under 10th Vict., cap. 7, "The
Temporary Relief Act," 1,724,631 0 0 953,355 0 0
Loans for building Workhouses, 1,420,780 0 0 122,707 0 0
Loans to pay debts of distressed
Unions, 300,000 0 0 300,000 0 0
Grants by Parliament at various
times: 1845, 1846, 1847, 1848,
and 1849, 844,521 0 0 ....
------------- ---------------
Total, £9,532,721 0 0 4,845,062 0 0

_During the years 1846, 1847, and
1848, the following sums were
also expended by the Board of
Works:_
For arterial drainage, 470,617 10 3
Works under the Labouchere
letter, 199,870 9 2
For land improvement. 520,700 0 .
-----------------
Total, £10,723,908 19 5

In the above ten millions seven hundred thousand pounds, it may be fairly assumed, we have all the monies advanced by Government to mitigate the effects of the potato failure. Our next duty is to inquire how much of this sum was paid back by Ireland, and how much of it was a free gift from the Treasury.

The money advanced under the Labouchere letter for land improvement, and for arterial drainage cannot, of course, be regarded as a free gift towards staying the Famine; arterial drainage and land improvement go on still, through money advanced by Government. The works under the Labouchere letter were, no doubt, intended to give reproductive employment during the Famine, but the cost of them was a charge upon the land and not a free gift.

The money spent on arterial drainage and land improvement, under the Labouchere letter and various drainage Acts, during the years 1846, 1847 and 1848, was, as given above, £1,191,187 19s. 5d., which being deducted from £10,723,908 19s. 5d. leaves the sum of £9,532,721, of which there was finally charged to this country £4,845,062. Deducting this from the £9,532,721 we have £4,687,659 as the amount of money given by Government as a free gift to Ireland to sustain the people through the Great Famine. To this, however, there is to be added a sum of about £70,000 paid for freights. The American people, when they had collected those generous contributions of theirs, and when they had resolved to send them in the form of food to Ireland, began to make arrangements for paying the freights of their vessels, but all trouble and anxiety on this head was removed by the action of the English Government, which undertook to pay the freights of all vessels carrying to Ireland, food purchased by charitable contributions. Those freights finally reached about £70,000. The addition of this sum brings the whole of the Government free gift towards the Irish Famine to £4,757,659.

The amount collected and disbursed by charitable Associations can be only approximated to. There is a list of those subscriptions, as far as they could be ascertained, given in the Report of the Society of Friends. They amount to £1,107,466 13s., but the compiler of the Report was of opinion that the sums so collected and distributed could not have fallen far short of a million and a-half.

No effective means were taken to ascertain the moneys sent to Ireland by emigrants until the year 1848; however, Mr. Jacob Harvey, a member of the Society of Friends, from inquiries made by him in New York, Baltimore, and Philadelphia, computed the remittances from emigrants in 1847 at £200,000, but it is highly probable that the actual amount was far in excess of that; for we find in the next year, 1848, there came to Ireland through the banks and commercial houses alone, £460,180; which sum may also be regarded as a contribution towards the Irish Famine. I think we are justified in naming £300,000 for 1847, instead of £200,000, Mr. Harvey's estimate, these two sums make £760,180, which being added to the acknowledged amount of public subscriptions, we have a total of £1,867,646, 13s. as the amount voluntarily and charitably contributed to our Famine-stricken people. But if we take one million and a-half to represent _the actual charitable subscriptions_, as assumed by the Report of the Society of Friends, and add to it the money sent by emigrants in 1847 and 1848, we will have the enormous sum of £2,260,180.

The most important of all the Associations called into existence by the Famine was "The British Association for the Relief of extreme distress in Ireland and Scotland." There are about 5,550 distinct subscriptions printed in the Appendix to its report, but the number of individual subscriptions was far beyond this, for, many of the sums set down are the result of local subscriptions sent to the Association from various parts. This Association established about forty food depôts in various districts. They were, of course, most numerous in the South and West--most numerous of all in Cork, the wild and difficult coast of which county was marked by a line of them, from Kinsale Head to Dingle Bay.

Noblemen and gentlemen of high position volunteered their services to the Association, and laboured earnestly among the starving people. Amongst them may be named the Count Strezelecki, Lord R. Clinton, Lord James Butler, and Mr. M.J. Higgins, so well known on the London press by his _nom de plume_ of "Jacob Omnium."

Besides the sums contributed directly to the Association, the Government gave it the distribution of the proceeds of two Queen's letters, amounting in the aggregate to £200,738 15s. 2d.[303] In August, 1847, when the Association was about to enter upon what it calls the second relief period, it found itself in possession of a clear cash balance of £160,000. It had to consider how this sum could be most beneficially applied during the ensuing winter. The Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Trevelyan, in that month wrote to the chairman, recommending the Association to select, through the Poorlaw Commissioners, a certain number of Unions, in which there was reason to believe the ratepayers would not be able to meet their liabilities, and that the Association should appropriate, from time to time, such sums as the Poorlaw Commissioners might recommend, for the purpose of assisting to give outdoor relief in certain districts of such Unions. After much deliberation the Association accepted this advice, and asked for the names of the most distressed Unions. A list of twenty-two was supplied to it in September. Some others were added later on. The grants of the Association were issued in food, and the Assistant Poorlaw Commissioners aided in the distribution of it. Under this arrangement the advances made by the Association from October to July amounted to £150,000.

A peculiar feature of this relief system, adopted and carried into effect by the advice of Count Strezelecki, was the giving of clothing and daily rations to children attending school. This was done in twenty-seven of the poorest Unions, and with the best results. By the first of January, 1848, the system was in full operation in thirteen Unions, and 58,000 children were on the relief roll of the Association. The numbers went on increasing until, in March, there were upwards of 200,000 children attending schools of all denominations, in twenty-seven Western Unions, participating in this relief. The total sum expended on food for the children amounted to £80,854, in addition to which £12,000 was expended on clothing for them.

On the 1st of November, 1848, £12,000 was still to the credit of the Association. By a resolution, it was handed over to the Poorlaw Commissioners for Ireland; and so closed the labours of the British Relief Association, so vast in its operations, so well managed, so creditable to all engaged in it, and such a lasting testimony to the generous charity of the subscribers.

Such frequent reference has been made in these pages to the "Transactions" of the Relief Committee of the Society of Friends, during the Famine, and so much use has been made of the information contained in that carefully compiled book, that I will only here repeat the amount of the charitable offerings confided to them for distribution. It was:--£198,326 15s. 5d.

The General Central Relief Committee for all Ireland, which met in College Green, received in contributions £83,934 17s. 11d., but of this, £20,000 was given by the British Association. The Marquis of Abercorn, the most Rev. Dr. Murray, Archbishop of Dublin, the Lord Mayor, the Provost of Trinity College, Lord Charlemont, O'Connell, the Dean of St. Patrick's, and several other noblemen and gentlemen were members of this Committee. The president was the present Duke of Leinster, then Marquis of Kildare. It remained in existence just one year, from December, 1846, to December, 1847.

"The chief source," says the "Transactions" of the Society of Friends," whence the means at our disposal were derived, was the munificent bounty of the citizens of the United States. The supplies sent from America to Ireland were on a scale unparalleled in history."

When authentic intelligence regarding the Irish Famine reached America, a general feeling of sympathy was at once excited. Beginning with Philadelphia, in all the great cities and towns throughout the Union, meetings were almost immediately held to devise the best and speediest means of relieving the starving people of this country. "All through the States an intense interest, and a noble generosity were shown. The railroads carried, free of charge, all packages marked 'Ireland.' Public carriers undertook the gratuitous delivery of any package intended for the relief of the destitute Irish. Storage to any extent was offered on the same terms. Ships of war approached our shores, eagerly seeking not to destroy life but to preserve it, their guns being taken out in order to afford more room for stowage."[304]

The total contributions received from America by the Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends, were,--Money, £15,976 18s. 2d.--Provisions, 9,911 tons, valued at £133,847 7s. 7d. Six hundred and forty-two packages of clothing were also received, the precise value of which could not be exactly ascertained. The provisions were carried in ninety-one vessels, the united freights of which amounted to £33,017 5s. 7d.[305]

The total number of ships which carried provisions, the result of charitable contributions, to Ireland and Scotland in 1847, is set down at one hundred and eighteen; but as only four of these went to Scotland, one hundred and fourteen of them must have come here. The total freightage paid to those ships by Government, was £41,725 8s. 5-1/2d; but as I find in another part of the Blue book, that between £60,000 and £70 000 was paid by Government for freights on the cargoes of provisions consigned to the Society of Friends and to the British Association, and which I have above assumed to be £70,000, we may take it for granted that something like twenty thousand tons of provisions were consigned to both Societies, the money value of which was about £280,000.

Two American ships of war, the "Jamestown" and "Macedonian," carried cargoes of provisions to Ireland, for which no freight was charged.

The "Jamestown," a sloop of war lent by the government for the voyage, was freighted by the people of Massachusetts with 8,000 barrels of flour. She sailed from Boston on the 28th of March, 1847, and arrived at the Cove of Cork on the 12th of April, after a most prosperous voyage. The people of Cove immediately held a public meeting, and adopted an address to her Commander, Captain Forbes, which they presented to him on board. The citizens of Cork addressed him a few days later; and the members of the Temperance Institute gave him a _soiree_, at which the Rev. Theobald Mathew assisted.

The "Macedonian," another ship of war, arrived later on, conveying about 550 tons of provisions, a portion of which was landed in Scotland. Both ships were manned by volunteers.

On the appearance of the potato blight scientific men earnestly applied themselves to discover its cause, in the hope that a remedy might be found for it. Various theories was the result. There was the Insect Theory; the Weather Theory; the Parasitical Theory; the Electrical Theory; the Fungus Theory; the Fog Theory. But whilst philosophers were maintaining their different views;--whilst Sir James Murray charged electricity with being the agent of destruction, and Mr. Cooper cast the blame upon the fogs; whilst Professors Lindley, Playfair, and Kane were busy with their tests, and retorts, and alembics; and whilst others again--microscope in hand--were in active pursuit of the _Aphis vastator_, or _Thrips minutissima_, a not inconsiderable class of persons, departing widely from all such speculations, discovered, beyond all doubt, that _Popery_ was the true cause of the potato blight.

"As this predicted system" [popery], says a pamphleteer, "is an idolatrous one, any treaty with it must be opposed to God's will, and call down his wrath upon those nations who have commerce with it: more particularly upon nations wherein its hideous deformities are most signally manifested. Now, how have we seen in the first part of this work, that He has repeatedly punished? By famine and pestilence! Oh, beloved countrymen of every diversity of creed, in the heart-rending scenes around us do we witness punishment for national idolatry, systematic assassinations, performed occasionally with a refinement of cruelty worthy of incarnate devils."[306]

"This much is certain" writes a public journalist, "that our country is scourged with famine." Three causes are then given for the scourge; the second of which is, "Idolatry in the professing people of God, especially when sanctioned by the rulers of the country." After quoting examples from the Old Testament of the manner in which God punished idolatry, he proceeds: "It [idolatry] is just as true of the millions of Ireland as it was of the millions of Judah: 'They worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made.' And to complete the resemblance to apostate Israel, and fill the measure of our national guilt, the prevalent idolatry is countenanced and supported by our government. The Protestant members of the Houses of Lords and Commons have sworn before God and the country that Popery is idolatrous; our Queen, at her coronation, solemnly made a similar declaration,--yet, all have concurred in passing a Bill to endow a college for training priests to defend, and practise, and perpetuate, this corrupt and damnable worship in this realm. The ink wherewith the signification of royal assent was given to that iniquitous measure was hardly dry when _the fatal rot_ commenced its work of destruction; and as the stroke was unheeded, and there was no repentant effort to retrace the daring step of the first iniquity, but rather a disposition to multiply transgression, we are now visited with a second and a severer stroke of judgment."[307]

The Rev. Hugh M'Neill preached a "Famine" sermon in St. Jude's, Liverpool, and published it under the title of "The Famine, a rod;" a rod that was meant to scourge England for tolerating Popery, of which he said: "That it is a sin against God's holy law to encourage the fables, deceits, false doctrines, and idolatrous worship of Romanism, no enlightened Christian--no consistent member of the church of England can deny."[308] "She [England] is fondly anticipating, as the result of generous concession, that she shall witness Roman Cooperation in general Liberty! Alas, for the Romans! With equal reason might she expect the Ethiopian to change his skin, or the leopard his spots. With the rich and responsible inheritance of an open Bible before her, and with free access to the illustrations of authentic history, this absurdity is England's sin, England's very great sin. There can be little doubt, that except repentance _and amendment_ avert the stroke, this will prove England's plague, England's great plague, England's very great plague."[309]

It may be urged that the Rev. Hugh M'Neill is a man of extreme views. Be it so; but his extreme views seem rather to have advanced his interests than to have offended his superiors, for he is now Dean of Ripon.

Let us hear another and a very different stamp of man.

"I don't know whether I have mentioned before," writes Charles Dickens, "that in the valley of the Simplon, hard by here, where, (at the Bridge of St. Maurice over the Rhone), this Protestant canton ends and a Catholic canton begins, you might separate two perfectly distinct and different conditions of humanity, by drawing a line with your stick in the dust on the ground. On the Protestant side, neatness; cheerfulness; industry; education; continual aspiration, at least, after better things. On the Catholic side, dirt; disease; ignorance; squalor; and misery. I have so constantly observed the like of this, since I first came abroad, that _I have a sad misgiving_, that the religion of Ireland lies as deep at the root of all her sorrows even as English misgovernment and Tory villainy."[310]

Charles Dickens is looked upon not only as the strenuous denouncer of vice, but as the happy exponent of the higher and purer feelings of human nature also. For three-fourths of his life he wrote like a man who felt he had a mission to preach toleration, philanthropy--universal benevolence. He had travelled much. He had been over Belgium and France; he was through the Rhenish Provinces; in all which places the people are Catholics; they have received the highest praise from travellers and writers for their industry; their thrift; their cleanliness; Charles Dickens saw all this, but it never occurred to him to credit their religion with it. When the contrary occurs, and when fault is to be found, Popery, like a hack-block kept for such purposes, is made responsible, and receives a blow. He had, indeed, a sad misgiving that the religion of Ireland lay deep at the root of her sorrows. Surely this is enough to try one's patience. We have passed through and out-lived the terrible codes of Elizabeth and James and Anne and the two first Georges, under which, gallows-trees were erected on the hill side for our conversion or extinction; we have even survived the iron heels and ruthless sabres of Cromwell's sanctimonious troopers; and we can go back upon the history of those times calmly enough now. But this "sad misgiving" of Mr. Dickens; this patronizing condescension; this contemptuous pity, is more than provoking. It is probable he had not the time or inclination to read deeply into Irish history, but he must have had a general knowledge of it more than sufficient to inform him, that there were causes in superabundance to account for the poverty and degradation of our people, without going to their religion for them. Instead of doing so, he should have confessed with shame and humiliation, that his own countrymen, for a long series of years, did everything in their power to destroy the image of God in the native Irish, by driving them like beasts of chase into the mountains, and bogs, and fastnesses, and over the Shannon. Our people suffered these things and much more for conscience sake; inflicted, as they were, by Mr. Dickens's countrymen, in the name of religion; in the name of conscience; in advancing, as they pretended, the sacred cause of the right of private judgment. _He_ makes Popery responsible for the results.

Those who held that Popery was the real cause of the potato-rot were influential, if not by their numbers, at least by their wealth; so they set about removing the fatal evil energetically. Large sums of money were collected, and a very active agency was established throughout the West of Ireland for this purpose; with, it would seem, very considerable success. But whilst those engaged in, the work, maintained, that the conversions were the result of instruction and enlightened investigation, others believed that most of the converts were like the poor woman mentioned by the late Dr. Whately, in a conversation with Mr. Senior.

In 1852, Mr. Nassau Wm. Senior was on a visit with the Archbishop, at his country house, near Stillorgan, five miles from Dublin. Mr. Senior asked him, to what cause the conversions made during the Famine were attributable. The Archbishop replied, that the causes must be numerous. Some, he said, believed, or professed to believe, that the conversions were purchased; this of course was the Catholic view. He then related the following anecdote on the subject:

"An old woman went to one of my clergy, and said, 'I'm come to surrender to your Reverence--and I want the leg of mutton and the blanket.' 'What mutton and blanket?' said the clergyman. I have scarcely enough of either for myself and my family, and certainly none to give. Who could have put such nonsense into your head?' 'Why, Sir,' she said, 'Father Sullivan told us, that the converts got each a leg of mutton and a blanket; and as I am famished, and starving with cold, I thought that _God would forgive_ me for getting them.'"[311]

Dr. Whately was president of the "Society for protecting the Rights of Conscience," and he indignantly denied that any reward or indemnity had been held out, directly or indirectly, by that Society, to persons, to induce them to profess themselves converts; and he adds: "not only has no case been substantiated--no case has been even brought forward." This may be true of that particular Society, but to deny that neither money nor food were given, to induce persons to attend the Scripture classes and proselytizing schools, is to deny the very best proven facts.

In the _Tralee Chronicle_ of the 19th of November, 1852, Archdeacon O'Sullivan, of Kenmare (lately deceased), published an abstract of a Report of one of those Missionary Societies which fell into his hands. The expenditure of a single Committee was £3557 1s. 6d. The salaries of clerical and lay agents are set down at £382 0s. 11d. What became of the remainder of the money?

But here is testimony that Dr. Whately himself would scarcely impugn:

Dr. Forbes, in his "Memorandums made in Ireland" in 1852, visited Connaught, and examined many of the proselytizing schools. He speaks without any doubt at all of the children who attended those schools receiving food and clothing. It did not seem to be denied on any side. Here is an extract: "I visited two of the Protestant Mission Schools at Clifden, one in the town, and the other about a mile and a-half beyond the town, on the road leading to the mouth of the bay. In the former, at the time of my visit, there were about 120 boys and 100 girls on the books, the average attendance being about 80. Out of the 80 girls there were no less than fifty-six orphans, _all of whom are fed and clothed out of the school funds, and a large proportion provided with lodgings also_. Only two of these girls were children of Protestant parents; and in the boy's school there was only one born of parents originally Protestant.... At the probationary girls' school there were 76 on the books, at the time of my visit, their ages varying from eight to eighteen years. They are all Catholics, or children of Catholic parents; and out of the number no fewer than 40 _were orphans_. All the children at this school receive daily rations of Indian meal; 45 of them one pound, and the remainder half that quantity. _Whether this is exclusive of the stirabout breakfast I saw preparing for them in the school_, I forgot to ask. All the children of these schools read the Scriptures and go to the Protestant Church, Catholic and Protestant alike."[312]

But I turn with pleasure from this uninviting and uncongenial subject, to one more elevating,--to the all but unlimited private charity which was called forth by the Irish Famine. I have already endeavoured to give some idea of it, but of course an imperfect one. The feelings evoked, and the almost unasked alms bestowed with a noble Christian generosity, during that awful time, can be only fully known to Almighty God; the Great Rewarder. The Merciful Rewarder has recorded them, and that is enough, at least for the givers. However, there were some amongst them who should not be passed over in silence. Baring, Brothers & Co.; Rothschild & Co.; Smith, Payne & Smith; Overend, Gurney & Co.; Truman, Hanbury & Co.; The Duke of Devonshire; Jones, Lloyd & Co.; an English friend (in two donations); and an Irish landlord (for Skibbereen) subscribed £1000 each.

Irish landlords did not contribute very munificently to the Famine-fund; but here is £1000 from one, and for a special locality. Who was the retiring but generous donor? The following extract of a letter will answer the question; and throw light upon another remarkable offering sent every month to Skibbereen for more than a year.

"The first case of death clearly established as arising from starvation," writes Mr. M'Carthy Downing, "occurred at South Reen, five miles from the town of Skibbereen. The case having been reported to me, as a member of the Relief Committee, I procured the attendance of Dr. Dore, and proceeded to the house where the body lay; the scene which presented itself will never be forgotten by me.

"The body was resting on a basket which had been turned up, the head on an old chair, the legs on the ground. All was wretchedness around. The wife, emaciated, was unable to move; and four children, more like spectres than living beings, were lying near the fire-place, in which apparently there had not been fire for some time. The doctor opened the stomach, and repugnant as it was to my feelings, I, at his solicitation, viewed its contents, which consisted solely of a few pieces of raw cabbage undigested.

"Having visited several other houses on the same townland, and finding the condition of the inmates therein little better than that of the wretched family whom I had just left, I summoned the Committee, and had a quantity of provisions sent there for distribution by one of the relieving officers; and then published in the Cork and Dublin papers a statement of what I had witnessed.

"Many subscriptions were sent to the Committee in consequence, and I received from an anonymous correspondent a monthly sum varying from £6 to £8, for a period of more than twelve months.

"One subscription of £1000 came from another anonymous donor, and for years the Committee knew not who those generous and really charitable parties were; but I had always a suspicion that the giver of the £1000 was Lord Dufferin. The grounds for my supposition were, that during the height of the sufferings of the people, I heard that two noblemen had been in the neighbourhood, visiting some of the localities. One was Lord Dufferin, then a very young man, who alluded subsequently in feeling terms to the wretchedness and suffering which he had witnessed; the other, I heard, was Lord John Manners.

"In some years after, I met at the house of Mr. Joshua Clarke, Q.C., in Dublin, Mr. Dowse, then a rising barrister, now a Baron of the Court of Exchequer, who addressed me, saying, 'We are old acquaintances;' to which I replied that I thought he was mistaken, as I had never the pleasure of meeting him before. He said 'That is quite true, but do you remember having received monthly remittances during the severe pressure of the Famine in Skibbereen?' I answered in the affirmative; and thereupon he said, 'I was your correspondent, I remitted the moneys to you, they were the offerings of a number of the students of Trinity College.'

"I need scarcely say that the incident created in me a feeling of esteem and regard for Mr. Dowse, which has continued to the present moment.

"During the passing of the Land Bill through the House of Commons, in the year 1870, I proposed several amendments, in consequence of which I received a letter from Lord Dufferin, asking for an interview, which subsequently took place at his house, and lasted more than three hours. When about to leave, I said that I had a question to put to his Lordship, which I hoped he would not refuse to answer; and having received his assent, I said,--Lord Dufferin, are you the anonymous donor of a subscription of £1000 to the Relief Committee at Skibbereen twenty-three years ago? And with a smile, he simply replied 'I am.'

"I left with feelings of high admiration for the man."[313]

To conclude. Every reader, will, doubtless, form his own views upon the facts given in this volume; upon the conduct of the people; the action of the landlords; the measures of the Government; those views may be widely different; but of the bright and copious fountains of living charity, which gushed forth over the Christian world, during the Great Irish Famine, history has but one record to make,--posterity can hold but one opinion.

FOOTNOTES:

[303] The first Queen's letter produced £170,571 0s 10d.; the second only £30,167 14s. 4d.

[304] Transactions of Society of Friends during the Famine in Ireland p. 49.

[305] _Ibid._ Appendix vii, p. 334

[306] The connection between Famine and Pestilence, and the Great Apostacy. By Nagnatus, p. 49. P.D. Hardy, Dublin, 1847. Halliday Pamphlets, Vol. 1990.

[307] The Achill Missionary Herald for August, 1846, p. 88.

[308] The Famine, a rod. By the Rev. Hugh M'Neill, p. 23.

[309] The Famine, a rod, pp. 25, 26. The capitals and italics are Mr. M'Neill's.

[310] Letter quoted in "Forster's Life of Dickens," written in the Autumn of 1846. Vol. II. p. 233.

[311] "Journals, Conversations, and Essays relating to Ireland." by Nassau William Senior. Vol. II., Second Edition, p. 60.

[312] "Memorandums made in Ireland in the Autumn of 1852." By John Forbes, M.D., F.R.S., Hon. D.C.L. Oxon., Physician to Her Majesty's Household. Vol. I. pp. 246 and 247. Dr. Forbes was afterwards knighted.

[313] Letter of M'Carthy Downing, Esq., M.P., to the Author, dated Prospect House, Co. Cork, August 31st, 1874.

(NOTE A.)--ABSENTEEISM: MR. M'CULLOGH's DEFENCE OF IT EXAMINED.

The question of Irish Absenteeism has, for a long time, been discussed by politicians and political economists; some maintaining it to be a great evil; some admitting its injurious effects, but in a modified way only; whilst others, with Mr. J.R. M'Culloch, maintain that, by the principles of economic science, Absenteeism is no evil at all.

Apart altogether from the views of political economists, there are certain evils which result from Absenteeism. 1. There is that estrangement between landlord and tenant, which must naturally exist in cases where the tenant seldom or never sees his landlord; has no intercourse with him; is unacquainted with the sound of his voice, from which no word of kindly encouragement ever reaches him; never hears of him, except when the agent demands, in his name, the rent, which is to be sent to England, or to whatever foreign country he may reside in. Even though the argument were true, that his living out of Ireland inflicts no real pecuniary loss upon Ireland, the impression on the tenant's mind is different, and helps to increase the estrangement between him and his landlord, which so generally exists, and which all must lament as an evil. 2. It is an old and a commonly accepted adage, that affairs thrive under the master's eye, and that those things which he neither sees nor takes an interest in exhibit the signs of neglect. As a resident landlord rides over his property, improvements will frequently suggest themselves to his mind; some of them often easily and inexpensively done, although important from their usefulness. He is sure, at any rate, to know the condition of his estate, and he can, with a just discernment, encourage the industrious, help the weak, urge forward the slow, and have a friendly word for all, whether he approves, or is obliged to find fault. The value of this mode of dealing with the people cannot be over estimated, especially in Ireland, where a kind word from a superior goes a great way.[314] An agent manages the property of an absentee. There are many such agents who are just and considerate, but the traditional character of an Irish land agent, resulting from long experience, is, that he is a haughty oppressive man, who has other interests to serve besides those of his employer; and who makes his employer's interests subservient to his own. Whether he thinks it a duty he owes his master, or that he believes it gives himself importance, an Irish land agent is frequently in the habit of acting in a proud, browbeating manner towards the tenants under him. I have seen a most respectable body of tenants, with their rent in their hands, stand with cowed and timid looks in the agent's office; they kept at as great a distance from him as space would allow; they were afraid to tender the rent, and yet they feared to hang back too long, as either course might bring down the ire of the great man upon them. His looks, his gestures, the few words he condescended to utter--even his manner of counting bank notes, which he thumped and turned over with a sort of insolent contempt,--all went to prove that those fears were not ill-founded. The scene forcibly reminded me of a group of children in the Zoological gardens, before the cage of one of the fiercer animals; they view him with awe, and, on account of his size and spots, with a certain admiration, but they are afraid of their lives to approach him. It is usual for a resident landlord to have an agent too, but he is subject to the personal observation, and under the immediate control of the landlord, who can be easily appealed to, if a misunderstanding should arise between him and any tenant. It is always a great satisfaction to the weaker party to have an opportunity of going, as they say, to the "fountain-head." It is bringing one's case before a higher tribunal when one feels he has not got justice in the court below. 3. Whether it is or is not the fact, that the landlord by living at home and spending his fortune amongst his people adds to the aggregate wealth of the nation, it is certain that his doing so is a partial and immediate good to the locality in which he resides. Often does the Irish peasant point to the decayed village, and the crumbling mansion, as evidences that the owner of the soil is an Absentee. 4. There is a special reason given by at least one English writer, why Irish landlords ought to be resident, and thus endeavour to gain the confidence of their tenants; and that is, because nine-tenths of the Irish estates have been confiscated from the native owners, and are held by men who differ from their tenants in country and religion; and their non-residence, and consequent want of sympathy with the people, perpetuates in the minds of those people the bitter traditions of rapine and conquest; so that, instead of feeling they are the tenants of kind, considerate landlords, they are apt to regard themselves, in some sort, as the despised slaves of conquerors, who, if they do not still look upon them as "Irish enemies," do not certainly entertain for them the feelings which ought to find a place in the breasts of landlords who look upon their tenants as something more than mere rent producers.

So much for the moral and social aspect of Absenteeism. Now, let us examine, a little, the ground taken up by Mr. J.R. M'Culloch, who maintains that, according to the accepted principles of political economy, the fact of Irish landed proprietors residing out of their country inflicts no injury upon it. For Mr. Prior's views on Absenteeism he manifests great contempt, but treats himself with a kind of respectful commiseration, as being, in spite of his ignorance of political economy, "a gentleman in other respect--of great candour and good sense." He quotes his assertion that the aggregate of the absentee rents, amounting then to £627,799 annually, was entirely sent to the Absentee landlords in treasure, "which," continues Mr. Prior, "is so great a burthen upon Ireland that I believe there is not in history an instance of any one country paying so large a yearly tribute (!) to another." The parenthetic note of astonishment is Mr. M'Culloch's, who says, with regard to this passage, "it would really seem that in this, as in some other things, the universality and intensity of belief has been directly as the folly and falsehood of the thing believed."[315]

It was in his examination in 1825, before a Parliamentary Committee, that Mr. M'Culloch put forward his views on Irish Absenteeism. He was asked this question: "Supposing the largest export of Ireland were in live cattle, and that a considerable portion of rent had been remitted in that manner, does not such a mode of producing the means of paying rent, contribute less to the improvement of the poor than any extensive employment of them in labour would produce?" He replies: "Unless the means of paying rent are changed when the landlord goes home, his residence can have no effect whatever." "Would not," he is asked, "the population of the country be benefited by the expenditure among them of a certain portion of the rent, which (if he had been absent) would have been remitted (to England)?" "No," he replies, "I do not see how it could be benefited in the least. If you have a certain value laid out against Irish commodities in the one case, you will have a certain value laid out against them in the other. The cattle are either exported to England or they stay at home. If they are exported the landlord will obtain an equivalent for them in English commodities; it they are not he will obtain an equivalent for them in Irish commodities; so that in both cases the landlord lives on the cattle, or on the value of the cattle: and whether he lives in Ireland or England there is obviously just the very same amount of commodities for the people of Ireland to subsist upon."[316] Mr. Senior exposes this fallacy in the following words; "This reasoning assumes that the landlord, whilst resident in Ireland, himself personally devours all the cattle produced on his estates; for, on no other supposition can there be the very same amount of commodities for the people of Ireland to subsist upon, whether their cattle are retained in Ireland or exported."[317] It may be said with equal truth, that to assume, as Mr. M'Culloch assumes, the Irish absentee's residence in England to be of no advantage to the people there, is assuming that "himself personally" devours all the cattle and corn sent to him in the shape of rent. But the landlord does not in either case devour all the beef and all the corn; by far the greater portion of those products go to house, and clothe, and feed the persons who minister to his various wants.

In the beginning of his Essay on Absenteeism Mr. M'Culloch, referring with apparent satisfaction to his evidence before the Committee, says, "it had been previously established, and is now universally conceded that the gentlemen who consume nothing in their families but what is brought from abroad are quite as good, as useful, and as meritorious subjects as they could be, if, they consume nothing but what is produced at home; and such being the case, it will require a sharper eye than has yet looked at this subject, to discover the great injury which is said to be done by their going abroad."[318]

With the greatest respect for Mr. M'Culloch's skill as a political economist, this proposition has neither been established nor conceded in the unlimited sense in which he here puts it forward. Enthusiastic men, who become enamoured of some favourite theory, are apt to attach too much importance to it--push it too far, and try to fit things into it which it will not contain, without being modified or enlarged. This has been the case with political economists to a remarkable extent; a fact which John Stuart Mill notices and complains of as injurious to the science.[319] The chief flaw in Mr. M'Culloch's apology for Absenteeism (as his essay may well be called) is, that he entirely overlooks the peculiar nature of Irish exports. Those exports consist almost exclusively of raw, or, to use Adam Smith's word, of _rude_ produce; and where this is the case Mr. M'Culloch's principle will not hold without large modifications. Mr. Senior saw this, and, in dealing with Irish Absenteeism he modifies the principle accordingly. In discussing the proximate cause deciding the rate of wages, he lays down as his third proposition, that "It is inconsistent with the prevalent opinion,[320] that the non-residence of landlords, funded proprietors, mortgagees, and other unproductive consumers can be detrimental to the labouring inhabitants of a country _which does not export raw produce_."

Mr. Senior here affirms Mr. M'Culloch's proposition, quoted above, but with the qualifying clause--"which does not export raw produce." I have italicised this clause because it contains the very exception which makes the general proposition inapplicable to Ireland, and to every country whose chief exports are, like Ireland's, raw produce.

To use the words of Mr. Senior, "If an Irish landlord reside on his estate he requires the services of certain persons, who must be also resident there to minister to his daily wants. He must have servants, gardeners, and, perhaps, gamekeepers. If he build a house, he must employ resident masons and carpenters; part of his furniture he may import, but the greater part of it must be made in his neighbourhood; a portion of his land, or, what comes to the same thing, a portion of his rent, must be employed in producing food, clothing, and shelter for all these persons, and for those who produce that food, clothing, and shelter. If he were to remove to England all these wants would be supplied by Englishmen. The land and capital which was formerly employed in providing the maintenance of Irish labourers, would be employed in producing corn and cattle to be exported to England, to provide the sustenance of English labourers. The whole quantity of commodities appropriated to the use of Irish labourers would be diminished, and that appropriated to the use of English labourers increased."[321] Giving credit for ordinary prudence to the persons employed by resident Irish landlords, they would save a part of their earnings, and the part saved would go to increase the capital of the country; but when the landlords reside in England the moneys so paid away go into the pockets of English servants and mechanics, and their savings are added to the sum of English capital; for it is a fundamental principle of Political Economy that capital and all additions to capital are the result of saving. Writers on Ireland have been long proclaiming with all their might, that the first and greatest want of that country is capital. Half a century ago, when Mr. M'Culloch published his views of Irish Absenteeism, the rents annually paid to our absentee landlords were set down at from four to four and millions of pounds sterling. They have very much increased since, but let us still accept four and a-half millions as the amount. Were the absentee landlords resident, the whole of that rental would not be spent at home, as some of it would go for foreign commodities, such as tea, sugar, wine; but the greater part of it would be spent at home. Now, although the savings of the employees of Irish landlords could not, perhaps, be called large in any one year, yet had those savings gone on from Mr. Prior's time--1729--taking into account the increase of capital by the use of capital,--who can calculate the additions that would have been made to Irish capital, by this means, during so long a period? And as Mr. Mill's first fundamental proposition respecting capital is, that "Industry is limited by capital," who can measure the consequences to Irish industry of the capital lost to it by Absenteeism?

But the soundness of the principle laid down by Mr. M'Culloch as universally received, and which Mr. Senior accepts (with the qualification affecting raw produce) has not passed unchallenged. For greater clearness I shall repeat that principle here. "The gentlemen," says Mr. M'Culloch, "who consume nothing in their families but what is brought from abroad are quite as good, as useful, and as meritorious subjects as they could be if they consume nothing but what is produced at home." And the reason for this is to be found in his Principles of Political Economy where he says that, Foreign commodities are always paid for by British commodities, therefore, the purchase of Foreign commodities encourages British industry as much as the purchase of British commodities" (Principles of Political Economy, p. 152). The important exception to this theorem arising from the _nature_ of the commodities exported and imported has been already dealt with. Let us examine the vital principle of the theorem. "The capital," says Adam Smith, "which is employed in purchasing in one part of the country in order to sell in another, the produce of the industry of that country, generally replaces by every such operation two distinct capitals, that had both been employed in the agriculture or manufactures of that country, and thereby enables them to continue that employment. When it sends out from the residence of the merchant a certain value of commodities it generally brings back in return at least an equal value of other commodities. When both are the produce of domestic industry it necessarily replaces by every such operation two distinct capitals which had both been employed in supporting productive labour, and thereby enables them to continue that support. The capital which sends Scotch manufactures to London, and brings back English corn and manufactures to Edinburgh, necessarily replaces, by every such operation, two British capitals, which had both been employed in the agriculture or manufactures of Great Britain.

"The capital employed in purchasing foreign goods for home consumption, when this purchase is made with the produce of domestic industry, replaces too, by every such operation, two distinct capitals; but one of them only is employed in supporting domestic industry. The capital which sends British goods to Portugal, and brings back Portuguese goods to Great Britain, replaces, by every such operation, only one British capital. The other is a Portuguese one. Though the returns, therefore, of the foreign trade of consumption should be as quick as those of the home trade, the capital employed in it will give but one half of the encouragement to the industry or productive labour of the country.

"But the returns of the foreign trade of consumption are very seldom so quick as those of the home trade. The returns of the home trade generally come in before the end of the year, and sometimes three or four times in the year. The returns of the foreign trade of consumption seldom come in before the end of the year, and sometimes not till after two or three years. A capital, therefore, employed in the home trade, will sometimes make twelve operations, or be sent out and returned twelve times, before a capital employed in the foreign trade of consumption has made one. If the capitals are equal, therefore, the one will give four and twenty times more encouragement and support to the industry of the country than the other."[322]

If this position of Adam Smith's be tenable, it cannot be true, that the purchase of foreign commodities encourages British industry as much as the purchase of British commodities. In order to have a clear idea of his reasoning it will be useful to repeat some of the leading principles which regulate and explain the nature of capital. 1. Capital is usually defined to be the _accumulated stock of the produce of labour_. A definition which, if not completely satisfactory, is sufficiently correct for our present purpose. 2. _Capital is essential to production_. 3. _Capital employed in production is wholly consumed in the process of production_. "Capital," as Mill, and in fact as every political economist says, "is all consumed; though not by the capitalist. Part is exchanged for tools or machinery, which are worn out by use; part for seed or materials, which are destroyed as such, by by being sown or wrought up, and destroyed altogether by the consumption of the ultimate product. The remainder is paid to labourers, who consume it for their daily wants; or if they, in their turn, save any part, this also is not generally speaking, hoarded, but (through savings banks, benefit clubs, or some other channel) re-employed as capital, and consumed."[323] These principles open the way to the understanding of what Adam Smith means by the _replacing of capital_.