Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T00:48:47.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Liberals, the Irish Famine and the role of the state

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2016

George L. Bernstein
George L. Bernstein*
Affiliation:
Department of History, Tulane University, New Orleans
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Irish mythology of the Great Famine of the 1840s explained the failure of the British government to prevent the deaths of some one million people in terms of a Whig government and ruling élite driven by a commitment to laissez-faire ideology which left them indifferent to the loss of Irish lives. At its most extreme, this mythology attributed a wilful genocide to the English. The term myth as used here does not necessarily imply that the account is untrue. Rather, the myth comprises a combination of fact, fiction and the unknowable in a narrative of such power that, for the people who accept it, the myth provides a guide to future understanding and action. In this respect, Irish mythology about the English and the Famine is rooted in facts: the resistance of the Whig government to any interference with the market; the staunch commitment to ideology of central figures in the making of famine policy such as Charles Trevelyan (assistant secretary to the treasury) and Sir Charles Wood (chancellor of the exchequer) and shapers of liberal opinion such as the political economists Nassau Senior and James Wilson (editor of The Economist); and the indifference to Irish suffering, and indeed the hostility to the Irish, as demonstrated in the language of the radical M.P.J.A. Roebuck.

Type
Research Article
Information
Irish Historical Studies , Volume 29 , Issue 116 , November 1995 , pp. 513 - 536
Copyright
Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The most scholarly version of this mythology is Cecil Woodham-Smith, The great hunger: Ireland, 1845-9 (London, 1962)Google Scholar. The myth of genocide is still sufficiently powerful for James Donnelly to feel that he must take it seriously: see Donnelly, James S. jr, ‘The administration of relief, 1847-51’ in Vaughan, W.E. (ed.), A new history of Ireland, v. Ireland under the union, 1:1801-70 (Oxford, 1989)Google Scholar (henceforth New hist. Ire., v), pp 329-31.

2 This usage is analagous to the concept of the political myth developed by Georges Sorel in his 1911 classic on syndicalism, Reflections on violence.

3 This estimate comes from Donnelly, James S. jr, ‘The administration of relief, 1846-7’ in New hist. Ire., v, 300 Google Scholar. Others put the number at 730,000, an insignificant difference (see O’Neill, Thomas P., ‘The organisation and administration of relief, 1845-52’ in Edwards, R. Dudley and Williams, T. Desmond (eds), The Great Famine: studies in Irish history, 1845-52 (Dublin, 1956), p. 232)Google Scholar. The estimate of 3.5 million comes from a multiplier given by James S. Donnelly, jr, ‘Famine and government responses, 1845-6’ in New hist. Ire., v, 284.

4 Daly, Mary E., The Famine in Ireland (Dublin, 1986), pp 57, 68-9, 71-2, 81, 88, 113Google Scholar.

5 Gráda, Cormac Ó, The Great Irish Famine (London, 1989), pp 46–7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 51, 53-4.

6 Daly, The Famine in Ireland, pp 113-14; Ó Gráda, The Great Irish Famine, p. 46; Donnelly, ‘The administration of relief, 1846-7’, p. 299; idem, “The administration of relief, 1847-51’, pp 330-31.

7 Donnelly has shown that Irish myth-making about Peel’s response had begun even before the government fell (‘Famine & government responses, 1845-6’, pp 276-85). Both Donnelly and Daly argue that the much greater scale of the crisis in 1846 made it impossible for Peel’s policies to be adopted a second time; neither, however, is concerned with whether Peel would have pursued different policies from the Whigs (ibid., pp 276-85; Daly, The Famine in Ireland, pp 71-2).

8 Montague, Robert J., ‘Relief and reconstruction in Ireland, 1845-1849: a study in public policy during the Great Famine’ (unpublished D.Phil, thesis, University of Oxford, 1976), pp 132–40 Google Scholar. For the continued view of a fundamental ideological difference between liberals and conservatives on the role of government in the making of social policy in general see Ó Gráda, The Great Irish Famine, p. 52. For an alternative view see Weaver, Stewart Angas, John Fielden and the politics of popular radicalism, 1832-1847 (Oxford & New York, 1987), and review by Bernstein, George L. in Albion, xx, 4 (winter 1988), pp 643-5Google Scholar.

9 MacDonagh, Oliver, ‘Ideas and institutions, 1830-45’ in New hist. Ire., v, 206 Google Scholar.

10 McDowell, R.B., ‘Ireland on the eve of the Famine’ in Edwards, & Williams, (eds), The Great Famine, pp 36-7Google Scholar; MacDonagh, ‘Ideas & institutions, 1830-45’, pp 207-8; Black, R.D.C., Economic thought and the Irish question, 1817-1870 (Cambridge, 1960), pp 173-5.Google Scholar

11 Black, Economic thought & the Irish question, pp 160-66; Fry, Geoffrey K., The growth of government: the development of ideas about the role of the state and the machinery and functions of government in Britain since 1780 (London, 1979), pp 27–8.Google Scholar

12 Hansard 3, iii, 1211 (30 Mar. 1831).

13 McDowell, ‘Ireland on the eve of the Famine’, pp 42-5; London and Westminster Review, xxv, 2 (1836), pp 359-60; Black, Economic thought & the Irish question, p. 108.

14 Black, Economic thought & the Irish question, pp 189-95; McDowell, R.B., Public opinion and government policy in Ireland, 1801-1846 (London, 1952), pp 196–7.Google Scholar

15 Hansard 3, xlv, 1093-4 (1 Mar. 1839). This reasoning was supported in an article by Marmion Savage and Edward Berwick in the Edinburgh Review, lxix, 139 (1839), pp 156-88. For the judgement on Ireland’s roads see Mokyr, Joel, Why Ireland starved: a quantitative and analytical history of the Irish economy, 1800-1850 (London, Boston & Sydney, 1983), pp 182–3 Google Scholar.

16 Hansard 3, xlv, 114 (1 Mar. 1839).

17 Lord Ebrington to Russell, 26 June 1839 (P.R.O., Russell papers, 30/22/3C, ff 360-61); see also the article by Savage, and Berwick, in the Edinburgh Review, lxix, 139 (1839), pp 156-88Google Scholar.

18 The view of the Peelites presented here is compatible with the analysis of the government of 1841-6 in Mandler, Peter, Aristocratic government in the age of reform: Whigs and liberals, 1830-1852 (Oxford, 1990), pp 202–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Gray, Peter, ‘ “Potatoes and Providence”: British government responses to the Great Famine’ in Bullán, i, 1 (spring 1994), p. 82 Google Scholar.

19 Hansard 3, ciii, 180 (5 Mar. 1849). For Peel’s general views on public works in Ireland see Black, Economic thought & the Irish question, pp 166-7; McDowell, Public opinion & government policy in Ireland, pp 211-12.

20 Fremantle to Peel, 1,3,4 (quote) Nov. 1845 (B.L., Peel papers, Add. MS 40476, ff 503-4,514-17,521).

21 Peel to Fremantle, 31 Oct. 1845 (ibid., ff 499-500).

22 Hansard 3, lxxxiv, 991,1179-80 (13 Mar. 1846), lxxxv,722-3 (17 Apr. 1846). In the debate of 13 March the radical Thomas Wakley and the Whig Ralph Bernal Osborne urged more action on the government to supply food, while the radicals Joseph Hume and Henry Aglionby opposed any government action.

23 Lincoln to Peel, 17 Nov. 1846 (B.L., Peel papers, Add. MS 40481, f. 370). More generally, see Lincoln to Peel, 29 Aug., 17 Nov., 14 Dec. 1846 (ibid., ff 363, 368-77, 386-7).

24 Young to Peel, 5 Oct. 1848 (ibid., Add. MS 40600, ff 466-8; more generally ff 465-72).

25 Graham to Peel, 29 Dec, 20,23 (quote) Nov. 1846 (ibid., Add. MS 40452, ff 196, 174-9, 184); see also Graham to Peel, 16 Jan. 1849, where he reports that, when Russell was trying to persuade him to join the government, he reminded the prime minister of his attacks on the Peel government’s Irish policies (ibid., f. 318).

26 Graham to Aberdeen, 19 Oct. 1847 (B.L., Aberdeen papers, Add. MS 43190, f. 194); Graham to Peel, 30 Apr. 1848,12 Jan. 1849 (B.L., Peel papers, Add. MS 40452, ff 268-73,311-14).

27 Memorandum by Peel, 18 Feb. 1847 (B.L., Peel papers, Add. MS 40598, ff 107-8).

28 See Peel’s general correspondence, especially with Wood and Cardwell on the financial crisis, and for the months of June-August for the general election (ibid., Add. MSS 40598-9 passim). Peel’s modern biographer, Gash, Norman, claims that Peel was critical of the Whigs’ handling of the Famine; however, he offers no evidence to support this claim except Peel’s Commons speech of 30 March 1849 (Sir Robert Peel: the life of Sir Robert Peel after 1830 (London, 1972), pp 640–42 Google Scholar).

29 Hansard 3, lxxxviii, 771-2 (17 Aug. 1846). Russell repeated his argument on 19 Jan. 1847 (ibid., lxxxix, 138-40). Henry Labouchere, chief secretary for Ireland, claimed that if the government had imported food, the result would have been ‘all the horrors of famine’ (ibid., 90). See also Leeds Mercury, 22 Aug. 1846, p. 4.

30 Russell to Leinster, 17 Oct. 1846 (copy) (P.R.O., Russell papers, 30/22/5D, f. 226); Nowlan, Kevin B., ‘The political background’ in Edwards, & Williams, (eds), The Great Famine, p. 149 Google Scholar.

31 Russell to Lord Bessborough, 11,15 Oct. 1846 (P.R.O., Russell papers, 30/22/5D, ff 172-3, 208-10); Russell to Leinster, 17 Oct. 1846 (copy) (ibid., ff 225-8); Labouchere in the Commons, Hansard 3, lxxxix, 96-7 (19 Jan. 1847). O’Neill, ‘The organisation & administration of relief, 1845-52’, pp 223-32, summarises and criticises the government’s policies from August 1846 to March 1847. See also Prest, John, Lord John Russell (London, 1972), pp 238–44 Google Scholar; Black, Economic thought & the Irish question, pp 117-19.

32 Russell to Bessborough, 20 Sept. 1846 (copy) (P.R.O., Russell papers, 30/22/5C, f. 211); Wood to Russell, 20 Sept. 1846 (ibid., f. 220). For the case on the other side see Bessborough to Russell, 20 Sept. 1846 (two letters) (ibid., ff 203-5, 212-13), and Labouchere to Russell, 24 Sept. 1846 (ibid., ff 300-01).

33 Russell, to Wood, , 15 Oct. 1846 (The later correspondence of Lord John Russell, 1840-1878, ed. Gooch, G.P. (2 vols, London, 1925), i, 154)Google Scholar; Monteagle to Russell, 4 Oct. 1846 (P.R.O, Russell papers, 30/22/5D, ff 53-7); Lansdowne to Bessborough, 10 Oct. 1846 (ibid., ff 147-50). In replying to Russell the next day, Wood confirmed that he believed that the Irish were exaggerating the extent of the famine (ibid., ff 214—15). On the acceptance of the new policy see Russell to Bessborough, 1 Oct. 1846 (ibid., f. 12); Wood to Labouchere, 2 Oct. 1846 (ibid., ff 36-7). For the angry response of Wood and Sir Charles Trevelyan see Wood to Labouchere, 2 Oct. 1846 (ibid., ff 36-7); Wood to Russell, 7 Oct. 1846 (ibid., ff 105-10).

34 Montague does not include Sir George Grey with the moralists, and tends to group Russell with the interventionists (‘Relief & reconstruction in Ireland, 1845-1849’, pp 83-4, 110-17, 212-16); Gray does group Grey with the moralists (‘ “Potatoes & Providence” ‘, p. 83). See also Lincoln to Peel, 12 Oct. 1846 (B.L., Peel papers, Add. MS 40481, ff 366-7).

35 Hansard 3, xcii, 1423 (1 June 1847), lxxxix, 113-14 (19 Jan. 1847); see also William Hutt, ibid., lxxxix, 897 (5 Feb. 1847); George Grote to George Cornewall Lewis, 24 Oct. 1847 ( MrsGrote, , The personal life of George Grote (London, 1873), p. 179)Google Scholar; Savage, M.W. in the Edinburgh Review, xciii, 189 (1851), pp 214, 217Google Scholar. John Stuart Mill was an exception, in that he saw social causes for the ‘reprehensible’ attitudes and behaviour of the Irish: see his unpublished essay of 1848, ‘What is to be done with Ireland?’ in Mill, , Collected works, vi: Essays on England, Ireland, and the Empire, ed. Robson, John M. (Toronto & London, 1982), p. 502 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 The tendency to blame the landlords was pervasive among liberals. James Wilson of The Economist is another example (see Edwards, Ruth Dudley, The pursuit of reason: ‘The Economist’, 1843-1993 (London, 1993), pp 59–61 Google Scholar).

37 O’Neill, ‘The organisation & administration of relief, pp 228-34; Daly, The Famine in Ireland, pp 63-1,78-9; Hickson, W.E. in Westminster Review, xlvii, 1 (1847), pp 259-62Google Scholar; Russell, in the Commons, Hansard 3, lxxxvii, 772-3 (17 Aug. 1846)Google Scholar; John Stuart Mill’s article in the Morning Chronicle, 6 Nov. 1846, in Mill, , Collected works, xxiv: Newspaper writings, January 1835 - June 1847, ed. Robson, Ann P. and Robson, John M. (Toronto & London, 1986), p. 937 Google Scholar; Russell to Bessborough, 21 Oct., 1,10,21 Dec. 1846 (copies) (P.R.O., Russell papers, 30/22/5D, f. 268; 30/22/5F, ff 31-3,145-6, 252-3); Labouchere to Russell, 6 Nov. 1846 (ibid., 30/22/5E, f. 30); Bessborough to Russell. 12 Dec. 1846 (ibid., 30/22/5F, ff 167-8); Clanricarde to Russell, 17 Dec. 1846 (ibid., f. 210).

38 Montague, ‘Relief & reconstruction in Ireland, 1845-1849’, pp 33,122-3.

39 Russell to Bessborough, 10, 26 Dec. 1846 (copies) (P.R.O., Russell papers, 30/22/5F, f. 145; 30/22/5G, f. 71); see also Wood to Bessborough, 21 Dec. 1846 (ibid., 30/22/5F, ff 249-50); and Monteagle’s comment on Clarendon as lord lieutenant in a letter to Peel, 9 Apr. 1849 (B.L., Peel papers, Add. MS 40601, ff 186-7).

40 Bessborough to Russell, 4 Dec. 1846 (P.R.O., Russell papers, 30/22/5F, ff 71-2).

41 Russell to Bessborough, 28 Feb., 8 Mar. (copy) 1847 (ibid., 30/22/6B, ff 145, 213-14); Wood to Russell, 11 Apr. 1847 (ibid., 30/22/6C, ff 69-70); Russell to Bessborough, 8 May 1847 (copy) (ibid., f. 256). For the gross exaggeration embodied in such figures see Donnelly, ‘The administration of relief, 1847-51’, pp 328-9.

42 Montague, ‘Relief & reconstruction in Ireland, 1845-1849’, pp 119-25,132-40.

43 Senior to Monteagle, 14 Nov. 1845 (Black, Economic thought & the Irish question, p. 113). Russell also was favourably disposed to the use of railways as public works before the 1847 session: see Russell to Wood, 26 Dec. 1846,7 Jan. 1847 (Later correspondence of Lord John Russell, i, 166,170).

44 Russell to Bessborough, 14 Feb. 1847 (copy) (P.R.O., Russell papers, 30/22/6B, f. 82): Hansard 3, lxxxix, 803-6 (4 Feb. 1847, Russell), 1236, 1233-51 (12 Feb. 1847, Wood), 1406-11 (15 Feb. 1847, Sir William Molesworth), xc, 70, 82, 65-86 (16 Feb. 1847, Peel); Leeds Mercury, 20 Feb. 1847, p. 4.

45 Hansard 3, lxxxix, 816-18 (4 Feb. 1847, George Poulett Scrope), 1402-4 (15 Feb. 1847, Sir William Clay), xc, 44 (16 Feb. 1847, Ralph Bernal Osborne).

46 Bessborough to Russell, 20 Feb. 1847 (P.R.O., Russell papers, 30/22/6B, f. 104); see also Bessborough to Russell, 4 Jan., 11 Feb. 1847 (ibid., 30/22/6A, f. 43; 30/22/6B, ff 66-7).

47 Russell to Bessborough, 8 Apr. 1847 (copy) (ibid., 30/22/6C, ff 33-4); Cardwell to Peel, 30 June 1847 (B.L., Peel papers, Add. MS 40598, f. 372). Clarendon, Bessborough’s successor, wrote enthusiastically to Russell about the Carlow line in a letter of 28 August and said that no measure of that session had been of greater benefit to Ireland (P.R.O., Russell papers, 30/22/6E, ff 226-7).

48 Mill, Collected works, xxiv, pp 879-1035; Westminster Review, 1, 1 (1848), pp 163-87; Hansard 3, cii, 386-91 (7 Feb. 1849).

49 Mill, , Collected works, xxiv, pp 898-904 (articles of 15, 17 Oct. 1846)Google Scholar; Scrope, Poulett in the Westminster Review, 1, 1, pp 178-85Google Scholar; Black, Economic thought & the Irish question, pp 29-32.

50 Leeds Mercury, 11 Apr. 1846, p. 4, 21 Nov. 1846, p. 4; Hansard 3, lxxxix, 628-9 (1 Feb. 1847), cii, 406 (7 Feb. 1849). The Peelite Sir James Graham drew the same analogy between government-financed land reclamation and Louis Blanc’s national workshops (ibid., 426). For confirmation of Bernal Osborne’s doubts about the economic viability of such schemes see Green, E.R.R., ‘Agriculture’ in Edwards, and Williams, (eds), The Great Famine, pp 117-18Google ScholarPubMed.

51 For liberal unhappiness with the proposal see Hansard 3, lxxxix, 671 (1 Feb. 1847, Joseph Hume); Leeds Mercury, 26 Sept. 1846, p. 4; Mill’s Morning Chronicle article, 6 Nov. 1846, in Mill, Collected works, xxiv, pp 935-8. All told, some £3 million was lent to landlords under the act.

52 Bessborough to Russell, 14 Jan. 1847 (P.R.O., Russell papers, 30/22/6A, f. 140); Labouchere to Russell, 23 Dec. 1846 (ibid., 30/22/5G, f. 27). Labouchere too was telling Russell of ‘the appalling amount of human suffering’ at this time (Labouchere to Russell, 11 Dec. 1846 (ibid., 30/22/5F, f. 152)).

53 For the government’s efforts in late 1846 to secure food see Donnelly, ‘The administration of relief, 1846-7’, pp 295-8.

54 Wood to Russell, 24,25,26 Dec. 1846 (P.R.O., Russell papers, 30/22/5G, ff 36-9, 52-3,68-70); Labouchere to Russell, 8 Jan. 1847 (ibid., 30/22/6A, ff 83-1); Russell to Labouchere, 28 Dec. 1846 (copy) (ibid., 30/22/5G, f. 99); Bessborough to Russell, 15, 18,23 Jan. 1847 (ibid., 30/22/6A, ff 144-6,173,198-9); Russell to Bessborough, 17,30 Jan. 1847 (copies) (ibid., 167,242-3).

55 O’Neill, ‘The organisation & administration of relief, 1845-52’, pp 235-41; Ó Gráda, The Great Irish Famine, pp 45-6. Historians have judged the soup kitchens the most successful of the Whig relief policies.

56 McDowell, Public opinion & government policy in Ireland, pp 119,189-90; Black, Economic thought & the Irish question, pp 91-3, 96-7; articles in the London and Westminster Review, xxv, 2 (1836), pp 343-9 (by George J. Graham), xxvi, 2 (1837), pp 373-6 (by W.E. Hickson); Russell, ’s speech in the Commons, Hansard 3, xxxvi, 454-5 (13 Feb. 1837)Google Scholar.

57 Ó Gráda, The Great Irish Famine, p. 31; Kinealy, Christine, ‘The poor law during the Great Famine: an administration in crisis’ in Crawford, E. Margaret (ed.), Famine: the Irish experience, 900-1900: subsistence crises and famines in Ireland (Edinburgh, 1989), pp 158–9.Google Scholar

58 Black, Economic thought & the Irish question, pp 119-25; Kinealy,’The poor law during the Great Famine’, pp 160-61. For divergent views on the new policy see Hansard 3, lxxxix, 631 (1 Feb. 1847, Bernal Osborne), xc, 1270-73 (12 Mar. 1847, Poulett Scrope), 136-49 (15 Mar. 1847, Sir William Clay).

59 Russell to Clarendon, 18 Sept. 1847 (Prest, Lord John Russell, p. 269); Senior in the Edinburgh Review, lxxxix, 179 (1849), p. 239.

60 O’Neill, ‘The organisation & administration of relief, 1845-52’, pp 249-54; Black, Economic thought & the Irish question, pp 129-30; Donnelly, ‘The administration of relief, 1847-51’, passim.

61 Mandler implies that the change from Bessborough to Clarendon marked a change from interventionism to laissez-faire (Aristocratic government in the age of reform, pp 250-52). I see no evidence of this; nor does Montague (‘Relief & reconstruction in Ireland, 1845-1849’, pp 215-16).

62 Memorandum by Russell, July 1847 (P.R.O., Russell papers, 30/22/6D, ff 84-7); George Cornewall Lewis to Russell, 16 Aug. 1837 [recte 1847] (ibid., 30/22/6E, ff 121-2); Wood to Russell, 26 Aug., 1 Sept. 1847 (ibid., ff 218-20; 30/22/6F, ff 5-14); Trevelyan to Russell, 9 Oct. 1847 (ibid., ff 170-71). On the effect of the general election see Peter Gray, ‘Punch and the Great Famine’ in History Ireland, i, no. 2 (summer 1993), p. 30.

63 “Clarendon to Russell, 23, 30 Oct., 10, 15 Nov. 1847 (P.R.O., Russell papers, 30/22/6F, ff 216-18,272-4; 30/22/6G, ff 72-6 (quotes on f. 76), 133-1); Clarendon to Palmerston, 16 Nov. 1847 (Southampton University Library, Broadlands collection, Palmerston papers, GC/CL/479, f. 1).

64 “Russell to Clarendon, 17 Nov. 1847 (copy) (P.R.O., Russell papers, 30/22/6G, f. 150); Wood to Russell, 9 Apr. 1848 (ibid., 30/22/7B, ff 249-50,252-3). For other evidence on the growing tendency to tire of the Famine and blame the Irish see Daly, The Famine in Ireland, p. 93; Gray, ‘Punch & the Great Famine’, p. 28; Edwards, The pursuit of reason, pp 61-2,71.

65 Clarendon to Russell, 6 Feb. 1849 (P.R.O., Russell papers, 30/22/7E, ff 270-71); Lansdowne to Russell, n.d. [Feb.], 15 Feb., n.d. [Mar.] 1849 (ibid., 250-53, 286-8; 30/22/7F,ff4-5).

66 Kinealy, ‘The poor law during the Great Famine’, p. 166; Hansard 3, cii, 406 (7 Feb. 1849, Hume), 803, 811 (16 Feb. 1849, MacGregor, Horsman). See also Nassau Senior in the Edinburgh Review, lxxxix, 179 (1849), p. 248; Leeds Mercury, 30 June 1849, p. 4.

67 Black, Economic thought & the Irish question, pp 18-20, 86-8, 240-41. The Famine accelerated the consolidation of holdings and the transition from arable to pasture, with evictions peaking in the years 1848-50 (Daly, The Famine in Ireland, pp 65-6,110).

68 See John Stuart Mill’s articles in the Morning Chronicle, 13,21 Oct. 1846, in Mill, Collected works, xxiv, pp 894-5,904-6; Poulett Scrope in the Westminster Review, 1,1 (1848), pp 173-4. Both argued that Irish landlords did not have the right to evict tenants indiscriminately.

69 Palmerston, quoted in McDowell, Public opinion & government policy in Ireland, p. 249. See Black, Economic thought & the Irish question, pp 37-8; Hansard 3, c, 944-7 (28 July 1848).The Leeds Mercury was reluctant to condemn tenant right out of hand, but it clearly did not like it (25 Sept. 1847, p. 4).

70 Clarendon to Russell, 18, 23 (quote), 30 Oct., 17 Nov. 1847 (P.R.O., Russell papers, 30/22/6F, ff 188-90, 214-15, 270-72; 30/22/6G, ff 162-4); Clarendon to Palmerston, 21 Nov. 1847 (Southampton University Library, Broadlands collection, Palmerston papers, GC/CL/480, f. 3).

71 Black, Economic thought & the Irish question, pp 37-8; Hansard 3, xcvi, 679 (15 Feb. 1848, Somerville), c, 944-5 (28 July 1848, Russell). For Palmerston’s views see Clarendon to Palmerston, 26 Jan. 1848 (Southampton University Library, Broadlands collection, Palmerston papers, GC/CL/482); Palmerston’s cabinet memorandum, 31 Mar. 1848 (P.R.O., Russell papers, 30/22/7B, f. 182). For Russell’s fluctuating views see Russell to Clarendon, 10 Nov. 1847 (copy) (ibid., 30/22/6G, ff 90-91); Russell to Lansdowne, 28 Nov. 1847 (copy) (ibid., ff 292-5); Prest, Lord John Russell, pp 274-5.

72 Hansard3, ciii, 179-93 (5 Mar. 1849), civ, 87-117 (30 Mar. 1849).

73 Russell’s response to Peel, Hansard 3, civ, 211-27 (2 Apr. 1849). For the proposal to appoint a commission to deal with encumbered estates see ibid., 892-900 (26 Apr. 1849). The government had been struggling with the possibility of state-assisted emigration since 1846, but the cabinet was divided, so little was done: see Black, Economic thought & the Irish question, pp 227-34; MacDonagh, Oliver, ‘Irish emigration to the United States of America and the British colonies during the Famine’ in Edwards, and Williams, (eds), The Great Famine, pp 342-58Google Scholar.

74 Graham to Peel, 16 Jan. 1849 (B.L., Peel papers, Add. MS 40452, ff 318-19).

75 Edinburgh Review, lxxxvii, 175 (1848), pp 229-320, xciii, 189 (1851), pp 208-303.

76 Hilton, Boyd, The age of atonement: the influence of evangelicalism on social and economic thought, 1795-1865 (Oxford, 1988), p. 111 Google Scholar; Gray, ‘“Potatoes & Providence” ‘, passim. Trevelyan saw the Famine in just these terms (see Hart, Jenifer, ‘Sir Charles Trevelyan at the treasury’ in E.H.R., lxxv, 294 (Jan. 1960), pp 99–100)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77 Quoted in Ziegler, Philip, Melbourne: a biography of William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne (New York, 1976), p. 151 Google Scholar; Clarendon to Wilson, Mar. 1847 (Edwards, The pursuit of reason, p. 70).

78 Palmerston to Russell, 19 Aug. 1847 (P.R.O., Russell papers, 30/22/6E, f. 141). Punch, whose outlook clearly reflected the evolving English mythology of the Famine, propagated the myth of Irish ingratitude (Gray, ‘Punch & the Great Famine’, pp 28-9).

79 I would like to thank the Murphy Institute of Political Economy at Tulane University, whose faculty seminar ‘The discourse of liberty’ provided me with both the time to prepare an early version of this article and a congenial environment in which to do it.