An Gorta Mór or the Great Irish Famine: A Look from London
It took 150 years for a British Prime Minister to issue a statement on the Irish Potato Famine. Tony Blair's publicly regret and apology came in 1997 at a weekend festival in County Cork to commemorate the Great Famine, which claimed one million lives and caused the immigration of many more. A letter was read out from the Prime Minister in which he blamed "those who governed in London" at the time for the disaster.While the Irish had finally an apology, other victims of mass killings and genocides, such as the Armenians, are still waiting for such late but welcome honesty from the guilty nations. Tony Blair's statement read: "The famine was a defining event in the history of Ireland and Britain.
It has left deep scars. That one million people should have died in what was then part of the richest and most powerful nation in the world is something that still causes pain as we reflect on it today. Those who governed in London at the time failed their people."
But what was the official attitude of the British Government toward the Irish during the Famine, and did prejudice play a role in that major human disaster? Was it possible to prevent the massive loss of life and the uprooting of millions if London had acted and felt differently about the victims?
 |
| A Famine cemetery from county Cork, Southern Ireland (Photo via Moonhops87) |
The Irish Great Famine of 1845-1849 is also known as the “Great Hunger”, implying that there were many human factors and neglect involved in the calamity. The Famine is considered to be one of the major natural disasters of nineteenth century Europe, and certainly the major watershed calamity in Irish history. It was the result of the potato blight (Phytophtora infestans) that decimated the staple food of the Irish people for consecutive years. The resulting food shortage resulted in the death of an estimated million and a half through starvation and disease. Another million emigrated, the population of Ireland dropping from the pre-famine estimates of 8.5 million to barely 6 million by 1850’s.
 |
| Severity of the Great Famine was very uneven. Note that the Protestant dominated Ulster around Belfast as well as Dublin were almost famine free, while the heavily Catholic remote areas were devastated. |
The British government’s response to the Famine has been a very contentious issue. Many different critical explanations have been formulated qualifying the official policies and actual relief efforts from “inadequate”, “inefficient” to “negligent”. In nationalist narratives, An Gorta Mór is often described as actively or passively “genocidal” both in intent and mismanagement of the calamity. The British government’ relief efforts (or the lack of them) were shaped by various socio- economic principle of the period, such as Laissez-Faire and non interference in the forces of the market. The authorities were thought to be more concerned about the faith of landlords than the fate of the starving masses. These controversial policies were undoubtedly influenced also by the prevailing anti- Irish attitudes held by the authorities and shared by segments of the English public opinion. The letter written by Sir Charles Trevelyan, the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury to R.H. Lord Monteagle in 1846 clearly states that firmly believed that the government was doing everything possible “short of transferring the famine from Ireland to England” and pointed the finger to the morbid habits and social evils of the Irish as roots of the Famine. Such views were supported by influential newspapers in London, such as The Times, echoing Trevelyan and disseminating opinions that the natural catastrophe and the resulting human tragedy were the direct results of the backwardness and primitive lifestyle of the Irish Catholics, and that the Famine could at least finally open the path to a more civilized lifestyle.
 |
| Sir Charles Trevelyan, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during the Famine: He was the official ''face'' of the British government's response during the Famine, but his actions and words were very controversial to say the least. |
It is important to stress that the pre famine Ireland was not the most peaceful of the places, nor was the Great Famine the only time there were widespread food shortages on the island. The period of 1845-49 however, was surely the most devastating, and came after a long period of great socio- political turmoil in modern Irish history: Plantations, appropriations of land, forced expulsions of the Catholics, the Penal Laws, the reforms pushed by the likes of Henry Grattan, the Relief act (1791-92), the rise of sectarianism, agrarian violence and the 1798 failed rising led by the United Irishmen. Ireland was in constant turmoil under British rule and the “glue sticking the Harp to the Crown” was problematic at best for both sides.
The political tensions of the late eighteenth century had culminated in the forced
Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland. The Irish parliament was abolished and Ireland sent representatives to Westminster. January 1, 1801 was therefore a date of enormous importance, when the Act of Union became operative after ‘bribery on a scale such as history has seldom witnessed.[1]
Therefore, with the forced Union The economy of Ireland was assimilated into the economy of England, the Irish Parliament in Dublin disappeared and the Parliament at Westminster
hence forward legislated for both countries. It was as if a marriage between England and
Ireland had been celebrated, with the clauses of the Act of Union as the terms of the
marriage settlement. [2]
The Act of Union, however, could not end centuries of animosity between the Irish and the colonial power from across the Irish Sea, and pre famine Ireland wasgenerally full of poverty and human suffering, especially in the western and southern counties with pockets of relative prosperity such as in rapidly industrializing Ulster (especially counties Down and Antrim).
 |
| Potato Blight fungal disease: Phytophtera infestans |
The decades following the Union had been ripe with political developments,especially the thorny issue of catholic emancipation and the Repeal movement. Major gains were achieved, but Ireland was not free and was directly ruled from Westminster and Whitehall. Therefore it is important to underline that during the Famine, counties Mayo, Kerry and Cork were as much part of Great Britain as Kent, Lancashire, Cheshire or Essex. But Ireland was a much different place than England, with a very large peasant cottiers class, a very uneven distribution of land and wealth, political and sectarian- based oppression and centuries of discrimination against the majority Catholics. Corn Laws, tillage and pasturage land management (graziers), the middlemen system, the absentee landlordism were all red flags that would have fatal consequences with the crop failures of 1945-49.
 |
| Evicted families ended up in last resort public "workhouses" where many just died. |
Pre-famine Ireland, however, offered favorable circumstances for a rapid population growth
that had reached a peak of 8.17 millions taken at a census in 1841.[3] It is estimated that 5.5 million or 66 percent of the Irish population was dependent on agriculture[4], which meant a very heavy reliance on potato and a inherent vulnerability to any crop failure. The potato was abundant and full of nourishment when complemented with milk, young couples were marrying earlier and the children were seen as an ‘insurance against destitution in old age’[5] as the Poor Laws came into effect just in 1838, offering a very basic form of charity and welfare to the poorest of the poor. Potato had become the staple food for many, a quasi monoculture that fed millions. Práta,was an easy vegetable to grow with minimal care in Lazy beds by lazy people, or so was the interpretation of many.
The British Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel was responsible for the creation of the Relief Commission in 1831 after many disastrous mini famines. Peel had an “expressed distaste for the jobbery or good-natured slackness of Irish public life, but had a businesslike concern for the condition of the country and its inhabitant”.[6]
The Duke of Wellington, an Irish born Protestant, in the summer of 1843 had declared that “Ireland was in no longer in a social state” thus pressuring the prime minister the formation of an exclusively protestant force to deal with the situation.[7]
 |
| Desperate digging for inedible potato tubers. |
In 1843, the British government felt the strong need to intervene in Ireland and appointed
the Devon Commission to improve the fate of Irish peasants. The bill was opposed staunchly, amended and finally dropped. Other measures to help the poor peasants through government programs were also devised and opposed by those who thought that providing relief through public funds was unacceptable.[8] Various public works (new roads etc.) were implemented instead of money handouts, and most of these works were pointless infrastructure projects such as these roads built leading nowhere. Nevertheless, these projects were regarded more preferable than straight charity to a people judged lazy and
untrustworthy to the crown. The potato crop had already proven to be an unreliable crop and it was a known fact that a major failure would be serious enough for England but for Ireland it would be a disaster.[9] When the very alarming news were confirmed that the crop had indeed failed, the British government took steps to find a substitute, imported maize (an acquired taste), lift the duties on flour and oatmeal, regulate exports and open ports for free trade in food.[10] It is therefore obvious that the poor Irish were not masters of their own destiny, and the blame of the decimation of their communities during the Great Famine could not be solely placed on their shoulder.
This was not, however, the opinion of Charles Edward Trevelyan and his administration overseeing the Relief efforts during the Great famine. Trevelyan’s letter to Thomas Spring-Rice Lord Monteagle, is a good indicator of his conservative policies and dubious attitudes. He writes that the relief efforts of his majesty’s government were adequate in insofar as not transfer the “famine from Ireland to England”, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands were starving as he wrote. He reiterated his firm belief in laissez faire, non interventionist and pro-business policies, even in face of the calamity worsening by the day:
The institution of the business of society, it falls to the share of the government to protect the merchant and the agriculturalist in free exercise of their respective employments, but not itself to carry on those employments, and the conditions of a community depends upon the result of the efforts which each member of it makes in his private and individual capacity.[11]
Trevelyan further expressed his opposition to the expressed opinions that the government
should do more to help the country in crisis. He clearly stated his opposition to any direct government involvement in such affairs as the “sale of food in every part of Ireland” or “arranging with the tenants the terms on which the rent is to be adjusted”. Trevelyan did not support any micro management of the official response, and relief of the starving poor by public works came as “too little too late and also slow, inefficient and sometimes corrupt”[12] The conservative protectionist policies that had prevailed under Robert Peel were superseded by the Whig Liberal policies under Lord John Russell, Trevelyan remaining at the Treasury until 1859.Trevelyan had also expresses openly racist views about the Great Famine as a deserved punishment from God to a undeserving (Roman Catholic) people: The judgment of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson, that calamity must not be too much mitigated. …The real evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the Famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people.[13]
 |
| Eviction of a poor ''cottier'' class family by the local authorities on orders from the landlord. The results of such evictions were more misery, starvation, disease or emigration. |
A very contentious issue during the Famine was the way the landlords were willing or rather refusing to cooperate with government devised relief schemes. Plans were proposed to improve the land, change the employment act and checking speculation in foodstuff to allow for a sustainable life for the poor cottiers. The government was adamant that the landlords show goodwill and do their fair share but the opposition from the landlords was overwhelmingly negative. Trevelyan’s correspondence with Lord Monteagle, an important landlord, was done within this context, as the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury felt strongly that the landlords “failed to fulfill their obligation”. [14]
However, the government’s anti landlord feelings were not necessarily the result of any sympathy for the victims of the hunger. It was rather the result of the firm belief that government intervention must be absolutely minimal and the relief efforts must be executed locally in the communities. Therefore, Trevelyan firmly believed that the Irish people were to blame for their own misfortunes, but that did not prevent him of being openly critical of the landlords and their lack of good will, purely based on economic principles.
 |
| Jeanie Johnston Famine Ship in Dublin... |
The Times of London, the influential newspaper published an article on 22 September 1846, strongly supporting the non interventionist policies of the government and did not hide its racist attitude towards the Irish. The newspaper firmly rejected any notion that London was responsible. The British government was required to procure subsistence to the peasants but nothing more, ward off starvation, and its duty was to “stimulate others to give employment, not outbid them, or drive them from the labour market”.[15]
The Times went even further and put the blame squarely on the Irish peasants’ shoulders:
“The Irish peasant has tasted of famine and found that it was good”, hoping to get free manna from the sky. Moreover, the religion of the peasants (Roman Catholicism) holds that “Man shall not labour by the sweat of his brow”.
 |
| Quarantine stations at Partridge Island (Saint John, New Brunswick) and at Grosse-Île (Québec, Quebec) were overwhelmed by the arrival of thousands of poor and sick Irish immigrants. Of the nearly 100,000 immigrants who came through Grosse Île in 1847, the plague year, more than half were Irish. At least 5,000 died on the island. Many perished in the immigrant sheds that were their first temporary homes in their new land. Grosse Île is now a National Historic Site commemorating the Irish who landed there during the famine years.
The Times also stated that the Irish were used to laziness, accustomed to potatoes and leeks and that they must change their diet and develop a taste for grains and meat. The Irish must therefore evolve, be less Irish and resemble more the English and the Scots. Likewise,Trevelyan had written that he seeing a bright light shining in the distance through the dark cloud of the famine. Likewise, the Times considered the potato blight as a blessing that will perhaps open the opportunity to the semi savage Irish to become more civilized and avoid future punishments.
|
 |
| Skibbereen mass graves in County Cork (above) and Armenian Genocide memorial in Deir el Zor (Syrian Desert, where hundreds of thousands Armenians marched to their death in 1915): While the Irish have had their very late apology from the British Government's Tony Blair in 1997, the Armenians are still waiting for such a courageous leader to emerge in Ankara. |
Trevelyan is depicted by some as a non compassionate racist who let the Irish people suffer and die, a short distance away from all powerful England. It is very likely, however, that he was a “well meaning but officious civil servants with Whig sympathies”[16] carrying zealous economic policies: The relief efforts under his administration proved to be mostly inefficient and too little too late in face of the huge wave of tragedy that was taking place despite all the food imports, soup kitchens and other private and public relief efforts.
The question remains if Trevelyan and the government would have been much more “flexible” in their economic orthodoxy if the Famine was ravaging the countryside in England, Scotland, Wales or evenUlster, rather than the impoverished Catholic Connaught or Kerry. On the other hand, the vindictive and openly racist attitudes such as the ones expressed by the Times were indicative of the period: Very little sympathy or comprehension of the historical facts, the social, economic and political segregation and
deprivation that the victims and their communities had been subjected to during
centuries of English colonial subjugation.
© Krikor Tersakian, Montreal, December, 2011
References:
[1] Cecil
Woodham-Smith, (New York : Harper & Row, publishers, 1962. p. 15
ibid, p. 15
[3] Cecil Woodham-Smith, (New York : Harper
& Row, publishers, 1962. p.31
[4] R.Dudley Edwards and T.Desmond
Woodham-Smith, p. 31.
Edwards and T.Desmond Williams, The Great Famine, New York: Ny University
press, 1957. p. 79.
Edwards and T.Desmond Williams,p.79,
[8] It is believed that Daniel O’Connell himself opposed some relief measures, as hefeared that any interventionist policies might dilute the power of the Catholic Church in a predominantly Catholic Ireland.
[9] Cecil Woodham-Smith, (New York :
Harper & Row, publishers, 1962. p.39.
[10] Cecil Woodham-Smith, (New
York : Harper & Row, publishers,
1962. p. 41
[12]University College Cork: Charles Edward Trevelyan: http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Charles_Edward_Trevelyan
Edwards and T.Desmond Williams, The Great Famine, New York: Ny University press, 1957. p. 151.
preference of the Irish for relief over labour. (Sept.22, 1846), in Gray
pages 154-155.
Edwards and T.Desmond Williams, The Great Famine, New York: Ny University
press, 1957. p. 215.
No comments:
Post a Comment