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 L627,799 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 ha