them to become so at such a crisis, when
many of them feared, with reason, that both themselves and the people
would be swallowed up in one common ruin? Besides, most of the wealthy
proprietors were Englishmen or absentees, who, with few exceptions,
never saw their tenants; took no friendly interest in them, but left
them in the hands of agents, who were prized by their employers in
proportion to their punctuality in sending the half-yearly remittances,
no questions being asked as to the means by which they were
obtained.[177] How could the Prime Minister pretend to think that such
men would rush into the midst of a famine-stricken people, to relieve,
employ, and improve them? He knew, or ought to have known, they would do
no such thing, except on compulsion, and there was no compulsion in the
case; he being, he said, for "willing co-operation" only. His government
has certainly a right to be credited with the praiseworthy attempt it
made to turn the labour of the Irish people to profitable work, but it
came too late for immediate practical purposes. Planning, surveying, and
laying out improvements take much time. The principle contained in the
"Labouchere Letter" should have been embodied in an Act of Parliament,
and reclamation of waste lands made compulsory, as had been advocated by
many. The publication of that letter was, no doubt, the confession of a
previous error, but it was also a concession to a present demand, and
with active hearty co-operation it could be still turned to great
advantage. Lord John is right in blaming the landlords for not making
use of the powers conferred by it. They, above all others, called the
loudest for reproductive employment, but when it was sanctioned, they
raised new difficulties about boundaries and other matters, which looked
very like a determination not to carry into practical effect the
permission granted, it may be fairly said, at their own request.

When Lord John says, that "any attempt to feed one class of people of
the United Kingdom by the Government, would, if successful, starve
another part," he is rather puzzling. One is tempted to think that he
originally wrote--"Any attempt to feed one class of people of the United
Kingdom _at the expense of another class_, would, if successful, starve
the latter," and that by some mistake of the writer or printer, the
words in italics were omitted. As the sentence stands in his letter, it
is strangely inexact. 1. In case one porti