is reason to believe_, says Mr. D'Israeli; yes, there is the best
reason to believe, that tens of thousands died of starvation in Munster
and Connaught, because food depots were not introduced, or, at least,
because they were not opened for the sale of food to the public. The
word "development" which he uses, sufficiently refutes his whole theory.
There was no time for development; millions were starving who must die
or get food within a few days. What a time to begin to develop a trade
in articles of food among a people without capital, who never had such a
trade before! The effect of Government not interfering in the sale of
food is shown by the prices Lord George quotes a little further on.

[196] Mr. D'Israeli took good care not to quote this passage in his
Biography of Lord George Bentinck.

[197] It was more than hinted that he did not follow the advice of the
Irish Government in other important matters concerning the Famine.

[198] In the middle of November, Mr. Smith O'Brien commenced a series of
letters to the landed proprietors of Ireland. Whilst he was preparing
the first of these, which was introductory, and intended to awaken the
class he was addressing to a sense of their danger and their duty, the
Agricultural Society of Ireland published their objections to the system
of carrying out reproductive works laid down in the Chief Secretary's
letter; and it was in commenting on their views that he wrote the
passage quoted above by the Prime Minister. His second letter dealt with
the knotty question of land tenure. In it he urges strongly and well a
principle which has become a part of the Land Act of 1870, namely, the
tenant's right to compensation. He says: "I begin with the subject of
tenure: uniform experience of human nature teaches that men will not
toil for the benefit of others as they toil for themselves. You are very
sensitive about the maintenance of the due rights of property.... The
same feelings influence your tenant; he will not expend his capital upon
your land unless the return of such capital be guaranteed to him." His
third letter is devoted to the question of drainage, and the reclamation
of waste lands. He undertook to show how advantageous a peasant
proprietary would be, changing, as it would, numbers of persons from the
catalogue of those who have little to gain by maintaining the rights of
property, to that of those who have everything to lose by their
violation. He, however, tells the