An "all-wise providence"

Snickers Man wrote: »

You know O'Grada is a contributor to the current documentary about the Famine on RTE. He has appeared on it several times.

Yes, I’ve now seen both episodes. Overall I thought it disappointing from a historical perspective and the cameraman with the drone must have had a side-gig with Bord Failte.

Both episodes were very superficial, Ep.2 is worse than the first.. There were many good contributors but each only had ‘one-liner’ soundbites so there was no depth. More than few inaccuracies such as :- stating the fare-paid emigrants as being evicted (not so); stating the exodus from the Lansdowne Estate was a ‘clearance’ - it happened after the Famine was over and many locals fought to obtain passage. Also the figures narrated on the coffinship deaths were grossly inaccurate. In total those ships carried a very small percentage of emigrants, about 100k in total of which about 60k were Irish. Most sailed in the off-season, the harsh winter of 46/47 (one of the worst in living memory of that era) and many passengers came aboard in a weakened state and with fever. Despite that the total deaths on the voyage amounted to about 5k, so +/-3K Irish deaths. Another 15 k in total died ashore in Grosse Isle/Quebec’St.Lawrence/Montreal, mainly from fever contracted during the voyage. A horrible number but a fraction of the number asserted on the programme and the deaths ‘afloat’ are not that far off the norms of the day..

It’s fine to pontificate about mis-handling or whatever, but I’ve yet to hear any academic (particularly one like Joe Lee) come up with a coherent ‘what should have been done’ rescue programme. Yes, feed them to stop the deaths, but how can that number of illiterate homeless paupers be managed into having an existence?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Since they already existed, the question seems meaningless.

That is a bit pedestrian of you – it might be an existence, but it is not a sustainable life for a human. Living as paupers in a chimneyless, windowless one-room mud hut with rags for clothes, straw for bedding, a tin pot for cooking and having to wander the countryside as a beggar for months in the off-season was the future for the vast majority of the population.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And it's worth noting that, prior to the famine, the Irish peasantry was noted not only for being poor but also for being very well-nourished and very healthy. So clearly the country was generally capable of supporting that number of people, at least in terms of feeding them, absent the extraordinary conditions of the famine. So what you mainly needed was a short-term feeding programme, and you have acknowledged yourself that that would have been possible.

That is not an answer to the question I asked. I already said that feeding the masses was a short-term solution, the question which never is addressed is what is the long-term one? It’s a truism that the vast majority of the population depended on a monoculture of a monoculture (potato/Lumper) and buttermilk, giving them a balanced dietary sustenance. (The Lumper variety had the highest yield, would grow anywhere and was indifferent to most climatic conditions.) But the western counties predominantly are not suitable for cereal crops. It was even worse in the 1800’s with no fungicides. The Famine occurred at the end of a ‘Little Ice Age’ – the Thames froze a few decades earlier. The 1741 famine was specifically caused by climate. Food would have to be imported or produce not exported. Apart from a brief period Ireland was a net food importer during the famine.

Population density, land condition and size of landholding precluded beef rearing at an economically viable level. There were no natural resources in Ireland. England had Coal & Ironworks, an industrial base, canal and rail networks – Ireland had none to speak of. How do you get your product to market? Where do you get the capital required for investment? Even at a very basic level, how/where can you get salt to cure your fish? So what do you do with a workforce widely dispersed across mountainsides and in areas that had no transport network (roads & trains)?

Peregrinus wrote: »

As regards the problem of illiteracy, the solution to that one is obvious, and in fact it is at this very time that the national school system is being established.

That is incorrect and skims over the underlying causes.Firstly there was no perceived need for a labourer to read or write and conditions were such that almost all children did not attend school for long – if at all – due to cost and a need to work to contribute to the family unit.

The Society for Promoting the Education of the Poor in Ireland, (Kildare Place Society) wasfounded in 1811. It was non-denominational and at the outset did not teach religion. The RCC, the CoI and the Presbyterians fought over control so it failed. The next stage was in 1831 by Lord Stanley, the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He established the National Education Board and obtained funds to build schools and establish a system of education. The RCC (particularly under Cardinal Paul Cullen) did not support the school system and over the years fought against it until 1863 when it outright banned attendance by Catholics and founded its own teacher training college. During the 1850’s the school system catered for only a quarter of 5 to 15 year olds, and made little impact on illiteracy until the 1880’s. Even as late as 1881 about 50% and in 1911 about 35% of pupils attended school for more than 100 days annually. Secondary schooling was even worse – the number of pupils in 1848 was 5,000, it doubled to 10,000 in 1878. It was not until the Irish Education Act of 1892 which made education free and mandatory for students between the ages of six and fourteen that progress was made. (Lots of statistics in the various reports of the Commissioners of Public Instruction in Ireland)

Peregrinus wrote: »

The solution to the problem of homelessness (or poor housing) was not so easy, and it really took land reform plus government intervention in housing to address it, but it was addressed, and it could have been addressed sooner. We have to acknowledge that to a large extent the problem existed in the first place because of a thoroughly dysfunctional system of landlordism imposed and maintained by the government in the interets of a very narrow class.

Of course housing could have been addressed earlier, but that was not done anywhere in Europe. Bad housing was not particular to Ireland, it was the same across Europe, where every country had a dysfunctional system. The King (Geo III? Wm IV?) was opposed to Abolition because he maintained the slaves were living in better conditions than most of his subjects in Scotland! That is why there were revolts from late 1700’s to the mid 1800’s. It is worth noting that Dublin’s Wide Streets Commission of the 1750’s was a century before the French version (Haussmann’s work). But it was not governments anywhere who were first to solve the crisis in housing, it was philanthropy – e.g. Iveagh Trust and Dublin Artisan Dwelling Co . in Ireland. In France Social housing did not exist substantially until post WW2 (Les HLM) and tenancy/rent controls such as the Loi du ’47. Russia did not address the issue until long after WW1. The Irish Land Acts did commence here, pre 1900 but not so in England where most land still is held on tenancies, or in France (with the exception of the smallholdings of the paysans). So, there was no model for ‘repeal’ anywhere at the Famine era and any change would have been totally contrary to accepted international standards/social outlook of the era.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Finally, it's worth noting that Ireland was not the only country to be afflicted by potato blight at the time. It also affected Belgium, France, the United States, Canada and other countries, and it's worth looking at how those countries responded. Obviously it was a bigger problem in Ireland, due to monoculture which focussed not just on one crop, but on one variety of one crop. The long term solution to this is obvious - agricultural diversity - and, for short-term solutions, it's worth looking at how other countries responded, as compared to how the UK government responded.

All know Ireland was not the only country to be affected by blight, but it was an outlier – a huge proportion of population here was entirely dependent on the potato whereas it formed a dietary supplement elsewhere. (Look at relative consumption levels in other countries.)

I’m not disagreeing with the criticism of government over their handling of the matter, I’m not saying they excelled, I’m again saying that in judging the handling of the Famine it must be assessed in a mid-18th C perspective. Easy to criticize, but no realistic proposals have been put forward.

Look at the economic question in today’s terms.
Let’s assume you have inherited a commercial centre that has been designed for 60 retail units. Sadly it is debt-ridden, repayments are heavily in arrears and because it was bequeathed to you there is an onus to pay support to siblings, who also are now in arrears. Your own family home is part of the security. The banks (plural because there are several mortgages) are on your back and want you to pay down the debt and work out a payment plan.
Commercial rates, insurance, etc., are being incurred at your cost. For several years you have reduced rents by up to 40% yet little rent has been received and for the last couple of years none was received so you are sinking deeper into debt. You decide to visit the property and discover that almost all the units have been subdivided and subdivided again. A typical example is tenant A who has a shop with integrated living accommodation – however, you discover he has given a room to each of his 3 sons (B,C,D) who have opened their own shops, married, had kids all now living in each of the three rooms. That’s four shops/families. Sub-tenants B, C and D are replicated in other units so you now probably have about 200 shops and families in a premises suited/designed for 50. Unfortunately all are competing for a limited number of customers so none are viable – economic survival is not possible and never will be.
Then your estate agent says to you – “There is a new premises opening across town with far greater business opportunities, why don’t we offer to pay all the B,C and D sub-tenants to go over there and we will also pay the moving costs and help them set up shop. That will allow us to reclaim our shops and make them economically viable by reducing the number of occupancies. It also will enable us to merge some to provide bigger units and bring in anchor tenants . It’s a win-win.
What would you do?

That effectively is the choice faced by the landed estates in the Famine.
(and of course too many ‘centres’ were unviable, a NAMA body (Encumbered Estates Court) was formed, the mortgage holders and owners took a bath and vulture funds (big merchants) bought them up on the cheap.