1826.] Absenteeism, and the Edinburgh Revicvc. SS9 



Irish " raw products," or " manufactured goods," at London or Amster- 

 dam, was low. Excepting, however, that this power of remitting, when 

 convenient, directly in specie, must have a tendency to keep the amount 

 of floating capital in a country lower than it would be, the point, in 

 one way or the other, is of very little importance. Men are not, in the 

 abstract, made entirely content to pay all that may be demanded from 

 them, even although it be demonstrated that nothing is taken away 

 but their goods and their labour (because they have nothing else to 

 give). And the argument of the Edinburgh Reviewer, if it be good for 

 any thing, would go to shew that Ireland could have no reasonable 

 cause of complaint, if her whole population were employed in raising 

 potatoes, the insides of which were sent to England, and the skins only 

 — provided they woiUd support existence — relinquished for the growers 

 to feed upon. 



Theoretical reasoning gains far more than practical truth on the ex- 

 plosion of the " ridiculous opinion," that " the poverty of Ireland is 

 owing to the circumstimce of Irish beef being eaten, and Irish linen 

 worn, in London or Paris, rather than in Dublin or Cork." Of the beef 

 so exported, and eaten abroad, to pay the rent of the landlord, what 

 portion returns — unless under the doctrines of political economy — to aid 

 or advantage the original producer ? At farthest, he has, under the 

 existing regime, but his potatoe, his mud cottage, and the rag that 

 does (not) cover his nakedness ; it is difficult to believe that, under the 

 blindest conduct of human aftairs, he could have less than this, and the 

 lights of pohtical economy have furnished him with no more. But, leav- 

 hig questionable points, we come now to the assertion — that there is, 

 in fact, no difterence, as regards advantiige to Ireland, between the 

 conduct of the resident proprietor and the absentee ; because the for- 

 mer receives his £10,000 of rent in specie, and lays it out in the Irish 

 market for commodities which he consumes in Ireland ; and the latter 

 receives the rent by his agent, who buys in the Irish market commodi- 

 es, not to consume, but for exportation. This " laying out " — or 

 the necessity for it — is asserted ; but it is not all shewn ; nor, in 

 fiict, is it true. Because he who has received the money for an em- 

 ployer abroad, is bound by no necessity, or " micst," to buy commodi- 

 ties ; while he who has to pay the money is bound to sell them — and 

 at what price he can, which is likely to make some difference in the terms 

 of the bargain. But, take the case to be even as the writer puts it, and 

 how does it touch the merits of the question ? The resident proprietor 

 receives £10,000 from his tenants, and he will go into the Irish market 

 and buy an equal amount of Irish corn, beef, hats, or shoes." — " When 

 he is not resident, a merchant gets the £10,000, and lays out erery six- 

 pence of it" (for the export) " in Irish commodities, just as the landlord 

 did when he was at home." — " The resident landlord exchanges his re- 

 venue for commodities (Irish), which he imports into his house in Dublin, 

 and consumes there;" the absentee "exchanges his revenue for Irish 

 commodities, which he imports into, and consumes in his house in 

 London or Paris." This is the doctrine of the gentleman in Edin- 

 burgh Now this is very wretched stuff, taken in the most in- 

 dulgent view ; because, to make any thing like truth come out of the 

 fairest interpretation of it, we must declare that " London or Paris" 

 just produces, to an ounce, as much of commodity as its natural in- 

 habitants may live upon, and no more. " If the rents of the absentees 



2X2 



