340 Absenteeism, and the Edinburgh Rcvieiv. [Ai-iiii-, 



are remitted in specie" (here the writer himself assists us), still it is to 

 make no difference : for the demand in the Irish export market for commo- 

 dities, y}-o»z<^eco?/Hin/^o xvhichthis specie is sent, \\n\\ be so much increas- 

 ed." Why then it is clear that neither " Paris" nor "London "can maintain 

 an Irish absentee beyond a second meal, without sending an express 

 for beef — and for beef, particularly too, from Ireland. Perhaps, in the 

 event of a steam packet sinking, it might be possible to save the man 

 from starving by getting a iew cheeses over from Holland : though that 

 could only be if any Dutchman happened himself to be an " absentee," 

 for, or else, there could be none to spare I " Suppose," continues our 

 Reviewer, however, " that Lord Hertford's Irish property amounts to 

 £100,000 a year, is it not a matter of consummate indifference to 

 Ireland whether his Lordship consumes annually £100,000 worth of Irish 

 commodities in his seat in Ireland, or has an equivalent amount of them 

 sent to a London merchant on his account?" Or, " suppose that the 

 Duke of Leinster does not consume the identical beef and bread in 

 Grosvenor Square which he would use at Carlow, is not the difference 

 perfectly immaterial, inasmuch as he must still purchase an equiva- 

 lent amount of Irish commodities of some kind or other ?" Why 

 no; we think not. We do not think that this is "perfectly imma- 

 terial;" nor does it well appear w/ij/ England should want £100,000 

 worth a )fear more of Irish produce because the Marquess of Hertford 

 happens to live in London. If the noble INIarquess were in the habit of 

 eating, in his own person, £100,000 worth of bread and beef every year, 

 it might be something. Even if, with his fifty servants, he ate and drank 

 to this amount in beef and whiskey (including the consumption of new 

 shirts and potatoe bacon), he would be bestowing abundance upon fifty 

 persons (and perhaps their families) in England, while as many in 

 Ireland remained in want. But, in plain truth, as regards the real 

 disposal of this £100,000 of annual Irish income, what is the fact ? 

 what does become of it ? Is it, or is one-tenth of it, or one-hundredth 

 of it, expended in buying beef and corn ? Through how many hands 

 does it travel (melting and diminishing by so much as it leaves succes- 

 sively upon every one), before the smallest portion, even under that 

 limitation, which a conveyancer would characterize as too remote, reaches 

 the purchase of commodities supplied by Ireland? Is not the great 

 mass of a man of fortune's income laid out in luxuries — in waste ? — for 

 ministry and indulgence, which, wherever he is, must be purveyed to 

 him upon the spot, and of which the provision is not merely labour, but 

 profitable labour, to those who furnish it ? " How idle," says our political 

 economist (page 60), " to accuse absenteeism of lessening the demand for 

 labour I" — all that he (the economist) has done towards shewing the 

 absentee in the situation of furnishing labour, being, that he has shewn 

 him demanding that tribute which cannot be paid without it; upon which 

 principle, coming again to the skins of the potatoes, the most beneficial 

 absentee would be he who could exact most money from his tenants, and, 

 without entirely destroying, make them work the most incessantly. 



This above doctrine is one which the body of absentees ought at least 

 to vote the inventor a handsome gratuity for. But how long has labour, 

 per se, been all that men are entitled to hope for or demand? Because, if 

 the fact be so, our Reviewer would have no right to complain of any 

 political arrangement, which, instead of writing papers at great length, 

 to discuss what should be the subsistence of other people, should compel 



