Against this Act several
arguments were employed, and, for the most part, very cogent ones. 1. It
was said that as the country was taxed for the whole outlay, whatever it
might be, the Government had no right to apply the money to unprofitable
works, thus taking from our capital (already far too small) a vast sum
that could not return to it. 2. Moreover, no matter whence the money
came, it was urged that to employ it on barren works was wrong in
principle, especially in a country like Ireland, with millions of
reclaimable acres, which would, if brought under cultivation, return in
almost every case ten per cent, for capital expended. 3. Again, it was
put forward with reason, that the employment for the past year was meant
to relieve transient distress only; but now the case was very
different--a new, a far more extensive and complete failure of the
potato had occurred. There was now no question of transient distress;
the potato, the principal--almost the only--food of five millions of the
people of Ireland, had not only failed a second time, but, to all
appearance, had failed permanently and finally: such was the
apprehension at the moment. In face of that alarming state of things,
why talk of cutting down hills, or of making useless roads,--provide
rather some substitute for the doomed esculent, and let the labour-power
of the country be, at least in the first instance, employed upon it, to
secure food for the next year.
Pages:
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313