As the sentence stands in his letter, it
is strangely inexact. 1. In case one portion of the people had raised
more food than was required for their own wants--a most common case,
they would not surely starve by the fact of the Government buying their
surplus for another portion who were starving--no, but they would thank
the Government very much for buying it. There would be no danger of
their finding fault with the quality of their customer, provided they
got their price. 2. What are Governments for, if not for the good of the
people?--and the Government that sees millions of its people dying of
starvation, with none others to help them, neglect the very first duty
of a Government--the _salus populi_--unless they make all the efforts in
their power to relieve and save them. 3. Besides, to feed one part of
the people--the starving Irish people--is just the thing Lord John's
Government did attempt to do, although badly. There is, moreover, a
fallacy in calling the Irish people, in every instance, a class of
people of the United Kingdom, for they have often been, and still are,
treated as a distinct and separate nation, or class of people. In such a
case it is assumed that our interests and those of England and Scotland
are identical, whereas they are no such thing.
Pages:
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429