Shortly after dusk a number of the unemployed labourers of the town assembled about the Court-House, asking to be employed next day on the public works, and expressing the privations they were enduring by reason of the want of employment hitherto and the high price of provisions. On hearing this, Mr. Little, resident magistrate, ordered the Court-House to be opened and lights brought, and in a few minutes a large concourse of them were collected in that building, when Mr. Little addressed the assemblage at some length, exhorting them to keep the peace, and promising speedy employment; after which, the people separated.'

Instances of this universal destitution, and of the wonderful patience with which it is all endured, are almost endless. Every Irish journal we take up teems with them. Nor are the accounts confined to newspaper authority merely, though that is by no means to be impugned. They are corroborated by representations made by the magistracy to the government, in the proceedings of sessional meetings, and in the reports of relief committees. Take, for example, the report of a meeting in the Court-house of Newtown Hamilton, on the 3rd of October, at which the Lord Lieutenant of the county, the Earl of Gosford, was present, along with a large body of the magistrates and clergy of the district :

'Rev. Mr. Lennon, P.P., said that in his parish, the half of Upper Creggan, there were fifty townlands, and that he had had a careful inquiry made, and found there were 4,000 individuals in a state of starvation. He had resided twenty-two years in the parish and knew every part of it intimately-they had no resident magistrate, landlord, or agent, and were not even represented on the grand jury.

The Earl of Gosford here read a letter from Mr. James O'Cal laghan, confirmatory of the Rev. Mr. Lennon's statement. His lordship said that starvation must be remedied, and that they should go at once into a vote of money to supply the want.

Rev. Mr. Lamb, P.P. of the other half of Upper Creggan, stated, that from authentic returns there were 4,050 souls in want of immediate relief, just on the eve of starvation.

Rev. Edward Densey bore his concurrent testimony to the state of distress, and entirely agreed with the former speakers as to the extent of it. In the parish there are from sixty to eighty families, of the Church of England, requiring immediate relief.

Henry Barker, Esq. said, that in addition to the number stated, at November they might expect a large increase of poor when the servants are sent home, in consequence of the distress of the small farmers.

The Rev. Mr. Brown, Presbyterian minister, quite agreed with all the previous statements, and did not think one of them exaggerated. There were of his congregation from eighty to ninety families in a state of destitution.'

A scene in the town of Galway, on Thursday, the 8th of

October, presents about as melancholy a picture as is to be met with in these illustrations of wretchedness. Cart-loads of Indian corn had been sent into Galway from Tuam and other places, to be ground into meal. As the carts were returning from the mills the famishing multitude rose up and insisted upon retaining it to satisfy their own hunger; but the Roman Catholic priest of the parish interposed, and had influence enough to induce them to desist, and the meal was allowed to be removed. There were some carts, however, behind the rest, laden with flour and meal.

The women,' says the account, frantic with hunger and the cries of their perishing children, rushed upon the provisions and endeavoured to plunder some of them. In doing so, one of the starving creatures, who had had only one meal for a day and a half previous, laid hold of the head of one of the horses, exclaiming that she would have some of the meal or lose her life. The driver at the same moment struck the horse with his whip, the result of which was that the unfortunate woman fell, when the wheel passed over her throat, killing her on the spot.'

That the object of these food riots, is simply what the term implies, is proved by the general character of their proceedings. The people, famishing in the midst of plenty, demand employment, that they may procure the means of subsistence, and would retain the stores of food amongst them that their wants may be supplied. The miserable wages of 8d. a day, they naturally enough objected to because, to quote the cry set up in answer to the offer of such wages at Bandon- What good is it?' Of what use, that is, to give them wages so low, in payment of their severe labour, as would fail to purchase food wherewith to recruit their own exhausted strength and keep alive their starving families? Eightpence a day, they knew, was insufficient at the present high price of provisions; with a shilling a day they might manage to subsist; and for this miserable pittance they would cheerfully toil, in order to earn their bread by the sweat of their brow.' The case was fairly stated by a deputation from the county of Cork, headed by the High Sheriff of the county and Sir James Anderson, in an interview with the premier, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The destitution of the peasantry in that fertile district was depicted in appalling, though not exaggerated terms; and her Majesty's ministers were frankly told that 'forbearance has its limits,'-that the people would be patient no longer, and that unless employment was provided at wages sufficient for the support of the working man and his family, it was impossible to preserve the peace,-for, in the words of Sir James Anderson, the people had resolved, unless government supplied

them with adequate and productive employment, to seize upon the cattle, sheep, and corn, of their wealthier neighbours.'

And now let us see how the case has been met by her Majesty's government. That it has been met with great earnestness, with signal energy, and with remarkable firmness, we shall not deny. To Lord Besborough, as her Majesty's viceroy, we would give every credit for his anxious, untiring, and in many respects well-directed efforts to mitigate, if not to subdue the terrible calamities of such a crisis. His excellency's bold but judicious determination to take upon himself the responsibility of remedying the defects of the Labour-rate Act, in applying its provisions to reproductive labour, has justly earned him the praise and gratitude of his country. Still there is the taint of the heartless system of the political economists, upon the government measures: there lacks the love of mercy,' if even there is some small 'doing of justice.' There is not so much a recognition of the sacred right of the poor man to subsistence, as of the mere expediency of providing it. They do not rise and give him because they are his friends, but because of his importunity they will rise and give him what he needeth.' They are ready, in an irresistible extremity, to 'avenge him of his adversary,' but only, it is to be feared, as did the judge in the parable, who said within himself, though I fear not God, nor regard man, yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.'

This may seem a harsh judgment to pass upon the government at such a time. It may appear to indicate a reckless disregard for the difficulties and anxieties of their position. But we apply it to the measures rather than the men. Their intentions may be good; but their system is most vicious.

Some very forcible elucidations of this system were given in the Economist of October 10th, a journal of great ability as an expositor of the political economy of the Whig government, and a sort of demi-official organ of their views, as well as advocate of their principles. We could scarcely, in fact, adduce a better authority. The journalist is remarking upon the Cork deputation's interview with Lord John Russell; and see how he is horror-struck at the idea of their urging so monstrous a principle as that of a fair day's wages for a fair day's work :?—

All the members of the deputation agree in condemning in the strongest terms the cautious foresight of the government in enacting that the wages paid on the public works shall be 2d. a day under the current wages of the district. The High Sheriff says, "the wages of Ireland are too low; they should never be less than 10d. or 1s. a day.” The priest pronounces the government rule "to be most fallacious and unjust. The price of labour is already too low in Ireland, and it ought

to be the endeavour of the government to give it an improved direction (1) The supply there is excessive and the demand almost nothing. Therefore labour cannot in the market bring a fair price, any more than the air we breathe or the water we drink. Therefore, the principle on which the wages of a working man should be calculated is, what is necessary for the support of himself and his family ! !" Finally, the whole deputation in chorus assures his lordship that "forbearance has its limits," that the people will be patient no longer, but, in the words of Sir James Anderson, "have resolved, unless government supply them with adequate and productive employment, to seize upon the cattle, sheep, and corn of their wealthier neighbours!" Probably Lord John Russell, though he has sat in parliament for thirty years, never listened to so deplorable a string of shallow and fatal fallacies. God help the unhappy people whose chiefs and leaders can profess ethical and economical principles like these!'

Is it possible to imagine a more heartless commentary than this? Employment is asked for a starving people, as the means of enabling them to subsist; and because it is with reason and justice urged, that the principle on which the wages of a working man should be calculated is what is necessary for the support of himself and his family,' propositions so fair, so rational, and so merciful, are stigmatized as a deplorable string of shallow and fatal fallacies!' The sentiment is entirely worthy of a Malthusian philosopher-of a disciple of one who has declared that the poor man has no claim of right on society for the smallest portion of food, beyond what his labour would fairly purchase'-that he has no business to be where he is,' forasmuch as that he is an 'unbidden guest at nature's feast!'

But the paradoxes of these high-flown professors of the only true ethical and economical principles' are quite as rank, as their tender mercies are cruel. As did Pharaoh to the oppressed Israelites, so do they to the starving Irish. Ye are idle; ye are idle;' is their constant complaint. And they say 'there shall no straw be given you, yet shall ye deliver the tale of bricks.' Ye shall work, that is, yet shall ye not have the subsistence requisite to support you in your toil. Here is a paradox as monstrous, as its infliction is inhuman. When the starving poor of Skibbereen, for instance, exhibit their discontent, alleging that 'they could not earn 4d. a day at the rate of employment, and that all they wanted was 8d. a day;' and replying to the promise of 8d. a day the next week, We cannot exist until next week: our children and our wives are dying of hunger after us.'—our Economist is fired with indignation at the bare suggestion of a principle so un-ethical and un-economical, and gives vent to his wrath in the following denunciation :

Now here we have the extraordinary and most disreputable specta

cle of a people to whom work is afforded out of charity, dictating, by violence, to those who at their own expense are providing them with that work, what rate of wages they shall pay-a mendicant dictating to his benefactor the exact sum he shall bestow upon him! This is not to be borne, and we are very glad to see that at length the Lord Lieutenant has issued a proclamation announcing that if this conduct is persisted in the public works shall be suspended.'

And see how liberally this benevolent Economist would order the matter of subsistence for a hard-toiling Irishman. One man,' is the economic exclamation, in one of the tumultuous demands for higher wages, declared that 8d. a day was not sufficient, that he should want 6d. of it for his own food, which would leave only 2d. for his wife and children!' Such a murmur as this is arrant blasphemy, according to the ethical principles' of political economy; and, to illustrate its atrocity, the Economist proceeds to show how the toil-worn peasant may live comfortably on a basin of gruel a day.

'Indian meal, even at its present greatly enhanced rate, is selling at 2d. per pound, and one pound of it, mixed with 4 pints of water, will make four pounds of very sufficing food, of which two pounds is on an average a fair supply per day for each member of a family-not perhaps as much as they would like to eat, but sufficient for life and health.'

Such are the very words. O, that these political economists could themselves be placed on such a diet for a month! While to the cold-blooded treatment prescribed is added the stern entreaty,

'That the government will be firm and resolute to these three principles: first, to keep the wages they offer below the usual wages of the district; second, to exact task-work wherever practicable; and, thirdly, to allow the price of food to find its natural level.'

And to these three humane and generous principles of political economy the government is firm and resolute. Lord John Russell, it is true, did hold out a promise that private speculation in food should be checked wherever it exceeded fair and reasonable profits. But although provisions have been raised by such speculation to most unreasonable prices, thus literally trading on the miseries of the poor, the government will not give way, lest it should check commercial enterprise!' or, in other words, give offence to the mammon of unrighteousness !' A letter was read at a recent meeting of the Repeal Association in Dublin, from the Rev. Michael Waldren, Roman Catholic priest of Greg, in the county of Mayo, calling attention to this aggravation of the public distress.