the catalogue of those who have little to gain by maintaining the rights of property, to that of those who have everything to lose by their violation.  He, however, tells the landlords plainly that they will not obtain from the Imperial treasury the money necessary for the undertaking he recommends, unless they mortgage their estates, and pledge the county rates first.  “An Irish member,” he writes, “who would propose to apply ten millions of money to the reclamation of land in Ireland, would be laughed to scorn in the British legislature.  Yet Parliament would consent almost without a question—­perhaps amidst the cheers of all parties—­to the expenditure of this amount in piratical incursions, such as those made upon the inhabitants of Affghanistan, Scinde, Syria, and other nations, who have never injured us.”  The fourth letter is a continuation of the same subjects.  The fifth discusses the railway question, then in its infancy.  The sixth deals with public works and public instruction.  The public works which he specially discusses and recommends are—­internal navigation, and fishery piers and harbours; he does not enter into systems of education, he only calls for more liberal grants.  The seventh and concluding letter of the series is devoted to what the writer calls fiscal arrangements.  These letters showed much practical ability, and knowledge of the true wants of the country.  They were written in a calm moderate spirit, but, emanating from a man of his political views, they do not seem to have received the attention they deserved.

No doubt, the difficulty stated by Smith O’Brien, and approvingly quoted by the Prime Minister, did exist in the townland boundary scheme; it was, perhaps, as great a one as the boundary scheme in the Chief Secretary’s letter; but sacrifices should have been cheerfully submitted to on such a terrible occasion; and the greatest and realest difficulty of all was, that the landlords, as a body, had little or no sympathy with the people, and were not prepared to make sacrifices to save their lives.

[199] The following is Mr. D’Israeli’s account of the waste land reclamation proposal:  it does not, by any means, seem to be in accord with the spirit with which that proposal was received by Parliament:—­“In the course of the next ten days the Government measures of relief distinctly transpired.  One of these was a public undertaking to reclaim a portion of the waste lands of Ireland:  but it was finally proposed by the first Minister, sneered at a few days after by his own Chancellor of the Exchequer, and finally fell prostrate before a bland admonition from Sir Robert Peel, who was skilful always in detecting when the Cabinet was not confident in a measure, and by an adroit interposition often obtained the credit with the country of directing the Ministry, when really he had only discovered their foregone conclusion.”—­Lord George Bentinck:  a political biography, p. 367, 5th Edition.