Talk:Sir Charles Trevelyan, 1st Baronet

Trevelyan's role in the UK Potato Famine

I don't have a lot of time to do fact-checking and the like right now, but something some folks might want to read up on for inclusion -- Trevelyan (a real rat bastard, though that's probably not exactly scholarly to say) was big on Malthusian ideals, saw it as population control. Might be an interesting point for the article. --Blacken 03:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of the article is uncontentious, but Trevelyan's role in the UK Potato Famine is far too brief. His attitude seems unbelievable today, due to his belief that it should be seen as a judgement of God, and his deliberate inaction undoubtedly increased the number of people who starved to death. All of this requires more lengthy treatment. User Pete Stephens, 29 March 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.229.152 (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone more scholarly than I really should add in more details about the specificities of his role in the famine. The Guardian today ("New play examines..") speaks of him closing vital soup kitchens and then going on holiday to the Loire, complaining he was overworked. If he gets named in the unofficial Irish national anthem, someone should add in the details- I lack the necessary authoritative sources here "He closed down the soup kitchens in 1847, half way through the famine, and then went off for a family holiday to the Loire valley complaining of "two years of such continuous hard work as I have never had." He thought the famine was a mechanism for reducing surplus population and, unlike with previous famines where the ports had been closed to stop food being exported, kept the ports busy and helped ensure that Ireland was a net exporter of beef and grain throughout the famine – for example, 6624 barrels of oats were exported from Kilrush to Glasgow during the first nine months of 1847."

A little late but I've taken the liberty of changing the title and I'll admit I was utterly shocked when I first read of his role in the disaster. Robert Kee's magnificent book, 'Ireland – A Television History' is scholarly and doesn't mince words saying Trevelyan's cost effective response to criticism was to start praying loudly. JRPG (talk) 08:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Famine and overall biography

This article is partly drawn from the D.N.B. and partly from revisionist sources. It is half laudatory and half condemnatory. Through no fault of the people who have put it together, it is virtually incoherent and needs to be completely rewritten.Bigturtle (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Newer Sources?

This article badly needs to be rewritten. Maybe using some more recent sources would help? There's a wealth of material out there on Trevelyan's policies, actions and opinions during the famine, none of which is cited here.

The lead paragraph should make it clear that he bore a great deal of personal responsibility for the deaths of a million people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:7E00:9F4:D423:5B23:8FD0:EACD (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

(Also, he's listed in the 'Trevelyan' disambiguation page as being 'responsible for the Great Famine in Ireland'. I seriously doubt anybody could make the case that that's the scholarly consensus.) Seanwillsalt (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have access to the sources you mention, please go ahead and rewrite the article using them. I've shortened his entry in the Trevelyan disambig page in line with MOS:DAB. Qwfp (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

'mechanism for reducing surplus population'

This quote is attributed to Trevelyan, sourced from the MultiText Project in Irish History at University College Cork. However, that source does not state where this quote was published. Furthermore, I cannot find any use of this quote prior to 2006 with Google Books. It doesn't appear in his 1848 book, The Irish Crisis. I have my doubts. If someone can furnish the original source of this quote, that would be useful. - Crosbie 17:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay I've removed this sentence from the page:

In the middle of the Irish famine, Trevelyan wrote that the famine was a "mechanism for reducing surplus population," a view apparently influenced by the thought of Thomas Robert Malthus.

I can't find this quote in any book prior to 2008 - so I suspect it is, as you suggest, a spurious quotation. I'm sure there are plenty of accurate quotations which can be added to the page to demonstrate that he was a complete git, without the need for made-up ones. :) Pasicles (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I can source that quote, and many more besides. If the British aristocracy apologist Wikipedia wonks (of which I personally know of at least 6) want to go to war with me on this (not you, Pasicles, have no fear), they can feel free. I don't give a shit how many featured articles you've produced, there's dozens of legitimate sources attesting to Trevelyan's all-encompassing Whig love of laissez-faire capitalism, which dovetailed nicely with his racist disgust for the Irish, who he saw as "selfish, perverse and turbulent". In short, by submitting to the English absentee landlords, they had brought it all on themselves. Court Appointed Shrub (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Court Appointed Shrub has hand 10 years to provide a source but has failed to do so. The quote does not appear in the 3 sources given. I’m deleting it. Cheezypeaz (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

POV lead

The lead of this article is highly non-neutral. The opening paragraphs go out of their way to attack Trevelyan and his defenders (described as 'British aristocracy apologists') in a way that's not consistent with our WP:NPOV policy. The facts stated in the lead are true, but there must be a more neutral way of putting them. Wikipedia biographies shouldn't say 'this was an evil man'; they should simply state the facts as fairly as possible, recognising different points of view, and leave the reader to draw their own conclusions. The lead here needs to be rewritten in line with this approach. Robofish (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this still an issue? As part of a wider cleanup (sorting out references, number format etc) I looked at this and think some attempts have been made (certainly in the lead) to present different sides of the views about this man. Is more needed or can the POV & neutrality banner be removed?— Rod ^talk 17:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:Rodw, and thanks for your work on this article. I meant to work on it myself but forgot about doing so. It's now clearly is in a much better state than when I first came across it and left the comment above. There are still some issues though:

- The lead may now be more neutral, but the problem with the first quote ('Trevelyan's most enduring mark on history...') is that it isn't actually a quote. Those words don't appear anywhere in the source given. The source does describe him as racist and anti-Irish, but not 'quasi-genocidal'. I think that bit needs to be rewritten entirely.

- The text of the article still looks a bit partisan in places to me, with lines like 'this had the obvious effect of radically restructuring Irish rural society along the lines of the capitalistic model preferred by British policy-makers' seeming more like opinion than fact. Emotional phrases like 'the full dreadful scope of the famine' ought to be avoided.

I removed that line as it is uncited and the claim is far from obvious at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LastDodo (talk • contribs) 13:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I should say that I have no special interest in Trevelyan myself - indeed, I don't have any expertise in the topic, which is one of the reasons why I haven't edited the article myself. And I think most of the contents of the article are indisputable. It just needs a bit more work to reach Wikpiedia's neutrality standards in my view. Robofish (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Would you or any of the other editors be prepared to work on this? I have no special interest of expertise in the area either and only found it as it appears as one of several articles with multiple issues on the WP Somerset cleanup listing.— Rod ^talk 20:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Good free/cheap source for potato famine

The 1980 book by Robert Kee was written to accompany the RTE/BBC series on Ireland and has been praise for impartiality by Catholic & UK sources. I found Chapter 5 a profound shock. The book is still recommended reading. ISBN-10: 0349120811 ISBN-13: 978-0349120812 Obituary: Robert Kee
I don't use YouTube much but the famine chapter is included. JRPG (talk) 08:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

"misinterpretation" of how bad the Famine was

This all reads like massive pov, an attempt to portray British actions as mere ineptitude. There is an abundance of evidence, much of it from Trevelyan's own mouth, that the British government was quite happy for the "Famine" to happen. Please read this article for a sample of quotes where Trevelyan rejoices at what his government's policy was bringing about. Press 'ctrl' and 'f' and 'Treve' for a quick taste: http://www.historyireland.com/the-famine/the-great-famine-and-its-interpreters-old-and-new/ 188.141.10.11 (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll do that shortly. I've read Robert Kee's account -which was a BBC/RTE joint tv program -and everyone I have read the famine chapter to struggles to believe it ..and is then appalled at its sheer wickedness. Kee starts off "It was an experience for the Irish people that is sometimes seen as comparable in its impact on the popular national consciousness to that of the German's final solution on the Jews." Kee then proceeds to blame Trevelyan -though the Government was ultimately responsible. Note the main page on Wikipedia is Great Famine (Ireland) and we shouldn't duplicate that. Our own views aren't important as we should have a wp:neutral point of view but I think Trevelyan and the Government were proud of what they did. If you want to add content about Trevelyan including his views on the famine, I'll try and help. I would suggest you registered though. Regards JRPG (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that it would be good to review this article. My ancestors were on the receiving end of Trevelyan's solution to the famine which spread to the Highlands of Scotland. I am currently researching a page on the Highland and Island Emigration Society - largely a creation of Trevelyans - which I hope to contribute to WP in the next few weeks. The truth is that the problems of the time were complex and Trevelyan was a complex man - neither a philanthropic saint, nor an evil villain. This article needs to meticulously avoid any POV and stick rigorously to well sourced facts, allowing each reader to make their own informed judgement of Trevelyan's legacy. Quoting from the final comments of an excellent source (MacMillan, David (1963). "Sir Charles Trevelyan and the Highland and Island Emigration Society, 1849-1859". Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society 49.) that I recently added to the article:

Trevelyan's own personality is enigmatic, with its undertones of racial prejudice and authoritarianism. He could defend his emigrants against the criticisms of Robert Lowe and the critics of his schemes in New South Wales, but he could also contemplate with satisfaction "the prospect of flights of Germans settling here in increasing numbers - an orderly, moral, industrious and frugal people, less foreign to us that the Irish or Scotch Celt, a congenial element which will readily assimilate with our body politic". He certainly believed that he was benefiting both Britain and the Highlanders, for he wrote on another occasion, "The Irish and Scotch, especially the latter, do much better when they have a fresh start in other countries, and become mixed up with other people, than when they stay at home".

Camerojo (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Having reread the article (& quite a bit more), it seems quite clear that Trevelyan thought he was doing the best job possible i.e. the UK government didn't misunderstand the severity of the famine & nor can I see a source that suggests it did. I agree with User talk:188.141.10.11, I'm therefore removing the sentence & its wp:npov citation as per wp:brd. Please discuss. JRPG (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I have just published the page on the Highland and Island Emigration Society mentioned earlier which perhaps provides some information on Trevelyan's motivations. Camerojo (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Following this discussion and the removal of some of the claims made, can the "neutrality" & "cleanup" banner be removed now?— Rod ^talk 10:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would support that. Why don't you make a "bold edit" and remove the banner? If others want to object they can. Camerojo (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

"Letter of Charles Edward Trevelyan to Thomas Spring-Rice, Lord Mounteagle"

In a bid to provide reading assistance, I hereby furnish a link to the text of a letter of Charles Edward Trevelyan to Thomas Spring-Rice, Lord Mounteagle: https://web.archive.org/web/20060502032402/http://multitext.ucc.ie:80/d/Letter_of_Charles_Edward_Trevelyan_to_Thomas_Spring-Rice_Lord_Mounteagle

Perhaps there exists some other letter, in which Trevelyan says quite other things than those written here, and if not, one can of course simply make them up! - Remedial Reading Assistant (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

ah one could, but this imaginary letter would need references. A good find! Edmund Patrick – confer 07:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Irish language - feudal language?

QUOTE: A letter from Trevelyan to Lord Monteagle of Brandon and an article in The Times reinforced Trevelyan's belief that Ireland needed to heal itself from within, without the substantial aid from the British Government. END OF QUOTE

In a book on Malabar in South Asia, it is seen mentioned that that the traditional Irish social system is similar to that of Malabar. This can only point to some kind of language code similarity. The basic code similarity would be that both are feudal languages. Malabari and Irish.

Introduction not very Encyclopedia like

The attempt to maintain neutrality in the introduction by providing a positive and negative quote is not a very professional way of achieving that goal. The two quotes don't even contradict one another. Trevelyan can be responsible both for much of the consequences of the Irish potato famine, *and* the reform of the British civil service. It would surely be better if both things are mentioned in the opening paragraph as both are important legacies. The fact that he did good and bad things is not the same as saying that he 'divides opinion'.

I have thus gone ahead and slightly re-written the introduction. I think it will need a little improvement, historians may quibble about words like 'instrumental'. LastDodo (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The lead is terrible. The quotations should both be removed. And we certainly don't need "Trevelyan never expressed remorse for his comments..." in the lead. Srnec (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, though some words / phrases may need to be reconsidered (e.g. deliberately dragged his feet) the lead of any article is there to give a factual, brief introduction to and any major events / beliefs that defined the subject. I will also take a look next week. Yours Edmund Patrick – confer 08:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with editors who do not believe such quotes are appropriate in the Lead. Summarize the facts - leave such character quotes to the body of the article.Parkwells (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I concur with above. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with the above. The quotations and introductory section of the article feel totally out of place. This article needs serious improvement in regards to neutrality. Rsemmes92 (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Feudal language content in Celtic languages

QUOTE: The real evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the Famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people" END OF QUOTE.

The character mentioned about is consistent with the social behaviour connected to feudal languages.

There is another curious information that is seen in a book on Malabar of South Asia. The quote is a comparison between Irish land and Malabar land (actually the whole of SouthAsia has this problem in the languages).

QUOTE from Malabar and its folks by: T. K. Gopal Panikkar with an introduction by the REV. F. W. KELLETT, M. A, (of the Madras Christian College)

Ireland and Irish history present similar and not less striking points of resemblance to Malabar and its history. Ireland is essentially a priest-ridden country. Its people, the great bulk of them, are immersed in the darkest depths of ignorance and superstition. With the exception of the Protestant county of Ulster, Ireland is a Roman Catholic country dominated by Roman Catholic priests who hold in their hands the keys of all social and political powers.

It is, said that even parliamentary elections are surreptitiously controlled by the mystic influence which they wield over the souls of a people given over to the worst forms of superstition; and this was put forward as one of the main grounds against the late Mr. Gladstone’s Home Rule Schemes during their progress through Parliament. The superstitious Irish are terrorized into obedience to the will of these priests, who actually stand at the gates of the unlettered and slavish electors calling down the wrath of Heaven upon those who dared to disobey their superhuman mandates. Thus even Irish Politics are under the control of these Roman Catholic priests. Such is the power which the priestly classes wield over the minds and deeds of the Irish people.

The Irish Land Question is another instance of history repeating itself in an alien clime. The land in Ireland is owned by large proprietors who tease and oppress their tenants to the uttermost. Evictions are sadly too numerous ; and the lamentations of the poor Grubstreet author in the Deserted Village about a century and a quarter ago, really though not ostensibly directed against Irish landlordism, are too true even in our own day. Hack -renting has been one of the main features of the Irish Land Question. The Irish tenants have all along been a down-trodden class and the problem of the Irish land has always remained a knotty and intricate one baffling the political skill of England’s greatest statesmen. All the various Land Acts passed from time to time for the amelioration of the condition of the landholding classes in the country have proved of little or no avail; and a workable and satisfactory scheme yet remains to be devised. The Irish tenant is often fleeced to more than the annual yield of the land in the shape of rent.

Suffice it to say, that the Irish tenants are under the oppressive control of their landlords.

As an inevitable consequence of the atrocities to which the Irish landholders are subjected at the hands of the landed aristocracy we see repeated instances of plebeian uprisings in vindication of humanity and justice. The Irish are a bold and reckless class to whose unquenchable thirst of revenge are due the various outbreaks that have from time to time tarnished the pages of their national history. Precious lives have often been sacrificed at the sacred altar of social and political wrongs. People have been locked up within the prison walls for breaches of the peace; and the country has had to be constantly brought into subjection by the Coercion Acts which Parliament had to enforce against these dangerous ebullitions of fanaticism. These Coercion Acts, though aimed at in the direction of Order and Reform, have always remained, in the estimation of many a politician, a standing blot upon the fair fame and prestige of Britain’s sway over Ireland. In all these various outbreaks the Land Question has figured prominently as one of the essential and pre-disposing causes.

In these aspects of its social life, Malabar stands level with the “tortured” land of Erin. With regard to the sacerdotal supremacy detailed above it may be surmised that Malabar is equally a priest-ridden country even from its origin. The traditional history of the land is put forward justification of the plea that it belongs in exclusive monopoly

END OF QUOTE.

An analysis of this issue has been done in this book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D303:A395:C01:F8A7:F34E:5F7F (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Soft peddling Sir Charles role in the Potato Famine

Sir Charles and the Brits, in general, have the blood of 1M Irish on their hands but “it is the victor who writes the history and counts the dead”. 2603:6000:B843:4FFC:910D:4783:FA6B:4EBF (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Slavery role / ancestors

Recent news about Trevelyan family and slavery has meant people are including the info on his page and calling him a slaveholder. As far I can see from the compensation records it was the generation before like his father Rev. George Trevelyan who received the money for having held slaves. Some of the edits say he was a slaveholder but there is no record for that and plus the fact his wife was the daughter of an abolitionist. This is not to say he didn't benefit financially when his father died but he seems his the majority of his wealth derived from a uncle who had no children. More research is needed on this and whether his uncle also had slaves. See The Centre for the Study of the Legacies of British Slavery database for more. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/person/view/2146636918/#relationships Heloeheod34 (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Trevelyan's role in the Famine

After recounting Trevelyan's role in the British Government's inaction in response to the Famine, the article on the Famine states that "On 27 December 1846, Trevelyan ordered every available steamer to Ireland to assist in relief, and on 14 January 1847, Pigot received orders to also distribute supplies from the British Relief Association and treat them identically to government aid. In addition, some naval officers under Pigot oversaw the logistics of relief operations further inland from Cork. In February 1847, Trevelyan ordered Royal Navy surgeons dispatched in order to provide medical care for those suffering from illnesses that accompanied starvation, distribute medicines that were in short supply on the island, and assist in proper, sanitary burials for those already deceased. These efforts, although significant, were insufficient at preventing mass mortality from famine and disease." It seems incongruous to have this quote in the general article on the Famine, yet not refer to these actions in the specific article on Trevelyan. Normally one would expect an article on something specific to contain more info than an article that covers a broader subject. I know that this is a highly emotive subject, and I am not trying to exonerate Trevelyan in any way for his decisions in respect of food aid and the terrible consequences that stemmed from it. I also cannot vouch for the accuracy of the quote. I just wanted to point out the incongruity. I was also curious as to whether Trevelyan's attitude changed at the end of 1846, at about the time when the British government did what it should have done at the beginning: intervened with direct relief. Theeurocrat (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

NOT laissez-faire.

It is utterly bizarre to describe the heavy Poor Law taxation under Trevelyan as "laissez-faire" - especially as the Poor Law Tax was only introduced in 1838 (the system of state schools in Ireland was introduced after 1831), under Trevelyan in the late 1840s the tax massively increased with areas not dependent on the potato being forced to bail out areas that were (thus dragging down Ireland in general). Those who describe a policy of tax-and-spend as "laissez-faire" do not know what the term "laissez-faire" means. 2A02:C7C:E183:AC00:40C6:A84E:A83D:9A72 (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Trevelyan seems to have had typical Victorian attitudes towards the poor -- which often included strict moralistic and other criteria separating the "deserving" and "undeserving poor", the idea that all or almost all forms of charity or "relief" had a "pauperizing" effect of creating dependency, the maxim that the condition of the best-off man on "relief" always had to be worse than the condition of the worst-off employed man, or otherwise workers would resign their jobs en masse to live on handouts, etc. Many people's idea of government economic intervention on behalf of the poor was pretty much the bare minimum that would keep large numbers of people from starving, so it was "laissez-faire" in that sense (even if poor rates were relatively high in some local parishes). You can see it in Dickens -- Betty Higden's fanatical determination to stay out the workhouse at all costs in Our Mutual Friend, the attitudes of Mr. Gradgrind in Hard Times (novel) etc. And of course in Ireland, the government's efforts were not even enough to keep large numbers of people from starving... AnonMoos (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC on Quote

There is a question into the validity of a quote in the article Sir Charles Trevelyan, 1st Baronet as shown in difference Special:Diff/1215143082. Edmund Patrick – confer 08:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Find better sources or remove quote: I am not convinced that the sources currently supporting the quote are sufficiently reliable. I have tried looking for a solid source and I have not managed to find anything I have access to. I am not opposed to the quote staying if we find a reliable enough source for it.

Jtrrs0 (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. The quote appears valid enough, given that it appears on parliament.uk. I would be in favour of removing the references to irishnews.com and irishdaily.com as neither of those seem reputable, but I have see no reason to doubt the validity of the quote on the official website for the UK government.

Xx78900 (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

For further clarification, a quick Google search has unearthed this article in The Independent which predates the Irish News and Irish Daily sources by 25 years, so we can at least rule out the possibility of them having invented the quote. Also on the page for The Fields of Athenry, the quote is currently attributed to The Great Hunger by Cecil Woodham-Smith, published 1962, though unhelpfully does not include a page number. Xx78900 (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Further digging at the library has proved fruitless re: finding the quote in the Woodham-Smith source, however I have found this article from 1960 on JSTOR (quote on page 99), but this quote is indeed sourced to another text and it is unclear if it is a quote from the author of the 1960 article or Trevelyan. The hunt continues.Xx78900 (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot) This source (accessible via WP:TWL) by John McCourt also gives this quote as part of a larger quote and cites it as Quoted in Cecil Woodham Smith, The Great Hunger (London: Penguin, 1991), 156. I could only find the 1962 edition of the book rather than the 1991 copy, but page 156 seems to verify only the second part of the quote that begins The real evil with which we have to contend... though the Woodham-Smith book says The great evil... (emphasis added). The Woodham-Smith book cites two references for this quote so I'll try to find those to see if maybe this part of the quote is included in those. - Aoidh (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm finding sources like The Independent and searching on GBooks certainly returns many results (of varying reliability) attributing the quote to him, but from what I can tell that quote is not present in the 1962 edition of the Woodham-Smith book. I also can't find the exact origin of the quote, which isn't evidence that it wasn't said, just that I can't find it. - Aoidh (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Governmental sources would generally be considered reliable, but I'm concerned by the fact that the parliament.uk page gives no indication of when or where Trevelyan said this. As for Woodham-Smith, neither the 1962 nor the 1991 edition of his work contain this quote. See an earlier discussion on this topic. Zacwill (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

As no editor has added anything to this discussion and that the article has remained in its present form for some time would those involved be happy if the discussion was closed? Thank you one and all. Edmund Patrick – confer 10:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The quote was spurious as demonstrated with this edit by me. It was finally removed by Zacwill yesterday with this edit. So yes, the discussion should be closed. Carlstak (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Quotation incorrectly suggests Irish / Scottish bias?

Regarding the "letter addressing the situation in Scotland dated 29 April 1846" that letter is available online, and I don't see what it has to do with Scotland. It appears to discuss food delivery to Ireland, and contrary to the claim of this article Trevalyan refers to the Irish, not the Scottish, when he says "the people must not, under any circumstances, be allowed to starve."

See https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015009202253&seq=137&q1=under+any+circumstances top of page 125.

Perhaps the author of this text can explain why my reading is incorrect. If not this section needs revision. JBradleyChen (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)