So much for the moral and social aspect of Absenteeism.  Now, let us examine, a little, the ground taken up by Mr. J.R.  M’Culloch, who maintains that, according to the accepted principles of political economy, the fact of Irish landed proprietors residing out of their country inflicts no injury upon it.  For Mr. Prior’s views on Absenteeism he manifests great contempt, but treats himself with a kind of respectful commiseration, as being, in spite of his ignorance of political economy, “a gentleman in other respect—­of great candour and good sense.”  He quotes his assertion that the aggregate of the absentee rents, amounting then to L627,799 annually, was entirely sent to the Absentee landlords in treasure, “which,” continues Mr. Prior, “is so great a burthen upon Ireland that I believe there is not in history an instance of any one country paying so large a yearly tribute (!) to another.”  The parenthetic note of astonishment is Mr. M’Culloch’s, who says, with regard to this passage, “it would really seem that in this, as in some other things, the universality and intensity of belief has been directly as the folly and falsehood of the thing believed."[315]

It was in his examination in 1825, before a Parliamentary Committee, that Mr. M’Culloch put forward his views on Irish Absenteeism.  He was asked this question:  “Supposing the largest export of Ireland were in live cattle, and that a considerable portion of rent had been remitted in that manner, does not such a mode of producing the means of paying rent, contribute less to the improvement of the poor than any extensive employment of them in labour would produce?” He replies:  “Unless the means of paying rent are changed when the landlord goes home, his residence can have no effect whatever.”  “Would not,” he is asked, “the population of the country be benefited by the expenditure among them of a certain portion of the rent, which (if he had been absent) would have been remitted (to England)?” “No,” he replies, “I do not see how it could be benefited in the least.  If you have a certain value laid out against Irish commodities in the one case, you will have a certain value laid out against them in the other.  The cattle are either exported to England or they stay at home.  If they are exported the landlord will obtain an equivalent for them in English commodities; it they are not he will obtain an equivalent for them in Irish commodities; so that in both cases the landlord lives on the cattle, or on the value of the cattle:  and whether he lives in Ireland or England there is obviously just the very same amount of commodities for the people of Ireland to subsist upon."[316] Mr. Senior exposes this fallacy in the following words; “This reasoning assumes that the landlord, whilst resident in Ireland, himself personally devours all the cattle produced on his estates; for, on no other supposition can there be the very same amount of commodities for the people of Ireland to subsist upon, whether their cattle are