¹ See, e.g., Cornford, J., “Constitutional Reform in the U. K.,” in The State and the Nations: The Politics of Devolution, ed. Tindale, S. (London, 1996), pp. 38–46Google Scholar; S. Tindale, “Devolution on Demand: Options for the English Regions and London,” in ibid., pp. 47–71; P. Murphy and R. Caborn, “Regional Government: An Economic Imperative,” in ibid., pp. 184–221.

² For some historical perspectives on relationships between economic policy and U.K. state formation in the political science literature, see Hechter, M., Internal Colonialism: The Celtic Fringe in British National Development, 1536–1966 (London, 1975)Google Scholar; Page, E., “Michael Hechter's Internal Colonial Thesis: Some Theoretical and Methodological Problems,” European Journal of Political Research 6 (1978): 295–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Smout, C., “Centre and Periphery in History; with Some Thoughts on Scotland as a Case Study,” Journal of Common Market Studies 18 (1980): 256–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bulpitt, J., Territory and Power in the United Kingdom: An Interpretation (Manchester, 1983), esp. pp. 34–44, 70–99Google Scholar.

³ For various approaches to the concept of “laissez-faire,” see Brady, A., William Huskisson and Liberal Reform: An Essay on the Changes in Economic Policy in the Twenties of the Nineteenth Century (Oxford, 1928)Google Scholar; Hilton, A. J. B., Corn, Cash, Commerce: The Economic Policies of the Tory Governments, 1815–1830 (Oxford, 1977)Google Scholar; Brown, L., The Board of Trade and the Free Trade Movement, 1830–1842 (Oxford, 1958)Google Scholar.

⁴ See, e.g., Matthew, H. C. G., Gladstone, 1809–1874 (Oxford, 1986), pp. 103–48Google Scholar, and Gladstone, 1875–1898 (Oxford, 1995), pp. 316–19Google Scholar; Biagini, E., Liberty, Retrenchment and Reform: Popular Liberalism in the Age of Gladstone, 1860–1880 (Cambridge, 1992), esp. pp. 84–138Google Scholar; Howe, A. C., Free Trade and Liberal England, 1846–1946 (Oxford, 1997)Google Scholar.

⁵ Harling, P. and Mandler, P., “From ‘Fiscal-Military’ State to Laissez-faire State, 1760–1850,” Journal of British Studies 32 (1993): 44–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a sweeping examination of the fiscal-military state, see Brewer, J., The Sinews of Power: War, Money, and the English State, 1688–1783 (London, 1989), esp. pp. 163–217Google Scholar.

⁶ See in particular Harling, P., The Waning of “Old Corruption”: The Politics of Economical Reform in Britain, 1779–1846 (Oxford, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ While emphasizing the primacy of the financial motive behind Pitt's reform of the whiskey excise, V. E. Dietz also insisted on recognizing the economic dimension of public policy in “The Politics of Whisky: Scottish Distillers, the Excise, and the Pittite State,” Journal of British Studies 36 (1997): 35–69, esp. 37–45, 68–69Google Scholar.

⁸ Mathias, P. and O'Brien, P., “Taxation in Britain and France, 1715–1810: A Comparison of the Social and Economic Incidence of Taxes Collected for the Central Governments,” Journal of European Economic History 5 (1976): 601–50Google Scholar; O'Brien, P., “The Political Economy of British Taxation, 1660–1815,” Economic History Review, 2d ser., 41, no. 1 (1988): 1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹ O'Brien noted a “penumbra of objectives” surrounding the primacy of finance; see “The Political Economy of British Taxation, 1660–1815,” p. 23.

¹⁰ On the British fiscal state in the eighteenth century, see Brewer's magisterial survey, The Sinews of Power, pp. 88–134, 167–217. For a small sample of an extensive literature on regulation and protectionism, see Brock, W. R., The Effect of the Loss of the American Colonies on British Policy (London, 1957)Google Scholar; Barnes, D. G., A History of the English Corn Laws (London, 1930)Google Scholar; Magnusson, L., Mercantilism: The Shaping of an Economic Language (London, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ Report Respecting the British Fisheries (1798), in House of Commons Sessional Papers of the Eighteenth Century, ed. Lambert, S., 147 vols. (Wilmington, Del., 1975–), 108:408Google Scholar.

¹² For revised assessments of the influence of laissez-faire on economic interest groups, see Turner, M. J., “Before the Manchester School: Economic Theory in Early Nineteenth-Century Manchester,” History 79 (1994): 216–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Howe, A. C., “Free Trade and the City of London, c. 1820–1870,” History 77 (1992): 391–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the limited intellectual influence of laissez-faire, see Burrow, J. W., Whigs and Liberals: Continuity and Change in English Political Thought (Oxford, 1988)Google Scholar; Gordon, B., Political Economy in Parliament, 1819–1823 (London, 1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Economic Doctrine and Tory-Liberalism (London, 1979)Google Scholar. For an important reevaluation of the state's interventions in the nineteenth-century economy, see Alborn, T., Conceiving Companies: Joint Stock Politics in Victorian England (London, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ Bayly, C. A., Imperial Meridian: The British Empire and the World, 1780–1830 (London, 1989), pp. 8–12, 100–163Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Harlow, V. T., The Founding of the Second British Empire, 2 vols. (London, 1952–1964), 1:159–62, 179–81Google Scholar; Robinson, R. and Gallagher, J., “The Imperialism of Free Trade, 1814–1915,” Economic History Review, 2d ser., 6 (1953): 1–15Google Scholar; Cain, P. J. and Hopkins, A. G., “The Political Economy of British Expansion Overseas, 1750–1914,” Economic History Review 33 (1980): 463–90Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Colley, L., Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707–1832 (London, 1992), pp. 11–54, 101–45, 195–236, 283–319Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Ibid., pp. 55–100.

¹⁷ See Brewer's insistence that British commercial and economic policy cannot be dismissed as mere “mercantilism” (The Sinews of Power, pp. 169–71).

¹⁸ SirMorgan, Thomas Charles, “Historical Sketch of the British and Irish Fisheries,” in First Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of the Irish Fisheries (1836), app. 1Google Scholar, Parliamentary Papers, 1837, 22:295Google Scholar. The author was Sir Thomas Charles Morgan [1783–1843].

¹⁹ On the contested consequences of the American Revolution in Britain, see Ehrman, J., The Younger Pitt, vol. 1, The Years of Acclaim (London, 1969), pp. 158–68Google Scholar.

²⁰ Skinner, A., A System of Social Science: Papers Relating to Adam Smith (Oxford, 1996), pp. 66–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²¹ Hont, I. and Ignatieff, M., eds., Wealth and Virtue: The Shaping of Political Economy in the Scottish Enlightenment (Cambridge, 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²² J. Robertson, “The Scottish Enlightenment at the Limits of the Civic Tradition,” in Ibid., pp. 137–78, esp. pp. 141–52.

²³ Phillipson, N., “Adam Smith as Civic Moralist,” in Hont, and Ignatieff, , eds., Wealth and Virtue, pp. 179–202Google Scholar, esp. pp. 194–96, 198–202.

²⁴ Anderson, J., Free Thoughts on the American Contest (Edinburgh, 1776), pp. 3–5Google Scholar. James Anderson (1739–1808) was a professor at Glasgow University. On his acquaintance with Adam Smith, see Smith's letter to Andreas Holt (commissioner of the Danish Board of Trade and Economy), 26 October 1780, in The Correspondence of Adam Smith, ed. Mossner, E. C. and Ross, I. S. (Oxford, 1987), p. 251Google Scholar.

²⁵ Anderson, J., Observations on the Means of Exciting a Spirit of National Industry; Chiefly Intended to Promote the Agriculture, Commerce, Manufactures and Fisheries, of Scotland, in a Series of Letters (Edinburgh, 1777)Google Scholar, and An Account of the Present State of the Hebrides and Western Coasts of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1784)Google Scholar. For Anderson's testimony to the 1785 committee, see Third Report from the Committee Appointed to Enquire into the State of the British Fisheries, and into the Most Effectual Means for Their Improvement and Extension (1785) [hereafter Third Report (1785)], in Lambert, , ed., House of Commons Sessional Papers, 53:90–116Google Scholar. A report by Anderson appeared as “Report of the Facts Relating to the Fisheries, Collected in a Tour among the Islands, and along the Western Coasts of Scotland; Undertaken at Their Lordships Desire … by James Anderson, LLD,” in Lambert, , ed., House of Commons Sessional Papers, vol. 53, app. 11, pp. 192–215Google Scholar.

²⁶ Loch, David, Essays on the Trade, Commerce, Manufactures and Fisheries of Scotland, 3 vols. (Edinburgh, 1778), 2:230–31Google Scholar. Loch (died 1780) was inspector general of the woollen manufactures and fisheries of Scotland.

²⁷ Right Hon.Conyngham, W., Extracts Relative to the Fisheries on the North West Coast of Ireland, from the Several Reports of the British House of Commons, Appointed to Enquire into the State of the British Fisheries, and from the Publications of Mr. Knox, Dr. Anderson, and others (London, 1787), p. 1Google Scholar.

²⁸ Knox, J., A View of the British Empire, More Especially Scotland; with Some Proposals for the Improvement of That Country, the Extension of Its Fisheries, and the Relief of the People (London, 1784), pp. v–xivGoogle Scholar. From 1764, John Knox (1720–90) devoted himself to the cause of Scottish economic development. For his influence on parliament and the Highland Society, see below in this article.

²⁹ Ibid., p. xviii.

³⁰ Ibid., p. i.

³¹ Dempster, G., A Discourse Containing a Summary of the Proceedings of the Directors of the Society for Extending the Fisheries and Improving the Sea Coasts of Great Britain, since the 25th March, 1788 (London, 1789), pp. 7–8Google Scholar. George Dempster (1732–1818) was an advocate, an M.P. for Forfar and Fife burghs, and a Scottish landowner who toured the Highlands, testified to the Committee of 1785, and was a founder-director of the British Society for Extending the Fisheries.

³² “What is chiefly wanted on the north-west coast of Scotland is to collect the weak and scattered rays of industry, and to bring them, for the greater public utility, into one focus,” Ibid., p. 55.

³³ Gray, J., Some Reflections Intended to Promote the Success of the Scotch Fishing Company Sent by John Gray to the Directors of the British Society, &c., &c. (London, 1789), p. 62Google Scholar (all the quoted material is in italic in the original).

³⁴ The comments of the bishop of Llandaff (Richard Watson, [1737–1816]) were appropriated by Knox as arguments for a policy of regional economic development (A View of the British Empire, pp. xli–xlii).

³⁵ On the perceived strategic importance of fisheries, see the preamble to 26 Geo. III, c. 106 (1786). Note also the perceived significance of the North and South Atlantic fisheries for preserving British imperial power (Ehrman, , The Younger Pitt, pp. 160–61, 341–51, 558–60Google Scholar).

³⁶ Fraser, R., Gleanings in Ireland; Particularly Respecting Its Agriculture, Mines and Fisheries … Drawn Up under the Direction of the Dublin Society for the Improvement of Husbandry and Internal Resources (London, 1802), p. viiGoogle Scholar.

³⁷ Gordon, T., General Remarks on the British Fisheries: By a North Briton (London, 1784), p. 16Google Scholar.

³⁸ Knox, , A View of the British Empire, pp. xxi–xxxivGoogle Scholar.

³⁹ Ibid., p. xxxvi.

⁴⁰ Fraser, , Gleanings in Ireland, pp. vii, 2Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Ehrman, , The Younger Pitt, p. 351Google Scholar. On Anderson's report, see n. 25 above (“Report of the Facts Relating to the Fisheries”).

⁴² This committee was secured by Henry Dundas and chaired by the M.P. for Great Yarmouth, Henry Beaufoy; Ehrman, , The Younger Pitt, pp. 266, 291–92, 351–52, and 388–89Google Scholar.

⁴³ Third Report (1785), p. 93Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Anderson, , “Report of the Facts Relating to the Fisheries,” pp. 192–226Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Ibid., pp. 207, 220.

⁴⁶ Third Report (1785), pp. 126–29Google Scholar. Knox explicitly distanced himself from the prescriptions of Anderson, in Ibid., p. 133; Anderson, , “Report of the Facts Relating to the Fisheries,” esp. p. 233Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Third Report (1785), p. 133Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ 26 Geo. III, c. 81; and 26 Geo. III, c. 106. For the parliamentary context, see Ehrman, , The Younger Pitt, p. 352Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ 26 Geo. III, c. 106, preamble.

⁵⁰ Dunlop, J., The British Fisheries Society, 1786–1893 (Edinburgh, 1978), pp. 22–24Google Scholar; Knox, J., A Discourse on the Expediency of Establishing Fishing Stations or Small Towns in the Highlands of Scotland and the Hebride Isles (London, 1786)Google Scholar.

⁵¹ 26 Geo. III, c. 106, ii; Dunlop, , The British Fisheries Society, p. 25Google Scholar. While secretary to the treasury (1804, 1806–7) and chancellor of the exchequer (1812–28), Nicholas Vansittart was a director of the British Society for Extending the Fisheries. He remained a member of the board until 1846 (The British Fisheries Society, pp. 135, 168). On Dundas's enthusiasm for encouraging the fisheries, see n. 42 above.

⁵² Dunlop, , The British Fisheries Society, p. 115Google Scholar.

⁵³ 39 Geo. III, c. 100 (1799).

⁵⁴ Dempster, , A Discourse, p. 33Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Beaufoy, H., Substance of the Speech of Henry Beaufoy, Esq., to the British Society for Extending the Fisheries & c., at Their General Court, Held on Tuesday, March 25th 1788 (London, 1788), p. 71Google Scholar. The earl of Kinnoul restaked these boundaries before the committee of 1798, Report Respecting the British Fisheries, pp. 391–408. On Beaufoy's parliamentary role, see n. 42 above.

⁵⁶ 25 Geo. III, c. 58 (1785) promoted the Cornish pilchard fishery. 37 Geo. III, c. 48; and 47 Geo. III, c. 29 targeted the Tweed fisheries.

⁵⁷ On the need to compete with Dutch and Swedish fisheries, see the evidence of Captain James Kyd (revenue cutter in the service of the customs of North Britain), in Third Report (1785), p. 83Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ 26 Geo. III, c. 81, i–v (1786); 27 Geo. III, c. 10, i (1787); 26 Geo. III, c. 26 (1786); and 26 Geo. III, c. 41 (1786).

⁵⁹ 48 Geo. III, c. 110 (1808); see also 51 Geo. III, c. 101 (1811); and 55 Geo. III, c. 94 (1815). These provisions were extended to Ireland under 59 Geo. III, c. 109 (1819).

⁶⁰ Report Respecting the British Fisheries, pp. 510–11, 514–17. For a fuller account of British expenditure on the fisheries 1771–1851, see app. tables A2 and A3 (and accompanying notes) of this article.

⁶¹ Fourth Report of the Commissioners of the Irish Fisheries (1822), Parliamentary Papers, 1823, 10:376Google Scholar; Fifth Report of the Commissioners of the Irish Fisheries (1823), Parliamentary Papers, 1824, 12:427–29Google Scholar.

⁶² Third Report (1785), p. 202Google Scholar; Report Respecting the British Fisheries, pp. 334–35; Smith, A., An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, ed. Campbell, R. H. and Skinner, A. S., 2 vols. (Oxford, 1976), 1:518–22Google Scholar.

⁶³ The 1786 barrel bounty of Is. was increased by 35 Geo. III, c. 56 (1795) to 2s., and by 55 Geo. III, c. 94 (1815) to 4s.

⁶⁴ Third Report (1785), p. 107Google Scholar; Report Respecting the British Fisheries, pp. 337–38.

⁶⁵ Even Irving, the Smithian official, admitted the necessity of branding as a strategy for quality control and marketing, Report Respecting the British Fisheries, p. 344. See also the dispute between the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce and Liverpool curers regarding the alleged deterioration of the “national character” of the cure, Ibid., pp. 423–49. The Commissioners of the British Fisheries remained committed to maintaining quality in order to penetrate European markets; see “Extracts from Published Reports of the Commissioners of the British Fisheries,” in First Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of the Irish Fisheries, app. xiii, pp. 333–43, 335–37Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ “An Account of the Quantity of Herrings Exported from Great Britain within the Last Ten Years, with the Amount of Bounty Paid Thereon,” in Lambert, , ed., House of Commons Sessional Papers, 93:71Google Scholar. See also app. table A1 of this article.

⁶⁷ 26 Geo. III, c. 81, xlviii (1786); imports of foreign fresh fish had been prohibited under 1 Geo. I, c. 18 (1714) and confirmed in 6 Geo. IV, c. 107 and 6 Geo. IV, c. 108; Report from the Select Committee on Channel Fisheries (1833), Parliamentary Papers, 1833, 14:67–234Google Scholar, esp. pp. 72–74.

⁶⁸ Third Report from the Committee Appointed to Enquire into the State of the British Fisheries, and into the Most Effectual Means for Their Encouragement and Extension (1786), in Lambert, , ed., House of Commons Sessional Papers, 53:481–91, esp. pp. 487–88Google Scholar; 26 Geo. III, c. 81, xxxi, xxxii.

⁶⁹ First Report from the Committee Appointed to Enquire into the State of the British Fisheries and into the Most Effectual Means for Their Improvement and Extension (1785), in Lambert, , ed., House of Commons Sessional Papers, 53:19–33Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ Ibid., p. xxvii; 41 Geo. III, c. 21 (1800).

⁷¹ For Pitt's recognition of this trade-off, see Ehrman, , The Younger Pitt, p. 352Google Scholar. On the importance of the excise in general to the finances of the eighteenth-century state, see O'Brien, , “The Political Economy of British Taxation, 1660–1815,” esp. pp. 26–28Google Scholar; Brewer, , The Sinews of Power, pp. 101–13Google Scholar.

⁷² Interestingly, the fisheries policy of pre-Union Ireland was held up as an appropriate balance between deregulation and direct encouragement; see Third Report (1785), p. 126Google Scholar; Report Respecting the British Fisheries, p. 301.

⁷³ Reports and Papers (1785–86), in Lambert, , ed., House of Commons Sessional Papers, 53:453–61Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ Ibid., p. 453.

⁷⁵ Reports and Papers (1794), in Lambert, , ed., House of Commons Sessional Papers, 93:71–79Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ Ibid., pp. 75, 73. It should be noted that while Irving's comparative figures on tonnage bounties covered the period 1785–93, his account of barrel bounties referred only to those bounties paid to vessels that also qualified for the tonnage bounty and embraced only the years 1791–93. See also app. tables A1 and A2 of this article.

⁷⁷ Report of the British Commissioners for the Herring Fishery, on the Act of 59 Geo. III for the Further Encouragement of the Irish Fisheries (1820), Parliamentary Papers, 1820, 7:265–72Google Scholar; “The Memorial and Representation of the Magistrates, Town Council, Principal Inhabitants, and Fish Curers of Fraserburgh,” 9 June 1820, in Ibid., pp. 271–72.

⁷⁸ Ibid., pp. 267–68. As two Liverpool merchants testified in 1836, “Give but an extraordinary impulse to the Fisheries of Ireland, and you necessarily in the same degree injure those of Scotland” (First Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of the Irish Fisheries, p. 276).

⁷⁹ Letter from the Irish Fishery Board, Containing Observations Relative to the Gradual Reduction of the Bounties on the Herring Fishery, to Thomas Lack, Esq., 6 March 1824, Parliamentary Papers, 1824, 9:365Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ First Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of the Irish Fisheries, pp. 3–486.

⁸¹ Ibid., pp. 328–32, esp. p. 330.

⁸² Eighth Report of the Commissioners of the Irish Fisheries (1826–27), Parliamentary Papers, 1827, 11:723Google Scholar; Tenth Report of the Commissioners of the Irish Fisheries (1828–29), Parliamentary Papers, 1829, 13:503Google Scholar.

⁸³ First Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of the Irish Fisheries, pp. 14–17, 295–99.

⁸⁴ Ibid., p. 299.

⁸⁵ 46 Geo. III, c. 156 and 157 (1806).

⁸⁶ First Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of the Irish Fisheries, app. 12, p. 332. See also app. table A3 of this article.

⁸⁷ 48 Geo. III, c. 110 (1808); and 5 Geo. IV, c. 64 (1824).

⁸⁸ See app. table A3 of this article.

⁸⁹ “An Account of the Sums Allowed by the Commissioners for the British Fisheries for Building or Repairing Piers and Quays in Scotland, from 5th April 1829 to the Present Date” (1848), Parliamentary Papers, 1847–48, 60:220–21Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ 5 Geo. IV, c. 64, reprinted in First Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of the Irish Fisheries, p. 332.

⁹¹ Ibid. The following sums were granted to poor fishermen in Scotland in 1828–46: £5,627, 1828–41; £1,500, 1842–44; £939, 1845–46 (see, respectively, Parliamentary Papers, 1842, 26:467Google Scholar; Parliamentary Papers, 1845, 28:317Google Scholar; Parliamentary Papers, 1847, 34:329Google Scholar).

⁹² Retrospectively, the British Society for Extending the Fisheries was condemned for a tendency to “overbuild” and for the absence of a profit motive; see First Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of the Irish Fisheries, pp. 23, 50.

⁹³ 59 Geo. III, c. 109 (1819). See app. table A4 of this article.

⁹⁴ Together, the Commissioners for the Relief of the Distressed Poor, the London Committee for the Relief of the Irish Distress, and the Commissioners for the Irish Fisheries raised £8,000 for expenditure on thirty-two construction projects for the development of the Irish fisheries (Fourth Report of the Commissioners of the Irish Fisheries, pp. 371–73).

⁹⁵ Seventh Report of the Commissioners of the Irish Fisheries, (1825–26), Parliamentary Papers, 1826, 40:538Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ First Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of the Irish Fisheries, app. 19, pp. 416–20.

⁹⁷ Nevertheless, within the mixed economy of development the contribution of the state was not insignificant: £28,139 was paid out for the encouragement of the Irish fisheries, 1830–41; see “A Return of the Amount Paid for the Encouragement of the Irish Fisheries under the Directors-General of Inland Navigation and Commissioners for the Extension and Promotion of Public Works” (1842), Parliamentary Papers, 1842, 26:470Google Scholar. See app. table A4 of this article.

⁹⁸ First Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of the Irish Fisheries, p. 20.

⁹⁹ 5 Geo. III, c. 64 (1824) permitted the Irish commissioners to advance sums in loans and grants to poor fishermen.

¹⁰⁰ Eighth Report of the Commissioners of the Irish Fisheries, pp. 719–23.

¹⁰¹ Ibid., p. 487.

¹⁰² Tenth Report of the Commissioners of the Irish Fisheries, pp. 499–503.

¹⁰³ First Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of the Irish Fisheries, p. 22.

¹⁰⁴ Ibid., app. 25, pp. 430–31. See app. table A4 of this article.

¹⁰⁵ 9 & 10 Vict., c. 3; 10 & 11 Vict., c. 75.

¹⁰⁶ See returns in Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, 94:556Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁷ “Return of the Amount of Said Grants Unappropriated, 17th Nov. 1852,” in Ibid., p. 557.

¹⁰⁸ Sixteenth Report of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland (1848), Parliamentary Papers, 1847–48, 37:473–83Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁹ “Instructions for Agents at Curing Stations,” in Ibid., pp. 473–74.

¹¹⁰ Ibid., p. 243.

¹¹¹ C. E. Trevelyan to the Commissioners of Public Works, Dublin, 26 May 1848, Ibid., p. 480.