Please explain this, comrade:
If the British government were committed to the free market, why did it not permit a free market in land and why did it not permit a free market in labor?
More to the point, why did it not allow cheap Indian grain to be sold on the open market in Ireland?
Why would a government allegedly committed to free markets restrict market activity in land and labor and grain?
By the time of the famine, there was a free market in labour and land. The Catholics were emancipated in 1827.
There was no restriction on the importation of Indian corn, other than the fact there was little demand for it, because it was a horrible, cheap and nasty foodstuff that only the most desperate and starved would wish to purchase, and even they couldn’t afford it, because they subsisted on potatoes and any money or goods they had to spend or barter with had to be spent on rent and could not be used to buy food. In order to make it into the country at all, it had to be bought on government contract.
For the last time, a Free-Market solution the famine crisis was completely wrong headed because the afflicted had absolutely no money whatsoever with which to purchase an adequate amount of food once they had spent money on rent. They relied almost totally on potatoes for sustinence and could not eat unless it was provided for by charity (inadequate) or given to them by the government as a handout (evil marxism! Boo!!) The British government didn’t much like marxism either. Even though it didn’t really have a name at that time. (Although the blight which affected Europe and led to food riots all over the continent did as it happens, lead to the unrest in which Marx wrote his manifesto in 1848)....