In the districts where the distress chiefly prevailed, the potato constituted the principal food of the peasantry, and the potato crop had failed; but there was no deficiency in the other crops, and the prices of corn and oatmeal were moderate. Indeed the exports of grain from ports within the distressed districts, was considerable during the entire period of the distress: so that those districts, the committee observe, “presented the remarkable example of possessing a surplus of food, whilst the inhabitants were suffering from actual want.” The calamity of 1822 may therefore be said to have proceeded less from want of food in the country, than from the people’s want of the means to purchase it, “or in other words, from their want of profitable employment.” In some districts where the potato failed, but where the population were engaged in the linen-trade, no individual so employed is said to have had occasion for relief; and the committee come to the conclusion that the late distress had chiefly arisen from the circumstance that the peasantry depended for subsistence upon the food raised by themselves. When the potato fails, they have not the means to purchase other food, and the potato is not only uncertain as a crop but it soon decays, so that the surplus of one year cannot be preserved to supply the deficiency in another. The agents of government, and of the London contributors, as well as the local associations which had been formed, made a point on all occasions as far as possible, of affording the necessary assistance in return for labour; and the committee express their entire approbation of this principle. “Relief purely gratuitous (they observe) can seldom in any case be given without considerable risk and inconvenience; but in Ireland, where it is more peculiarly important to discourage habits of pauperism and indolence, and where it is the obvious policy to excite an independent spirit of industry, and to induce the peasantry to rely upon themselves and their own exertions for support, gratuitous relief can never be given without leading to most mischievous consequences.” Any system of relief, it is remarked, which leads the peasantry to depend upon the interposition of others, rather than upon their own labour, however benevolently it may be intended, cannot fail to repress the spirit of independent exertion which is essentially necessary to the improvement of the condition of the labouring classes.