In the winter of 1846/47, Skibbereen, a small town in County Cork, emerged as a symbol of the Great Irish Famine when a series of gloomy eyewitness newspaper accounts made it ‘a byword for famine’.Footnote 1 It has served since then as the iconic famine town when the devastation of other places is discussed. Thus, the first comprehensive history of the Great Famine has suggested that by 1847, the greater part of Ireland could be regarded ‘as one vast Skibbereen’. The account included the description of a pilgrimage to the town twenty years after the Famine.Footnote 2 The folksong ‘Skibbereen’, performed by such artists as The Dubliners and Sinéad O’Connor, is the best-known song to come out of the ‘Great Hunger’.Footnote 3 To this day, Skibbereen remains one of the major lieux de mémoire of the Great Irish Famine, standing alongside Quaker relief, the treasury in London, the phenomenon of ‘souperism’, and the mass grave and Canadian immigration centre at Grosse Île.Footnote 4
Skibbereen is one of the places most frequently mentioned in academic literature on the Great Irish Famine, although in the 1840s, it had only around 5,000 inhabitants. Along with its surrounding population of slightly above 100,000, it was served by the Skibbereen poor law union.Footnote 5 In Christine Kinealy’s Charity and the Great Hunger in Ireland, for example, Skibbereen occupies greater space in the index than the far larger city of Cork, and the only reason Belfast and Dublin are cited more often are the relief efforts originating there.Footnote 6 Georgina Brewis, Steffen Werther and I devote substantial attention to Skibbereen in our recent overview, Humanitarianism in the Modern World.Footnote 7 Patrick Hickey’s study Famine in West Cork gives a detailed account of the westernmost parishes of the Skibbereen union area, and several popular books have also been written about Skibbereen and the Great Famine.Footnote 8 Some of these publications are connected with the Skibbereen Heritage Centre that opened in 2000 and has a permanent exhibition on the Famine.
While local aspects of famine history are addressed in this literature and exhibition, Skibbereen has predominantly been viewed as a symbol of victimhood, receiving little attention as a hub of agency and innovation with far-reaching impact across Ireland and beyond. Even more broadly, research has focused on mapping the famine, national politics, external relief, emigration and commemoration.Footnote 9 In contrast, local communities’ coping strategies have remained underexplored. For example, it was only recently that a monograph has firmly established that food rioting remained a significant form of protest into the nineteenth century, and peaked in Ireland around 1846–7.Footnote 10 This article builds on such insights in the agency of those experiencing famine conditions, while shifting the focus from ‘the crowd’ to local leaders.Footnote 11 Skibbereen is a particularly revealing case due to the contrast between its widely recognised embodiment of Irish suffering and the neglect of the pivotal role played by local agency — a consequence of the town’s marginalisation by the ruling elites in London. The power held by these authorities was sufficient to exclude the agency of its community from the historical narrative.
Historical accounts of aid typically rely on information from governments and donor organisations. Researchers studying humanitarian relief often note the challenge of obtaining the perspective of disaster victims themselves.Footnote 12 Recent research on humanitarian efforts during the Great Irish Famine has emphasised their global framing, rather than local aid entrepreneurship.Footnote 13 To address this limitation, the present article examines the views and agency of individuals experiencing famine in their own surroundings. Rather than focusing on impoverished victims who may struggle to communicate, it concentrates on local elites who, living through the disaster, identify with their suffering communities. This study draws on a close analysis of the underexplored Cork press, which reported on local initiatives and gave voice to its afflicted constituents, alongside records from the National Archives in London, the National Archives of Ireland and other repositories. These resources reveal the agency of Skibbereen.
As this article will demonstrate, representatives from Skibbereen engaged in relief activities that had national repercussions. It presents evidence of Skibbereen’s extensive role in the provision of voluntary aid, official relief and emigration. A deputation from Skibbereen was crucially involved in the establishment of the British Relief Association, the major voluntary aid effort at the time, and the town’s soup house became the model for the most effective government relief programme in Ireland. Its inhabitants also developed a quasi-official emigration scheme to rescue starving individuals, complementing private emigration efforts. Consideration of these initiatives also suggests reasons why such substantial local agency has been omitted from the historical narrative.
I
In October 1846, Skibbereen made the news when a local correspondent reported that the town was invaded by ‘a body of from 800 to 1000 as athletic men as I ever saw, marching in line … ten a breast, each with a spade shouldered, on the polished iron of which an unclouded sun shone’.Footnote 14 Cavalry soldiers took up positions as negotiations unfolded with the rebellious labourers from public works — ‘once stalwart men, but now emaciated spectres’, according to another account. However, thanks to the prudent handling of the situation, what began as a food riot ended with the peaceful distribution of biscuits.Footnote 15
Signs of growing distress like this alarmed individuals and organisations in Skibbereen, prompting them to take action and resulting in extensive coverage in the Cork press.Footnote 16 Another key event that drew attention even in English newspapers was the ‘extraordinary verdict’ of a jury concerning the death of Denis McKennedy, a public works labourer from the Skibbereen area who had gone unpaid for two weeks. An autopsy revealed that he had died of starvation, and the jury held ‘the gross neglect of the Board of Works’ responsible.Footnote 17 Richard B. Townsend, the Church of Ireland rector of Abbeystrewry, criticised the government in an open letter for acting ‘as if they were coming to our help’ while ‘with their work lists, and check lists, and pay lists and grand lists, and certificate after certificate to make sure of eight pence [the daily wage]’, they had created a system that failed to alleviate the population’s acute distress.Footnote 18 By December 1846, Daniel Donovan, the town’s physician, began publishing his occasional ‘Diary of a Dispensary Doctor’, an account of the famine that was reprinted on both sides of the Irish Sea.Footnote 19
On 15 December 1846, County Cork magistrate Nicholas M. Cummins visited Skibbereen and the surrounding areas to ascertain the truth of the horrifying reports circulating. What he encountered was a surreal world hovering between life and death, where ‘ghastly skeletons’ were vegetating in their hovels. In one apparently deserted hamlet, he suddenly found himself surrounded by more than 200 frightful, delirious ‘spectres’ whose ‘demoniac yells’ kept ringing in his ears long afterwards. In one encounter, a nearly naked woman with a newborn baby attempted to tear off his neckcloth. Near the Skibbereen cavalry station, wretched still-living bodies were found sharing a cloak with someone who had already died, and two frozen corpses had been ‘half devoured by the rats’. Cummins detailed his observations in a letter to the duke of Wellington, urging him to appeal to Queen Victoria for relief. Published in the Southern Reporter, the letter was reprinted in London by The Standard, and subsequently by The Times on Christmas Eve.Footnote 20 Many other newspapers in Ireland, Great Britain and around the world quoted from the letter or reprinted it. An extract was read aloud during the opening address of a national meeting in Washington DC on 9 February 1847, that sparked fundraising campaigns across the USA.Footnote 21 Reports from the Cork press continued to circulate internationally, keeping Skibbereen in the public eye. Recognising their reach, local groups began issuing statements through the press, sometimes assuming a tribunal-like authority in addressing distant audiences.Footnote 22
A series of articles on Skibbereen and its vicinity, published in the widely-circulated Illustrated London News, helped to maintain public awareness of the region’s plight. Engraved images from the Skibbereen area were commissioned by the newspaper, including some of the most iconic famine depictions, and these remain a significant part of the contemporary visual record. The weekly paper’s initial article on Skibbereen drew primarily from local newspaper extracts and included an illustration of the Society of Friends’ soup house in Cork. The second article featured a front-page engraving of a Skibbereen scene, paired with a poem and brief description.Footnote 23 The paper’s most extensive coverage was a four-page spread published in two parts, comprising twelve illustrations and text by Cork artist James Mahony. He lamented ‘that neither pen nor pencil ever could portray the misery and horror, at this moment, to be witnessed in Skibbereen’. This coverage, published during a peak in English fundraising for Ireland, was clearly intended to elicit public sympathy for the suffering poor in Skibbereen and surrounding areas.Footnote 24
The US celebrity and peace activist Elihu Burritt, who was in London at the time, took a keen interest in the Irish famine. In early February 1847, he dedicated one of his widely reprinted ‘Olive Leaf’ broadsheets to the crisis.Footnote 25 Shortly thereafter, he travelled to Skibbereen to provide an eyewitness account, which he reported in another ‘Olive Leaf’ circulated across the USA and England. For his American audience, Burritt supplemented his report with excerpts from his diary and offered practical suggestions for sending relief to the region.Footnote 26 He also published his diary as a pamphlet, describing what he saw as a ‘Potter’s Field of destitution and death’.Footnote 27 Between 20 and 22 February 1847, Burritt was guided around by a Catholic priest (John Fitzpatrick) and Donovan, among others. His observations included harrowing scenes, such as a soup house queue where some people waited ‘upon all fours, like famished beasts’. Burritt likened the devastation to ‘the battle field, when the hostile armies have retired, leaving one-third of their number bleeding upon the ground’.Footnote 28 When he himself began to feel feverish, he decided to cut his stay short.Footnote 29
On 23 February, the day Burritt departed, two students arrived at what they later described in a pamphlet as ‘the head quarters of the Irish Famine’. The visitors were Lord Dufferin, whose family came from the north of Ireland, and George Frederick Boyle, the future earl of Glasgow.Footnote 30 They had raised £50 at Oxford, which they came to distribute while seeking to verify the abysmal reports of Irish suffering. Guided by Rev. Townsend, they initially planned to stay on for a tour with Donovan. However, by the end of their first afternoon, they felt they had seen enough and decided to return home the following day.Footnote 31 Before leaving, they ordered a large basket of bread loaves for distribution along the roadside. The delivery immediately attracted such a large crowd that they were forced to throw the loaves out of the window:
One can never forget what followed: the fighting, the screaming, the swaying to and fro of the human mass, as it rushed in the direction of some morsel, the entreaties and gestures by which each one sought to attract our attention to herself, and above all the insatiable expression of the crowd as it remained unsatisfied and undiminished at the exhaustion of our loaves.Footnote 32
The unstated reason for Dufferin’s visit was to follow his money. He had anonymously donated £1,000 to Skibbereen as a ‘Young Irish Landlord’, apparently inspired by Townsend’s public statements.Footnote 33 At the time, the donor’s identity was undisclosed, but a controversy arose over the funds. The British Association for the Relief of Extreme Distress in the Remote Parishes of Ireland and Scotland (British Relief Association, BRA), which officially honoured contributions directed to specific districts, initially withheld the earmarked amount from Skibbereen.Footnote 34 In two open letters, Townsend publicly questioned this decision.Footnote 35 Eventually, the BRA agreed to distribute the funds in weekly instalments of £100 worth of provisions: half to Skibbereen and the other half to neighbouring parishes.Footnote 36 While the Skibbereen Relief Committee expressed gratitude in a formal vote, one member criticised the outcome as ‘justice but by halves’.Footnote 37 The BRA then contacted Frederick Pigou, a confidant of Dufferin, who, upon learning that the chairman of the Skibbereen union had approved the distribution method, declared himself satisfied.Footnote 38 Dufferin later bypassed the BRA entirely, donating another £813 directly to Townsend (Pigou also adding £100). This approach allowed locals to manage funds at their discretion and also to request matching funds from the government.Footnote 39 However, Dublin authorities ruled that donations administered by individuals were ineligible for matching funds, even if used to benefit local relief efforts. Townsend’s attempts to circumvent this ruling by claiming he acted as the chair of a ‘clerical committee’, or as a sub-committee, failed to sway government officials.Footnote 40
II
The BRA has generally been viewed as a voluntary relief organisation closely linked to the UK government. However, its origins and its intentional exclusion of key stakeholders have received little scholarly attention. Notably, when Townsend requested Lord Dufferin’s contribution for Skibbereen from the BRA, he was not petitioning an unfamiliar charitable body, but rather one he had actively helped to establish.
In August 1846, a district meeting in Skibbereen resolved to send a deputation to Dublin and, if necessary, to London to present Ireland’s case directly to the prime minister.Footnote 41 The delegation, which included the earl of Bandon and Daniel O’Connell, ‘the Liberator’, was received by Ireland’s governor, Lord Lieutenant Bessborough, on 3 September. While generally satisfied with Bessborough’s response, the delegates were taken aback by his emphatic rejection of a petition signed by 400 labourers from Skibbereen, pleading for employment. Bessborough insisted it was the duty of local leaders to choke off ‘large assemblages or demonstrations of a nature calculated to produce alarm’, warning that such actions would ‘retard rather than accelerate measures of assistance’.Footnote 42 Shortly afterward, a similar deputation from Mallow travelled to Dublin and London to present their case to Prime Minister Lord John Russell, but without finding a sympathetic ear.Footnote 43 Another proposal emerged at a meeting in Cork, suggesting that relief committees from the south of Ireland send a deputation to England to solicit subscriptions in England. The Cork Examiner, the main local newspaper, dismissed the initiative as a stillborn landlord fantasy under the headline ‘A Monster Begging Committee!’Footnote 44
The guardians of the poor law union of Skibbereen also contemplated a similar mission and appointed their own delegation. The representatives were Townsend and Charles Caulfield, Skibbereen’s other Protestant clergyman, who departed for London around 27 November.Footnote 45 Fitzpatrick, the Catholic priest, later expressed regret at having been unable to take part in the ‘begging excursion’. While commending the interdenominational charitable efforts of his colleagues, he explained that leaving his parish would have likely resulted in even more deaths among his congregation.Footnote 46 The delegates initially planned to travel ‘from city to city, and town to town, … proceeding through the kingdom in that way’.Footnote 47 However, their early experiences in England made it clear that private fundraising alone would fall short of what was needed. Instead, they conceived the idea of procuring a queen’s letter, ‘an instrument of authority for collections being made in all the National Churches’.Footnote 48 For this they needed to approach the government.
On 2 December, Townsend and Caulfield were granted a lengthy interview with Sir George Grey, the home secretary, and a second meeting three days later.Footnote 49 The first meeting also included a clergyman with connections to southern Ireland and Charles Trevelyan, the permanent secretary of the treasury and the principal architect of government relief efforts.Footnote 50 During these discussions, the delegates presented a sixteen-page ‘Statement relative to the distress in Skibbereen’, requesting ‘that a Queen’s letter be issued and the collections made applied to sustain those perishing from famine’.Footnote 51 The meetings, however, were discouraging. Townsend and Caulfield felt dismissed as ‘insignificant individuals’ and subjected to ‘a lecture on political economy’.Footnote 52 In letters home after the second meeting, they lamented ‘the very indifferent success that had hitherto attended their exertions; as, up to the moment of writing, they had not received a single penny in aid of the object of their mission!’ Grey cited two major obstacles to increased British aid for Ireland: concerns about the potential misuse of funds and the perception that wealthy Irishmen showed little ‘interest in the welfare of their country and their people’, a view that ignored Ireland’s quasi-colonial status and the indifference of many Anglo-Irish landlords.Footnote 53 A few days later, Grey officially responded to the Skibbereen petition, rejecting the request for a queen’s letter as premature. Instead, he recommended reliance on private Irish, as well as English, charity.Footnote 54
Grey was reportedly ‘hard to impress’ and ‘incapable of emotion’ in these meetings.Footnote 55 However, while he appeared to struggle with grasping the gravity of the situation, he did not dismiss the Skibbereen initiative lightly. In correspondence with the under-secretary of state for Ireland, he referenced ‘a very strong statement as to the prevalence of fever in the district of Skibbereen’ that had been laid before him, alongside similar reports in the press — something official communiques had not yet addressed. Grey sought to draw the lord lieutenant’s attention to the issue, underscoring the importance of obtaining accurate information about the prevalence of fever in Ireland. The response he received downplayed the situation, denying the presence of an epidemic in Ireland, despite the evidence to the contrary. Nonetheless, the reply acknowledged the credibility of the Skibbereen petitioners’ claims about deaths from starvation and maintained that similar reports had already been forwarded to London. Further investigation was promised.Footnote 56 A few days later, Grey informed the prime minister of his response to the Skibbereen delegates. He emphasised the government’s accountability to parliament and the necessity of demonstrating that they were taking measures to obtain accurate information.Footnote 57
On the day of the second meeting with the Skibbereen deputies, Trevelyan sought the opinion of Sir Randolph Routh, the commissary-general of Ireland (the head of the agency in charge of governmental food depots and relief supplies, the Commissariat Relief Office), about a nationwide subscription overseen by government officials. Trevelyan suggested that voluntary efforts could help address needs in special cases where ordinary public works and market price-oriented relief schemes failed to provide relief. He argued that such efforts would gain credibility with donors if managed under the Commissariat’s supervision. Moreover, he proposed redirecting a portion of a collection from Ceylon to Skibbereen, where ‘judging from the number of deaths, the destitution must be frightful’.Footnote 58 The meeting seems to have heightened Trevelyan’s awareness of the need for supplementary relief measures beyond the public works scheme, although under strict government oversight. However, Trevelyan continued to deny the existence of a famine. His remark that ‘further horrifying accounts’ were necessary for fundraising success reveals his deep-seated suspicion of the Irish situation, despite the many reports that were already circulating.Footnote 59
All this notwithstanding, the Skibbereen deputation was granted a third meeting with Grey on 11 December.Footnote 60 They were now received as representatives of all the distressed districts in Ireland and made to feel ‘as if they were the first men in the land’. According to Townsend, Sir George Grey did everything within his power to assist them, even going out of his way to suggest actions they might take. However, Grey made it clear that a queen’s letter was out of the question. Thus forced to rely on private charity, Townsend and Caulfield envisioned a major fundraising event that would simultaneously serve to counter English misconceptions about Ireland.Footnote 61 On the day of their meeting with Grey, they wrote to London newspapers describing the dire situation in Skibbereen and addressing widespread prejudices, such as claims that the Irish were hoarding money in savings accounts instead of aiding their starving countrymen or buying weapons (which might be turned against England) rather than food.Footnote 62
Grey considered the proposed public meeting a matter for civil society and referred the deputies to the Lord Mayor of London, Sir George Carroll, himself a native of Cork. Carroll received them cordially but insisted he could not call a public meeting without government authorisation. The delegation found themselves in a vicious circle: they needed the endorsement of influential figures to move forward with their proposal, but key players in the financial world were also hesitant to commit unless others of similar standing took the lead. Thus, the Rothschild banking house expressed willingness to support the initiative but only if a prominent institution like Barings Brothers took the first step, citing their Jewish background as a reason they could not take a leadership role. The head of the Barings bank granted the delegates a short meeting but declined their request.Footnote 63 Their reports about the Rothschilds’ position varied. While they initially wrote home that they were told ‘Ireland herself should supply the remedy’,Footnote 64 Townsend later recalled that the Rothschilds had received them kindly, mentioning their earlier contributions to Irish relief, and expressed readiness to give more. However, Townsend subsequently denied meeting the Rothschilds, possibly to avoid antagonising the BRA.Footnote 65
The delegation also faced subtle but significant sabotage from within official circles. Stephen Spring Rice, an Anglo-Irish civil servant connected with Grey who became a counsel to the deputation, seemed supportive of a public meeting for Ireland.Footnote 66 In fact, he covertly undermined the initiative. After the Skibbereen delegates’ meeting with Lionel de Rothschild, Spring Rice sent a private note to Rothschild stating, ‘These gentlemen have claimed my assistance for getting up a public meeting in the City, and I think I may perhaps put the matter before you in a different light in which it has yet appeared’.Footnote 67
By 21 December, Townsend and Caulfield had come to understand ‘the real nature of our position as a deputation’, as Spring Rice clarified why a public meeting would be a risky endeavour. He explained that rather than alleviating anti-Irish prejudice, such a meeting was likely to exacerbate it by provoking discussions that could worsen the situation. Instead, Spring Rice declared that he himself would organise the fundraising drive. During this discussion, the Quaker banker Samuel Gurney, who was also present, donated £1,000, remarking that he could not contribute more than Her Majesty herself. Under these circumstances, and with the assurance that this subscription drive would exceed their highest expectations, the two deputies entrusted their ‘begging-box into hands most influential at present in the Kingdom’.Footnote 68
Townsend and Caulfield raised at least £226 for the district of Skibbereen.Footnote 69 Before leaving London, they sent two letters to a newspaper editor. The first expressed praise for the government,Footnote 70 but they soon reconsidered. Their second letter criticised official policies as insufficient to address a national catastrophe, arguing that private charity could never bridge the gap. They now lamented being turned away by some of the wealthiest individuals in London, a city renowned for its affluence.Footnote 71
Returning to Ireland for Christmas,Footnote 72 the deputies left behind a mixed legacy. The Times reported their failure, asserting that the English public preferred to direct charity to their own deserving poor where it could ensure tangible benefits for recipients and gratitude to the donors, while avoiding support for Irish conspiracy, agitation, and even arms and secession.Footnote 73 In contrast, the Morning Chronicle was more sympathetic, speculating that the deputies’ mission may have played a role in the establishment of the BRA.Footnote 74 It is clear that the Skibbereen initiative did in fact catalyse the creation of the BRA on 1 January 1847. Spring Rice became its secretary. These origins were omitted from the BRA’s official narrative, which framed the association as a private charity that bolstered England’s prestige. Likewise, the queen’s letter supporting famine relief in Ireland that Townsend and Caulfield had sought was issued on 13 January, with no acknowledgment of those who had initially proposed the idea.Footnote 75 Nonetheless, the Skibbereen delegates officially took satisfaction in the developments, thanking the home secretary for granting their ‘most humble request’.Footnote 76
The sequence of events calls for a reassessment of Spring Rice’s lists of initial donations. One list, which includes dates, indicates that Rothschild made the first pledge of £1,000 on 29 December 1846. Another list, preserved in an envelope stating it was copied from a notebook that kept the promises as they were made, comprises two sheets. One of these begins with Queen Victoria, followed by Rothschild and continues with prominent names such as Baring, Prime Minister Russell and his predecessor, Robert Peel, as well as Grey and Trevelyan. The other, featuring less prominent contributors, starts with the banker Gurney, another Quaker banking house, Spring Rice himself and other Quakers.Footnote 77 Townsend’s account suggests that the individuals listed on this other sheet were the BRA’s first contributors, indicating that the campaign had secured more than a dozen donors before Christmas.Footnote 78 The two-sheet list aligns almost exactly with the £10,000 in initial subscriptions to the BRA that Cummins reported back to Ireland on 2 January 1847.Footnote 79
However, as noted in a newspaper editorial about Skibbereen, the charitable contributions raised by the BRA were ‘but a sound, “signifying nothing,” when compared with the magnitude and consequences of the destitution’.Footnote 80 The total sum raised was £470,041, with the majority collected in the early months of 1847. Over two-fifths of the funds resulted from two letters by the queen, read from Anglican pulpits across England.Footnote 81 One-sixth of the money was allocated to Scotland, where some districts had also suffered from a poor harvest. The remaining £391,701 for Ireland also included contributions from across the empire and other nations, and was deemed a success, although it barely exceeded the amount raised during the comparatively minor famine of 1822. It also represented a fraction of what a Times journalist speculated the English public might donate if their confidence in the Irish cause could be inspired: ‘Not one million, but millions’.Footnote 82
III
By the 1840s, the systematic distribution of soup to the poor had been practiced for half a century and had become a hallmark of Quaker relief efforts for nearly as long.Footnote 83 Quaker soup kitchens served as a reference for relief committees during the Great Famine, and an image of one in Cork, published in the Illustrated London News, became iconic.Footnote 84 The same was true of Victorian celebrity chef Alex Soyer’s streamlined model soup house in Dublin.Footnote 85 From early 1847 onward, the UK government encouraged relief committees across Ireland to adopt the ‘soup system’. However, officials also realised that any system relying solely on voluntary contributions would be insufficient to sustain the starving population.Footnote 86 As the public works programme then in place became increasingly dysfunctional and threatened to disrupt the sowing season, direct food distribution via soup kitchens emerged as a pressing alternative.
By February, parliament approved soup relief as a large-scale measure, ultimately feeding up to 3 million people daily. Thus, between May and September 1847, the UK demonstrated its logistics ability to provide relief efficiently.Footnote 87 The soup programme was widely appreciated, despite some concerns about dignity and nourishment.Footnote 88 Daniel Donovan, Skibbereen’s physician, noted in one of the earliest scientific analyses of the programme that the Public Soup Act had not only provided essential nourishment but also served as ‘the best cure for Irish fever’, a term used for the frequently deadly diseases that accompanied the famine.Footnote 89 However, offering free, nourishing meals without requiring labour in return, and with only the slight inconvenience of having to obtain it from a public place, clashed with the moral convictions of the UK elite. Consequently, soup kitchens were deemed a seasonal measure, intended to end with the upcoming harvest. Today, it is widely agreed that soup kitchens were the most effective famine relief effort of the period and that extending their operations could have significantly reduced mortality rates.Footnote 90
As early as autumn 1846, small-scale soup distribution efforts began independently of official schemes. One example was at Kilcoe parish in the Skibbereen district.Footnote 91 When establishing soup shops was discussed in Cork around mid November, someone identified as ‘a man in the country’ wrote that his fifty-gallon boiler produced soup every second day for the poor of his neighbourhood.Footnote 92 The prominent Quaker ‘soup depot’ in Clonmel that opened on 7 November 1846 is often regarded as the first large-scale project of its kind. In contrast, little attention has been given to another urban soup house established on the same day by the Skibbereen Committee of Gratuitous Relief, which began distributing forty gallons of soup daily, quickly increasing output to 120 gallons of ‘strong nutritious soup’.Footnote 93 This initiative arose in response to the local workhouse, the only public place that offered relief to those unable to perform regular work, having become overwhelmed.Footnote 94 By the end of November, the Skibbereen kitchen was feeding 600 people, prioritising the most destitute, widows and orphans.Footnote 95 These efforts were complemented by individual and church-based soup provision, such as Rev. Caulfield’s feeding of over fifty people at his home.Footnote 96 The Skibbereen ‘Charity Soup House’ followed a common system: benefactors purchased and distributed meal tickets to the needy. Two monthly tickets cost 1s. 9d., while a donation of 10s. 6d. granted membership in the general committee for a specific month. Weekly meetings appointed a three-member working committee for the coming week. According to a modern documentation, these guidelines were issued on 31 October 1846,Footnote 97 although the committee’s dating suggests they may have been printed four days earlier.Footnote 98
The Skibbereen soup initiative was pioneering, yet unlike Quaker charitable efforts, it lacked the backing of a wealthy network. This made it an accessible site for government intervention, which provided resources and experimented with a new model of relief that later informed a massive official operation. Consequently, Skibbereen, rather than the Quaker kitchens or Soyer’s spectacular mass-feeding establishment, became the blueprint for soup aid to Ireland. When in London, the Skibbereen deputies mentioned their soup kitchen, and in official Treasury documents, the word ‘soup’ first appeared in the context of their meeting with the home secretary and Trevelyan.Footnote 99 It was the Skibbereen poor law union acting when their workhouse was full that had called on the government to devise further means for the relief to widows and orphans.Footnote 100 In the beginning of December, while their delegates were in London, the union asked for permission to establish soup shops across their district. This was a last resort for combatting destitution beyond the workhouse system while establishing an equitable way to use the poor rate for relief purposes instead of relying solely on private charity. As well as appealing to Dublin, the union also petitioned the prime minister. The Poor Law Commission rejected their request, insisting on expanding workhouse capacity, if need be through wooden structures.Footnote 101
The Skibbereen committee also submitted a resolution to the Commissariat Office in Dublin, requesting that their own funds be made available for soup depots and the purchase of coffins. While dismissing the provision of coffins as an ecclesiastical matter (parish vestries were then in charge of purchasing coffins for those unable to afford them), the Commissariat allowed funds to be used for a free soup kitchen under strict conditions: soup could be sold and provided gratuitously only to the infirm poor who could not be accommodated in the workhouse.Footnote 102 These were the special cases Trevelyan had in mind when embracing the idea of a voluntary relief campaign.
Although the doctrines governing Irish policies were non-negotiable, some flexibility was shown in December 1846. After Trevelyan’s references to Skibbereen, Commissary-General Routh ordered the local depot to sell food (at market price) two days a week, which was soon increased to three.Footnote 103 However, the implementation was delayed due to depot administrator Thomas Hughes, whose reports showed little sympathy for the destitute and who made tightly restricted arrangements with the Skibbereen relief committee.Footnote 104 Trevelyan’s warning that a lavish provision of food in Skibbereen might make it difficult to resist demands elsewhere illustrates the visibility the town had achieved. Supplying food to the population gratis, Trevelyan believed, would be ‘leaving the people to all the horrors of a real famine, unmitigated by the degree of private exertion which would have taken place if we had not interfered’.Footnote 105
Nevertheless, the Commissariat dispatched an officer, Richard Inglis, to Skibbereen and another agent to more faraway portions of the barony of West Carbery, in order to organise relief efforts together with Hughes.Footnote 106 Inglis immediately met with the soup committee, which largely overlapped with the relief committee, but excluded a few ‘very disagreeable persons’.Footnote 107 He found soup establishments ‘quite a new sort of Commissariat duties’.Footnote 108 On the next day, he arranged a larger meeting with local JPs, businessmen, clerics and officials, at which it was agreed to deposit a voluntary collection of £85 in a bank, which he matched with an equivalent sum from a Ceylon-based collection. The committee treasurer could draw on this account over the signatures of any three committee members and Hughes’ countersignature; the latter was also to receive a daily account of the number of beneficiaries.Footnote 109 Inglis distributed another £15 of the money from Ceylon to a clergyman, a smaller relief committee, and some ‘poor distressed persons’ at his own discretion. An additional £100 in government matching funds was also deposited in the bank.Footnote 110
This enabled the committee to establish a second soup kitchen in a former school building on the other side of the town and to arrange for the delivery of meals to the infirm poor in the district.Footnote 111 Hughes, who had been an ordinary soup committee member because of his personal subscription, now became the key figure in the soup relief effort. However, the historical record has obscured the role of Mrs Hughes, who, according to a report by Inglis, was to instruct and supervise soup production and tasked with overseeing the kitchen alongside her husband. Police officers were stationed at each kitchen ‘to prevent rows and to see that each article is put into the boilers in time, so as to have the soup ready at 12 o’clock for delivery’.Footnote 112
By late 1846, the Skibbereen soup kitchens were serving 1,450 paupers daily, and the Commissariat published a general recommendation to relief committees, urging them to establish soup kitchens.Footnote 113 The number fed in Skibbereen increased to 3,000 people by the end of January 1847 and averaged 9,000 throughout spring — roughly three-quarters of the population living in the two civil parishes enclosing and constituting Skibbereen. Relief costs rose to £1,400 per month, one-third of which was administered by individuals and the rest by the relief committee, whose budget also included government subsidies.Footnote 114 William Bishop, the inspecting Commissariat officer for County Cork, played a key role in establishing soup kitchens in the district villages. He also promoted the inclusion of women on committees to oversee food preparation.Footnote 115 Bishop clearly stated that ‘great and unquestionable as the benefits are which the numerous soup-kitchens bestow, it is but as a “drop in the ocean”’.Footnote 116
The historical record shows that the Skibbereen initiative became a public–private partnership that set a ‘precedent’ for Ireland.Footnote 117 The BRA then emerged as a key supplier of provisions to the remote south and west of Ireland, particularly to kitchens set up by local committees and thereby facilitated the short-term policy shift from dependence on public works to a government-sponsored feeding programme. The BRA accepted as partners only relief bodies that adhered to official guidelines and applied through official channels, reinforcing state control over local charities through matched-funding mechanisms, with voluntary collections often being doubled or tripled by public grants after mid December 1846.Footnote 118
In February 1847, the Skibbereen soup committee sought government funds, reporting a balance of £663 and monthly expenses of £300 — sufficient to feed over 6,500 people (expenses in December 1846 had been £38).Footnote 119 Despite these figures, their application was denied. Although the local Commissariat officer was a member, the Skibbereen body did not meet the requirements of a regular relief committee and was also deemed to have disregarded government regulations.Footnote 120 The rejection was probably also due to Routh’s suspicions, weeks before mortality peaked, ‘that too much money is finding its way to Skibbereen, and that some of the poor, after suffering from hunger, have become sick from the sudden change to abundance’.Footnote 121
IV
The soup kitchen model operated on the assumption that ‘people for distances round will come in to partake of the benefit’.Footnote 122 Leaving the ‘last mile’ to the beneficiaries served as a means test, but it also contributed to displacing populations who sought shelter wherever aid was available. This transformed towns like Skibbereen into what a contemporary journalist termed a ‘“relief” town’. During the winter of 1847, Skibbereen experienced a population influx from the surrounding neighbourhood that increased the local population, despite an exceptionally high mortality rate.Footnote 123 Residents such as Fitzpatrick and Townsend lamented that the paupers who flocked in from the countryside exacerbated their town’s misery.Footnote 124 At the same time, Skibbereen’s leaders adopted a policy aimed at alleviating ‘local distress by getting rid of as many as wish to go away’.Footnote 125 While this approach did not evolve into a widespread model, it stands out among emigration efforts for its early adoption, longevity and remarkable complexity.
The plan began to take shape in autumn 1846, spurred by a derisive editorial in The Times. The article mockingly attributed the absence of Irish migrant agricultural workers in England during the harvest season to their having ‘tasted of famine and found that it was good’. Why, the editorial suggested, would anyone labour on British farms when they could remain idle at home, sustained by relief works?Footnote 126 Three key parties collaborated on the emigration project. The doctor, Daniel Donovan and his assistant recruited emigrants and assisted them in preparing for the journey, using income from their workhouse vaccination contract to supply necessary clothing, which was often redeemed from pawn. Meanwhile, James H. Swanton, a local merchant, provided free passage on his vessels, and various sponsors contributed funds to purchase food for the voyages. Townsend explained his motivation for supporting the initiative as helping ‘a few heads of families to go over to England to shew the Times that Paddy loves his good English fare too well not to go there when he can, and earn for his poor, empty, hungry stomach some of his bread and cheese’.Footnote 127
Beyond local support, the emigration scheme also appears to have garnered backing from Lord Dufferin’s confidant, Pigou, who was described as having ‘taken the wise view on our case with respect to Emigration’.Footnote 128 Contributions came from various sources, including London-based friends and relatives of the emigrants,Footnote 129 and official funds administered by the Skibbereen Poor Law Union. On 22 October, its guardians unanimously voted to allocate £6 for purchasing food supplies for the emigration voyage.Footnote 130 A newspaper article two months later hints at the continuation of this practice.Footnote 131 Eventually, however, depot administrator Hughes reported to Dublin that funds designated for poor relief were being diverted to transport ‘wretched naked creatures’ to England and Wales.Footnote 132 While Irish landlords in many cases defrayed their tenants’ emigration expenses and suspicions abounded that relief committees were shipping clients off to Liverpool, Hughes’s report was alarming because it implied outright misappropriation of public funds.Footnote 133 The Skibbereen organisers’ commitment to the official rule book was, in fact, limited (and unapologetically so), as illustrated by a statement by board of guardians member Thomas H. Marmion, a local land agent and businessman, who owned properties used for relief efforts: ‘If we [were to] continue to carry out the Government plans as at present constituted, every one of us will be guilty of manslaughter’.Footnote 134
When the Cork press criticised Skibbereen in the spring of 1847 for allegedly sending its poor to that city, Donovan defended his project in a letter to the editor. He emphasised his personal contribution and the money raised through a special subscription. He assured readers that no funds allocated for local relief or provided by English benefactors had been used for the scheme. Donovan insisted that emigrants were sent to England, not Cork, and that they fell into three categories: healthy men seeking work; women and children with contacts in England willing to support them; and elderly people of Irish descent unjustly returned to Ireland by British authorities who had sought to shift the burden of their care. Donovan stressed that his primary goal was the welfare of the emigrants, not the relief of local landowners from their obligations to tenants.Footnote 135 Evidence suggests that the emigrants were generally not regular poorhouse clients or people suffering from disease.Footnote 136 Nevertheless, the scheme also attracted proponents with more aggressive fantasies. One of Marmion’s declared motives, for example, was ‘as the English have refused to assist us in our necessities that we spread fever and contagion amongst them’. Similarly, Timothy McCarthy Downing — a Skibbereen solicitor, member of the relief committee and later Home Rule MP — supported the project as part of Ireland’s ‘warfare’ against England.Footnote 137
Despite these bitter undercurrents, the Skibbereen poor law union actively worked to bring the emigration issue to the attention of the British government. On 5 December 1846, they formed a committee to explore emigration as a viable option under the Poor Relief Act and forwarded their resolution — along with a request for soup shops — to Dublin and London.Footnote 138 The Poor Law Commission Office responded by referencing provisions in the act that allowed for raising funds to support emigration.Footnote 139 A few weeks later, a new committee was established to ease Donovan’s workload and to engage in public outreach towards the English public. The committee’s formal mandate was to recruit labourers for England, while also considering the broader issue of emigration.Footnote 140
The emigration project began in earnest during the last week of November 1846, when 107 people departed from the local port of Baltimore, County Cork, for Newport in southeast Wales.Footnote 141 The vessel, The Wanderer, a 90-ton schooner operated by Captain Casey and a crew of four, passed through Cork on 24 November and arrived in Newport two days later.Footnote 142 The ship’s owner, Swanton, organised a collection in Newport to aid the famine refugees, likely leveraging his business contacts or Methodist networks.Footnote 143 Fitzpatrick and Caulfield, who corresponded with contacts in Newport, detailed the destitution in Skibbereen in letters published by a Newport newspaper.Footnote 144 The newspaper’s owner, Edward Dowling — a former mayor of Newport — was among the roughly one-tenth of the town’s population who were Irish-born. Newport also was home to a significant number of prominent Catholics who were sympathetic to Ireland’s plight.Footnote 145
A journalist present in Skibbereen when ‘another batch’ of thirty emigrants prepared to depart by coach for Cork, and onward by steamship to London, observed: ‘The urgency of their applications to the Doctor to release articles of dress for them presented many combinations of what was extremely afflicting, and at the same time not a little ludicrous’.Footnote 146 This second group brought the overall number of emigrants to 138, with seventy coming from the Skibbereen workhouse and sixty-eight from the nearby village of Castlehaven. Two weeks later, an additional half-dozen followed them, probably aboard a liner. By mid December, 145 had emigrated, yet over 700 applicants were still waiting.Footnote 147
On 23 December 1846, another group of 113 men, women and children embarked on an ill-fated journey. By Christmas Eve, when The Wanderer docked at the Cove of Cork, a ship list carried the note: ‘Passengers in a state of mutiny’.Footnote 148 Over the next five weeks, the schooner traversed the harbours of Cork, relocating from Cove across the river to Monkstown and back again, and to a city quay at the passengers’ request. Finally, on 30 January, the ship set sail for Newport, arriving two days later. The causes of the delay are not entirely clear, but Captain Casey celebrated Christmas with his family in Cork, reportedly fell ill and did not return to the ship for nearly a week. His absence and the further prolonged delays depleted the ship’s provisions, initially calculated for a one-week journey. By the time a £14 cheque from the Skibbereen committee arrived, the passengers had ‘not a bit to eat’. As the delay continued, more relief was required. Additional food, including meals from a soup depot, was provided by the mayor and the Cork relief committee. In the meantime, many passengers abandoned the ship. Some enlisted in the army, others begged in the streets, and several were arrested for ‘misconduct’.Footnote 149
The journey also led to a report hinting at sexual exploitation by relief workers, something seldom heard of during the Great Famine. In addition to treating passengers on the ship unkindly, the mate and sailors were said to have ‘become familiar with some of the girls, whom they took with them to the forecastle’. Upon arrival in Newport, twenty-six emigrants were described as dangerously ill, prompting authorities to quarantine the ship. While in quarantine, passengers received assistance from a local charity and shipyard workers who crept down to the schooner’s hold to share their dinner. After ten days, the refugees were transferred to a temporary fever hospital. Their involuntary hosts realised that keeping them on board would worsen the crisis: one child had already died. A letter from Swanton, who had underwritten the voyage, threatened the authorities at Newport and may have influenced the decision to allow for disembarkation. However, four more passengers died, including Elizabeth Barry, the only adult victim. The coroner’s inquest into Barry’s death concluded that adverse circumstances, rather than neglect, were to blame. The local newspaper, with its pro-Irish leanings, stated that ‘no undue influence, or deceptive promises of employment, had led the suffering passengers by The Wanderer to this country; and that the treatment of the poor creatures, since they were thrown upon our hospitality, had been all that kindness and charity could dictate, and medical skill administer’. The jury’s verdict was ‘death from natural causes’.Footnote 150 However, public sympathy in Newport waned as more paupers arrived from Irish ports. By mid April 1847, the local newspaper ran the headline: ‘Invasion of the Destitute’ and merchants in Newport resolved to boycott captains whose vessels brought immigrants.Footnote 151
The Wanderer under Captain Casey was back in Newport by early April. Registered as carrying only ballast, the vessel had departed from Limerick and stopped at Crookhaven near Skibbereen en route.Footnote 152 Whether this was the ship’s first return to Newport or if it carried refugees is unclear. However, by May, The Wanderer shifted its destination to Cardiff, and the entire Skibbereen emigration project faced increasing scrutiny. By then, the vessel had already been denounced in parliament as a ‘floating pest-house’, with Home Secretary Grey asserting that Skibbereen’s export of paupers was the solitary instance for which authentic evidence existed of local official bodies’ involvement.Footnote 153 Grey’s concerns about the growing influx of Irish paupers into London intensified upon learning of Donovan’s activities, which reportedly included arranging passage to London for £10 per adult and £5 per child, with Newport fares costing half as much. In response, Grey requested an inquiry to trace the source of these funds.Footnote 154 Yet, two investigations ordered by Dublin authorities exonerated the suspects. The relief inspector responsible for the review stated that 580 paupers had been sent from Skibbereen, mostly at Donovan’s personal expense, and that the local relief committee had generally opposed the scheme.Footnote 155 A police report put the number of passengers at 500, offering additional details: £10 had been granted by the poor law guardians (leaving it open as to whether public funds had been used). The report also noted that provisions for the voyages had been supplied at cost by Hughes, that Swanton had provided two vessels and that the emigrants came from various districts adjacent to Skibbereen.Footnote 156 The official conclusion was that public funds had not been misappropriated.Footnote 157
Efforts to facilitate emigration from Skibbereen persisted, as did tensions with England. In 1848, Donovan’s name surfaced during an inquiry before the Axminster union board regarding fares paid for Irish emigrants travelling to England. When the chairman then could not recall Donovan’s name, witnesses refused to divulge it again. A resourceful reporter uncovered his involvement in 1850 during another investigation into the influx of Irish paupers at the Thames Police Court.Footnote 158 On this occasion, Donovan had facilitated the passage of fifty destitute individuals to London. Among them was a woman and her son, found begging, who revealed that Donovan had assured her there would be plenty of food at their destination. An officer remarked dryly ‘a person who has no idea of anything but begging will starve in the midst of plenty’, and added that he wished he could punish Donovan for deception. Instead, he ordered a loaf of bread for each of the Irish refugees he had summoned.Footnote 159
Donovan also sponsored several men and at least two women to go to America, paying £3 to £7 for their passage and expenses.Footnote 160 When the government launched a programme to assist young women in emigrating to Australia to improve its gender balance, Donovan was again involved in selecting volunteers.Footnote 161 Skibbereen became a major contributor, sending 110 orphans to Australia.Footnote 162 However, for economic reasons, there had always been some resistance on the part of local landlords to the emigration of able-bodied men. Over time, growing opposition to the loss of human capital undermined the partnership that had previously sustained the emigration project. By 1849, at a major regional meeting, Swanton pressured Donovan to withdraw a pro-emigration resolution.Footnote 163
V
Historical accounts of aid, including those from Ireland during the Great Famine, are generally shaped by the perspectives of governments and donors. The voices of the afflicted reach us only in mediated form, like those in Cummins’s famous letter — a background of ‘demoniac yells’. Occasionally they were articulated by empathetic journalists or lived on in folklore tradition. However, the Irish language, which was still in widespread use at the time, was generally not written by ordinary people. Oral history, too, has limitations as a source of insight into the Great Famine.Footnote 164
The relationship between Ireland’s local establishment and the UK during the Famine was marked by tension. While the British government and public largely reacted with indifference, local elites in distressed Irish communities played a dual role as both direct providers and intermediaries of relief for their people. These individuals not only possessed articulate voices and an intuitive grasp of public relations but also shared the language and cultural framework of those outside Ireland who held the power and resources to provide aid. The effective management of public relations by Skibbereen’s leaders is evident in the wide dissemination of insider accounts from the town across Ireland, the UK and beyond. Skibbereen benefitted from being part of an area covered by the Southern Reporter and the Cork Examiner, newspapers that collaborated with local efforts and dispatched reporters to document conditions, transforming the publications into authentic soundboards in a world language. Similar media coverage in other parts of Ireland makes the Great Famine an excellent starting point for examining recipient perspectives at the time of nineteenth-century ad hoc humanitarianism.Footnote 165
Skibbereen, heavily reliant on the potato economy and burdened with a dense and comparatively large population relative to its workhouse capacity, emerged as an early epicentre of the Great Famine. During the winter and spring of 1846–7, the mortality rate in Skibbereen’s workhouse was the highest in Ireland. Although other parts of western Ireland experienced greater suffering in the later years of the famine,Footnote 166 Skibbereen’s prominence at the height of the crisis — when Ireland’s devastation became a global news story — was not solely due to its distress. At a meeting of the Skibbereen relief committee, one of its leading figures, Thomas H. Marmion, explained that he sometimes proposed resolutions considered too bold because ‘until you put forward something strong and energetic, you will receive neither assistance nor support’.Footnote 167 Its proactive and vigorous response to an unprecedented calamity helped put Skibbereen on the global map. In early 1847, a Cork clergyman observed that Skibbereen gained attention in the ‘catalogue of misfortune’ because it embodied ‘a combination of intelligence and philanthropy’.Footnote 168 These factors, magnified by media coverage, established the town’s reputation. Skibbereen’s limited success in enlisting aid for itself and for the other distressed districts of Ireland had made it into a symbol.
An ethnographic study portrays Skibbereen as having
come to occupy an increasingly well-defined fantasy space in the imagination of observers and commentators, perhaps as a heightened microcosm of conditions in Ireland as a whole, perhaps, more disturbingly, as a black hole of fathomless and all-consuming scarcity, in which order and intelligibility, including the lucid precepts of political economy, were pulverized into nonexistence.Footnote 169
This symbolic framing has eclipsed the practical, grassroots efforts of local residents who took decisive action in the face of calamity. Initiatives such as the Skibbereen deputation to London, the early establishment of a soup house and the town’s emigration project were all critical responses to the crisis. Despite occasional references in the literature on the Great Irish Famine, these efforts remain underexplored, and their far-reaching implications have only been hinted at. Skibbereen’s connection to the major relief effort at the time, its role in modeling government soup kitchens and its provocative emigration scheme all underscore the agency of the Irish during this period.
While the Great Irish Famine offers a fertile ground for examining the perspectives and agency of disaster victims and aid recipients, reconstructing these viewpoints presents significant challenges. As a subaltern part of the UK in the nineteenth century, Ireland’s efforts were consistently overshadowed by the power dynamics of Whitehall, which marginalised the Irish ‘other’ in each of the three fields of agency explored. The deputation from Skibbereen — though instrumental in influencing policymakers such as Grey and Trevelyan — was treated with ambivalence. While their efforts spurred the establishment of the BRA and the issuance of an effective queen’s letter, the deputies themselves were sidelined from the all-English voluntary initiative envisioned by the government. Although their correspondence was met with polite responses, they were denied the public acknowledgment that would have positioned Skibbereen as a locus of agency. Contemporaries and later historians were left with the impression that their mission had little or no impact. The total absence of Irish voices in the BRA’s advertisements and reports further underscores this marginalisation.Footnote 170 Nonetheless, Townsend and Caulfield arrived in London at a pivotal moment, providing critical impetus just as officials were ready to revise their relief strategies and engage the public in a voluntary effort.
We do not know of any town that had a public soup kitchen operating earlier in the autumn of 1846 than the one in Skibbereen, with the exception of a Quaker depot set up concurrently in a larger town. Soup provided in Skibbereen left a major imprint in Whitehall’s records. The Skibbereen soup shop became the first such establishment to feature a public–private partnership involving officials and the police, strict rules of access, subsidies and detailed accounting. The arrangement became a model for all the distressed districts of Ireland and was subsequently scaled into Ireland’s most comprehensive and successful government aid programme during the Great Famine. Early on, Skibbereen’s representatives requested that its feeding scheme be transformed into a government programme. It served as a blueprint that helped authorities in London and Dublin to rethink their relief approach. However, while the local soup project lacked comprehensive documentation, the programme appears in official documents solely as the authorities’ reaction to a town’s distress, overlooking the interactive process between authorities and local elites. The Skibbereen committee was also at a disadvantage because it refused to comply with restrictive government policies and because the publicity the town received occasioned many direct voluntary donations.
The Skibbereen emigration programme operated in a grey legal area. Its psychological and practical problems reflected the prevailing imbalance of power and caused Skibbereen to maintain a discreet profile. Using the regular poor rate to fund emigration was illegal, and outside relief was generally expected to be distributed locally, not used to send emigrants who might become a burden on donors. Meanwhile, determining which poor law district bore responsibility for emigrants was legally contentious. The disastrous journey of The Wanderer highlighted the dangers and logistical challenges of emigration, from loss of life to the strain it placed on other relief committees. Eventually, even within Skibbereen, the drain of human capital became a divisive issue. All these complexities led supporters of emigration to downplay the programme after its initial publicity.
It is rewarding to look closely into the agency of people coping with disaster and their interactions with officials and other providers of relief. While Skibbereen has long been an emblem of the misery of the Famine’s victims, the remarkable aspect may not be just the town’s severe distress but also the initiative and resistence of its people. Despite the significant publicity the area attracted, some of the efforts to mitigate suffering there were not recorded at the time. Local activities to secure relief, some innovative and with far-reaching impacts, were regularly either marginalised by those in authority uninterested in boosting any local agent or were concealed by the prevailing power dynamics. The case of Skibbereen underscores the complexities of securing and deploying humanitarian aid while also revealing the determination of its local leaders.
Acknowledgments
This article was developed within the framework of the research project ‘The Moral Economy of Global Civil Society: A History of Voluntary Food Aid’, based at Södertörn University and funded by the Swedish Research Council under grant number 2012-616. An earlier version of the argument was presented and discussed at the annual conference of the Economic and Social History Society of Ireland. I am grateful to members of the project team — Georgina Brewis, Steffen Werther, and Francesco Zavatti — for their insightful comments and collegial exchange. I would also like to thank the editors of Irish Historical Studies and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive and perceptive comments.
Open access
