I have been long familiar with Trevelyan's letter - what's your point?
The British Government decided to do nothing that would effect the Imperial economy and they made that perfectly plain.
They dismantled the efforts of the previous government and put nothing in its place - that is what caused the catastrophe, not Trevelyan's opinion of the Irish, which was shared by a large percentage of the British establishment anyway.
It was the genocidal inaction that every single historian who has written on the subject has condemned - the racism that was behind it just explained that inaction.
Opening shops so those who had been ruined by the catastrophe could go and buy food just about sums up the mentality of the powers-that be.
This was pretty well confirmed when they prevented farmers from rebuilding their lives by allowing the landlords to evict those worst affected by that Famine - even providing backup - Clements - Lord Leitrim, was one of the worst examples
The railway project was suggested as part of the famine relief scheme to provide employment, while at the same time opening out the rural economy - not just an act of charity - even that was refused.
Instead, meaningless labour projects were devised, like building walls across open moorland, through woods and over mountains, which served no useful purpose whatever.
Around here we have what are still referred to as 'The Shilling Walls' across the old landed estate
Peel's Government sent five shillings to be paid to each man who worked on a project to build 'Famine walls' over a local landlord's estate - the English landlord who was responsible for distributing the relief paid only one shilling per man - hence 'The Shilling Walls
The actions taken (and not taken) by the British Government during and following the Famine virtually depopulated Ireland; Trevelyan's attitude is an indication of why.
Again - what's your point.
Jim Carroll