"ou are trying to infer or claim that 625,000 "
No I am not - I pointed out that that was the first year - a time when hastily acquired and unprepared ships were assembled to herd the undesirables onto ships unfit for purpose rather than feed them from the locked warehouses, house them on closed warehouses or prevent the corruption surrounding the famine relief boats - all a matter of choice really - continue and develop Peel's efforts or just ship the victims to nations who didn't really want them.
Mitchel's belief was propaganda for getting rid of an Empire which made such choices - I've no problem with that.
It doesn't alter what those choices were in one iota - uless of course, you are claiming that the warehouses were empty, the workhouses fully operational, no corruption was happening and no food being exported out of Ireland - wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
"The Hastings/Coogan thing just demonstrates your hypocrisy, bigotry and bias."
Then explain Keith's accepting Hastings as a Historian and Coogan as not - other than one fits your bill the other doesn't.
Hypocrisy writ large.
"So only Tim Pat Coogan has got substantive proof that Phlalethes and Charles Edward Trevelyan are indeed the same person"
Enough proof to publish the letter in full with dates and details AND NOT BE CHALLENGED BY ANY SINGLE HISTORIAN INCLUDING KENNEDY - WHO TOTALLY IGNORED IT WHEN COOGAN RAISED IT.
I should have thought a denial of Trevelian's authorship would have sent Coogan's case tumbling, don't you?
Trevelyan's letter has never been denied, just ignored for political expediency.
By the way, what is freely available is Trevelyan's re-iteration of his "God's punishment, indolent Irish" approach to his task in an autobiographical account of his work in Ireland some years later.
It was his view, he did what he did, Britain appointed him and backed what he did - result = one million dead, half a century of evictions and a century and a half plus of continuing emigration.
The Society of Friends and other charities were carrying out reliefe work to make up for the malicious neglect of Britain, who would no more "close them down" than would the powers that be today would prevent the work of Oxfam.
This in no way means that Britain didn't carry out a policy that led to waht it did - the more-than decimation of an entire nation.
Now answer some of the points and stop waffling
Jim Carroll