""Other, perhaps less reliable and likely underestimates are that the event led to the deaths of approximately 1 million people through starvation and disease; a further million are thought to have emigrated as a result of the famine.[5] Some scholars estimate that the population of Ireland was reduced by 20–25%.[130] [131]" All of this occurred while taxes, rents, and food exports were being collected and sent to British landlords, in an amount surpassing £6 million.[131]

Ehmmmm Not exactly true Christmas - you have deliberately sought to misrepresent the situation once more. In the bit about the £6 million being remitted, this is mentioned earlier in the article in the section on "Landlords and tenants" in the Wiki piece you linked to and applies not to any point between 1845 and 1851 but to a specific year 1842 - now why didn't you draw our attention to that?

"The [Devon] Commission stated that the principal cause was the bad relations between the landlord and tenant. There was no hereditary loyalty, feudal tie or paternalism as existed in England. Ireland was a conquered country, with the Earl of Clare speaking of the landlords saying "confiscation is their common title." According to the historian Cecil Woodham-Smith, the landlords regarded the land as a source of income from which to extract as much money as possible. With the Irish "brooding over their discontent in sullen indignation" according to the Earl of Clare, Ireland was seen as a hostile place in which to live, and as a consequence absentee landlords were common, with some visiting their property once or twice in a lifetime, or never. The rents from Ireland were then spent in England, it being estimated[who?] that in 1842 £6,000,000 was remitted out of Ireland.[citation needed]

According to Woodham-Smith, the ability of the middlemen was measured by the amount of money they could contrive to extract.[19] Described by the Commission as "the most oppressive species of tyrant that ever lent assistance to the destruction of a country," they were invariably described as "land sharks" and "bloodsuckers."[20]

The middlemen leased large tracts of land from the landlords on long leases with fixed rents, which they then sublet as they saw fit. They split the holding into smaller and smaller parcels to increase the amounts of rents they could then obtain, a system called conacre. Tenants could be evicted for reasons such as non-payment of rents (which were very high), or if the landlord decided to raise sheep instead of grain crops. The cottier paid his rent by working for the landlord.[21] Any improvements made on the holdings by the tenants became the property of the landlords when the lease expired or was terminated, which acted as a disincentive to improvements. The tenants had no security of tenure on the land; being tenants "at will" they could be turned out whenever the landlord chose. This class of tenant made up the majority of tenant farmers in Ireland, the exception being in Ulster where there existed a practice known as "tenant right", under which tenants were compensated for any improvements made to their holdings. The commission according to Woodham-Smith stated that "the superior prosperity and tranquility of Ulster, compared with the rest of Ireland, were due to tenant right."[20]

So then Christmas taking all of that into account:

Who was it that subdivided the land? The land owner or the land agent? - Answer - The Land Agent

Who was it leased that subdivided land to the Cottier or tenant? The land owner or the land agent? - Answer - The Land Agent.

Who was it that evicted the tenant at will? The land owner or the land agent? - Answer - The Land Agent

The following shows the short-sightedness and short-termism of the tenants:

"Any improvements made on the holdings by the tenants became the property of the landlords when the lease expired or was terminated, which acted as a disincentive to improvements."

Now would these improvements increase the yield of the land? If so then the tenant and land agent would benefit, so a win-win situation that would improve the lot of both and go a long way in securing succession of the tenancy (Only a feckin' eedjit would throw out a good improving tenant to replace him with a slothful bad one - True?).

"The British government reported [Devon Commission], shortly before the famine, that poverty was so widespread that one-third of all Irish small holdings could not support their families, after paying their rent, except by earnings of seasonal migrant labour in England and Scotland."

Now that would suggest to me Christmas that the agrarian system being operating and run in Ireland, by the Irish, was unsustainable and that it would have been inevitable famine or no famine that people would have had to have moved off the land sooner rather than later. The population of Ireland in 2013 was 4.95 million and the percentage of the total workforce unemployed was almost 14%. If Ireland cannot find work for a workforce of some 2.2 million people how the hell do you think it would do for a population of over 9 million?