suffice to feed the starving Indians.' The Great Famine of 1876–1878 killed at least 5.6 million people, so this policy was abandoned. Lord Lytton established the Famine Insurance Grant, a system in which, in times of financial surplus, INR 1,500,000 would be applied to famine relief works. The result was that the British prematurely assumed that the problem of famine had been solved forever and future British viceroys became complacent. During the Indian famine of 1896–1897, between 1.25 and 10 million people died. About 4.5 million people were on famine relief at the peak of the famine. Curzon has been criticised by Mike Davis for his response to the Indian famine of 1899–1900. Davis points to Curzon having stated that "any government which imperilled the financial position of India in the interests of prodigal philanthropy would be open to serious criticism; but any government which by indiscriminate alms-giving weakened the fibre and demoralized the self-reliance of the population, would be guilty of a public crime." Davis also writes that Curzon cut back rations characterized by Curzon as "dangerously high" and stiffened relief eligibility by reinstating the Temple tests. After famine of 1899–1900, Lord Curzon appointed a commission under the leadership of Anthony McDonnel, which suggested that: By acknowledging moral responsibility, the government should launch relief measures, The code on famine should be revised, There should be no delay in providing food grains and other assistance, A Commissioner for famine should be appointed, Irrigation facilities should be developed, an agriculture bank should be set up to provide people with assistance. Policy influences British famine policy in India was influenced by the arguments of Adam Smith, as seen by the non-interference of the government with the grain market even in times of famines. Keeping the famine relief as cheap as possible, with minimum cost to the colonial exchequer, was another important factor in determining famine policy. According to Brian Murton, a professor of geography at the University of Hawaii, another possible impact on British policy on famine in India was the influence of the English Poor Laws of 1834, with the difference being that the English were willing to "maintain" the poor in England in normal times, whereas Indians would receive subsistence only when entire populations were endangered. Similarities between the Irish famine of 1846–49 and the later Indian famines of the last part of the 19th century were seen. In both