The Sun.
London, England, 1840-06-04 00:00:00

Zhe

+~ .+ 3~il +~►'

LONDON:
THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1840.

Our observations yesterday on Mr. O'BRIEN'S
motion, were writtn before we had read Sir R.
. ,
PEEL'S speech, who concurs in principle, we see,
with us. We shall quote one or two passages of
fiis speech, in order to give them prominence, and
tie him fast to the consequences of his own doctrines.
In the following passage the Right Hon. Baronet
lays down the true principle of free emiaration as
broadly as we laid it down
The Hon. Gentleman said the demand was urgent ; if
there Was any obstruction in the way of emigration re-
-11.
thelQye it ; if there was any facility wanting, supply it ; but
".
M demand for labour was urgent, and the remunera-
tion xhy shou:d they give a bounty upon its ex-
port;a and why should the State be called upon exclusively
to
give that bounty ? Suppose the Hon. Gentleman was
to
affirm that there was a considerable quantity of ma-
chinery lying idle in this country, and that it might be most
1 _en
tally employed in the colonies, he could not suppose
teat therefore the State should be at the expense of the
l'ansfer 91 that machinery. He (Sir R. Peel) could not
Rea any difference in the principle.—(Hear.)
Bit now let us ask the Right Hon. Baronet in
What rcspect machinery lying idle differs from land
lying idle,. or going out of cultivation, and why if
the State, as we say, and he says, should not be
at the „pc-ise of transferring that machinery to
Where it is profitable, should it be at the expense
of making, by a . Corn-law, the landlord's estate pro-
fitable ? If Sir ROBERT asserts that policy de-
mands it, we say :honesty is the best policy, and
that unless the estate belongs to the whole people,
it is as unjust to make them pay to improve it,
as to make them pay to render the idle machinery
profitable.
Perhaps it will be said that: the improvement of
the landlord's estate by the Coro-laws is the con-
sequence of some wealth showeret: on it by the
Act of Parliament. We appeal to Sir ROBERT :
But there was great danger in the State being at the
expense of the transfer of labour from one country to an-
other. It was easy to talk of the funds of the State, but
how were those funds raised except by taxes? Gentlemen
always talked as if the State had large funds into which it
was easy to dip their hands. He did not know how the
necessary funds were to be raised except by taxing some
party or another. After all, what w,is the proposal unless
/hat one class of the community .should be taxed for the
purpose of enabling another class to emigrate to a land
in which there was a great demand for labour and an ample
remuneration for it? He could not see the justice of such
Q proceeding, and he did not think it advisable to accede
ti the proposition then before the House.
The State, then, has no funds to give the
land-owners ; but as they are enriched by the
Corn-laws, which enhance rents, that must be
caused, according to Sir ROBERT, by dipping their
hands into our pockets. Some party or another is
'taxed to enrich the landlords. Sir ROBERT has a
just horror of taxing the community to relieve the
.tabourers, and must, we presume, though his party
Nheackles will not allow arm to say so, have a still
greater horror of taxing the cotninunity to enrich
the lan:thuds. We do not despair of seeing him,
whenever that shall serve his party and political pur-
poses, bec.anie a Corn-law repealer.
He is ev,-.n now ready to admonish his friends,
the Irish lane lords, of a part of their duty. He
said—
He should obaerve that, for his part, he thought
there was a moral obligation on the part of those
who cleared their estates of tenants, for the purpose
emigrad tion,
of th ei orr
of improving them, to provide by
otherwise, far those whom they had dispossesse
ilioldings.—( Hear, hear.) He thought that there existed
'.3th amoral obligation, and that it would otherwise be
impossible to palliate such acts as sudden notices of eject-
ment to ninety or a hundred families.—( Hear, he)
-Prcceedings of that nature might be justified on princi-
Ves 0' political economy, but could not be justified on
pritThiplcs of moral duty.—( Renewed cries of " Hear,
hear.”) Ce thought the State ought to be cautious how it
relieved prig ate individuals from the obligation of provid-
t fut, maintenance of those who were driven
out of their poss,. Blouse
Let us furtlse.'
to relieve add, that t..
State is not
private injiv
iduals from the obligation of
providing for the future maintenance of those who
;are driven out of their po,ssessions, why should the