The Sun.
London, England, 1870-03-03 00:00:00

LONDON, THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 1870.

Mn. TORRENS, M.P. for Cambridge, has moved
a resolution that measures be adopted for facilitating
the emigration of poor families to British colonies;
and the House of Commons at the request of the
Government has rejected the motion by 153 to 48. As
the winter is now past, and as the destitution that is to
wine, however great it may prove, can scarcely be
so bad as the misery that has been endured, this
division must be taken as a settlement of the
question for the present session. It is to
be regretted, however, that the subject was
not disposed of in a more satisfactory manner.
A. division of only two hundred members—albeit the
attendance at the House was very large—seems to
imply that many representatives, especially on the
Opposition benches, who have argued in favour of
emigration, hesitated to officially declare for the prin-
ciple. The question, too, was not skilfully raised.
Mr. Torrens' vague resolution affirmed the wisdom of
Mate-assisted emigration without submitting
any scheme for carrying the theory into
practice ; and thus the Government were furnished
with an obvious answer without finally committing
themselves to the great point at issue. Wo object,
said Mr. Gladstone, to indefinite proposals. If we
accept an abstract resolution, who will afterwards take
the responsibility of it ? We will consider any
reasonable scheme, provided it be definite; but
we cannot commit ourselves to any vague
theories. In short, Mr. Torrens would have
done better by even a bad proposal, had
it taken the form of a precise scheme. These abstract
resolutions never come to anything. On Tuesday
night the Government were enabled to win easily by
merely pointing out the practical difficulties in the
way.

It is by no means certain, however, that this was
the wisest or the most statesmanlike reply. The
Ministry has, it is palpable, so much work on its
hands that it would be difficult to find an oppor-
tunity to solve this tough problem, although its
claims are so pressing. The principle of State-
assisted emigration is one which involves many con-
siderations, and its ulterior consequences may
be so important that a hasty decision
is not to be thought of. Nevertheless,
if a thing be good, it is no sufficient answer to urge
that it is difficult of attainment. The object of Go-
vernment is to overcome difficulties, not, as under
the old Palmerston and Melbourne regimes, to wil-
fully heap them up in the path of progress.
No obstacles can be allowed to stand in
the way of a measure which is really necessary and
just. Is State-assisted emigration necessary and just?
Is it the only solution of the terrible pauperism dif-
ficulty ? and if so will it be fair to the general com-
munity to adopt it ? These are the vital points
to be decided ; and it is to be regretted
that the debates in the Lower house did not,
in this respect, lead to a more satisfactory issue.
The prime fact is that pauperism is increasing, with-
out any prospect of diminution. There is no suffi-
cient cause to which this increase can be attributed,
save the one great cause of excessive population. It
is true that we have passed through a period of great
distress, and divers branches of trade and manufactures
have grievously suffered, but it is also true that the
wealth of the nation has during the last ten years
increased, in spite of all drawbacks. Notwithstand-
ing crises, panics, and every other influence, the busi-
ness of this country has advanced since 1860 in a
greater ratio than in any previous period. Our
riches have, in fact, progressed more rapidly
than our population; and yet the poor-rate has
advanced from seven and three-quarter millions in
1860 to eleven millions in 1869. The disasters of
1866, like those of 1857, and similar epochs, were
temporary, not permanent. The period has,
in the aggregate, been a period of pros-
perity. Nevertheless, pauperism has increased.
Suppose it were to happen that, from any cause, our
commerce should finally decline, like that of Holland
and Spain, and we should sink from our present high
position, what would the result be ? It is unwise
to resort to hasty measures in times of dis-
tress ; but the facts show that pauperism
is an evil which no home remedy can cure, and
therefore emigration is the only resource.
Is it just that the State should lend its assistance
to the needful exodus ? Surely the fact that the evil
is permanent, and not, as in the case of the Irish
famine, of an exceptional nature, is a sufficient reply.
Men must not starve, is the theory of the poor law;
but all our efforts do not prevent them dying of
hunger in the streets. Our miserable failure
to check pauperism is in itself an an-
swer. Moreover, State - assisted emigration
need not necessarily be a burden on the community.
If the money which is now vainly spent in trying to
keep paupers alive were applied to taking them to a
country where they could live, the taxpayer would
be nu loser, whilst the individuals in question
would be great gainers. Presuming, as has
been shewn, that excess of population is the
chief cause of pauperism, every emigrant despatched
to another land would relieve the poor-rate here.
Ono lump sum would save an indefinite number of
relief instalments. By reducing the population to its
natural level, pauperism must be so far diminished that
only those who are indigent through crime or
idleness would remain. Nor could the colonies
object to receive families which have fallen into
distress though the lack of work. Labour is needed
in the dependencies, and it is idle to suppose that an
Englishman who can prosper here will break up his
home and recommence life in another country. If
the colonies are really in need of assistance, they will
not reject that poverty which would be prosperous if
it could. The question of the best mode of carrying
out the principle is a very largo one, but it
is evident that thel'o is abundant room for
action without that wholesale deportation at the
cost of the general taxpayer which the Government 11
so much dread. In fact, Mr. Gladstone, like the 1
clergyman with the imaginary unbeliever, set up the
crudest and clumsiest form of emigration, and then
proceeded to demolish it. It is never intended that
whoever chooses to ask Government for his free
passage across the Atlantic will straightway obtain it.
The emigrant may do something for himself. The
local authorities, who will gain by his removal, may
lend some assistance. Voluntary effort ought to be
available, for it does not follow that charity would
cease with State aid, any more than almsgiving has
been wholly supplanted by the poor rate. Finally,
the Government remain to direct and supplement the
whole, To combine these.Tarious_infitiOnCeteo 1410