Page:Two speeches of Robert R. Torrens, Esq., M.P., on emigration, and the colonies.djvu/13

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.

9

bered amongst its active administrators many Members of that House—the Lord Mayor of London, and others, whose names were a guarantee for a judicious and faithful use of any means that might be entrusted to them—by placing at their disposal some of the Government transports or vessels of war which might be suitable for conveyance of emigrants, and not likely to be again or speedily commissioned. He would venture to hope that no considerations of departmental convenience, or other such obstruction, would be allowed to interfere with what the public voice loudly and distinctly called for in this matter. But whilst voluntary efforts should be availed of and encouraged, it would be worse than folly to shut their eyes to the fact that the scope and magnitude of the work in this case requiring to be done was altogether beyond what could be accomplished by private benevolence. If anything effectual was to be done for the relief of the present distress, or for the permanent improvement of the condition of the working classes, it was not in hundreds, but in thousands that families must be transplanted; and for such a work they must look elsewhere than to private resources and voluntary associations. It remained for consideration whether the funds required for this object might, with greater justice and expediency, be drawn from local rates, from the general taxation, or from both. It had been objected, and the objection insisted on with some pertinacity, that a local rate for emigration would lay an additional burden on those who remained for the advantage of those who emigrated. That objection would be fatal were there any question of a special rate for emigration; but as he would presently show that simply by a more judicious use of the amounts already drawn from the pockets of the ratepayers, they would be in a position to afford substantial relief, that objection, on the score of injustice, fell to the ground. For the emigration of a family such as he had referred to as drifting towards pauperism, but not yet paupers—say, the parents over 40 years of age, and four children under 10, equivalent to four statute adults—the sum of £50 would suffice if transplanted to Australia, or £30 if transplanted to Canada. The mean of these amounts—£40—would, on the terms on which moneys were advanced to Irish landlords for the improvement of their estates, impose on the parish or union an annual charge of £2 12s. for interest and sinking fund. Surely the case needed but to be stated in order to satisfy every rational