This article elucidates George Poulett Scrope’s argument about colonization and how it relates to his political economy. Scrope approved of colonization in general as a supplementary measure to mitigate gluts in the labor market. He also regarded colonies as demonstrative of the correctness of his political economy, specifically his emphasis on the role of political and social institutions, especially land ownership, and criticism of Malthus’ population theory. However, Scrope was critical of the theory and activities of the so-called colonial reformers. He argued that Wakefield’s “sufficient price” policy was “founded on a fallacy.” More importantly, he opposed the emigration of Irish tenants to the colonies as a remedy for Irish land problem and resulting poverty, instead emphasizing the importance of enabling the existing tenantry to develop the full productiveness of the land they occupied. Behind his criticism of both the “sufficient price” policy in colonies and the consolidation and emigration policy in Ireland lay his appreciation of small-scale farming: unlike colonial reformers, Scrope asserted that small-scale yeoman farming could be as productive as the system of large farms. His disparate views on emigration from Britain and Ireland were closely related to his perspective on natural rights. Scrope advocated for the voluntary emigration of British laborers. However, he was opposed to allowing the Irish poor to emigrate to the colonies. In Ireland, unlike in Britain, cultivators’ right to land was denied or insecure and the people’s right to subsistence was unsettled due to a lack of or deficiencies in poor laws. Unless “the paramount RIGHT of the people to live on the land of their birth” was guaranteed, emigration was not a matter of choice and was therefore never justified.