New Zealand Colonist. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1842.

New Zealand Colonist and Port Nicholson Advertiser, Volume I, Issue 25, 25 October 1842, Page 2

New Zealand Colonist. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1842.

We Observed, in one of the late numbers of the Sydney Herald, among the various measures suggested to remove the depression under which the Colony of New South Wales is suffering, or to prevent its recurrence, a proposal for a duty upon foreign corn. There docs not appear much probability that such a law will pass, for some years, at least; hut the proposal is one, among many indications, of the facility with which persons and communities catch at the first apparent remedy, without calculating, or without caring, for its ultimate results. As all the English colonies in this quarter are inseparably connected, and each must, in some degree, suffer from the consequences of a false step in any one, we shall say a few words upon this proposal. The examination of this topic may not be without its utility even to ourselves. The very circumstance, that such a proposition should be made in the present condition of the colony, indicates a belief that, without some extra inducement, the settlers in New South Wales cannot be expected to devote themselves to agriculture. As, however, the average prices of flour for the last ten years have been higher in Sydney than in almost any other part of the world, the want of an extra inducement must arise from some natural features in the country, rendering agricultural pursuits cither peculiarly difficult, or more than ordinarily hazardous. This, we believe, is the case, not on account of the country, for it is difficult to conceive a finer; but on account of the climate, which so often has caused a total failure of crops, as to create a general indisposition to agriculture. In such a case, however, would it not be a high degree of folly to contract, as far as possible, the supply of corn for the whole colony to that which it can produce itself; incurring thus a certain loss, and risking the extreme of privation, at least, until the intelligence of the failure of a crop had reached the markets from which an additional supply was to he drawn; for the sake of bolstering up a branch of industry, for which, at least, the colony is less adapted for than many others ? If corn were the sole, or the staple, produce of the country, there might be some ground for the attempt to encourage its cultivation by fiscal enactments. But since nature has determined that sheep and cattle shall he the real sources of wealth for that community, it would only be to attempt to force into importance a pursuit which cannot naturally support itself, at the expense of others that can.

And this is, after all, the strongest reasons that can be urged against any such a measure. Whatever is gained by the agriculturist, is lost by other portions of the community Corn cannot be raised two shillings a bushel, for the benefit of the farmer, without the whole amount thus realised by him, being substracted from the profits of the wool grower or merchant. It is for our neighbours to consider, whether it would be wise in them to encourage a branch of industry which can never furnish them with an export, at the expense of those whose progressive development has been the main source of their past prosperity, and affords the only reasonable ground of hope for th.c future. .

It is true that we are, to a certain extent, directly interested in this matter, since it is from New Zealand that, eventually, New South Wales will draw a large, probably the largest portion of her supplies. But it is not on this account a whit the less true, that the inhabitants of that colony would lose incalculably by any such measure as that suggested. There may not be, and probably there is not, any risk of such a measure being carried out; but it is always worth while to remind those who have to legislate, of the principles of national economy, which, from their very triteness and simplicity, they are apt to overlook.