New Zealand Mail. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. SATURDAY, JUNE 10, 1871. THE WEEK.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 20, 10 June 1871, Page 11

New Zealand Mail. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. SATURDAY, JUNE 10, 1871. THE WEEK.

The opening of the Provincial Legislature, which can be deemed at no time an uninteresting occurrence, has, on the present occasion, been made much more interesting by the able state document read to the Council by our new Superintendent. We expected something more than ordinary in the speech of a more than ordinary man, and we have not been disappointed. The speech will be found in another column, and will amply repay perusal. It will be read with more than common gratification by country settlers, whose interests appear to be fully and justly regarded. It will never do for us to refer here to any of the important subjects which are referred to in his Honor’s speech, or this editorial note would be quickly extended into a leading article; but we cannot forbear stating that we had a much better opinion of the policy of the new Executive after a perusal of the speech, than we kave after a he sty perusal of the bills prepared for carrying it into legislative effect. We predict that those bills will excite more dis • cussion in and out of the Council than their authors have supposed; and we doubt whether the whole of them can be fully and calmly considered in the space of a short session. We need hardly say that the favorable remarks we previously made relative to the proposed policy of the new Executive were founded on representations which had been made regarding it, and not on the bills which have been laid before the Council; for we are quite sure that they will meet with a great deal of opposition before they are permitted to become law, We have previously said that we had more faith in the Provincial Executive than in the Provincial Council; but, after perusing his Honor’s speech, and his Executive’s bills, we must add, that we have more faith in the Superintendent than in his advisers. They seem to us to be attempting too much, both as regards the short time they have had to prepare their measures and the short time the Council will have to consider them, if they must be passed this session.

“New brooms sweep clean.” This is the case with our new Executive. The proverb may in its application to them be less flattering than true, but it is for them to show that in their case it is neither one nor the other. We must, and really believe that they will do so. Assisted immigration is to be resumed on a new principle; but. we are curious to know the reason why cash should be demanded in the case of the immigrants, and credit be allowed in the case of the land purchaser. This is a reversal of the former system ; but it may not be an improvement upon it. It is true that in the case of the immigrant only a email part of the

passage money has to be paid in advance; but we speak from positive knowledge when we assert that if a promissory note for the amount, endorsed by some responsible party, were given by the applicant, it would be nearly equal to cash, while of applications for passages would bo made in the one case when only dozens would be made in the other. We are glad to find that no single women will be eligible for a passage unless accompanied by some near relative; and young married couples, or old married couples with partly grown up families, would make better settlers than single adults of either sex. The foregoing remarks refer to the immigration regulations, relating to assisted passages of persons nominated by their friends residing in the province, as published in the “ Gazette,” and have no reference whatever to the immigration proposals contained in the memorandum relating to the subject appended to his Honor’s speech. Those proposals open too wide a subject to be dealt with in one of our notes of the week.

In discussions, “ one error conflicts with another; each destroys its opponent, and truth is evolved.” But there has really been no discussion on the principle of the Permissive Bill. “Like the Bridgenorth election” the writers upon it “ are all on one side.” It is not well for the cause of truth; not well for the advocates of that measure, that this should be the case. For this reason we wish that some able pen would take up the defence of the liquor traffic, public houses, or the existing licensing system, for unless this be done silence may be construed into a tacit admission that they are each so bad that they cannot be defended. The opponents of the existing system are strong when they expatiate on the enormous costand evils of intemperance ; but they are weak when they try to explain the cause and suggest the remedy. Nobody denies that drunkenness is a great evil, and everybody admitß that an immense sum of money is expended on intoxicating drinks; but there are only a few persons who believe that public houses are the chief causes of both. If they did believe so, the remedy recommended would be the true one, for we have only to destroy the causes for the effect to cease. . But are not the Permissive Bill advocates putting the cart before the horse ? Does not the general use or craving for intoxicating drinks create the public house and support the liquor traffic, instead of the latter being tjhe cause of the former ? Doubtless they each act and react one upon the other; but to our thinking it would be more rational and logical to conclude that the demand created this traffic, than that the traffic created the demand, though it might do so in exceptional instances.