QUEEN'S SPEECHES.*
Tax first reflection suggested by this useful compilation is that Queen's Speeches are not such models of bad English as is commonly supposed. The wonder, indeed, is that the English is, on the whole, so good. The first draft of a Queen's Speech is generally written, no doubt, by the Prime Minister. But it is the result of the Cabinet's deliberation, and has afterwards to run the gauntlet of the Cabinet's criticism. The criticism will, of course, vary in proportion to the authority of the Premier, and the confidence reposed in him by his colleagues. Mr. Gladstone's Queen's Speeches are probably more entirely his own than those of any of his predecessors in the present reign, for his unrivalled experience and knowledge enable him to survey the general work of administration without the necessity of relying much on his colleagues. The feeblest Queen's Speeches, in point of style, are undoubtedly Lord Melbourne's. They read as if the writer thought the whole thing a bore, and could not be bothered to revise what he had written. What can be more slovenly than the fol- lowing sentence P—" It is with great satisfaction that I have received from all foreign Powers the strongest assurance of their friendly disposition, and of their earnest desire to cultivate and maintain with me the relations of amity." And then the young Queen "continues to exercise with fidelity the engage- ments" imposed by a certain treaty. In another speech, " alike " is used for likewise; "and the differences with the Government of Naples have been put into a train of adjustment." Sir Robert Peel's Queen's Speeches are a great improvement on Lord Melbourne's ; yet even he is guilty of such cacophony as "their mutual relations will be speedily amicably adjusted." It is curious that neither his own ear nor that of any of his col- leagues suggested " will soon be amicably settled," or, at least, the transposition of " be " and " speedily." It is also a disap- pointment to find Lord Russell, whose ordinary style is clear and simple, making the Queen " confide these important matters to your care, in a full conviction that your discussions," ,:kc. ; but our disappointment gives place to horror when we read that our gracious and humane Queen has " given her cheerful assent to those laws which tend to increase the quantity of human food." We are, however, relieved by the context, from which we learn that what Lord Russell really meant, was not "human food," but food for man. Lord Palmerston's Queen- Speech English is a great improvement on Lord Russell's; but "trust in the Almighty Dispenser of events " strikes us as an incorrect expression. It is odd that so experienced a writer as Lord Beaconsfield should be so slipshod in style and grammar. His are the only Queen's Speeches in the volume which aim at rhetorical effect and originality of expression. "Roumanian provinces" was too ordinary an expression for him, and so he gives us " Rouman." Any other Premier would have spoken simply of the " purification of the Thames ;" Lord Beaconsfield talks grandly of " the purification of that noble river."
In the same speech we have such a common-place fact as the formation of the colony of British Columbia described as follows :—" Her Majesty hopes that this new colony in the Pacific may be but one step in the career of steady progress, by which her Majesty's dominions in North America may ulti- mately be peopled by an unbroken chain, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, by a loyal and industrious population of subjects of the British Crown." The capture of "the strong place of Magdala " is described as a great feat of arms, reminding us of the subsequent speech in which Mr. Disraeli spoke of "the elephants of Asia carrying the artillery of Europe over the mountains of Rasselas."
The majority of the Queen's Speeches, however, are in very good, and some of them in very terse and forcible, English.
• The Queen's Speeches in Portinntent, front her Accession to the Primed Tints. Edited and Compiled by Sidney Ensor. London: Allen and 0o. 1882.
The best by far are those written by the late Lord Derby, Lord Palmerston, and Mr. Gladstone. But it is odd that our best-informed Premier on ecclesiastical matters should make the mistake of describing St. Paul's Cathedral as " The Metropolitan Cathedral,"—a technical phrase really meaning the Cathedral of the Metropolitan, which, in this case, is the Cathedral of Canterbury. Among the curiosities of this collection of Queen's Speeches is the change from the third to the first person, whenever the Sovereign either opens or pro- rogues Parliament by Royal Commission. Down to 1870 the phrase is, "We have her Majesty's command." On and after that date the Queen, though absent, speaks in the first person. The innovation was Mr. Gladstone's, but his Tory successor followed his example, and we may therefore infer that no danger to the Constitution lurks in the change. Another curiosity is the use of the phrase " your several counties," as the generic designation of all the constituencies in the United Kingdom, down to our own time. It. is, of course, a survival, as evolutionists would say, of the time when all Members of the House of Commons were Knights of the Shire. The last Minister who used the expression was Lord Palmerston, in 1864. Some readers will also be surprised to find that the average length of the Parliamentary Session has not increased since her Majesty's accession. Her first Parliamentary Session lasted from November 22nd to the 16th of the following August ; her second, from February 5th to August 27th; her third, from January 16th to August 11th. The Session of 1843 lasted from February 2nd to August 24th; that of 1844, from February 1st to September 5th ; that of 1846, from Jan- uary 22nd to August 28th ; that of 1847, from November 23rd to September 5th, 1848 ; that of 1852, from November 11th to August 20th, 1853 ; that of 1854, from December 12th to the 14th of the following August; that of 1860, from January 24th to August 28th. The Queen has often found herself unable, during her long reign, to open Parliament in person ; but it is noteworthy that she has only once thought it necessary to • apologise for her absence. This was in 1870. " We have it in command from her Majesty," says the speech of that year, " to invite you to resume your arduous duties, and to express the regret of her Majesty that recent indisposition has prevented her from meeting you in person, as had been her intention, at a period of remarkable public interest."
It is a singular instance of the irony of events that to Mr. Gladstone should have fallen the task of repealing, in 1871, the abortive Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. In opposing that Act just twenty years before he had to withstand, as afterwards in the Public Worship Regulation Act, the public opinion of the day, the favour of the Court, and the entire Bench of Bishops, as well as to risk the loss of his seat in Parliament. In the splendid per- oration of that speech, he said :—" We are a minority, insignifi- cant in point of numbers. We are more insignificant because we have no ordinary bond of union. [The Bill was carried by 438 against 99, the minority consisting chiefly of Peelites and Radicals, while the majority included the leaders and bulk of the Whig and Tory parties.] What is it that binds us together against you, but the conviction that we have on our side the principle of justice, and the conviction that we shall soon have on our side the course of public opinion." This was greeted with cries of " Oh ! oh !" but Mr. Gladstone reiterated the conviction, and added, " Above all, we are sustained by the sense of justice which we feel belongs to the cause we are ad- vocating, and because we are determined to follow that bright star of justice beaming from the heavens whithersoever it may lead." There were those who explained his conduct then by imputations of secret sympathy with Popery, just as there are those now who cannot understand his conduct in the Bradlaugh controversy except on the theory of secret sym- pathy with Mr. Bradlaugh's opinions. But when the pas- sions of the hour are forgotten, this life's devotion to " the principle of justice," regardless of personal conse- quences, will be remembered as one of the noblest attributes in a noble career. The royal epitaph in Hughenden Church has lately been the means of reminding the public of the pledge given by Mr. Disraeli in Parliament that the title of Empress should be restricted to the affairs of India; but it has apparently been forgotten that in the first Queen's speech after the assumption of the Imperial title, Mr. Disraeli committed the Queen personally to the promise that "this addition to the ancient style of my Crown " should only be used " as regards India." Nor, indeed, is this the only exception that
might be taken to the claim for Lord Beaconsfield of pre-eminence in "speaking right." In the Queen's Speech for 1879, for example, Lord Beaconsfield pledges his Sovereign's word to a statement which is the reverse of " right." " The territorial arrangements stipulated in the Treaty of Berlin," says the speech, "have been faithfully executed." This audacious statement was made after the Porte had faithlessly broken its engagements in re- spect to "the territorial arrangements stipulated in the Treaty of Berlin" on behalf of Greece and Montenegro.
One melancholy feature of these Queen's Speeches is the evidence which they supply of the urgent need of radically im- proving the machinery of legislation. There is a weary monotony, in the unredeemed promises of recurring Sessions. In the event of a second edition being called for, we recommend Mr. Ensor to differentiate successive Cabinets more clearly than he has done in the present volume. On page 25, for example, the Cabinet of Sir Robert Peel in 1841 is antedated, and is consequently made responsible for the Queen's Speech which advocates the abolition of the Corn Laws.
Previous page
