he still remained one of the king's most honoured servants. Burnet pronounced this speech to be the best that he, or perhaps any other prince, ever made to his people." Prompted by her Tory counsellors, Queen Anne's speech, at the opening of Parliament in 1711, was made the vehicle of a startling attack upon the conduct of her great general, and quondam Whig minister, Marlborough, whose recent campaigns upon the Continent had rendered him unpopular at court and with the people. In the opening words of her address, her majesty said: 'I am glad that I can now tell you that, notwithstanding the arts of those who delight in war, both place and time are appointed for opening the treaty of a general peace.' To this the Commons-whose feelings against Marlborough were very bitter-responded by a special reference in their address, to the arts and devices of those who, for private views, may delight in war.'s The first speech delivered by George III., upon his accession to the throne in 1760, was the production, not of his constitutional advisers, but of ex-Chancellor Hardwicke, in conjunction with the king's favourite, the Earl of Bute, and with the addition of a paragraph, adverting to his birth and education as a Briton,' which was penned by the king's own hand. The draft of this speech, however, was communicated to the Duke of Newcastle, in order that it might be formally laid before the king in Cabinet Council. We learn that upon this occasion, the king endeavoured to procure the insertion of other words, referring to the bloody and expensive war' in which England had been engaged, but Mr. Pitt, who had been mainly responsible for the conduct of that war, succeeded with much difficulty in prevailing upon his majesty to omit them." By modern constitutional practice, the royal speech to be addressed to Parliament is drafted by the Prime Minister, or by some one under his advice and direction; it is then submitted to the Cabinet collectively, that it may be settled and approved, and it is afterwards laid before the sovereign for consideration and sanction. speech to ment. Great care is necessary in framing a royal speech, so Contents of a royal as to avoid any expression that might occasion differences of opinion in Parliament, lead to acrimonious debate, Parliaor otherwise impair the harmony that ought to subsist between the crown and the other branches of the legislature.' The speech at the opening of a session should include a statement of the most material circumstances of public importance which have occurred since Parliament separated, and should announce in general terms the most important measures which it is the intention of ministers to bring under the consideration of Parliament." But nothing should be mentioned by the sovereign that Parliament cannot echo with freedom and propriety, it being always borne in mind that Parliament echoes nothing without discussion. It is for this reason that it is not customary to mention the death of foreign sovereigns in a king's speech. To bring a deceased foreign sovereign before Parliament for discussion would be a liberty unwarrantable with the sovereigns of other nations. Furthermore, in the speech at the close of the session, as well as upon all other occasions, the sovereign should abstain from taking notice of any Bills or other matters depending, or votes that have been given, or speeches made, in either House of Parliament, until the same have been communicated to the crown in a formal and regular manner. vol. i. X Campbell, Chanc. vol. vii. p. 409. ▾ Earl Derby, Hans. Deb. vol. cxliv. p. 22. See the reason assigned for omitting any reference to an in tended measure relative to the Civil Mr. Canning's letter, January 27, Addresses of thanks for the speech. In 1864, Lord Palmerston (Prime Minister) adverted to the omission in the royal speech of the old stereotyped phrase, that her majesty' had received friendly assurances from foreign powers.' He said it was not the first time that that very unmeaning passage had been left out, and he trusted it would never appear again, because such friendly assurances are never given or received;' and the only meaning of the expression was that the sovereign was in good relations with foreign powers, which when it was actually the case should be stated plainly." 6 It was formerly the usage for the Prime Minister to read over the royal speech to the supporters of government, on the day before its delivery, in the Cockpit,' i.e., the Treasury Chambers-so called from these apartments having been originally built by Henry VIII. as a Cockpit, and assigned by Charles II. to the use of the Treasury—but the custom was dropped in 1794 or 1795. It has since been the practice to read the speech the evening previous to its delivery to the chief supporters of the government in both Houses, at the dinner-table of the leaders of the Lords and Commons respectively. One of the first acts, in both Houses, at the commencement of the session, is to pass an address of thanks in answer to the speech from the throne. It was during the premiership of Sir Robert Walpole, in 1726, that we find the first instance of the two Houses echoing the words of the speech, in such addresses; a practice which has since been invariably followed. с Prior to the Revolution of 1688, it was customary to postpone, until a subsequent day, the consideration in Parliament of the speech from the throne, so as to afford an opportunity to members to become more fully acquainted with its contents. But since that epoch, it has been usual to move the address in answer to the speech on the same day that it was delivered; inasmuch as * Hans. Deb. vol. clxxvi. p. 1286. ii. p. 211, n. Campbell, Chancellors, vol. iv. p. 600. members had ample means of knowing the contents of the speech before they were called upon to debate it, either by attending overnight at the Cockpit, or through the medium of the newspapers, into which the general contents of the royal specch ordinarily find their way on the morning of the day upon which it is uttered. In the year 1822, an attempt was made in the House of Commons to defer the consideration of the speech for two days, but without success." Royal speeches, in former times, were generally of Rule in considerable length, embracing a variety of topics, which such adframing rendered it advisable to take time in framing a suitable dresses. reply; but since the introduction of parliamentary government, it has become the practice to treat the several topics contained in the speech in a manner which does not oblige the Houses, in their addresses of thanks, to pronounce any opinion upon questions of a doubtful character, but rather enables them to reserve for separate discussion upon subsequent motions all matters upon which there is likely to be any material difference of opinion amongst members of the legislature." It has now become a well-established rule, to regard the speech from the throne, and the address in reply thereto, as reciprocal acts of courtesy between the crown and the Houses of Parliament, and the address itself as the unanimous and respectful expression of the deference with which the House should receive the first communication of the session from the sovereign, and as pledging the House to nothing, save the serious consideration of the matters referred to therein. In this point of view, both the speech and the address should be so framed that no difference of opinion could ordinarily arise on either, and no necessity be imposed upon the opposition to move an amendment to the address." d Hans. Deb. N.S. vol. vi. pp. 27, 47; and see ibid. vol. lxxii. P. 60. Lord John Russell, vol. lxxii. p. 85; Sir R. Peel, ib. p. 94; Palmer ston, ibid. vol. cii. p. 205; and see Sir R. Peel, Mirror of Parl. Amend ments to the address. Thus, on December 6, 1831, a formal amendment was made to the address, in the House of Commons, on motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in accordance with the general wish of the House, for the purpose of rendering it still more non-committal on a particular point. See also, an instance in 1852, of the cautious wording of a paragraph of the address, so as to avoid any expression of opinion on a certain political question; with the observations of Lord Derby (the leader of the opposition in the House of Lords) approving of this form of expression in regard to a proposed measure, which, on its own merits, he was prepared to condemn.h Accordingly it has gradually become the practice to refrain from moving an amendment to the address in answer to the royal speech, unless some great political objects were in view, and likely to be attained;' or, unless some assertion were made in the address to which the opposition found it impossible to assent.' It has sometimes happened, however, that ministers have felt it to be their duty, and of importance to the public service, that on the first occasion of meeting the Parliament, the definite and positive opinion of Parliament should be taken on some great principle, introduced for the purpose of regulating their public conduct.'¡ And sometimes the opposition has deemed it to be incumbent upon them, at the outset of a session, to propose amendments to the address for the purpose of determining whether the administration does or does not possess the confidence of the House. But these are rare and exceptional occurrences. On January 16, 1840, the Duke of Wellington moved an amendment to the Lords' address in answer to the speech from the throne ibid. 1837, p. 5; Lord Brougham, Mirror of Parl. 1831-2, pp. 27, |