Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Contents of a royal speech to Parliament.

may be settled and approved, and it is afterwards laid before the sovereign for consideration and sanction."

Great care is necessary in framing a royal speech, so as to avoid any expression that might occasion differences of opinion in Parliament, lead to acrimonious debate, or 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 interest which have occurred since Parliament separated, and should announce in general terms the principal measures which it is the intention of ministers to bring under the consideration of Parliament."

Ministers are not absolutely bound to introduce particular measures commended to the consideration of Parliament in the royal speech at the opening of the session. Sometimes the press of public business will necessitate the postponement of intended legislation to a future session. Thus, in 1870, the Queen's speech promised a Licensing Bill, a Trade Unions Bill, and a Local Taxation Bill, none of which measures were proposed in that session."

But it is not customary to refer to subsidiary arrangements that have been taken by government, pursuant to the provisions of particular Acts of Parliament, no matter how important they may be." And it is not usual to refer in a speech from the throne to the existence of distress in the country, unless it be of a character wholly exceptional, and of universal prevalence.b

The omission of any mention, in the speech from the throne, in

Campbell, Chanc. v. 7, p. 409. Yonge, Life of Ld. Liverpool, v. 1, p. 207.

Earl Derby, Hans. D. v. 144, p. 22. Mr. Disraeli, 1b. v. 198, p. 1375; v. 222, p. 96; v. 227, P. 89. See the reason assigned for omitting any reference to an intended measure relative to the civil list, in the speech from the throne. Mir. of Parl. 1831,

p. 193. And see Hans. D. v. 194, pp. 68, 76, 81.

Hans. D. v. 202, p. 486; v. 203, p. 1734; Sat. Rev. v. 30, p. 192.

* Mr. Gladstone, Hans. D. v. 209, p. 112.

↳ Ib. v. 199, pp. 1070, 1071. And see Le Marchant, Life of Earl Spencer, p. 233.

1877, of the storm wave which wrought such terrible devastation in Contents of royal India, and destroyed nearly a quarter of a million lives, was an speeches. oversight, for which serious regret was expressed, on the part of the government.c

In fact 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.

[ocr errors]

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.

The improved form of reference to the foreign relations of the empire, suggested by Lord Palmerston, has since been generally adopted in framing the speech from the throne. But once or twice, as in the autumn session of 1867, and in 1872, the old paragraph has reappeared.

Hans. D. v. 232, p. 131. Mr. Canning's letter, Jan. 27, 1826. Stapleton's Canning, p. 610.

356.

• Hatsell, Prec. v. 2, pp. 353,
Hans. D. v. 176, p. 1286.

Addresses of thanks for the speech.

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.

It

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. 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.

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 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 speech 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

137.

Thomas, Hist. of Excheq. p. 2, p. 211 n.

h Russell, Memorials of Fox, v.

Campbell, Chanc. v.

4, p. 600.

Commons to defer the consideration of the speech for two days, but without success.'

framing

Royal speeches, in former times, were generally of Rule in considerable length, embracing a variety of topics, which such a l 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, and upon which full information has not yet been communicated to Parliament,—but rather enables them to reserve for separate discussion uponsubsequent motions all matters whereupon 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.1

J Hans. Deb. N.S. v. 6, pp. 27, 47; and see Ib. v. 72, p. 60.

Lord John Russell, v. 72, p. 85; Sir R. Peel, 1b. p. 94; Palmer. ston, Ib. v. 102, p. 205; and see Ib. v. 136, p. 91. A debate on the address has been likened to a day's coursing where there were too many bares on the ground. You started a

fresh hare every moment, and caught
none. Ib. v. 227, p. 32.

1 Sir R. Peel, Mir. of Parl. 1831-
2, p. 20; Lord Melbourne, Ib. 1837,
p. 5; Lord Brougham, ib. 1839, p.
16; Lord Derby, Ilans. D. v. 144,
p. 22; Mr. Gladstone, Ib. v. 185,
p. 67; and see Mir. of Parl. 1836,
p. 13; 1837, p. 15; 1837-8, p. 46.

Amendments 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."

On March 19, 1874, a member of the opposition moved to add a paragraph to the Commons address in answer to the speech,—not in a hostile spirit, but in order to assert in more emphatic language the sentiments expressed in the address in regard to the famine in India. But the prime minister having stated that he considered the proposed addition to be unnecessary and objectionable, as interfering with the unanimity which ought to prevail in the House upon this question, and the leader of the opposition declaring that he was satisfied with the terms of the address, as it stood, the motion was withdrawn.o

[ocr errors]

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."

m Mir. of Parl. 1831-2, pp. 27,
29; see also Hans. D. v. 144, pp.
191, 253; Ib. v. 161, p. 14.

n Ib. v. 119, pp. 13, 30.
• Ib. v. 218, pp. 63-91.

P Ib. v. 156, p. 28.

Lord Stanley (Earl of Derby), ib. v. 139, p. 18.

See cases of such amendments. in both Houses, in 1841, and in the

« AnteriorContinuar »