The Express.
London, England, 1866-08-11 00:00:00

OUR CONTEMPORARIES.

(THIS DAY.)

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.

There must, says the Times, be always some em•

barrasament when those who compose the speech at the
prorogation are the successful rivals of thine who com-
posed the speech at the meeting of parliament—when
those who have to speak of the session's performance
are the adversaries of those who made its promise, and
are conscious that they see partly to blame that the
achievements of six months' legislation are no greater.
Probably there never has been a session of the reformed
parliament which had so little to show in the way of
important measures. There are, however, adds the
Times, large materials for a Queen's Speech ; for the pre-
sent year, though barren of legislation, has been most pro-
lific of events. The greatest changes which Europe has
seen since 1815 are in progress on the Continent. The
overthrow of Austria, the utter collapse of the Ger-
man Confederation, the proved nullity of the minor
States, have made the consolidation of Germany
into two powers, if not into one only, an
easy and speedily accomplished task. The words
in which her Majesty mentions the German war are digni-
fied, and befitting the Head of a neutral State. It was im-
possible that the Queen should avoid an allusion to the
House of Hanover, whose ancient Sovereignty is now about
to be swept away. The great family which sat on the
throne of England for more than a century will probably
be reduced to the rank of vassals of the King of Prussia, or
will return to this country to assume the position of British
noblemen. The Times believes that it is for the good of
Germany and of Europe that the change should take place;
but it is not the less humiliating for the dispossessed House.
With regard to the reform question, the Times thinks her
Majesty could hardly be made to say a word on reform
that would not be a censure either on her past or her pre.
sent ministers, and that the best thing was to make no
mention of the unfortunate measure that was cradled in

dissension and strangled in a fit of irritation by those who
gave it birth. We have had one lost session ; we cannot
afford another. Hardly anything has been settled. Re-
form, bankruptcy, church rates, public schools, punish-
ment of death—in short, almost every important subject
on which the late government undertook to legislate is still
in abeyance. Next session may profit by the failures of
this; if it does not, the negligence may be fatal to the
conservatives in their tarn.

The speech of yesterday, says the Post, is chiefly dis-
tinguished, as might be expected under the circumstance',
by the total absence of any mention of the subject which
has occupied most of the time of parliament this session.
Reform does not appear, and its votaries must for the
present console themselves with the hope that it probably
will not be without a place in the next royal speech that
is delivered within the same walls.

The royal•speech, observes the Herald, may be con-
sidered on the whole satisfactory. It cannot indeed re-
count any long or striking series of achievements either
glorious or useful—a session three-fourths of which has
been frittered away in endless discussion over a revolu-
tionary scheme of so-called reform, cannot hope to leave
behind it any such records of its misapplied eloquence and
wasted time. The first topic dealt with by the royal speech
is the war, not yet formally concluded, between Austria
and Prussia. This important subject is touched on with
a delicacy and good taste not always conspicuous in com-
positions of this kind.
The Telegraph sums up its erpoa of the royal speech as
follows it been written as a squib upon tory im-
potence, it would have been simply amusing ; as the result
of cabinet deliberations, it is rather more than amusing—
it is offensive. Having nothing to say, there was at least
one error from which the tones might have escaped—they
need not have been verbose.
We do not look, says the Star, for mach wisdom in a

royal speech prepared by a tory government, but there is
no reason why ministers should persist in putting into her
Majesty's month expressions only remarkable for their ab-
surdity and unwisdom. The speech is remarkable for its
omissions, and it is no lees so for what it contains. When
we recollect the opinions which were offensively paraded
by the tones during the American war, it seems almost
like retributive justice to find them obliged to make
prominent mention of the good faith and scrupulous
attention to international duties of the United States.