The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-05 00:00:00

.__,------------
flou the head, or rather from Ihe heart of HENar
Donn, demonstrated pleasantly enough upon the
stage of the Princess's Theatre the readiness of
those mainly concerned in its realization to
further the initiatory munificence cf the man
whose name will hencefortit stand at the
head of a long and noble list of patrons and
supporters. A kindred demonstration took place
some two or three years back on the stage of the
Haymarket, we perfectly weld remember to have
been presided over by -our English Le Sage—a
meeting convened for the purpose of laying bare the
grievous mismanagent of ALLEYNE's richly endowed
institution hard by the Dulwich Gallery. That
assemblage has unquestionably in some sort led
to the one presided ever only so very recently by
Mr. CHARLES KEAN at the home of the Drama of
which he is at once the most accomplished artist and
the efficient and energetic manager. Conspicuous
amongst those who have evinced a more peculiar
zeal in furthering the new design of the Dramatic
College have been the very men who aided most
directy the efforts made towards the reorganisation
of the old but alas now, to all intents and purposes for
the most part obsolete establishmentof the like kind.
Failing in the endeavour to put an end to a glaring
abuse and a really monstrous anomaly in regard to
ALLEYNE'S College, at Dulwich, the promoters of
that well-intentioned agitation have worked round at
last by a kind of logical sequence to a far grander design
than that originally planned by them in the midst of
their most sanguine anticipations. That design is no
longer merely to reorganise an ancient but misma-
naged institution, but to establish a perfectly new
one upon far broader and far more secure founda-
tions. Honour and success to them! And a speedy
fulfilment of their brightest hopes in regard to the
ew Dramatic College !

Our great contemporary is deeply concerned for
the QUEEN'S English ; not because German may be
presumed to be the favourite language of the Royal
nursery or closet, and the language some day of our
married Princesses, perhaps of our married Princes
too; but because her present Ministers are putting

corrupt English into the Ro3 al mouth. We are not
perhaps quite correct—the Times expresses its " un-
affected thankfulness" that her MAJESTY'S lips had
not been insulted with the utterance of the Speech
" advised" by her Ministers. It was qaite right for
the Times to apprise us of its " unaffectedness."

For the sake of a large number of hasty or unreflect-

ing readers, we hope it will keep up the practic; dis-
tinguishing by the word " unaffected" all such
articles as express its real emotions—unless, indeed,
the danger should arise of the readers suspecting
that the Times " doth prote3t too much."
" The QUEEN'S English," says our deploring, yet
" unaffectedly thankful" contemporary, is prover-
bially ill-used ; nevlr more so than yesterday. What
would old COBBETT, of whose ghost the unaffected

writer professes to stand in awe, have said to such
confusion of his " Times of the verb" ? We can

fancy him writing somewhat to this effect—" My
dear little JAMES—Queen's speeches are composed by

so many persons, are read, and read again, and so
forth—they ought, therefore, to be models of gram-
matical correctness—Articles in the Times are writ-

ten by able penmen in daily practice, who generally,
as in this case, have had the short Speech many
hours in their bands before they write upon it. They

may be expected to write with grammatical correct-
ness generally, but we may especially look for it
from them when they devote a whole first leader to

criticising the language of her MAJESTY and her ad-
visers. Turn, then, to the Times of August 3d, and

you will find the sentence on which I wish to make a
remark or two. You will have no difficulty in find-
ing it, for it is the very first sentence of tbe gram-
matical lecture to the Cabinet. You will see that the
second clause in the sentence has no verb. Ino not
object to a pro-ter ellipsis, as I have already shown
you ; but you, my dear little JAMES, know better
than to write with ellipsis when supplying the
ellipsis would make nonsense. Fill up this sentence,
and our Gracious QUEEN would be made to say—` The
QUEEN'SEnglish is proverbially ill used,never more so
than it is yesterday.' For you know you cannot sup-
ply a time' from a preceding clause which was not
there. We know what the Times meant, but that is
c not sufficient in the case of a critic of a QUEEN'S
speech. The meaning of a critic ought to be gram-
matically, if not elegantly, expressed."
In the second sentence we had doubts, similar to
those entertained by the critic, about certain words
and phrases in the geEEN's Speech, respecting the
good taste of " itnprzssions of thankfulness on read- '
the
.Speceh." Impressions from reading or from
any other cause acting on the mind would seem quite
natural to us ; but " impressions on," if we kept in
view, as exact writers prefer to do in the construc-
tion of sentences, the physical and etymological
meaning of the words, would suggest that we had
impressed thankfulness on the reading Nor do we
quite like the growing substitution of this word for
" feelings" or " emotions." Feelings or emotions of
thankfulness we must think to be better QUEEN'S
English.
"Who does these things?" the critic exclaims imme-
diately afterwards. Now we should not have thought
much of this licence, had he not been so very wroth
further on with the writers of the QUEEN'S speech for
not making relatives and antecedents strictly corre-
spond. He must expect to have his own measure
used in meting out censure to him ; and what plural
antecedent, we may ask, is there to " these?" We
have read before of but one Thing—" Her MAJESTY'S
message." There is positively nothing else to which
" these thing," can, according to the sense, refer.
" Her MAJESTY'S lips," we presume, and the " im-
pressions of unaffected thankfulness," could not be
" things done" by any one. Again, we confess with
the old Radical, that we know what the oracle means;
but oracles, nowadays, should speak grammatically,
especially when taking others to task for not doing
so. In a sentence a little further on we must pro-
fess that, smoothly as it reads, we are not absolutely
sure, even after reading it several times, whether,
when the writer asks, "Is anybody at all
answerable for them ?" the " them" refers to persons
or to things. We think we guess what is intended,
but why should we have to guess the meaning of a
person writing verbal criticism ? Let our readers
try their skill. "'Who does these things ? To what
rank of office do they belong ? Is anybody at all
answerable for them, or is direct authorship dexter-
ously avoided ?" The pronouns might refer to " these
things" throughout; but, if so, how awkward the
question "to what rank of office do they belong ?" It
may be asked of things, to be sure; but nine readers
out of ten would immediately think of persons, for-
getting that "who," in the first sentence, is followed
by a singular verb; while, again, they would be
" in a haze" with the next question, hardly referring
" them" to persons there.
But we must not follow too long the example of
our critical contemporary, in his exercises on Con-
BETT. We confess he had considerable provocation
to evoke the sprit of the censor of Kings' Speeches and
the despatches of great generals. Possibly, however,
the very circumstances which, it is presumed, should
insure correctness in a Royal Speech are just those
which interfere with it. Whoever has had to draw
up any document for a committee must have found
that after discussion, and altering this, withdrawing
that, here qualifying a little, and there adding a sen-
tence or two, be could hardly trust himself to say
whether the whole was sense and grammar or not.
A well-known old proverb, in which M. SOYER, we
are sure, believes, is thoroughly applicable here;
and probably cur critic hirmelf would not like to be
answiqablo for an article which he had to work into
shape after the suggestion of fifty amendments. At
any rate, we have seen few Royal Speeches which
would bear a minute criticism. One of the very
worst we recollect was delivered by her MAJESTY
herself; by the advice, too, of Lord PALMERSTON !

The " Spy System" is really becomiug something
fearful in this country. LTn-English as the habit
is, men are gradually lending themselves to it. We
°LIU° POW speak of G9Atinvattil police, or trying tp