Commons Sitting of 23 June 1820

LABOURERS WAGES BILL.
Mr. Littleton moved the second reading of this bill, and briefly explained the object of the measure. Mr. Cripps, Mr. Davenport, and alderman Wood, spoke in favour of the bill; and Mr. Hume objected to it, as interfering between master and man. Mr. Baring would have been inclined to oppose the bill, if the country had been in a very different and more quiet state. Under the present circumstances he should support it. Mr. John Smith supported the bill. Colonel Wood opposed it; and was desirous to see all restrictive acts of this character abolished. After a few words from Mr. Wrottesley, lord Stanley, and Mr. Lockhart, in favour of

1317
the bill, the question of its second reading was put and carried without a division.

THE QUEEN.
Mr. Broughamtrusted the House would allow him to supply an omission which he had last night made in the course of his speech, and which had only been brought to his recollection by her majesty in the course of this morning. It had been objected by the noble lord last night, that the introduction of the question of the Liturgy had been an afterthought on the part of her majesty's advisers. Now, he felt himself bound, in justice to the queen, to state, that the moment her majesty, at her then residence abroad, found, from the gazette, that her name was erased from the Liturgy, she instantly wrote to one of his majesty's ministers*, complaining of the injustice of
*The following is the letter written by her majesty on her seeing, from the newspapers, that her name was omitted in the Liturgy:—
"Rome, March 16, 1820.
"The Queen wishes to be informed, through the medium of lord Liverpool, first minister to the king, for what reason or motive the queen's name is left out of the general prayers in England, with a view to prevent all her subjects from paying her such respect as is due to her. And it is an equally great omission towards the king, that his consort queen should be obliged to submit to such great neglect, as if the archbishop was in perfect ignorance of the real existence of the queen Caroline of England. The queen is desirous that lord Liverpool should communicate this letter to the archbishop of Canterbury. Lord Liverpool will with difficulty believe how much the queen was surprised at this first act of cruel tyranny towards her; since she had been informed through the newspapers of the 22nd of February, that in the course of the debates in the House of Commons, lord Castlereagh, one of his best friends, assured the queen's attorney-general, that the king's servants would not use towards they queen any inattention or harshness. And after that speech of lord Castlereagh, the queen is surprised to find her name left Out of the Liturgy as if she no longer existed in this World. The queen trusts, before she arrives in England, these matters will be corrected, and that she will receive a satisfactory answer from lord Liverpool. "CAROLINE, Queen."
1318
such a proceeding. He felt himself at the same time bound, in fairness to all parties, to state, that from the period of such communication up to the time when the conferences took place, no mention of the Liturgy had been made.
Lord Castlereaghperfectly recollected that the letter alluded to had been received by a noble friend of his. He wished, at the same time to observe, that when he spoke of the Liturgy having been introduced by her majesty's advisers as an after-thought, he meant not to insinuate that her majesty had not thought of it: his object was to show that it was not, in the first instance, propounded to his majesty's servants as a principal ground of objection. While he was on his legs, he wished to suggest the propriety of the House sitting to-morrow, in order to receive her majesty's answer; not for the purpose of deliberating upon it, but in order that gentlemen might be in possession of it previously to any discussion.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that nothing could be more convenient than such a proceeding, provided no discussion was to take place. He wished here to state, that in consequence of the late hour to which parliament sat last night, as well as from the indisposition under which he laboured, he was unable to make any communication to her majesty before three o'clock to-day. This having been the case, her majesty was unable to fix any earlier hour than eleven o'clock to-morrow for receiving the, deputation.
Mr. Denmansaid, that the letter of her majesty, complaining of the omission Of her name in the Liturgy, had been written on the 16th March, and received here on the 29th. Of this letter he knew nothing, until informed of it by her majesty this morning.