Accession and the Reform Crisis
When George IV died in 1830 without surviving legitimate issue, the Duke of Clarence ascended the Throne, aged 64, as William IV - the oldest person ever to assume the throne. One legend has it that when informed, in the early morning, of his brother's passing, he stated his intent to return to bed, as he had long wished to sleep with a Queen. Unlike his extravagant brother, William was unassuming, discouraging pomp and ceremony. In contrast to George IV, who tended to spend most of his time in
Windsor Castle, William was known, especially early in his reign, to walk, unaccompanied, through London or Brighton. Until the Reform Crisis eroded his standing, he was very popular among the people, who saw him as more approachable and down-to-earth than his brother.
Upon taking the throne, William did not forget his nine surviving illegitimate children, creating his eldest son Earl of Munster and granting the other children the precedence of a younger son (or daughter) of a marquess, except where a daughter had attained a higher precedence through marriage (as one daughter had by marrying an earl).
At the time, the death of the monarch required fresh elections and, in the general election of 1830, Wellington's
Tories lost to the
Whig Party under
Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey. When he became Prime Minister, Lord Grey immediately announced that he would attempt to reform an electoral system that had seen few changes since the fifteenth century. The inequities in the system were great; for example, large towns such as
Manchester and
Birmingham elected no members (though they were part of county constituencies), whilst minuscule boroughs such as
Old Sarum (with seven voters) elected two members of Parliament each. Often, the small boroughs—also known as
rotten boroughs and
pocket boroughs—were "owned" by great aristocrats, whose "nominees" would invariably be elected by the constituents—who were, most often, their tenants—especially since the secret ballot was not yet used in Parliamentary elections.
As monarch, William IV played an important role in the Reform Crisis. When the House of Commons defeated the First Reform Bill in 1831, Lord Grey's ministry urged an immediate dissolution of Parliament and a new general election. At first, William hesitated to exercise the power to dissolve Parliament, elections having just been held the year before. He was, however, irritated by the conduct of the Opposition, which formally requested the passage of an Address, or resolution, in the House of Lords, against dissolution. Regarding the Opposition's motion as an attack on his power, William IV went in person to the House of Lords, where debate on the Address was raging, and
prorogued Parliament. Had he sent
commissioners on his behalf, as was (and still is) normally done, they would have had to await the end of the debate, whereas the arrival of the monarch ended all debate. This forced new elections for the House of Commons, which yielded a great victory for the reformers. But although the House of Commons was clearly in favour of parliamentary reform, the
House of Lords remained implacably opposed to it.
The crisis saw a brief interlude for the celebration of the King's Coronation on
8 September 1831. At first, the King wished to dispense with the coronation entirely, feeling that his wearing the crown while proroguing Parliament answered any need. He was persuaded otherwise by traditionalists. He refused, however, to celebrate the coronation in the expensive way his brother had, dispensing with the banquet, and budgeting less than a tenth of what had been expended ten years previously—and the event was brought in well under budget. When traditionalist Tories threatened to boycott what they called the "
Half Crown-nation", the King retorted that they should go ahead, and that he anticipated greater convenience of room and less heat. They did not do so.
After the rejection of the Second Reform Bill (1831) by the Upper House, people across the country began to agitate for reform; some grew violent, participating in several "Reform Riots". The nation saw a political crisis greater than any since the
Glorious Revolution in 1688.
In the face of popular excitement, the Grey ministry refused to accept defeat in the House of Lords, and re-introduced the Bill. It passed easily in the House of Commons, but was once again faced with difficulties in the House of Lords. Bowing to popular pressure, the Lords did not reject the bill outright, but were prepared to change its basic character through amendments. Frustrated by the Lords' recalcitrance, Grey suggested that the King create a sufficient number of new peers to ensure the passage of the Reform Bill. The King objected—he had already created 15 new peers for Grey in his coronation honours—but reluctantly agreed to the creation of the number of peers sufficient "to secure the success of the bill". However, the King, citing the difficulties with a permanent expansion of the Peerage, told Grey that the creations must be restricted to the eldest sons and collateral heirs of existing peers, so that the created peerages would eventually be absorbed as subsidiary titles. Grey and his fellow ministers decided to resign if the King did not agree to an immediate and large creation. In point of fact, Grey had found few peers willing to bear the expense of having their heirs elevated to the peerage during their lifetimes. In any event, the King refused, and accepted their resignations. The King attempted to restore the Duke of Wellington to office, but first heard of an official resolution of the House of Commons requesting Grey's return. On the Duke of Wellington's advice, and after public mass meetings demanding reform, the King agreed to reappoint Grey's ministry, and to create new peers if the House of Lords continued to pose difficulties. Concerned by the threat of the creations, most of the bill's opponents abstained. Consequently, Parliament passed the bill, which became the Reform Act 1832. Parliament proceeded to other reforms, including the abolition of slavery throughout the British Empire and the restriction of child labour, but William IV had little to do with their passage.