CHAPTER XL. (Continued)
WILLIAM IV. 1830—1831
Royal Message to Parliament..... Rupture between the Ministers and the Whigs..... Debates on the Question of Regency..... Prorogation and Dissolution of Parliament..... Formation of Earl Grey’s Administration..... Death of Mr. Huskisson..... State of foreign Nations.
ROYAL MESSAGE TO PARLIAMENT—RUPTURE BETWEEN THE MINISTERS AND WHIGS-DEBATES ON THE QUESTION OF THE REGENCY.
On the 29th of June the new king sent down a message to parliament, in which he paid a tribute of respect to his deceased brother, and requested the commons to make temporary provision for the public service preparatory to the dissolution of parliament, which would speedily take place according to constitutional usage. An address, in answer to that part of the message relating to the death of the late monarch, was immediately moved by the Duke of Wellington in the upper, and by Sir Robert Peel in the lower house, in the terms of which all parties expressed their hearty concurrence. This harmony, however, did not long prevail. The Whigs had become uneasy because the session had passed away without bringing them into closer contact with ministers; and this uneasiness increased when they saw a new reign commencing, and a new parliament about to be chosen, without any invitation given, or hope held out to them. The time, they conceived, had arrived, when it became necessary, if they hoped to participate in the sweets of office, again to try their strength. They did this on the following day, when the remaining parts of the speech were taken into consideration. The king had recommended that parliament should make provision for carrying on the public service. The Whigs insisted that parliament should continue to sit until a bill be carried through, appointing a regency in case the new king should die before the new parliament could meet—the heir-presumptive, the infant of the late Duke of Kent, being a minor. Accordingly, the ministers having moved in both houses an address simply noting that they would make the temporary provision recommended in the royal message, Earl Grey in the lords, and Lord Althorp in the commons, moved as an amendment, that the consideration of the address should be postponed to the following day. They objected, generally, to the dissolution of parliament, when so many important bills were pending; and insisted more specifically on the necessity of providing for a possible demise of the crown during the interval which must elapse before a new parliament could assemble. They argued that the only inconvenience that could occur was that of sitting a month longer, and they asked why they should not sit, when so imperative a duty required it. The matter, at all events, was so important as to make it reasonable that parliament should have twenty-four hours more deliberation how to address the crown. Ministers replied, that the importance of the question, the difficulties which would arise in the course of it, and the caution with which every part of it must be considered, were the strongest possible reasons for not hurrying it through at the end of a session, when members of the lower house would be thinking much more of the elections for the next parliament than the business of the present. There was, moreover, no present necessity, they said, for this weighty arrangement, as there was no prospect of danger from the king’s health. Earl Grey had himself said, it was urged, that his majesty’s strong constitution and temperate habits gave promise of a long reign. While the inconvenience, then, was positive and present, the danger was imaginary and remote. It was in vain to say that the object was to gain twenty-four hours’ deliberation. “If the motion is agreed to,” said the Duke of Wellington, “it will be viewed as a complete defeat of ministers.” Lord Grey declared that the bona fide intention of his motion was to obtain a day’s delay, in the hope that the crown might thereby be induced to come forward itself with a recommendation to parliament to consider the question of the regency; and the Duke of Wellington remarked that he believed him. But his grace was right in suspecting that, whatever the mover’s object might be, the result was to end in a trial of strength. The discussion, in truth, opened his eyes to the fact that all parties but his own were determined to oppose him: Lords Harrowby, Winchelsea, and Eldon, the Duke of Richmond, the Marquis of Londonderry, Earl Mansfield, and Lord Wharncliffe, one after another, stated their determination to vote for the amendment; even Lord Goderich himself expressed similar sentiments. On discovering this, ministers and their friends lost their temper, and railed against the “unnatural coalition” which, the said, was now shown to have taken place between parties opposed to each other in principle. Earl Grey, in reply, assured the house that he had never either felt or expressed confidence in the government. They had done well in carrying the Catholic Relief bill; they had received all the political and personal support he could give; and that support he could not but feel was of some benefit to the cause; but he claimed no gratitude for what he had done; and, on the other hand, he had none. As to general confidence in the present cabinet, he never entertained such an idea. His public declarations must be known to some of their lordships, and he was certain that, in private, he had often made the same statements. He had repeatedly expressed his belief of the incapacity of ministers, and therefore he could not have any confidence in them. On a division, ministers had a majority of one hundred against fifty-six; but the debate was a declaration of war; and it became evident that their scheme of government, by balancing and trimming their measures, so as to secure the aid of one section of those who trusted them not, against another, was now at an end.
In the house of commons, the language was still more vehement and bitter. The amendment was supported by Messrs. Brougham, Wynn, and Huskisson, Sir Charles Wetherell, and Lord John Russell. Sir Robert Peel had the mortification of receiving a lecture on the subject of consistency from Mr. Huskisson. On a division, the amendment was lost by a majority of one hundred and eighty-five against one hundred and thirty-nine.