majority of one only, in a remarkably full House. This Knight, vol. viii. pp. 270-278. 1831. 1831. 1832. provisions of the Reform Bill, notwithstanding its rejection by the other House, and that they had unabated confidence in the ministry by whom it had been promoted. On October 20, Parliament was prorogued, with a speech from the throne stating that its attention must necessarily be directed, at the opening of the ensuing session, to the important question of parliamentary reform. Parliament re-assembled on December 6, and a Reform Bill was again introduced, which passed the Commons by a large majority. This time the second reading was carried, in the Lords, by a majority of nine; but a defeat in committee showed the impossibility of success in the present temper and condition of the House. The creation of a new batch of peers for the express purpose of carrying the Bill was openly advocated out of doors; but the ministry shrank, at first, from having recourse to such an extreme proceeding. But when it became clear that a direct and apparently insurmountable obstacle to the passing of a Reform Bill was to be found in the existing condition of the House of Lords, they at length determined upon this step. On May 8, they tendered to the king their advice that he should exercise his prerogative to create a sufficient number of peers to insure the safety of the Bill. But his Majesty refused to do so. Thereupon the ministry resigned. Their resignation was announced to both Houses on the following evening. Next day, the House of Commons passed an address to the king, expressing their deep regret at this event, and imploring him to call to his councils such persons only as will carry into effect, unimpaired in all its essential provisions,' the Reform Bill recently agreed to by the House. Meanwhile, the Duke of Wellington had been authorised to form a new administration; but, after conferring with Lord Lyndhurst and Sir Robert Peel, he abandoned the task. The king then recalled his late advisers, and most reluctantly gave them a written permission to create such a number of peers as will be sufficient to insure the passing of the 1832. Reform Bill; first calling up peers' eldest sons. (Signed) William R. Windsor, May 17, 1832.' But at the eleventh hour, the necessity for this extreme proceeding was avoided, by the temporary withdrawal from the House of a sufficient number of the Tory peers to give the ministry a decided majority upon the Bill, during its further progress through Parliament. The Opposition were induced to take this course by the personal interference of his Majesty, through his Private Secretary; an interference which was in itself irregular and unconstitutional, however it may have tended to avert the difficulties of an alarming crisis. After this, the Reform Bills for England, Scotland, and Ireland became law without further impediment. Parliament was then dissolved, in order that the new representative system might be put into immediate operation. The new Parliament, though composed of various 1834. discordant elements, fully sustained the ministerial policy. But on May 27, 1834, a resolution was proposed in the House of Commons in favour of the reduction of the temporalities of the Irish Established Church. This led to the secession of four members of the cabinet, who were unable to agree with their colleagues upon the manner in which this question should be met. The vacancies in the ministry were filled up; but very soon another difficulty arose. Lord Althorp, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, determined to retire from the cabinet, on account of a disagreement respecting the form in which the Irish Coercion Bill should be framed and submitted to Parliament. He had himself previously acquainted Mr. O'Connell that certain objectionable clauses would not be included therein. Nevertheless a majority of the cabinet, including the premier, had insisted upon their insertion. These conflicting opinions Knight, vol. viii. p. 299; May, vol. i. p. 120. 1834. between ministers were of so grave a character that a compromise was deemed to be incompatible with personal honour, or a sense of public duty. The ministry had been considerably weakened by the former resignations, and the loss of Lord Althorp was the finishing stroke. Accordingly, on July 8, Lords Grey and Althorp together waited upon the king, and formally tendered their resignations. On the following day, Earl Grey informed the House of Lords of the break-up of his administration.i 15. Lord Melbourne's First Administration.-July 1834. On July 14, 1834, Viscount Melbourne announced to the House of Lords that he had been entrusted with the formation of a new ministry. He was instructed by the king, in the first instance, to endeavour to obtain the services of all those who stand at the head of the respective parties in the country,' and for that purpose was directed by his Majesty to enter into communication with the Duke of Wellington, Sir R. Peel, Mr. Stanley, and other parliamentary leaders. But these negotiations proved abortive, and the king was obliged to consent to the formation of another Whig ministry, which was, in fact, a reconstruction of the previous one. On July 17, Lord Althorp informed the House of Commons that he had resumed his former office, and that the new administration was complete. The Irish Coercion Bill, then before the House of Lords, was dropped, and a new and less restrictive measure was brought forward by Lord Althorp, and became law. But the duration of h See Peel's Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 10. Ibid. p. 1; Knight, vol. viii. p. 345. This ministry, before its retirement, had lost the confidence of the king, on account of their known views with respect to the Irish Church. Without consulting his ministers, the king gave public ex- J Peel's Memoirs, vol. ii. pp. 1–13. this ministry was very brief. By the death of his father, Lord Althorp inherited a seat in the House of Peers. This necessitated the appointment of a new Chancellor of the Exchequer and leader of the House of Commons. Whereupon Lord Melbourne, both verbally and by letter of November 12, 1834, made known to the king the posture of affairs, and sought his commands as to the filling up of the vacant offices; indicating, at the same time, his desire that the lead of the House of Commons should be conferred upon Lord John Russell. The king, however, had by this time become a convert to the principles of the Opposition; he accordingly informed the premier that in his opinion the loss of Lord Althorp from the Commons had so materially weakened the government in that House as to render it impossible for them to continue to conduct the public affairs; particularly when it was remembered that they were in a minority in the other House. Under these circumstances, his Majesty was prepared to consider the administration at an end.1 16. Sir Robert Peel's First Administration.-Nov. 1834. Immediately after the dismissal of the Melbourne administration the king sent for the Duke of Wellington, and requested him to undertake to form a government. The duke earnestly recommended that his Majesty's choice might fall upon Sir Robert Peel, on account of the peculiar difficulties presented by the existing state of the House of Commons. The king consented, but remarked that he had given the preference to the duke because of the absence of Sir R. Peel from England. It was then agreed to summon Sir R. Peel home at once. In the interim, as it was necessary to take possession of the government, the Duke of Wellington assumed the temporary charge of the seals of the secretariat, and of the office 1 Peel's Memoirs, vol. ii. pp. 21, 22; May, Const. Hist. vol. i. p. 121. 1834. |