Could William IV have slowed down abolition?

In reading about William IV, I was surprised to learn that he had argued in slavery debates in the Lords and had vocally supported slavery. However, as King he later gave royal assent to the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. I have not been able to find much more about his role in this. Does anyone know if there was any opposition from his end during the passage of this time? Was there any chance he could have nixed it?
 

katchen

Banned
Not likely. For one thing, he only had a few more years to live before he passed away (I think it was 1836) and Victoria became Queen. At most, he might have delayed abolition of slavery for 5 years or so.
 
Royal Dukes could sit in the Lords at the time. I don't know when that practice ended, and whether it was formally outlawed or if it just became standard for them not to.

As for your other, its an interesting question. I'll see what I can find

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
In reading about William IV, I was surprised to learn that he had argued in slavery debates in the Lords and had vocally supported slavery. However, as King he later gave royal assent to the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. I have not been able to find much more about his role in this. Does anyone know if there was any opposition from his end during the passage of this time? Was there any chance he could have nixed it?

Unlikely - the last time Royal Assent was used to block a bill (with the Governing Party's support) was 1708, 125 years previously..

Given that the Great Reform Act had just been passed against the strong opposition of the King who gave way only after trying to force Wellington as PM on the nation and being met by a run on the banks and large scale civil unrest, it is almost unthinkable that he would try another battle with the newly elected Parliament over slavery.
 
Unlikely - the last time Royal Assent was used to block a bill (with the Governing Party's support) was 1708, 125 years previously..

George III stopped the Burke-Fox East India Bill by just making it known anyone that voted for it would be his enemy, so denial of Royal Assent doesn't necessary have to be the method used to block it.
 
I think Royal power was actually diminished by the Reform Act.

Actually using the veto on this issue would have SERIOUSlY have weakened the Monarchy
 
Royal Dukes could sit in the Lords at the time. I don't know when that practice ended, and whether it was formally outlawed or if it just became standard for them not to.

As for your other, its an interesting question. I'll see what I can find

Best Regards
Grey Wolf


It has never been formally outlawed (except insofar as recent changes have more or less abolished the entire House of Lords ) .

Any Royal Duke could have taken his seat. Legally a Royal Duke is no different ,except as regards precedence, to any other Duke.

I believe that the Duke of Cambridge spoke in the Lords in the 1870s, perhaps later. This was one (and not the least) of the reasons why Prince Albert never had a peerage.

EDIT: Indeed, it appears that the practice never ceased. Edward Duke of Kent took his seat in 1959, and Charles Duke of Cornwall, in 1970 .
 
Last edited:
In reading about William IV, I was surprised to learn that he had argued in slavery debates in the Lords and had vocally supported slavery. However, as King he later gave royal assent to the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. I have not been able to find much more about his role in this. Does anyone know if there was any opposition from his end during the passage of this time? Was there any chance he could have nixed it?

He was only Duke of Clarence then, of course. My reading is that he wasn't so much defending slavery as an institution, as defending the plantation owners, who were being seriously demonised by Wilberforce and Co, as monsters beyond the measure of human depravity.

Clarence had served in the West Indies and seen matters at first hand (which was more than most of the abolitionists had), and he always was impatient of cant or rhetorical ideology. So he defended that plantation owners, some of whom he regarded as personal friends,though some might have said he simply pointed out some home truths and the politically incorrect realities.

I have not seen anything to suggest he was personally opposed to abolition, per se. Certainly not enough to make an issue of it in 1833.
 
George III stopped the Burke-Fox East India Bill by just making it known anyone that voted for it would be his enemy, so denial of Royal Assent doesn't necessary have to be the method used to block it.

Agreed but my main point was that post-Reform Act William IV was in no position to threaten anyone on any issue!
 
Agreed but my main point was that post-Reform Act William IV was in no position to threaten anyone on any issue!

Do you have any good links on what he did to stop the Reform Act? Did it ever threaten the existence of the monarchy?

Did William IV do anything on pre-Reform Acts attempt to stop the slave trade in the 1820s?
 
Top