What if Parliament was not dismissed?

In 1831, Earl Grey attempted to pass a reform bill that would update and overhaul the Parliamentary representation.
He could not get the bill past the Commons.
Earl Grey suggested that King William IV of England dissolve Parliament.
When the opposition threatened to block that action, William went to Westminster.
He dismissed Parliament, forcing new elections.

What if the King does not dismiss Parliament? What happens then?
 
Technically Grey did get the Bill past its second reading. The problem was that he then was defeated on a wrecking amendment.

What happens if the King says no to a dissolution? He might well have done so if the Tories had been a bit less provocative about what William saw as his sole prerogative. There are several possibilities:

(1) The Whigs go back to the drawing board, but stay in Government. Grey is going to try to get some flavour of Reform through, by hook or by crook, though with an unclear margin in the Commons and an emboldened Opposition, it's going to be damn hard. Then there's the Lords: in OTL the Lords backed down due to the threat of appointing Whig peers, because the Whig-dominated Commons could not allow a Tory Government to function. Since a Tory Government could survive in the 1830 Commons, the leverage to get the Bill through the Lords is weaker.

(2) The Whigs push on, even with the wrecking amendment. See above about the Lords, and the Bill (even if passed) is gutted.

(3) The Tories return, under someone other than the Duke of Wellington, and are under royal instructions to pass Reform (think Catholic Emancipation). This is probably the best chance of actually getting Reform through, since some of the Tory Ultras were willing to back it if it meant screwing the Catholics.

(4) The Tories return, under the Duke of Wellington or some other reactionary. Reform killed stone dead, amid riots. William's popularity disappears overnight, and it is doubtful whether a new Wellington ministry could have held on for much longer.
 
Top