The Grenville connection, succession to Wynnstay, whose estates and influence ranged over seven counties in North Wales and the Marches, and the excesses of his youth had made Williams Wynn ‘a person of great weight in every sense of the word’. Called ‘the prince of Wales’, he presided over the Society of Ancient Britons, chaired the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion on its revival in 1820, patronized London’s Welsh charity school and eisteddfodau, and was expected, like his grandfather, to make his town house in St. James’s Square the focus of the Welsh elite in London, as Wynnstay remained in North Wales. His marriage alliance with the Clives of Powis Castle, who supported Lord Liverpool’s administration, worked to his financial and electoral advantage, and has been noted as a step towards the subsequent Grenvillite rapprochement with government.
In the House, where he sat under the gallery, Williams Wynn divided against government on the appointment of an additional Scottish exchequer baron, 15 May, and the barrack bill, 17 July 1820. He was named to the select committee on agricultural distress, 31 May, and informed it, as a witness, that the Wrexham corn returns were unreliable because most corn was sold by sample, 26 June.
Sir Watkin’s request that his wife be privileged to ride in her carriage through Hyde Park before and after her confinement in April 1822 was immediately granted.
Liverpool’s new Welsh church and the Denbigh dispensary benefited from Wynnstay’s generosity and there was a ‘grand christening for Herbert Watkin on Saturday [8 June 1822] and the house [Wynnstay] was as much admired as in its first days’.
Williams Wynn suffered severely from erysipelas and hearing problems in the winter of 1826-7.
I believe the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts will pass; but that a declaration that nothing shall be done to the detriment of the established church will be substituted for the sacramental test upon entering into corporations. The government jog on quietly and I believe will stand. People like a prime minister instead of a government of departments which has been more or less the case ever since Lord Grenville.
NLW ms 2796 D, Sir W. to H. Williams Wynn, 18 Mar. 1828.
He had predicted and regretted ministerial differences over free trade, and expected government to encounter ‘a good deal of trouble ... on the corn question’ following publication of Huskisson’s letter to his Liverpool constituents. He wrote: ‘As I dread the Lords upon the Catholic question, I have full confidence in their protection on corn’.
I may meet a parcel of Welsh shopkeepers in London on the 1st, but it is three or four years since I have attended and Charles makes such bother about it, I suppose partly from the hope of getting a stray vote upon an important question in the ... Commons, where certainly the attendance is very slack at that time of year. In such case ... I think I must go up.
Shrewsbury Chron. 7 Mar.; NLW ms 2796 D, Sir W. to H. Williams Wynn, 16 Jan. 1828.
He presented a petition for repeal of the malt duties from Wrexham, 5 Mar., but was ill with ‘a slight attack of erysipelas’ when the corn resolutions were announced.
there is little change from the proposal of last year excepting that when corn is below 60s. the duty will not be so high as was formerly proposed and that when it is above that point it will be higher. I do not see any reason for this change, but do not think that it will be a sufficient cause for opposing the bill.
Ibid. Sir W. to H. Williams Wynn, 1 Apr. 1828.
He cast a minority vote to lower the corn pivot price from 64s. to 60s., 22 Apr., went afterwards to Audley End and Newmarket for the racing and returned to vote for Catholic relief, 12 May, on his way to ‘Chester races and to fix the place for my lodge’ at Wynnstay.
Now rarely acting independently of Charles in the Commons, he divided for Catholic emancipation, 6, 30 Mar., as ministers had predicted, voting also to permit Daniel O’Connell to sit without swearing the oath of supremacy, 18 May, and against additional expenditure on the marble arch, 27 May. He endorsed his corps’s petition against recent militia cuts, 23 Feb., and they continued to serve without government funding. He presided over the London eisteddfod in the Argyll Rooms, 6 Mar.
Ministers listed Sir Watkin, who remained on friendly terms with Buckingham, among their ‘foes’, and he divided against them when they were brought down on the civil list, 15 Nov. 1830, and welcomed Charles’s appointment as secretary at war in the Grey ministry.
The government plan of reform goes in my opinion too far, but it has been so received all over the country that I doubt its being possible were it expedient to resist it. Add to which those who like myself are for moderate reform are so disjointed and separated that I fear no moderate plan will be brought forward.
Ibid. Sir W. to H. Williams Wynn, 11 Apr. 1831.
Opponents stressed his failure to present the Denbighshire reform petition, and at Ruthin he was burnt in an effigy bearing the caption ‘I am opposed to reform, to the king, and the people; I am a friend to borough mongers and a snug place for my brother Charles’. He had to canvass in person, and narrowly avoided a poll against John Madocks of Glan-y-wern by promising to pay greater heed to his constituents’ wishes on reform.
Presenting the Denbighshire reform petition, 22 June, he categorically denied that he was pledged to support the reintroduced reform bill, but to the king’s surprise, and possibly heeding constituency interests, the Williams Wynns divided for its second reading, 6 July 1831.
You will see the amendments in the reform bill of which as far as they go I approve. I had paired with Lord Grosvenor but have withdrawn it, not wishing to be treated as being opposed to the second reading of the bill though I may vote for amendments in the committee, which I fear will call me to town early in January, and I may perhaps vote against the third reading, though I fear that it is now too late, and that the wisest plan will be to submit quietly and hope and endeavour to stop it here and not to let it be a stepping stone for further changes or reformations as they may be called. I was surprised at Chandos’s speech, which is much more temperate and sensible than I should have expected from him.
NLW ms 2797 D, Sir W. to H. Williams Wynn, 18 Dec. 1831.
He voted against enfranchising Tower Hamlets, 28 Feb., and the third reading, 22 Mar. 1832. He paired against government on the Russian-Dutch loan, 12 July 1832. He thought the reform bill had brought Charles politically closer to Buckingham.
At the general election in December 1832, he gave his interest at Wenlock to Charles’s son-in-law John Milnes Gaskell†, was annoyed by his co-patron Lord Clive’s tardy announcement of a candidate for Montgomery Boroughs, and was sorry to see the Conservatives John Cotes† and William Ormsby Gore* contesting Shropshire North. He refused to endorse the Liberal Myddelton Biddulph or the Conservative Lloyd Kenyon* of Gredington for Denbighshire’s second seat and topped the poll there, supported by all except ‘a few who are either violent reformers or violent for the immediate abolition of slavery’.
