Henceforth Stuart-Wortley acted with the moderate tories as an independent supporter of the Liverpool ministry. At first he deprecated the proceedings against the princess royal. On 22 June 1820 he seconded Wilberforce's motion for a parliamentary mediation between George IV and Queen Caroline, and was one of the four members commissioned to carry the resolution to the queen (Parl. Deb. 2nd ser. 1228–1229, 1334). When, however, she rejected the overture, Stuart-Wortley supported ministers in setting on foot an investigation (ib. pp. 1381–3). He constantly urged on ministers the necessity of economy, and in 1819 was a member of the parliamentary committee to inquire into the civil list (Courts and Cabinets of the Regency, ii. 325).
In 1818 Stuart-Wortley was elected for the most important county constituency in Great Britain, that of Yorkshire. His colleague was Lord Milton (afterwards Earl Fitzwilliam). He proved a most efficient representative. He constantly opposed, in the interests of his constituents and others, the imposition of duties on the importation of foreign wool, and advocated the freeing of English wool from export duties. He opposed a parliamentary inquiry into the ‘Manchester massacre,’ thinking it more fit for a court of law, and attacked radicals like Hunt and Wooller; but at the same time he proposed a property tax to relieve the poor from the burden of taxation. In May 1820 he declared against further protection to agriculture, holding that the distress of that interest bore no proportion to that of manufactures (Parl. Deb. 2nd ser. i. 116, 117).
In questions of foreign policy Stuart-Wortley shared the views of Canning. On 21 June 1821 he moved for copies of the circular issued by the members of the holy alliance at Laybach, stigmatising their proceedings as dangerous to the liberties both of England and Europe. The motion was negatived by 113 to 59 (ib. v. 1254–60). In April 1823 he defended the ministerial policy of neutrality between France and Spain, and moved and carried an amendment to a motion condemning it. He also acted with the liberal sections of both parties in supporting catholic emancipation, to which he had announced himself a convert as early as 1812, and on 28 May 1823 he seconded Lord Nugent's motion for leave to bring in a bill to assimilate the position of English and Irish Roman catholics. But his attitude on the question lost him his seat in 1826.
His position towards economic questions probably also unfavourably affected his relations with his constituents. In February 1823 he had supported both by speech and vote Whitmore's bill to amend the corn laws. On 7 July 1823, in opposing the Reciprocity of Duties Bill, he gave his opinion that it would be impossible to retain for any considerable time the protection given to agricultural produce (ib. ix. 1439).
In 1824 Stuart-Wortley, who described himself as a strict preserver, brought in a bill to amend the game laws. Its object was twofold: to abolish the system by which the right to kill game was vested in a class and to make it depend on the ownership of the soil, and to diminish the temptations to poaching by legalising the sale of game. The bill was often reintroduced in succeeding years, and it was not until 1832 that a measure which embodied its main provisions became law.
On 12 July 1826 Stuart-Wortley was created Baron Wharncliffe of Wortley. While in the House of Commons he had repeatedly declared against the principle of parliamentary reform. On 26 Feb. 1824 he had moved the rejection of Abercromby's motion for the reform of the constituency of Edinburgh (ib. 464 et seq.). In 1831, however, after carrying an amendment raising the voting qualification at Leeds, he had taken charge of the Grampound disfranchisement bill, the object of which was to transfer its representation to that town. When the House of Lords proposed instead to give additional members to the county of York, Stuart-Wortley advised the abandonment of the measure. On 28 March 1831, by moving for statistics of population and representation, Wharncliffe initiated the first general discussion of the reform question in the House of Lords. While making an able and hostile analysis of the government bill, he declared his conviction that no body of men outside parliament would back resistance to a moderate measure (ib. 3rd ser. iii. 983 et seq.; Courts and Cabinets of William IV, i. 267). Upon the rejection of the first reform bill in committee of the House of Commons, he on 22 April 1831 moved an address to the king praying him to refrain from using his prerogative of proroguing or dissolving parliament. As Brougham was replying, the king was announced, and, after a scene of great confusion, the prorogation took place (Parl. Deb. 3rd ser. iii. 1806 et seq.; cf. May, Const. Hist. i. 141–2). When on 3 Oct. following the second Reform Bill came up for second reading in the upper house, Wharncliffe moved that it be read a second time that day six months. He objected that the proposed ten-pound franchise was a bogus one, that the measure was designed to delude the landed
