interest, and he took exception to its populational basis. He refrained, however, from any defence of nomination boroughs. After a brilliant debate the second reading was defeated by 199 to 158 (Parl. Deb. 3rd ser. vii. 970 et seq.) Two days later he presented petitions against the measure from bankers and merchants of London, and maintained that the opinion of the capital was opposed to the bill (ib. pp. 1309–15). But he had lost confidence in the possibility of successful resistance. In an interview with ‘Radical Jones’ [see Jones, Leslie Grove], he was impressed by his prediction of the dangers which would follow the rejection of the Reform Bill. Within a month of the defeat of the measure Wharncliffe and Harrowby were approached by the whig government through their sons in the commons. After a meeting of the two fathers and sons at Harrowby's house in Staffordshire, a memorandum was drawn up as a basis for negotiation. Greville, who heard it read, calls it moderate and says that it embraced ample concessions. The memorandum was shown to the cabinet and approved. But many tories declined to accept Wharncliffe's compromise. The city of London refused its adhesion, and Lord Grey broke off the negotiations. Grey sent the king Wharncliffe's memorandum, and William IV expressed regret at the failure of negotiations, but thought what had passed was calculated to be useful (Sir H. Taylor to Earl Grey, 2 Dec.) On 11 Dec. a further meeting between Wharncliffe, Harrowby, and Chandos on the one side, and Grey, Brougham, and Althorp on the other, proved equally fruitless (Earl Grey to Sir H. Taylor, 12 Dec.) Nevertheless, in January 1832, Wharncliffe advised the tories to support the second reading of the new bill and afterwards modify it in committee. He impressed on Wellington the danger of coming into collision with crown, commons, and people in a useless struggle. His remonstrance failed to move the duke, and Wharncliffe determined to act independently of him. In two interviews with William IV (on 12 Jan. and early in February), he assured the king that as he and his friends were determined to support the second reading there was no need of a creation of peers. On 27 March Wharncliffe and Harrowby made their first public declaration of their intention to support the bill, Wharncliffe being, according to Greville, ‘very short and rather embarrassed.’ On 9 April their support secured for the second reading a majority of nine.
Wharncliffe felt acutely his separation from the tory party, and on 7 May voted for Lyndhurst's amendment postponing the disfranchising clauses, by which the progress of the bill was again delayed. His position was now very difficult (Croker Papers, ii. 174); he had offended both his own party and the whigs. Grey resigned on the carrying of Lyndhurst's amendment, and Wellington, when seeking to form a government, was advised by Lyndhurst not only to offer office to Wharncliffe's son, but to consider well before he decided not to include Wharncliffe himself, as ‘he is gallant, and may be very troublesome against us’ (Wellington Corresp. viii. 307). The whigs soon resumed office, and the bill was proceeded with. On 24 May Wharncliffe moved an amendment to prevent persons voting for counties in respect of property situated in boroughs, and said he was not reconciled to the bill, which went further than the occasion required. The following day he proposed that the ten-pound qualification should be based on the assessment for poor rate (Parl. Deb. 3rd ser. xiii. 19, 111 et seq.) He abstained from voting on the third reading, but signed the two protests drawn up by Lord Melros (ib. pp. 377, 378). Anxious to regain the favour of his party, Wharncliffe in 1833 sent Wellington a sketch of a proposed policy in the new parliament, in which the duke concurred.
In February 1834 Greville describes him as ‘very dismal about the prospects of the country.’ On 13 Dec. of the same year Wharncliffe was invited by Peel to join his first ministry, notwithstanding the lukewarmness of his recent opposition to the Irish tithe bill (Courts and Cabinets of William IV, ii. 119). He accepted the office of lord privy seal after receiving an assurance that the policy of the new ministry would be liberal in character (Greville). In January 1835 he acted as one of the committee to arrange the church reform bill. In April he retired with his colleagues, and remained in opposition during the next six years. During these years Wharncliffe found time to edit the letters and works of his ancestress, Lady Mary Wortley-Montagu. His edition appeared in 5 vols. in 1837, and superseded Dallaway's. It was reissued in 1861 and 1893.
When Peel returned to office in the autumn of 1841, Wharncliffe became lord president of the council. In the conduct of his office he was, says Greville, fair, liberal, and firm. ‘He really, too, does the business himself.’ On the other hand, he was not so successful as leader in the upper house. He was too liberal in education matters for the high-church party, and had not weight enough in the cabinet to enforce the execution of
