these transactions is both misleading and inaccurate. He ignores the fact that the proposal to induce Wellesley to consent to the omission of the meeting clauses originated with himself, and his statement that ‘the letter which Littleton had written to Lord Wellesley, and which produced Lord Wellesley's letter to Grey of 21 June, was concocted, as Grey entirely believed, by Edward Ellice,’ is inconsistent with the true state of the case. Misled by Littleton's assurances O'Connell urged his friends to support the whig candidate for the vacancy at Wexford. Grey had, however, written to Wellesley ‘a strong representation.’ Though Wellesley in his reply to Grey maintained the position taken in his letter of the 21st, he assured Littleton that he should ‘certainly be satisfied with whatever course the cabinet chooses to adopt’ (Memoir, p. 43). A meeting of the cabinet (of which Littleton was not a member) was held on the 29th, when Wellesley's two letters were read, and Grey having ‘declared that nothing should shake his resolve not to propose any renewal which did not embrace the provisions respecting meetings, his colleagues yielded the point’ (ib. p. 44). On hearing the result of the cabinet council Littleton communicated to O'Connell the failure of his expectations, and on 1 July the Coercion Bill was introduced by Lord Grey, who quoted a letter from Lord Wellesley of 18 April, expressing ‘his most anxious desire that the act might be renewed,’ but made no reference to the letter of 21 June (ib. p. 15; Parl. Debates, 3rd ser. xxiv. 1011–26). Enraged at the apparent duplicity of the government, O'Connell, breaking the promise of secrecy which he had given, on 3 July disclosed in the House of Commons his conversation with Littleton, who admitted in his reply that he had ‘committed a gross indiscretion,’ but denied any intention of deceiving O'Connell (ib. pp. 1099–1116). On the following day, during the debate on the second reading of the Coercion Bill, Lord Grey in the House of Lords disavowed any knowledge of the communication with O'Connell, and allowed it to be understood that the question was settled when Littleton had represented it to be unsettled (ib. pp. 1127–30). In consequence of this misunderstanding Littleton on 5 July sent in his resignation to Lord Grey, who refused to accept it (Memoir, pp. 61–4), and on the 7th Althorp, at Littleton's request, stated in the House of Commons that Littleton had good grounds for informing O'Connell that the clauses were still under consideration (Parl. Debates, 3rd ser. xxiv. 1222–3). A motion having been threatened for the production of the private correspondence between the members of the English and Irish governments, Althorp determined to resign, and Grey, seizing the opportunity, announced his own resignation on 9 July (ib. pp. 1305–19). Having learnt from Lord Ebrington that there was a general feeling among Grey's friends that he ought to retire, Littleton on 16 July, after acknowledging that he had been ‘the main cause of Lord Grey's retirement,’ placed his resignation in Lord Melbourne's hands (Memoir, p. 99). Althorp, who had withdrawn his resignation, however, declared that as they were both in the same position, it was impossible for him to continue in the government unless Littleton continued also (ib. pp. 24, 101–3). Littleton thereupon consented to remain in office, and on 18 July supported the introduction of the new Coercion Bill, from which the court-martial and the meeting clauses were omitted (Parl. Debates, 3rd ser. xxv. 160–9). His Tithe Bill passed through the commons, but was thrown out by the House of Lords on the second reading (ib. p. 1204). He resigned office with the rest of his colleagues upon Lord Melbourne's dismissal in November 1834. At the general election in January 1835 he was again returned for South Staffordshire, but his hopes of the speakership were dispelled by the selection of Abercromby as the whig candidate (Torrens, Life of Lord Melbourne, 1878, ii. 82). He was created Baron Hatherton of Hatherton on 11 May 1835, and took his seat in the House of Lords on 1 June following (Journals of the House of Lords, lxvii. 171). In his maiden speech there on the following day he gave rise to a short but excited discussion by applying the phrase ‘sectarian’ to the established church in Ireland (Parl. Debates, 3rd ser. xxviii. 355–8). Hatherton never received any other political office. He voted for the repeal of the corn laws in 1846, and was appointed lord-lieutenant of Staffordshire on 8 June 1854. He spoke for the last time in the House of Lords on 23 May 1862 (ib. clxvi. 2091). He died on 4 May 1863, aged 72, at Teddesley, near Penkridge, Staffordshire, and was buried in Penkridge Church on the 12th.
Hatherton was a man of moderate abilities and unimpeachable character. He began his political career as a member of the independent country party and ended it as a whig. He gained a certain reputation in the House of Commons as an authority on matters of parliamentary procedure. Greville, who seems to have cherished a special contempt for him, erroneously asserts that he ‘volunteered his services’ to Lord Grey as chief secretary for
