of Charles Manners Sutton to the speakership (ib. xxxvi. 846–8). He supported Sir James Mackintosh's motion for a select committee on the criminal laws on 2 March 1819, and was subsequently appointed a member of the committee (ib. xxxix. 826–7, 845). On 22 April 1825 Littleton, who had always been in favour of Roman catholic emancipation, introduced his Elective Franchise in Ireland Bill, which was read a second time on 26 April following by 233 to 185 votes (ib. 2nd ser. xiii. 126–32, 176–247), but was subsequently abandoned upon the rejection of the Relief Bill (ib. pp. 902–3). Littleton's bill and the Roman Catholic Clergy Support Bill, introduced by Lord Francis Leveson-Gower, were known as ‘the wings’ of Burdett's Roman Catholic Relief Bill. In 1828 he became a convert to the principles of parliamentary reform, and in 1831 was appointed, with Captain Beaufort, R.N., and Lieutenant T. Drummond, R.E., to superintend and report upon the inquiries of the boundary commissioners (Parl. Papers, 1831–2, vol. xxxvi.) Owing to Littleton's persistence an act was passed in 1831 prohibiting the truck system in various trades (1 & 2 Will. IV, cap. 37). At the general election in December 1832 Littleton was returned to the first reformed parliament as one of the members for South Staffordshire. Annoyed at the decision of the cabinet in favour of Manners Sutton's continuance in office, the radicals nominated Littleton as a candidate for the speakership. He was proposed by Joseph Hume and seconded by O'Connell. Littleton, however, declared himself to be an ‘unwilling candidate,’ and the motion was lost by 241 to 31 votes (Parl. Debates, 3rd ser. xv. 51–76). In May 1833 Littleton accepted the office of chief secretary to the lord-lieutenant of Ireland (the Marquis Wellesley), and was re-elected in the following month for South Staffordshire after ‘a short but not inexpensive contest’ with Lord Ingestre, whom he defeated by a majority of 433 votes. He was sworn a member of the privy council on 12 June 1833. At his suggestion the ministry asked parliament to advance 1,000,000l. to the Irish tithe-owners on the security of the arrears. Having carried a resolution to that effect in the House of Commons on 5 Aug. 1833, Littleton introduced the Irish Tithe Arrears Bill, which was quickly passed through both houses (3 & 4 Will. IV, cap. 100).
On 13 Feb. 1834 Littleton, taken by surprise, consented to support O'Connell's motion for a select committee to inquire into the conduct of Baron Smith. Though opposed by Graham and Spring Rice, the motion was carried by a large majority (ib. 3rd ser. xxi. 272–352), but the debate seriously damaged the government, and eight days afterwards Sir Edward Knatchbull's motion to reverse the vote was carried (ib. pp. 695–754). On 20 Feb. Littleton carried his resolution for the commutation of the existing composition for tithes in Ireland into a land tax payable to the state (ib. pp. 572–591). He opposed O'Connell's motion for the repeal of the union in a speech of considerable length on 24 April, and asserted that, since the passing of the Roman Catholic Emancipation Bill, O'Connell ‘had proved a most unfortunate obstacle to the social happiness of Ireland and her progressive improvement’ (ib. xxii. 1352–61). When he moved the second reading of his Tithe Bill on 2 May, O'Connell declared that such was his opinion of it ‘that he would take the sense of the house upon every question referring to it put by the chair’ (ib. xxiii. 425–6, 471); it was read, however, a second time on 6 June by a majority of 196 (ib. p. 678). The many changes which were made in the Tithe Bill in order to propitiate O'Connell led to Stanley's charge against Littleton of ‘thimbleshifting’ (ib. xxiv. 1154, 1206). In view of the vexed question of ‘appropriation’ the cabinet, at Littleton's suggestion, agreed to the appointment of a commission to ascertain ‘the state of religious and other instruction’ in Ireland, leaving it to him to prescribe the duties of the commission and to select the commissioners (Memoir, p. 8; Parl. Papers, 1835, vols. xxxiii. xxxiv.). Meantime it had become necessary to consider the question of renewing the Coercion Act of the previous year. Littleton had been desired by Wellesley to consult Brougham. They agreed that in order to smooth the course for the Tithe Bill ‘the meeting clauses’ should be omitted from the new Coercion Bill, and both wrote in this sense to Wellesley (Memoir, pp. 10–12). Wellesley, though he had hitherto advised the government to the contrary, wrote on 21 June to Lord Grey recommending the omission of the objectionable clauses (ib. pp. 33–7). On the 23rd Littleton, with Lord Althorp's concurrence, had an interview with O'Connell, whom he cautioned ‘against any unnecessary excitation of the people of Ireland until he should have seen the new Coercion Bill, which would be renewed, but with certain limitations’ (ib. p. 14), and indiscreetly admitted that ‘Althorp's sentiments upon the proposed modifications for the Coercion Bill corresponded with’ his own (ib. p. 57). The account which Brougham (Memoirs of his Life and Times, 1871, iii. 391–401) gives of
