Part 4 (1/2)

The King is very Russian. I believe all this will end in nothing. The Chancellor thinks they may try to make a change when Parliament is up, and so have six months before them. They may think of it; but the only object of such a Government would be _revenge._ They cannot repeal the Relief Bill, nor do they wish to pursue a different line of policy either at home or abroad.

The foreigners think that having settled the Catholic question we are ready to draw the sword, and find a field of battle wherever we can. This the Russians are afraid of, and hence arises in some degree their wish to overthrow the Duke's Government; but the real foundation of all the Russian intrigues is Madame de Lieven's hatred for the Duke, and her rage at feeling she has overreached herself.

_May 1._

Sir Thomas Tyrwhitt was with the King for two hours to-day, the Duke of c.u.mberland being in the room and the King in bed. The King is very much out of humour, and abused everything and everybody. He is very angry at ladies being admitted to the House of Lords, and particularly at their going in such numbers the day the Duke of Norfolk took his seat. The Duke of c.u.mberland has sworn he will not leave England till he has turned out the present Ministers. He is the only colonel of the Horse Guards who ever does duty--Lord Cathcart being absent and Lord Harrington incapable. When he last got the gold stick from Lord Harrington he swore he would never let it out of his hands. As gold stick he ordered the gates of the Horse Guards to be closed the day of the Drawing-room, and thus obliged all the Ministers who dressed in Downing Street to go all round.

He told Clanwilliam to-day with great satisfaction that the King never could again be on good terms with his Ministers.

No arrangement is yet made with the Master of the Rolls. Everything waits for the legal promotions. The King will be delighted with Scarlett [Footnote: Sir James Scarlett, afterwards Lord Abinger.] as Attorney- General, and the Chancellor tells me Bickersteth is to be Solicitor. I recollect hearing of him at Cambridge. He is a very clever man and a good speaker. Tindal is of course to be Master of the Rolls. I am most anxious to give up the Privy Seal to Rosslyn.

_May 3._

Cabinet at 2. Decided the Government was to take the same line exactly this year as to East Retford (that is, as to giving the two members to the Hundred) that it took last year. However, as it is impossible to get any Bill through the Lords this year, Peel will be very willing to accede to any proposition for postponing the whole question till next session.

On the question of Irish Education and on that of the grant to Maynooth, the vote will be as before--it being said that the state of the session and the circ.u.mstances of the present period make it advisable that the question of any change should be deferred. Indeed, Ministers have not had time to consider it.

Many of Lord Anglesey's letters to Peel and of Peel's answers were read. We have a very strong case against him on his letter to Dr. Curtis, which by a letter from Dr. Curtis to the Duke we know Lord Anglesey directed Dr.

Murray to publish if it could be done with Curtis's consent, and which Dr.

Murray did publish without obtaining such consent.

Curtis's letter is dated January 2.

Lord Anglesey wrote to Curtis for the Duke's letter and his answer, and had them two days before December 23, the date of his letter to Curtis.

Peel thinks the East Indian Committee should not be refused. It is better for the East Indian Company that it should be granted than refused. I entirely coincide with him.

_May 4._

Coal Committee at 12. Met Lord Bathhurst, with whom I had some conversation as to the Duke's reading letters in answer to Lord Anglesey. He begged me to go to the Duke, and try to induce him not to do so. I found the Duke agreeing with me entirely as to the danger of the president, and disposed to read only what might be absolutely necessary.

Lord Anglesey brought forward his motion for 'the letter of recall.'

The Duke answered him, and so well that even Lord Holland could not say one word. So the thing ended.

The Duke had been a.s.sured by the King, and within the last fortnight the King had given the same a.s.surance to Aberdeen, that Lord Anglesey had not _permission_ to read confidential letters.

Lord Anglesey stated that he had the King's permission.

The Duke certainly seemed to contradict him.

Lord Londonderry threw a note over to me suggesting that the contradiction was so direct there might be an awkward explanation out of doors unless the thing were softened down.

I mentioned this to Lord Bathurst. He thought not.

However, when he replied, Lord Anglesey treated the contradiction as absolute, and Lord Bathurst told the Duke he must give some explanation, which the Duke did, saying he did not mean to accuse Lord Anglesey of declaring he had the King's permission when he had not, but only that he had reason to think he had not. In fact, the King, as we always thought, told the Duke one thing and Lord Anglesey another; and the only result of the debate is that the King is proved to have told a lie.