May 1.

Sir Thomas Tyrwhitt was with the King for two hours to-day, the Duke of Cumberland 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 Cumberland 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 circumstances 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.