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 assured by the King, and within the last fortnight the King had given the same assurance 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.

Lord Wharncliffe, who overtook me as I was riding home, considered Lord
Anglesey to be blown out of water.

At Lady Brownlow’s ball I talked with Lord Farnborough, Longford, and Beresford.  All thought the reading of the letters should have been stopped, and that the Duke did wrong to read anything.  We could not stop the reading of the letters when the King’s permission to read them was stated distinctly by Lord Anglesey.  The misery is that we have a lying master.

May 5.

I called at the Treasury and saw the Duke.  On the subject of what took place yesterday he said, that having received the King’s commands to declare Lord Anglesey had not his permission to read the letters, he could not do otherwise than make the observations he did.  The gravamen of the charge against Lord Anglesey as arising out of those letters is that in the last he declares his intention of using them as public documents; and this being the ground upon which the King had acquiesced in his being relieved, for the King to have afterwards permitted the reading of those letters would have been a withdrawal of confidence from his Ministers.

I met Lord Ravensworth and talked to him upon the subject.  He seemed to be in a sort of alarm as to what took place yesterday.  This is superfluous.  The Duke’s explanation that he did not mean to say Lord Anglesey had reason to think he was permitted to read those letters was quite sufficient.  The Duke added that he had understood the contrary.