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