February 6.
Spring-Rice asked Bankes in the House last night whether the letter to Sir J. Malcolm published as mine was mine. Bankes said that I had no copy of it, and therefore could not say it was correctly given. It was a private letter. Brougham, and Mackintosh, and that ass, M. A. Taylor, spoke in reprobation of it. Mackintosh most unfairly and disingenuously pretended to understand I endeavoured to get off by saying it was a private letter, and said it would be an extenuation of my offence if I would disavow the sentiments contained in it. What must he be himself to suppose I would disavow what I had written! Upon the whole, the tone taken by Peel and Bankes, but more especially by Peel, was too apologetical. I shall be obliged to go to the House on Monday to have a question put to me by Lord Lansdowne. I shall distinctly declare he may consider the letter as mine, and that I am ready to defend every line of it. Wrote to Lord Wellesley to offer to put his name upon the Committee on East India affairs if he would attend. He declines on account of ill-health.
Received a note from Peel begging me to have the Chairs to meet him on the appointment of the committee. I sent to the Chairman, and he came and met Peel; but Astell was out of the way. We are to meet at half-past one to- morrow. Peel did not seem to have looked much into the subject, which the Chairman observed.
Saw Bankes. He is not certain of succeeding now to the secretaryship of the Admiralty, but he expects it ultimately. He thinks the Duke of Buckingham had nothing to do with Lord Chandos's rejection of the Mint: but does not know how it went off. He thought that Lord Chandos had accepted, and the Duke seems to have thought so too.
A very good account from Ireland. The country gradually and quietly coming round.
Sunday, February 7.
Cabinet. First, Batta. The Duke gave his decided opinion in favour of adhering to the present order. After some conversation, but no opposition, the Cabinet acquiesced unanimously in that decision, which has been mine from the first.
I had a moment's conversation with Peel about the letter to Sir J. Malcolm, and told him I would defend every word of it, elephants and all.
Then we had a good deal of discussion respecting the policy to be pursued with regard to Cuba, against which the Mexicans are preparing to organise a slave insurrection, for which purpose they have sent a Minister to Hayti. It seems to be generally believed that Canning, about the year 1823, issued a sort of prohibition to the Mexican and Columbian States to attack Cuba, but no trace can be found in the Foreign Office of any such prohibition.
Sir R. Wilson means to ask a question upon the subject to-morrow. He says, if you prohibit the Mexicans and Columbians from attacking Cuba, you should prohibit the Spaniards from attacking them—which is fair—in fact the expedition of Barradas was undertaken before we knew anything about it, and if we had wished we could not have interfered.