I had a conversation with the Duke, in which he evidently felt embarrassed, because he admitted the folly of suspending any measures, but was forced to admit, at the same time, he was compelled to it. He talked over and admitted the inefficiency of many members of the Cabinet, but then said there were reasons which made it difficult to remove them, particularly when adverting to Lord Sidmouth--said he knew how "silly a fellow he was," but that a great following of the country attended him, and he would bring more "_public_ opinion" to the Cabinet than any other member. It was to his change, however, they looked. That it was impossible the House of Commons could go on as it was; and the difficulty was, how best to strengthen it, when there was in all parts of the House _such a parity_ of abilities. I admitted this, but said the disparity was only displayed in the Government benches; that B. Bathurst, Vansittart, and others (I did not name Pole) were perfect cyphers. It is clear that the efficient members--viz., Liverpool, Londonderry, and the Duke of Wellington--have been thwarted in their endeavours by the minor members of the Cabinet, and this arising from the want of energy in Lord Liverpool. I said, "Do you think the present supporters of Government, and the members of the Cabinet whom you may remove, would or could oppose the new Cabinet?" "Certainly not," he answered; "but though they would support, yet it would be an unwilling and cold support, such as could not be relied on." I made him feel as much as I could the awkward situation in which he himself was placed, with the opinions he entertained of the weakness of Government; and he really had nothing to say to this, except that it could not last, but that a strengthening of the Cabinet _must_ take place before the opening. One thing, however, has [been] elicited--namely, that neither Canning nor Peel are thought of as in distinction to a more enlarged opening.