The Greville Memoirs, Part 2 (of 3), Volume 2 (of 3): A Journal of the Reign of Queen Victoria from 1837 to 1852Greville, Charles
History
The Greville Memoirs, Part 2 (of 3), Volume 2 (of 3): A Journal of the Reign of Queen Victoria from 1837 to 1852
Greville, Charles
Great Britain -- History -- Victoria, 1837-1901
_February 2nd._--I dined with George Harcourt on Saturday, and sat
next to Macaulay at dinner, when we talked about the measure, and what
the Whigs should do. He was all for urging immediate repeal. I told
him they must take care not to put the measure itself in jeopardy, and
suggested my own view of what Peel might do, and what Lord John ought
to do after his letter to the Queen. He said, on the first point, that
he certainly would rather give up pressing for immediate repeal than
endanger the measure, but that if Peel would consider a vote carried
against him on that point so seriously as to induce him to throw it
up or resign, he ought to say so; he ought to take an opportunity of
giving them notice as to what he would regard in so serious a light,
that they might at least understand what they were about. As to the
second point, he said he was sure John Russell did not see it as I
did, and that not one of the eighteen or twenty persons who were
assembled the other day at his house took that view of it; that he
apprehended all Lord John meant was to intimate to the Queen that if
he did not succeed in improving the Bill in committee (which he was
entirely at liberty to do as he thought best), he should be content to
take it as the Government might have framed it. I said that I could
not possibly put any such construction on it, and that it seemed
hardly worth his while to tell the Queen that if he could not alter
it he would take it unaltered, which he could not help doing; and I
argued that taking it with the context of the letter, and with what
had previously passed, I thought nothing but the greatest sophistry
could put any other meaning on it than this--that though Peel's
measure might not be the same as his would have been, nevertheless he
would support it; that he would not insist as the condition of his
support that it should be exactly the same: and, therefore, to attack
it in an essential part, and the part he had specified as that which
he should not insist upon, would be a hostile move, and if successful
might have very serious consequences.
[Sidenote: IMMEDIATE REPEAL.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account