The Greville Memoirs, Part 3 (of 3), Volume 2 (of 2): A Journal of the Reign of Queen Victoria from 1852 to 1860 — John Shaqi
The Greville Memoirs, Part 3 (of 3), Volume 2 (of 2): A Journal of the Reign of Queen Victoria from 1852 to 1860Greville, Charles
History
The Greville Memoirs, Part 3 (of 3), Volume 2 (of 2): A Journal of the Reign of Queen Victoria from 1852 to 1860
Greville, Charles
Great Britain -- History -- Victoria, 1837-1901
Last night the Evangelical and Sabbatarian interest had a great victory
in the House of Commons, routing those who endeavoured to effect the
opening of the National Gallery and British Museum on Sunday. The only
man of importance who sustained this unequal and imprudent contest was
Lord Stanley. At this moment cant and Puritanism are in the ascendant,
and so far from effecting any anti-sabbatarian reform, it will be very
well if we escape some of the more stringent measures against Sunday
occupations and amusements with which Exeter Hall and the prevailing
spirit threaten us.
[Sidenote: LORD CLARENDON IN PARIS.]
_February 24th._--A letter from Lady Clarendon, who says 'the report
about things going ill is false, and as yet things have hardly begun.
The Emperor in feelings and opinions is everything that Clarendon could
desire.' Madame de Lieven received Clarendon _à bras ouverts_, but said
very little to him. This morning I called on George Lewis, and had a
long talk about the prospects of peace. He said Palmerston, according
to his ancient custom, was doing all he could to extort as much as
possible from Russia, writing to Clarendon in this strain constantly
and urging him to insist on more and more concessions; but Lewis thinks
notwithstanding this that Palmerston has quite made up his mind for
peace, and that he makes demands very often with the expectation of
being refused, and the intention of not insisting on them if he finds
a very determined resistance. One point of difference is Kars; the
Russians not unfairly wish to have some equivalent for surrendering
it, and Palmerston insists that they are not entitled to any. In the
preliminaries it was settled that we were to restore all our conquests,
and they were in return to give up part of Bessarabia. At that time
Kars was not taken, and now they say the relative positions of the
parties are altered, and 'if we are to restore Kars, that ought to
be set against the restoration of Kinburn, the part of the Crimea
you occupy, &c., and having got an equivalent in Kars, you ought to
relax your demand for Bessarabia.' To this Palmerston replies that
the Russians are to guarantee the integrity of the Turkish dominions,
of which Kars is a part, and therefore their restoration of it is a
matter of course for which no equivalent is necessary. This argument is
not logical, and no arbitrator would admit it. It is a good point to
wrangle upon, and if the Russians knock under it will be because they
are resolved to submit to any terms rather than not have peace.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account