- The remarks in our last week’s impression on this subject [The Albert Memorial], we learn, orally and by written communication, have been identified with the active measures said to have been taken by some of our west-end gentry, and “hence the spirit of opposition in which those remarks were penned”. It is only fair to ourselves that we refute the imputation of being connected with “a party bent on thwarting the efforts of a committee in their laudable object” of collecting funds for a memorial to the memory of a great and good man. The remarks in the Gazette were made quite independently of party influence or party bias, and entirely upon which we conceived to be the merits of the question. We saw that a diversity of ideas prevailed as to what form and shape the memorial ought to assume; we knew that many persons would refuse to contribute to the fund unless their own pet scheme had a chance of being adopted; we rembered(sic) that the public meeting was comparatively unattended by the wealthy and influential portion of the inhabitants; and we learnt from the Queen’s letters that her Majesty had set her heart upon the erection of at least one memorial of a really national character, and that any controversy or dispute respecting it would be “inexpressibly painful” to her. These were the considerations upon which we based our approval and recommendation of a national in lieu of a local memorial; and even now we see no reason to retract or alter a single word contained in those remarks. They were made in perfectly good faith and under a generous impulse which suggested to us the advocacy of that which we deemed the most likely to allay local jealousies and deputations, and at the same time exhibit our loyalty in seconding the efforts of the London committee to carry out the wishes of our excellent Queen.
Something has been said about an “anonymous circular” and “private exhortations from house to house in certain districts to thwart the efforts of the committee”. We have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of this, although the circular and its author are unknown to us, and the “private exhortation” is a circumstance equally without the pale of our knowledge. But whatsoever may have been done in the manner described, it is just possible – nay, probable that the inhabitants in the eastern part of the borough will have cause to be thankful that the opposition has given them a spur to raise the greater portion of the money among themselves, and thus enable them at the forthcoming meeting of subscribers to outvote those who may be opposed to the clock-tower proposed to be erected in that part of the borough. We are far from believing that all opposition is baneful; and if we especially take that view in this case, the idea is strengthened by the expressed determination of the committee not to allow their plans to be defeated, and by the increased subscriptions of those who are in favour of the project thus contended for.
There are, however, just two circumstances connected with the question -
