(with calm and confident accompaniments).
Our contemporary “The Watch Tower” is grossly mistaken when he asserts
that Ministers were outvoted on the question of the potato monopoly.
They were _not_ outvoted. They merely abandoned the measure, as _we_
foresaw they would do from the first, and as _we_ from the first advised
them to do. Our contemporary is equally wrong in ascribing to a certain
political party an undue influence in the affairs of this city. _We_ know
for certain that the party alluded to have no such influence. The idea is
absurd.
Pray what _can_ “The Watch Tower” mean by saying that the balance of
power would not be in the least disturbed by Russia’s taking possession
of Timbuctoo. Absurd! The balance of power _would_ be disturbed, and very
seriously too, by such a proceeding. By gaining possession of Timbuctoo,
Russia would gain possession of Africa; and by gaining possession of
Africa, Russia would gain possession of Cape Coast Castle, the coast of
Guinea, and the Cape of Good Hope; and by gaining the Cape of Good Hope,
she would deprive us of the East Indies. And, pray, where would we be
then? We put the question to our contemporary with solemn earnestness,
and with calm composure wait for his reply.
Really, our friend “The Watch Tower” is but a so-so hand at politics. He
positively should be more cautious how he speaks of matters with which he
is unacquainted. The consequence of an opposite conduct is a series of
the most ridiculous blunders.
* * * * *
“The Watch Tower” is not to be contradicted and brow-beat in this way
with impunity. He gives in return
A REJOINDER (with cool and easy settler).
In reply to certain captious remarks that appeared in yesterday’s
Patagonian on our leading article of the 15th instant, we beg to say, for
the information of the editor of that paper, that we did _not_ say that
Ministers were outvoted on the potato question. What we did say was, that
Ministers _would_ have been outvoted on that question had they brought it
to issue. Strange that our contemporary _will_ not read us aright.
Again, in ascribing a certain influence to a certain party, we guarded
our expressions by the word “conditionally,” which, however, our
contemporary, with his usual candour, has chosen to overlook, and thus
entirely altered our meaning. Our contemporary concludes his tirade by
asking us what we mean by saying “that the balance of power would not
be in the least disturbed by Russia’s taking possession of Timbuctoo.”
Now, what will our readers think when we tell them that we made no such
assertion? What we said was, that the balance of power would not be
disturbed by Russia’s _occupying_ Timbuctoo, not possessing it, which
difference of expression makes, we apprehend, a material difference
in meaning. We supposed Russia occupying Timbuctoo as a friend, not
possessing it as an enemy; and in this view of the case we repeat
that the balance of power would in no ways be affected. We grant our
contemporary’s conclusions, but deny his premises.
With regard to our contemporary’s sneer at our political knowledge, we
would reply by calling his attention to his own blundering articles--(see
his incomprehensible article on the corn-laws, his interminable article
on the poor-rates, his unintelligible article on free trade and the
Kamschatka loan, &c. &c. &c.) The editor of the Patagonian may rest
assured that he has much to learn in the science of politics, and much,
too, that we could teach him, although it is no business of ours to
enlighten his ignorance.