American telegraph. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1851-1851, 1851-12-18


Mr.. Lawrence could do no more than shrug his
shoulders, and refer him to Congress de then
went to Lord Palmerston, who, in answer TO the
same INQUIRY, said, :" The whOle British mary"
Now, why did Lord Palmerston reply SO
promptly and emphatically? Who does not
know that from the days of Catharine until
now, the Russian government have had fixed
and unchaDging purpose Of Selling Constanti-
nople? And who does not know that the pur-
pose of England has been as fixed and deter
mined to proven it? Who does not know that
Protestant England has done all in her power
to uphold the Catholic Mettcrnich? And why
Was it not because Austria and her Hungarian
kingdom were interposed between Russia and
Constantinople? Events have thrown Austria
and Hungary into the arms of Russia; and
England now sees in Kossuth the person, who,
aided by her, may restore Hungary and arrest
the progress Of Russia But she sees that, In
case Of European war, the United States be-
ing neutral, we must be the carriers for the
world, and especially for the north of Europe,
and thus become the first of maritime nations;
and therefore England wishes to embroil us IN
war with Russia. But England is well aware
that the people Of the United States are jealous
of England, and that we are pledged to nom
interference in the conflicts Of Europe Eng
land knows that if she were to propose an ALI
ance against Russia, we would refuse It, Kos
suth ought to have known this; and hence the
demonstrations made by him in England, and
the fact that England interposed in his behalf,
and is now prepared to form an alliance with us
in movement against Russia, should admonish
US that that alliance would promote the selfish
ends of England. The pretence is sympathy
for Hungary and for the cause Of free institu
tons. We would point to India and to Ireland
and demand that England shall do justice to
India and to Ireland before she asks us to unite
our destinies with her in a conflict with Russia
or the continental powers Of Europe.
Let us see what the condition of India is. The
Edinburgh Review of January, l84l, says:
'a'Till the other day not an Englishman
owned an acre Of land in India, and well was it
for the people of that country, that those who,
in the early days of our ascendency, were in
famous for pundering provinces, were prevented
from appropriating the provinces to themselves.
Still the effect of the restriction was to check,
almost to preclude, the growth Of an Anglo
Indian interest, possessed of any interest In
Downing street, or ST. Stephens. 1t is noto-
rious on the other hand, how well West India
property is represented in both Houses. We
should therefore feel that we have undertaken
a hopeless cause, were we not convinced that
we shall be able 10 demonstrate that England can
not persevere in injustice TO India witloH untictRg
deep injury upon herself"
This extract shows that as late as January,
1841, the East India interest was struggling
with the West Indian--that until the other day
not an Englishman owned an acre of land in
India. Why did England change her policy in
relation to India2 Why did she repeal the duty
which gave to West India the supply Of the
British market, and excluded the raw products
Of East India? Why was it that one hundred mil
lions of British East India subjects had no infu-
ence in the British parliament? Why did the
reviewer deem it hopeless to plead the cause Of
India, unless he could demonstrate that England
cannot persevere in injustice to India without
inficting deep injury on herself2 Let the same
writer answer; he says:
aThe relation of India to England is very
different from that in which we stand to any
other of our transmarine possessions. Our
them, and our manufacturers and ship-owners
make their respective profits by these transac-
tons. India also buys our manufactures to a
large and increasing extent, and, IF zoe govern
her sceH and treat her fairly, her value as a Gus
toner viii increase very quickly and greatly.
Every faclity giUen TO the sale Of her productions
here must add 10 the fund from 1chich she pays for
British manufactures. But India is more than
customer. The peculiar circumstances in which
she is placed render her tributary to US to o
| very large amount. In the whole,
we are persuaded that the amount of public
and private remittances from India, for which
this country makes no return, IS peyy htte, u at
ALL over-estimated al G4,000,000 per dnnum,
| (tpenly millions Of dollars"
The same writer proceeds: India, making
such payments, is justified in demanding that
her means Of rendering them should be as much
facilitated as possible--that none Of the arti-
cles in which che would, if unshackled, desire
to make them, should be virtually excluded
| from our market, in order to give advantage to
| the produce Of more favored dependencies and
that England, 5eneftting 40 much By he conner
ION, should discharge its counterpart obligation
by placing her, which is oil that she seeks, on
footing of equality with her foreign terrific
ries"
| We beg the reader to remember that these
are the words of an able British writer--that
they show that India pays trenty millions q
| dollars to England, for which England makes
no return, and that India is the great mart for
the consumption Of British merchandise. Well
might Lord Palmerston say to the Turkish En-
voy, we will send the whole British navy to
avert the progress Of Russia, for Russia covets
Constantinople, because it is the highway to
India. England may therefore well say to
Kossutb, we win interpose for Hungary; but
why should the United States do so Is it be-