American Telegraph

Kossuth and England.

It is said that the Turkish Envoy lately called upon Mr. Lawrence to ask what number of ships our Government would send to defend the Turks, in case the liberation of Kossuth should induce Russia to march upon Constantinople. Mr. Lawrence could do no more than shrug his shoulders, and refer him to Congress. He then went to Lord Palmerston, who, in answer to the same inquiry, said, "The whole British navy."

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 a fixed and unchanging purpose of seizing Constantinople? And who does not know that the purpose of England has been as fixed and determined to prevent it? Who does not know that Protestant England has done all in her power to uphold the Catholic Metternich? 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 a European war, the United States being 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 a 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 non-interference in the conflicts of Europe. England knows that if she were to propose an alliance against Russia, we would refuse it. Kossuth 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 a 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 institutions. 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, 1841, says:

"Until 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 infamous for plundering 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. It is notorious 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 to demonstrate that England cannot persevere in injustice to India without inflicting 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 India? 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 millions of British East India subjects had no influence 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 inflicting deep injury on herself? Let the same writer answer; he says:

"The relation of India to England is very different from that in which we stand to any other of our transmarine possessions. Our colonies take our manufactures and pay us for them, and our manufacturers and ship-owners make their respective profits by these transactions. India also buys our manufactures to a large and increasing extent, and, if we govern her well and treat her fairly, her value as a customer will increase very quickly and greatly. Every facility given to the sale of her productions here must add to the fund from which she pays for British manufactures. But India is more than a customer. The peculiar circumstances in which she is placed render her tributary to us to a 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 very little, if at all, over-estimated at £4,000,000 per annum, (twenty 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 articles in which she 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, benefitting so much by the connexion, should discharge its counterpart obligation by placing her, which is all that she seeks, on footing of equality with her foreign territories."

We beg the reader to remember that these are the words of an able British writer—that they show that India pays twenty millions of 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 Envoy, 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 Kossuth, we will interpose for Hungary; but why should the United States do so? Is it because we desire to wage a war for civil liberty? If this be so, why go to Hungary? Where is Ireland? Where is India? Where is Mexico? Where is Cuba? Where is St. Domingo?

It is said that there are in the United States 7,500,000 Irishmen and the descendants of Irishmen, driven from the homes of their ancestors by an oppression as grievous as the Austrian despotism. If we must take part in the struggle for liberty, why not demand the freedom of those whose blood flows in our veins? If we must engage in European wars, why not humble the pride of despotic England? If we must intervene in behalf of a groaning, suffering people, why not look to Cuba?

The Forrest divorce case is begun in New York, and will prove interesting to some folks. The papers will make the most of it.