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.