The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-10 00:00:00

Urnin un

LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 10, 1849.

The Protectionists still exhibit the same deter-
mined hostility to the principles of free trade. They
would still retain the restrictions and incumbrances
by which the due development of our commerce are
retarded, and the deepest injury inflicted upon our
merchants and traders. They regard a free and fair
competition as something so utterly destructive to the
national interests, that British industry must be
withered and crushed under its blighting influence,
unless sustained by the most stringent enactments
conferring practical monopolies. They have now
arrayed themselves in support of the Navigation
Laws, the most vexatious of the remnants of the
almost obsolete system.
The Right Honourable Gentleman the Member
for Stamford stood forth last night as the champion
of monopoly. He opposed the Ministerial measure,
in a speech of considerable length, in which he ex-
pressed his intention to offer the most strenuous oppo-
sition to the further progress of the Bill, and con-
cluded by moving as an amendment that it should be
read a second time that day six months. This amend-
ment was supported by his Noble Colleague and by
the Honourable Member for Oxfordshire—and op-
posed by the Members for Westbury and Liverpool,
who adduced the most cogent arguments in favour
of the change and completely demolished the assump-
tions of the Protectionists. The debate
was subsequently adjourned until Monday
evening,: after a significant intimation from
the Premier that the discussion must be brought
to a close on that evening, for that he could consent
to no further adjournment. This is as :it should be.
The matter has already received the most mature and
attentive consideration'; it has been exhibited in
every light, and regarded in all its bearings. The
present discussion may, indeed, be looked upon as a
continuation of that commenced last year, when no
less than ten Government nights were fully con-
sumed, and when the Ilouse decided on going
into Committee by a majority. of 117, after a de-
bate protracted from the 15th May, when the subject
was first introduced by the President of the Board
of Trade, until the 9th of June, when the propriety
of the. change was affirmed by a majority so decisive.
It is unnecessary to dwell upon the Fabian policy
adopted by the Protectionists—the vexatious delays
that were interposed at every stage of its progress,
until the Government were at length compelled to
postpone its further consideration until the present
Session, although the subject had been alluded to in
the Speech from the Throne as one peculiarly requiring
legislation. All that can be urged in favour of the
law has been already uttered, no new points can be
adduced. It is unnecessary again to- travel over the
same ground as last year. No arguments can con.
vince the Protectionists, who are resolved by every
practicable means to maintain the principle of
monopoly, hoping that while any portion of its spirit
is retained, efforts may be made to restore
.it, to its
former strength and dimensions. " While there is
life there is hope"—and so long as the navigation-
laws are suffered to remain on our statute-book, they
do not despair of a restoration of the corn-laws, and
of the re- enactment of a stringent commercial code, with
protective duties against every article of foreign pro.
duce. The sooner, therefore, the strength of the parties
is measured, the sooner a division decisive as to the
future fate of the measure takes place, the better. We
trust, therefore, that Lord JOHN RUSSELL will remain
firm, and that no further delays may be suffered to
retard the progress of the measure. The issue is
fairly before the country, and it is for the representa-
tives of the people to decide whether the principles of
free trade are to be fully carried out ; whether our in-
tercourse with other nations is to be conducted with-
out let or hindrance, or whether a class are still to be
protected at the expense of the rest of the nation, and
a tax is to be imposed on the community in general
for their exclusive benefit.

It may be well briefly to direct the public atten-
tion to the present state of the question. The first
' navigation Act on record was passed in 1381, during
the reign of King RICHARD the SECOND. it was to
the following eftect_:—" That for increasing the ship-
. ping of England, of late much diminished, none of
the KING'S subjects shall hereafter ship any kind of
merchandise, either outward or homeward, but only
in ships of the KING'S subjects, on pain of forfeiture
of their ships and merchandise, in which also the
greater part of the crew shall be the KING'S subjects.'
Since that period a variety oflegislaion has taken place
on the subject. The most important enactments were
'carried in the reigns of HENRY vII. and ELIZABETH.
By the former the importation of divers commodities
was prohibited unless brought in ships belonging to

English owners, and manned by English seamen ;
and by the latter foreign vessels were excluded from
our fisheries and coasting trade. During the Com-
monwealth still more stringent laws were imposed.
In 1651 the famous (we should rather say infamous)
" Act of Navigation " was passed, intended, as it was
declared, "to promote British navigation, and to
weaken and destroy the naval power of the Dutch." It
was not conceived so much for the benefit of
Englishmen as in a spirit of hostility
towards Holland, whose commercial activity and in-
creasing power was regarded with the utmost jealousy.
For that purpose it was provided, " that no goods or
commodities whatever of the growth, production, or
manufacture of Asia, Africa, or America, including
our own plantations there, should be imported into
England or Ireland, or any of the plantations except
in English built ships, owned by English subjects,
navigated by English commanders, and three-fourths
of the sailors Englishmen."
The Restoration effected no change in this unwise
and shortsighted policy. In our anxiety to in-
jure the interests of Holland we inflicted
serious damage upon our own. The Act of 1651 was
continued with some slight modifications by the 12th
CHARLES 11., cap. 18, and two years later a subse-
quent statute was passed, in order to provided for at-
tempted evasions of the preceding Act. From that
period many changes were made, and a
variety of legislation took place, passing through
the various phases cf monopoly and exclu-
sion, to that of mere protection, and subse-
quently returning to the former system of prohibition,
which, we regret to say, was re-established during
the present reign, and so lately as the year 1844.
Three statutes were then passed—the 8 and 9 Vic.,
c. 88, c. 89, and c. 112. By these it was attempted
to secure for ourselves—

lit. The European carrying trade.
2nd. The long-voyage trade.
3rdly. The entire colonial trade.

There are other provisions of less importance, but
these are the points most obnoxious, and which
induce other nations to retaliate in a manner
highly injurious to the interests of all parties.
Restrictions are still to be maintained with respect to
the coasting-trade and the fisheries of this country,
and of our colonies, on the same footing as at present,
each colony being allowed to legislate to a certain
extent with regard to its own coasting trade. With
these exceptions, the entire code is to be repealed
and the navigation to be thrown open—a power
being reserved to the QUEEN in Council to impose
restrictions on the navigation of foreign countries, if
they do not meet us on equal terms—not making it
obligatory to do so, but enabling her to act in the
manner most conducive to the interests of the nation.

This is the point which is now to be decided, and
it will speedily be ascertained whether the "reaction-
aries" have succeeded in arresting the progress of
free trade principles. If the principle of buying in
the cheapest and selling in the dearest market be
sound, the same doctrine must be applicable to the
conveyance of those goods from one kingdom to
another.

In commenting, on Wednesday last, on the notable
scheme for the promotion of priestcraft, propounded
by Lord ASHLEY to the House of Commons, we
said, "the upholders of priestcraft are to the full as
intolerant, as overbearing, as persecuting, and as full
of hatred and uncharitableness towards all those who
refuse to acknowledge their supremacy as ever they
were. It is want of power, and want of power alone,
that prevents them from reviving the fierce persecu-
tions of the Dissenters, in which LAUD, who is their
model priest, indulged." Far were we from thinking
when we penned this sentence that we should
so soon be enabled to furnish evidence of the
truth of our opinions; little did we imagine
that at that very moment the modern LAUD,
having handed over his victim to the secular arm, had
set the myrmidons of the law in motion "to feed fat
the ancient grudge he bears" against all those who
refuse to acknowledge his supremacy. We did not
dream that within forty-eight hours of the time at
which the passage was written, the doors of an
English prison would have closed on a suf-
ferer for conscience sake, that the persecution
would have begun, and that our modern Inquisitor-
General would have uttered his terrible Vade in Pace.
Yet so it is; at that very moment HENRY Bishop of
Exeter had set his myrmidons in motion to hunt
down the Rev. JAMES SHORE, who had committed
the enormous crime of continuing true to the Pro-
testant faith in which he had been brought
up, and now the Rev. JAMES SHORE is in
prison because he refuses to follow his
quondam Diocesan in the pseudo-Papistical
vagaries in which it bath of late pleased the versatile
PIIILLPOTTS to indulge. The unfortunate gentleman
who has been thus honoured, by being permitted to
suffer persecution in the cause of religious liberty,
and to bear his testimony to the truth of his faith by
his sufferings, preached last evening at Spafields
Chapel, and immediately on his quitting the pulpit,
he was arrested by order of Bishop PlimixoTTs,
and conveyed to a prison in Exeter. The Reverend
Gentleman himself has announced the occurrence in
the following letter, which he has addressed to the
Rev. T. E. THORESBY, the minister of the chapel :

" London, March 9, 1849.
"My dear Sir,—l am just apprehended in your chapel
after preaching, and I write you a line before I enter my
cell in the prison at St. Thomas's, Exeter.
"I am at last to be incarcerated for contempt of court
—they say for the non -payment of the Bishop's costs,
but really and virtually for preaching the Gospel out of
the Establishment. Indeed, I have not the means of
paying the costs; and even if I were able to do so, I
should still be under contempt of court for preaching the
Gospel, and therefore may still be kept in prison.
" I am happy, however, in the hope and expectation
that my imprisonment may tend to open the eyes of my
countrymen as to what they may expect should unfortu
nately a certain party, now struggling for supremacy,
ever obtain the ascendancy in this country.
" I am sure it is quite time that the civil sword should
be entirely wrested from the grasp of all ecclesiastics.
To my mind the only sword that ministers of the Gospel
ere justified in using is the sword of the Spirit, which is
the word of God.

" Believe me, my dear Sir, very sincerely yours,

" JAMES SHORE.

"The Rev. T. E. Thoresby."
%What now becomes of the defence by Mr GLAD-
STONE of the Bishop of Exeter ? What did Mr
GLADSTONE mean by asserting in tlfe House of Com-
mons, during the debate on Mr. Botrvsnin's motion
for leave to introduce a Bill the object of which was
to secure persons in the situation of the Rev.
JAMES SHORE from the power of their Prelatical perse-
cutors—what did Mr. GLADSTONE mean by asserting
on that occasion that the Bishop of EXETER had no de-
sire to press hardly on the Rev. JAMES SHORE, and
that he was willing to release him from
all his liabilities ? Was Mr. GLADSTONE on
that occasion the deceiver or the deceived P
Was he a dupe or a conspirator ? Or did he palter in a
double sense, speaking by the card, using words for
the purpose of concealing his meaning, as is the wont
with the disciples of the Heresiarch PUSEY, who,
branded as a schismatic by the sentence of his uni-
versity, was received with open arms by the perse-
cutor of the Rev. JAMES SHORE, and to whom, al-
though the pulpits of Oxford were closed, those
of Exeter were opened, by permissionofLtohradt patternßishop
of orthodoxy and obedience, HENRY,
of that diocese ? Some explanation is due from
Mr. GLADSTONE to the House of Commons,
to the public, and to Mr. BOUVERIE, who would, no
doubt, have pressed forward his measure without delay,
had he been aware of the " hot haste " of the Bishop
of EXETER. It is now clear that the followers of the
Pusey heresy mean mischief; that having got posses.
sion of the power of the Church of England, they
intend to use that power for the purpose of persecuting
all those who maintain the doctrines of sound Pro-
testantism, and stand up for the right of
private judgment, which is the foundation of all re-
ligious liberty. No time is therefore to be lost in taking
the field against these persecutors. Al] minor dif.
ferences must be merged, and Evangelical Churchmen
should co-operate with Dissenters of all denominations,
for purposes of mutual defence against the " wolves
in sheep's clothing," who have surreptitiously gained
admittance into the fold. The Rev. THOMAS
E. THORESBY has convened " a provisional
meeting of the ministers and friends of the
Gospel in London, of all denominations, to be
held on Monday morning next, at 11 o'clock pre-
cisely, to confer as to the best means of altering the
existing law, under whose power the Rev. JAMES
SHORE, A.M., has been committed, and of effecting
his immediate liberation." This meeting, we have no
doubt, will be fully attended; and we cannot for a

moment doubt but that it will succeed in speedily
effecting the object which it has in view. But this
is not enough. Means must be devised for pre-
venting the recurrence of these persecutions, and of
watching over and defending against the attacks of
priestcraft that religious liberty which is our most
glorious inheritance. For that purpose we trust
that advantage will be taken of the meeting of Mon-
day to lay the foundation of a great Protestant
League, the articles of which shall be so framed as to
admit of all Protestants becoming members of it.
Bishop PHILLPOTTS sets up as a second LAUD —it is
well—he will find a second PTIII. The supporters of
priestcraft are leagued together as they were in the
days cf LAUD, to deprive the laity and Dissenters of
their religious liberty. Let them be met, then, as
they were two centuries since by "a solemn league
and covenant." If they have forgotten the lessons of
history, we have not.

THE FRENCH REPUBLIC.

We have received the Paris papers of yesterday.
In the National Assembly, on Thursday, the fol-
lowing discussion took place on the subject of the
affairs of Italy :
M. Buvignier rose, and said, that foreign affairs pre-
sented a truly alarming aspect. Movements of troops
were in progress, particularly in Germany; territories
had been invaded, and it was evident that a new coa-
lition of the desp)ts of the north was being formed
against the free nations of the south. The advanced
guard of the new Holy Alliance was already menacing
Italy. The state of affairs was preei,ely the same as
in 1792. A party in France, who had reluctantly ac-
cepted the Republic, had since secretly conspired against
it, and now relied cn foreign intervention to restore
Monarchy. The Government was in connivance with
that party, and tacitly admitted the existence of the
treaties of 1815, in virtue of which the Austrians had
been allowed to occupy Ferrara, without even a protest
on the part of France. Instead of fraternally receiving
the envoys of the Roman Republic, the French Govern-
ment obstinately refused to recognise any other envoy
than the nuncio of the Pope, whose power had ceased
to exist. The French Government similarly treated
the new Tuscan Republic. M. Buvignier then contended
that even were the treaties of 1815 in full force, none of
the Powers, parties thereto, had a right to interfere in
Rome, Tuscany, or Venice. The Assembly, he main •
tained, could not come back on its decree of the 24th
May, 1848, in favour of the emancipation of Italy, to
which the honour of France was pledged, nor violate
the fifth article of the preamble of the Constitution by
which France was bound to respect foreign nationalities,
and never employ her forces against the liberty of any
nation. He accordingly moved that the Atsembly
should give a new sanction to its decree of the 24th May.
M. Drouyn de Lhays, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
replied that the Government, in compliance with the
wh.hes of the National Assembly, pursued the course of
policy approved of by several of its votes, and he trusted
that the Assembly would not belie itself by adopting a
contrary resolution. M. Drouyn de Lhuys then descended
from the tribune, without entering into further expla-
nation, amidst the murmurs of the Left.
M. Ledru-Rollin next rose, and said that he would en-
deavour to explain the policy followed by the Govern-
ment with regard to Italy. He then gave a short history
of what had passed in Europe since the publication of
the manifesto of M. Lamartine, and strenuously insisted
on the maintenance of the principles it proclaimed, and
the carrying into effect of the resolution of the National
Assembly of the 24th May, which recommended " a fra-
ternal compact with Germany, the re-establishment of
Poland, anti the emancipation of Italy." By the mani-
festo of the Provisional Government, France undertook
not only to oppose foreign intervention, but to defend by
her arms nations who had asserted their independence.
M. Ledru-Rollin next read passages from a speech deli-
vered by M. Odilon Barrot, in 1831, in order to place
his present conduct in opposition with the sentiments he
had expressed at that period with regard to the temporal
power of the Pope. Rome had imitated the example of
France, and those who denied the Romans
the right to expel their temporal Sovereign,
denied the right of the French to expel
Louis Philippe. England had offered the Pope a
loan of 15,000,000 and an Irish legion to seise on Italy,
as she had seizad on India. What! he asked, must be
the opinion :of the army and peasantry, who voted on
the 10th of December the abrogation of the treaties of
1815, when they find the heir of the glorious name of
Napoleon becoming the oppressor of Italy ? In conclu-
sion, he declared that the intervention of France in Italy
would be a violation of the decree of the Assembly of
the 24th May, and
,of the sth Article of her Constitu-
tion.

M. Lamartine, who followed, considered diplomacy,
when practised in the broad daylight and from the tri-
bune, as extremely dangerous. He should have remained
silent if he did not feel bound to explain the passages of
the manifesto of March referred to by Messrs. Buvignier
and Ledra Rollin. It did not follow from those pas-
sages that France was obliged to make everywhere
common cause with all revolutionists. The manifesto
declared that France knew no other party than that
of justice, right, and the liberty of natious. She had
made no promise to Italy that she had not fulfilled.
The Provisional Government had told Piedmont that
if Italy, invaded by foreigners, or menaced in its internal
transformations demanded the armed intervention of
France, she was ready to send an army to her assist-
ance,
and with that view, it had concentrated 60,000
men at the foot of the Alps. But no such application
had been made to France. On the contrary, from one
end of the Peninsula to the other, a unanimous cry arose
against French intervention. France had not conse-
quently deceived Italy. As respected what was called
the Roman Republic, at the same time that he would
blush to see his Government contest the right of a people
to give themselves the form of Government they
pleased, he did not consider France imperatively con-
demned by her name to enter into alliance with every
nation who thought proper to call itself Republican.
After showing the difficulty attending the adjustment
of the Roman question, M. Lamartine proposed that
France should declare to Europe that she would permit
no foreign intervention in Italy, and offer all the
Catholic powers to meet in Congress, to settle the
question of the liberty of the Roman people, and the in-
dependence and dignity, he would not say of the Sover-
eign, but of the Pontiff.
General Cavaignac, who followed, contended that no
act of his administration had been in opposition either
with the manifesto of the Provisional Government nor
the decree of the 24th May. He had deceived neither
the Assembly nor the country, as insinuated by M. La-
martine, who stated that there had been between his
policy and that of his successors the entire breadth of
the Alps. He then reminded the Assembly that he had
declared, with its full approbation, that he would strain
every nerve to save his country from war. lie then
alluded to certain manoeuvres practised by the Provi-
sional Government to excite neighbouring nations to
overthrow their Governments, which brought back M.
Lamartine to the tribune.

M. Lamartine protested on his honour that neither
he nor any of his colleagues of the Provisional Govern-
ment had consented to, fomented, tolerated, or excused the
attempt made by the demagogues of Lyons to separate
Savoy from Piedmont. M. Arago, the Commissary of the
Government in that city, on hearing that such a plan
was contemplated immediately denounced it to him, and
the most peremptory orders had been instantly for-
warded from Paris to Lyons to stop the expedition. If
it nevertheless took place, the Government was not to
blame, for it had not then 580,000 men at its disposal
to enforce the execution of its orders.

M. Arago next confirmed the statement of M. Lamar-
tine.

M. Stumm summoned the Minister for Foreign Af-
fairs to explain what would be the conduct of France
if the Catholic powers interfered in favour of the Pope,
or if Austria, invoking an alleged right to the reversion
to Tuscany, invaded that Duchy?
M. Drouyn de Lhuys replied that if he was to declare
that in no case would France interfere, it would be an
encouragement to the foreign powers. If he was to
declare that France would oppose all intervention, it
would be a casus Belli, proposed without any necessity.
After a few words from AI. Mauguin, the discussion
was closed.

Two orders of the day were then proposed. The
first, by M. Martin de Strasbourg and Latrade, was as
follows:—" The Assembly being convinced that the
Government will cause the right of every nation to re.
gulate its internal affairs as it thinks proper to be re-
spected, passes to the order of the day,"
The second was moved by M. Jules Favre to this
effect:—" The Assembly, persuaded that the Govein-
ment, in assuring by negotiations the spiritual indepen-
dence of the Pope, will remain faithful to the principles
of the constitution, passes to the order of the day."
The simple order of the day, however, having been
demanded, a ballot took place, which gave—
For the simple order of the day ... 438
Against it ... ... 341

The simple order of the day was adopted.
After the discussion on Foreign Affairs had con
chided, M. GOUDCUAUX presented the report of the
Committee on the project of the general budget of
receipts for 1849. M. GOUDCHAUX states a deficit of
306,2172627 francs for 1848. In the third clause of
theasmAhnijad. t
Gt
epnoor
ouo jthDe
Means,aecc
sxtHcr
eAte
ouhedrdxeud,
reduced
ne,
report
e4vr
ptyelhor,
this
n2de,noote7xd
te
rfmar
aoa
nrn
dcdei ms t
arhyna t thefd
tohre IclVBoa4r
ey9s,
sum
contains,to l ll
an historical
73 2 07
rfreas
un n
lc s 6.
of French finance since 1814. It is severe in its
criticisms, and M. GOUDCHAUX declares that it
was the object of the Committee to intro-
duce, as much as practicable, those economies
which will exhibit a balance between the receipts and
expenditure. Though M. GOUDCHAUX left the Mi-
nistry under the Provisional Government, he approves
of the measure taken at that epoch, as steps rendered
necessary by the pressure of the moment.
The National Assembly were yesterday engaged
in discussing the third reading of the electoral laws.
Articles 61 and 62 were passed. In the morning the
Members met in their Bureaux to appoi▪
nt the Com-
mittee which is to nominate the Council of State.
Seventeen of the Members appointed are Ministerial-
ists, and thirteen belong to the Opposition.'
The Presse, in an official " communi▪
cation, an-
nounces that the Austrian Government will not for
the present march any troops into the dominions of
the Grand Duke of TUSCANY. Orders were given to
Marshal RADaTZKY not to make any offensive move-
ments against the King of SARDINIA, but in case the