The Sun.
London, England, 1867-03-13 00:00:00

The Rise of the Iron Trade.

There have been ironworks in England ever since
the time of the Romans, although in the middle
ages iron brought from the shores of the Bay of
Biscay was preferred to that produced in England.

Our superiority over nations dates from the time
when cord took the place of wood as fuel. Until

then, indeed, no great effort was made to extend
the trade. In 1354 the exportation of iron was pro-

hibited on account of the scarcity of timber, and in
1581 the erection of ironworks was forbidden within
certain distances from London and the Thames,
" for the preservation of the woods." Forty years
later, in 1621, Lord Dudley obtained a patent for
" the mystery and art of melting iron ore, and of

making the same into cast works of bars, with sea
coals or pit coals, in furnaces, with bellows," which
had been introduced by his famous son, Dud Dudley.
Dudley suffered much from the persecution of rival
ironmasters ; but he said, " I went on with my in-
ventions cheerfully, and made annually great store
of iron, good and merchantable, and sold it unto
divers men at £l2 per ton. I also made all sorts of
cast iron wares, as brewing cisterns, pots, mortars,
and the like, better and cheaper than any yet made
in these nations with charcoal." After persevering
efforts Dudley succeeded in producing seven tons of
iron a week, " the greatest quantity of pit-coal
iron," as he said, " ever yet made in Great Britain ;"
and he had an able coadjutor in his efforts to ad-
vance the iron trade in Andrew Yarranton. In
1677, too, a Doctor Frederick de Blewstane ob.
tained a patent for " a new and effectual way of
melting down, forging, extracting, and reducing of
iron and all metals which pit coal and sea coal, as
well and effectually as ever hath yet been done by
charcoal, and with much less charge." But many
years elapsed before the plan of substituting coal for
timber obtained much favour. In the mean-
while a long and curious battle was being
waged between the home manufactories and the
people of the young American colonies,
who were desirous of increasing the demand for
the iron they had just learned to produce.
In 1719, it was reckoned, iron wrought with char-
coal was third in the rank of English manufactures,
and gave employment to 200,000 persons. These
people, urged the colonists and their friends at
home, were burning up all the wealth of England.
" The waste and destruction of the woods in the
counties of Warwick, Stafford, Hereford, Mon-
mouth, Gloucester, and Salop, by these ironworks,"
it was said in the House of Commons, " is not to be
imagined. If some care be not taken to preserve
our timber from these consuming furnaces, there
will not be oak enough left to supply the royal
navy and our mercantile shipping." The ironworks,
en the other haul, protested that if the colonists
wished to enrich themselves and the mother coun-

try at the same time, they should send their timber
to England instead of using it in their own fur-
naces ; and therefore a bill was brought into Par-
liament enjoining that " none in the plantations
should manufacture iron wares of any kind what-
ever out of any sows, pigs, or bars whatever. That
cruel and short-sighted ordinance necessarily did
much harm to the colonists, who, had it been rigidly
complied with, would have been unable to make a
single nail, bolt, or screw for themselves, or to .pro-
care them from any market nearer than England.
With good reason they made a fresh complaint in
1737. At their instigation it was represented in
Parliament that, " by reason of our wools being so

far exhausted, " England could not possibly make
more than the 18,000 tons of pig-iron at that time
being produced each year, as was proved by the
fact that, to meet the seeds of the market, nearly
20,000 tons had to be brought from Sweden and
Russia, at a cost to the country of about £lBO,OOO a
year. Surely it would be better to bring that
supply from our own colonies, and so benefit them
instead of any foreign Power. The argument pre-
vailed in time. In 1750 an act was passed "to
encourage the importation of pig and bar iron from
his Majesty's colonies in America, and to pre-
vent the erection of any mill or other engine for
slitting or rolling of iron, or any plating forge to
work with a tilt-hammer, or any furnace for
making of' steel, in the said colonies; thus forbid-
ding them to any but the roughest work, and re-
serving all the flue manipulations for England, to
which the pig-iron was to be shipped. Even that
jealous law, however, was immediately productive

of good, both to the colonies and to the mother
country, and in due time it led to a further develop-
ment of free trade in iron. --English Merchants.

GERMANY AF TER THE WAR OF 1866.

(From the Westminster Gazette.)
Bishop Ketteler, one of St. Boniface's worthiest
successors in the See of Mainz, has just published

a work of no inconsiderable dimensions on the

present state of affairs, political and ecclesiastical,
in Germany. More, perhaps, than any other of his
writings, it reflects the pious and chivalrous
character of this prelate, equally celebrated as
a German patriot and as a champion of Church
freedom.

The subjects treated of in this work may be seen
by a glance at the table of contents. We can only
occupy ourselves to-day with this appeal of Bishop
Ketteler to his fellow-countrymen, so far as it

aims at influencing the present policy of Germany.

This portion of the work is calculated to excite
great attention. Many will agree more or less
with his views. So far as he seems to speak in
favour of Southern Germany connecting itself

with the North, one may confidently declare that
the best and most sagacious men of Southern
Germany, and even of the North, will be opposed
to him. In our opinion, however, the most
correct interpretation of his meaning is, that he

only speaks incidentally of a connexion with
Prussia as an abstract possibility, as a possible
defence of Germany against French invasion,

but that he never would nor could advise such a

course except on conditions that, as he himself
shows in this very work, may never be realised.
In weighing what Bishop Ketteler says and
advises on the German question, we must above
all remember that, although by birth a Westpha-
lian, he is a Prussian nobleman ; and that for
many years his family, as well as himself in-
dividually, has cherished, to use his own words
" a sincere love for Prussia," rooted chiefly in the
" high estimation" he entertains for "the truly
Christian Conservative party in Prussia, one so

highly intelligent and able."
Truly one might fancy that his lordship was by
this time completely cured of this sympathy. He
says himself—" This party, it is to be regretted,
suffered as great a discomfiture at Sadowa as

Austria herself ; it paid homage to success, bent

the knee to power, and to the fait accompli, and
almost without exception denied those principles
that it had represented for so many years. It was
guilty itself of that very conduct which, through
a prolonged struggle of years, it had been always
reproaching its opponents with. This is a heavy
moral defeat; for a party that pretends to be
Christian must, above all, evince the fearlessness
of truth in the presence of power. The homage
paid to mere force—cowardice in the presence of
power—has nothing to do with Christianity.
The Conservative party in Prussia has not stood
the trial." This is evidently the death-warrant
of the party ; these hollow lip-Christians, when
the day of trial came, did not stand the test. This

pious band deserted their colours, almost to a man,
flying before usurping Might, trampling Right
under foot. But old love lasts long. Bishop Ket-
teler hopes still that this " Conservative party
will rise again from its fall." In another place
he says, referring to the present time, " there exists
at present in Prussia a truly Christian Conserva-
tive party."
A truly Christian party, whose Christianity did
not stand the test, is a contradiction, in terms,
which, especially in such a man, can only be ex-
plained by an unconscious prepossession. Bishop
Ketteler resided many years in Berlin in close
contact with this political party and with the
Court. In such situations the forming of one-
sided views is almost unavoidable. From this men

ruin

of even the strongest characters, especially if also
endowed with high and noble feelings, cannot easily
escape. A sincere love, a predilection, is by no
means the full truth, which, according to the
motto of the author, is to make us free.
In the character of the so-called Conservative
party in Prussia, as in that of the King himself,
Bishop Ketteler distinguishes between a better,
but latent disposition, and that which is patent,
and guides its conduct. On this political mystery of
an undiscoverable better disposition, he appears to

lay weight when he advises Southern Germany to
enter into close connexion with Prussia, and with
the Northern Confederation respectively.
His predilection for Prussia and the " Con-
servative party " causes him to see in its inner con-

flict an explanation if not an excuse for its breae
of faith for the robbery and murder of the late
war. " The conflict within can alone explain the
otherwise inconceivable fact that we see a King
who, during the whole course of his life, has
been in strongest opposition to the revolution, who
in his youth was the intimate friend of the Em-
peror Nicolas (!), that we see a great, intelligent,
and truly not unprincipled Conservative party in
Prussia in these days on the battle-field in alliance
with the revolution and its diplomacy conducted
on the principles of the revolution."
Even Count Bismarck, whether he wills it or no,
has to share in the indulgence extended to the
" Conservative party." When Count Bismarck,
in conversation with the former Minister of Han-
over, excused his treason to Germany and to
Conservative principles on the pretence of being
compelled to act in self-defence by the enemies of
Prussia, Bishop Ketteler sees like the rest of the
world that the pretence is false. "In their direct
sense," he says, " these words are incorrect " (and
this is the real meaning of Count Bismarck) ; " and,
nevertheless, these words of Bismarck have a per-
fectly true sense, when taken in reference to the
inner conflict in Prussia." He goes on—" to over-
turn the Constitution would have been dangerous,"
and to have yielded to the Chambers would have
been " considered equal" to giving up the principle
of monarchy ; Count Bismarck, in this situation,
may have thought it a struggle for the existence of
Prussia, a thought that, perhaps, was latent in the
depths of his heart. " Only a brilliant foreign policy
could help Prussia over the difficulties she had to
combat with at home, and so the risk must be run."
Bishop Ketteler acknowledges, at the same time,
that " the motive which first occasioned this in-
ternal conflict was unjustifiable, for only in the
case of an absolutely unlimited monarchical prin-
ciple being recognised, could the Government be
entitled to make such demands on the people, as
has been done in men and money, in consequence
of the new Prussian military organisation." We
all know that Count Bismarck would not give
up these unjustifiable demands—men and money,
because he had need of much blood and iron and
gold for the solving of the German question, for
realising the ancient plan of Prussia's mission, a
theme Bishop Ketteler treats of in chapter 5, and
as sure as that this element " had long prepared
the war with Austria and alone made it possible."
This he afterwards explains in the foilowing words:
—" The idea alone of robbing Germany to enlarge
Prussia explains what we have seen ; it alone ex-
plains how it was possible that Prussia made use
of the extreme embarrassment into which Austria
was thrown by the cunning policy of Napoleon
in Italy, in conjunction with the revolution in
Italy and Hungary to prostrate its ancient German
ally." The " infandum scelus " was only to be
explained by the internal conflict ; it is only to
be explained by the desire of plundering and
robbing German allies ; and in this Bishop
Ketteler stands again in the eyes of all
unprejudiced persons on the firm ground of
undeniable truth. Ile only wishes for the truth ;
he has also a deep insight into the truth. But at
times he fluctuates and hesitates. This, perhaps,
we may venture to compare to the palpitations
of a father's heart trembling between hope and
despair at the sight of a prodigal son, and striving
for moments to ignore what it knows, because it is
conscious of being unable to endure the whole
truth.
We have been obliged to touch here on a weak
point of an otherwise excellent work—yes, admir-
able work. We must, at the same time, somewhat
modify our assertion that the work advises a close
connection with the north; shifting and planless, like
almost all the world in these difficult times, it points
with the left hand, like a finger-post, towards Prus-

sia, while with the right it makes a much more
emphatic demonstration of warning, till at last
the left drops altogether. It says, "if the con-
nection of southern Germany with the north,
under the leadership of Prussia, in indissoluble
union with Austria, is to have any hope of suc-
cess, and:of satisfying the German sense of justice,
the rightful independence of the united German
lands must be guaranteed, and Prussia must re-
nounce her idea of an absolute unity of the State
as leading finally to revolution. She must consider
her mission to be not in enlarging the power of her
house, but in promoting the greatness and the free-
dom of Germany, and with it of all German

races, lands, and princes Every step
towards a levelling centralisation is a step towards
. The constitution of the Nor-.

them Confederacy will show us in a few days what
we have to expect in this regard."
The Constitution is now really before us a great
step towards complete ruin ! Such a cat and mouse
alliance Bishop Ketteler will not countenance,
therefore, in fact, no would-be Unionist can appeal
to his authority.
The venerable old Baron von Gerlach, one of
the few truthful and earnest characters of the day,
has shown a more correct prophetic feeling. Baron.
von Gerlach says, in his golden little book (Die
Annexionen and der Norddeusche Bund) :—" The
princes of Southern Germany, and their attached
Conservative subjects, will scarcely be inclined to
look favourably on this union of South and North.
They will find little inviting in the North German
Parliament and in the relations of the small
North German princes to this Parliament. But
from the experiences of the years 1848-49 it is very
possible that the Democrats and the party of
Gotha of South Germany may force them to this
union."