The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-25 00:00:00

protect the men employed in bakehouses, and yet
should there exist an insuperable difficulty against
protecting the young females who work in dress-
makers' establishments. It is strange that reason-
ing persons should adduce such arguments and
well-meaning individuals readily agree to their
force and cogency. Lord SHAFTESBURY did not
ask for the hours of labour to be shortened ; he pro-
bably knew that to do this would entail a great loss
of time, but the sanitary regulations might be
adopted at once. It is to be trusted that at least
next session some arrangement may be made to put
a check on these heavy duties imposed on young
girls to such a frightful extent as we have lately
been contemplating. It is generally the custom
when social improvements are suggested for some
wise and learned authorities to declare that it is all
very well to talk, but it is a manifest impossibility
to carry out such suggestions. In this instance,
however, no such scruples can be regarded. It is
not a matter of convenience, it is not a point of
prejudice, but it is a question of right and wrong.
Are our legislators to sanction by non-interference,
and is the community at large to rest satisfied while
such cruel injuries are inflicted, and such crushing
labours exacted from a helpless class, who
are surrounded by difficulties and dangers,
while they toil for their maintenance or the support
of their families. Their wrongs cry aloud for re-
dress, their position is a scandal and a reproach to
our vaunted philanthropy and our boasted civilisa-
tion. In the sight of GOD and man it is a cruel
thing to " crush the life from out young hearts" by
such a wanton infliction of toil and such attendant
circumstances of discomfort and inconvenience. The
evil exists, and it remains for those who have the
power to come forward to check its spread and atop
its influence. Of what avail is it to have laws it
they are powerless to prevent the poor from being
oppressed, and the crafty from taking advantage of
of the weak and helpless?

The long-pending case of the Alexandra has at
length been fully argued before a court of law. The
highest legal ability on both sides has fought the
battle, and judge and jury have given a patient and
attentive hearing to the evidence. The verdict will,
we apprehend, be generally approved by the pub-
lic, being clearly in accordance with one of the first
principles of English justice as well as with right
and reason. The words of the Solicitor-General on
another occasion, so happily quoted by Sir HUGH
CAIRNS yesterday in his address, are unanswerable
in their argument. " The United States," said the
learned gentleman, "have no right to complain if
the Act in question is enforced in the way in which
English laws are usually enforced against English
subjects—on evidence and not on suspicion; on facts
and not on presumption ; on satisfactory testimony,
and not on' the mere accusations of a Foreign Mini-
ster or his agents." The strong point in favour of
the Alexandra was, however, the fact of her not being
armed or equipped in any of our ports. The learned
judge, whose summing up virtually decided the
case, for it would have been impossible for the jury
to bring in a verdict of guilty after such a clear and
forcible statement, showed that the Foreign Enlist-
ment Act on which the indictment was founded was
not intended as a protection to belligerent powers,
but for the peace of our own dominions, and that it
did not forbid the supply of arms, ammunition, and
other warlike stores. Why then, asked the Lord
Chief Baron, should ships be an exception P He
quoted the opinions of some eminent American
lawyers which went to show that a neutral power
may, without breach of international law or an in-
fringement of the Foreign Enlistment Act, supply
everything that can be used for the destruction of
human beings. If Birmingham may supply arms
unchallenged, why should Liverpool be restrained
from building ships. As the learned judge very
pertinently said, if a man may legally build a vessel
for sale and offer it to either of the belligerents it is
a matter of course that he may accept an order to
build one without impropriety. There was no ille-
gality, says the Lord Chief Baron, about the Alabama
herself, seeing that she sailed away unarmed, and
was equipped in a foreign part. The mistake seems
to be that many persons, her MAJESTY'S Ministers
included, appear to think the Foreign Enlistment
Act is intended for the benefit of foreigners, and that
we are answerable to a foreign Government for any
supposed infraction of it. The Attorney-General
tendered a bill of eAceptions to the Lord Chief
Baron's ruling, but we apprehend that the learned
Judge will have the sense of the country with him,
and we cannot but hope that another tribunal will
only confirm his decision, which accords alike with
the principles of law and of justice, which are not
always synonymous. The question remains, how-
ever, whether the Federal Government have any
right to exact from us such anxious care for their
interests; whether, supposing the treatment we
receive at their hands to be a fair illustration of the
duties of a friendly Power, our Ministers are
bound to display such unwonted energy in inter-
fering with the commercial transactions of the
country. Is the evidence of Federal spies to be
considered sufficient proof of the culpability of
Englishmen of high standing and long-established
probity ? If so, we may any of us be called to
account for our most ordinary actions, and arraigned
for having, in the course of our daily avocations,
given occasion for displeasure to the mighty
Federal authorities. The fact of fobnd-
jog a Government case on the information
furnished by spies and informers is something new,
and not very creditable in our day, How does the
law officer of the Crown attempt to prove his case ?
By the evidence of a man formerly employed by the
Confederates, who reports part of a conversation
which he overheard between Mr. MILLER, sen., and
another gentleman. Whose business was it to em-
ploy such agents as these ? Whose interest is it to
place spies in our private dockyards to watch for
indications of danger, to listen, with open ears, to
every casual word, and report faithfully to their
employers the number and character of the ships
in progress. Federals being totahy unable to meet
the Confederates on their own ground, or to relieve
themselves from the presence of the Alabama and
her fellows by open measures, are obliged to fall
back on the complaisant friendship of the English
Government, and to seek by underhand and ques-
tionable means to guard against the issue of such
another phantom ship from the dockyards of the
" Britishers." It might possibly appear to the in-
telligent foreigner so often referred to for an ima-
ginary decision, if he should happen to come amongst
us at this particular juncture, that the case is not
so very hard as the Northerners wish to make out.
True, the Alabama, and possibly some other
vessels, were built in British docks ; but who
or what prevents the Federals from giving a similar
order, and starting phantom-ships still more ter-
rible and effective. The British Government would

assuredly then discover that it had no right to in-
terfere with commercial transactions. The only

obstacle in the way is that President LINCOLN
would find a slight degree of difficulty in the man• 1
ning of such vessels when built, and we fear that
Captain SEMMES c.ind his crew would still have the
best of it. When the Federals have accomplished
their lofty boast of " sweeping British commerce
from the seas," they will of course have more
leisure to dispose of those impertinent Confederate