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

There are some people who can never be taught,
however solemn and serious may be the lesson, they
cannot, or will not, profit by it. Of this class ap-
pears to be Mr. ISAACSON, the husband of Madame
ELISE. He has written a letter, which purports
to explain everything satisfactorily, and do away
with the painful impression that has been created ;
but he has ended by making that darker which is
dark enough already. It is a pity that he had no
friend or adviser to caution him to be more moderate
in his tone, since it never furthers the cause taken
up for its advocate to be violent ; but when the
attempt is made to prove that a manifest wrong is
right, it is too much for any one to endure patiently
that the writer should be so vehement and abusive.
It is very noticeable that he carefully avoids touch-
ing upon awkward topics, while he volunteers in-
formation which was not wanted, and which did not
bear upon the case in point. For instance, what is
the use of reasseverating about the quality or quan-
tity of the food, since that has nothing at all to do
with the long hours, the close workroom, or the
unhealthy bedroom. It is also indisputable that
Mr. ISAACSON contradicts nothing that has been
said or written concerning the material wrongs of
this case. Neither the length of time which
the poor girl was employed, nor the crowded
apartments she occupied day and night are com-
mented upon but to heap abuse upon all who have
mentioned the affair without contradicting in a
decided manner an important item in the sad catas-
trophe. In the first place, the very temperate letter
which was written on the subject last Wednesday
is styled " scurrilous" and " a gross flagrant libel."
Mr. ISAACSON feels it to be his duty to humasity to
correct this statement. This is a very odd and
original expression, since he means that be intends
to clear himself and his establishment from the im-
putations that rest upon them. What humanity
has to do with such a task does not appear to be
very clearly illustrated or fully evidenced. If the
subject were not so sad it would be almost ludi
Irous to notice the explanation given. We are told
that the milliners voluntarily help the dressmakers,
and then have the day to themselves; adding, as a
crowning act of kindness, that when young ladies
sit up all night they are not expected to work the
next day. There are limits to everything, even to
the work of a dressmaker's apprentice, so no espe-
cial
mercy is proved by this exemption. And what
a bitter mockery to talk of their having the next
day to themselves. Let any one imagine these poor '
creatures working from half-past six on Friday
morning till nine on the Saturday morning,
and then picture what sort of a day
to themselves they must enjoy. Wasted
with toil, weary with watching, and faint from
exhaustion, can theirs be a holiday P It is the
height of effrontery to boast of not exacting a
day's labour from those who have been engaged
in arduous duties for twenty-six hours at a
stretch. Then, again, Mr. ISAACSON asks, why do
the young ladies stay ? That is no proof of the
comfort or the convenience of the establishment;
because the fact is well known that there are
many who would endure any suffering rather
than lose their chance of employment. They
Who are free to go away know full well
that starvation is before them, if they
refuse to obey orders ; but even that plea
cannot be urged in this instance, for MARY ANNE
WALRLEY was an apprentice, and had, therefore,
no option in the matter. It is an insult to com-
mon sense, good taste, and right feeling for Mr.
ISAACSON to employ each language as this in the
face of the evidence that has appeared against
him, and been corroborated by his own silence in
all vital matters. " If more is expected from us,
we should like certainly to know how that can
be accomplished." Should they wish to have an
inquest every week, they certainly cannot allow
their apprentices and workwomen to do more than
work for three months at a time, at the rate of six-
teen hours and a half a day, occasionally longer, and
sometimes to sit up all night. But to cite such a
mode of procedure, and then to make a stand upon it,
and defy censure and repudiate criticism,is effrontery
and assurance that the English public will not pa-
tiently endure. Allusion was made to this cruel case
in both houses on Tuesday. Lord SHAFTESBURY in
the House of Lords adverted to its melancholy de-
tails, and asked the President of the Council if there
was any intention on the part of the Government
to introduce any measures that will provide for the
comfort and protection of these sempatresses. The
noble earl said that the case of these workwomen,
and that of the bakers, was strictly analogous. It
would be well indeed if the same provisions were
made in the case of the needleveomen. The medical
officer and the district inspector of nuisances are em-
powered from time to time to inspect the condition of
the rooms in which the men work, and to see that
they are properly ventilated and whitewashed.
Lord SHAFTESBURY truly said that if these sanitary
regulations had been already adopted they would
do much
had heard
LIBE's establish
to prevent the "awful abominations" they
a specime d G
so much of, and of which Madame
establishment had lately furnished so sad
noble lord did not hold out any
unsatisfactory ; the RANTILLE's reply was most
definite hope of anything being done. He said that
the bill before introduced on
this subject was not
the extreme difficulty
carried into effect because of
of putting it into practical execution. This ought
not to be a valid reason for Ministers to do nothing
in a case of signal distress, and an instance of
great cruelty and irjustice. What ;is the use of
,1 .vine, responsiblo persons in sutht,rity if they
cannot meet difficulties and overcome theta with
spirit and decision. Why should i: be possible to

pro' tect the men employed in bakehouses, and yet
she maid there exist an insuperable difficulty against
pri)tecting the young females wbo work in dress-
= ikers' 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
tsk for the hours of labour to be shortened ; he pro-
b ably 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
n ext session some arrangement may be made to put
fl 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 huge 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 far 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 stop
its influence. Of what avail is it to have laws if
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 is 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 ? 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 sbe 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 exceptions 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 Froof 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 found-
ing a Government case on the information
furnished by spies and informers isi 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-•
Binary decision, if he should happen to comeamongst
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-
ning of such vessels when built, and we fear that
Captain SEMIES and his crew would still have the
best of it. When the Federals have accomplished
qieir lofty boast of " sweeping British enntnere,
from the seas," they will of course have more
leisure to dispose of those impertinent Confederate