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

LONDON, THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 1863.

At the moment when the new French Ministry
is settling down to the labours of administration,
it may be as well to recapitulate what these recent
changes precisely are that have been effected by a
few strokes from the pen of the Emperor NAPOLEON.
The Foreign Policy and the Financial Policy of the
Imperial Government, we may regard, at once, as
we intimated yesterday, as unchanged. M. FOULD
still happily remaining in office as the responsible
financier, and M. DROUYN DE L'Huars as head of
the Foreign Department. Otherwise the trans-
formation of the Cabinet has been complete and
radical throughout. M. BILLAULT replacing the
Count WALEwsKi as the Minister of State without
Portfolio. M. BAROCRE, hitherto President of the
Council of State, replacing M. DELANGLE as
Minister of Justice. M. BOUDET, until now Pre-
sident of Section to the Council of State, replacing
the Count DE PERSIGNY as Minister of the Interior.
M. DURUT, heretofore Inspector-General of Public
Instruction, replacing M. ROULAND as Minister of
Public Instruction. M. BEIM, yesterday but
simply Councillor of State, replacing as Minister
of Agriculture, Commerce, and Public Works, M.
ItouaEß, who has now been nominated by the EM-
PEROR to M. BAROCIEE'S j ust vacated post as Presiden t
of the Council of State. Simultaneously with which
sweeping transformation of things in the general
construction of the Cabinet, the Imperial decree ap-
pears appointing the Duke DE MORNY to the Pre-
sidency of the newly elected, but as yet not inert.
gurated, Corps Legislatif. We have purposely re-
capitulated here at length the actual changes that
have so recently and so suddenly taken place at
Paris by mandate of the EMPEROR, because having
merely had the opportunity of glancing hurriedly
at them in our impression of yesterday, but a few
moments, as it were, after the earliest announce-
ment of their occurrence by telegram—we regard
them as of such vital importance to European
interests generally, that we are solicitous, without
one instant's unnecessary delay, to indicate as we
have just now actually done by a simple juxta-
position of names the precise difference between
the Imperial Cabinet as it was and as it is. An
animated portraiture of the new Minister of State,
M. BILLAULT, pencilled with singular grace and
delicacy by his sometime secretary, M. NORBERT
BILLIART, appears this morning in Le Constitu.
tionnel. After describing the new Minister of State
as one whose bearing and general deportment are
in no way characterised by an air of pretension,
the writer observes that, in oratory, M. BILLAULT
is endowed with qualities very rarely united, his
speaking being at once easy, and yet marked by
gravity, rapid and yet most clearly accentuated.
" His sympathetic voice," says the Minister's former
Secretary, " a little softened or modulated in the
higher notes, has about it much nervous force and
even animation, being in effect the supple and exact
medium for,the expression of his thoughts." A little
later on in this minutely careful limning of the
Minister of State, M. BILLIART observes some-
what characteristically that, by his Excellency,
CICERO is
no means regarded as an oracle,
M. BILLAULT being rather of the same opinion
with HoßacE, who had a mortal antipathy for
the sesquipedalia verb,. M. BILLAULT, he adds,
is by far the readiest extempore speaker now
connected with the Government,
disdaining even,
with the utmost confidence, the aid m of any
Rotes even when about to deliver a discourse
from the Tribune. It is precisely this
gift of
improvisation, it is this certainty, it is this rapidity
of coup dceil that makes him unrivalled as an advo-
cate in reply. So much for M. BILLAULT, regarded
individually through this well-timed sketch of him
given in the columns of Le Constitutionnel. "It
would be difficult," says L' Opinion Nationale of
this evening, just at present to form any
precise idea as to the significance of this
Ministerial reorganisation, for we know not
enough of Messieurs BOUDET, BEEIC, and
DURUM to be ablo to appreciate seriously
their tendencies." The retention of some of the
Ministers in the Cabinet and the removal of others
from it to be replaced by new men, fairly tends to
the bewilderment of Le Siecle. "If," says that
organ, "the reason of the retreat of M. DE PER •
Rosy is very evident, on, inclined to ask, what
poestlele motive there could be for the replacement
of Meseieure ROULAND, DELANGLE, and WALEW-
sI:' Le Siede might at least have added that

it was very evident why the EMPEROR,
guided in this by his better judgment, not only
accepted the resignation of a bungling Minister
like the Count DE PERSIGNY, but retained the
services of a master of Finance like M. FOULD,
and of a muter of Diplomacy like M. DROUYN DE
L'HuYs. Surveying the whole result of the Mi-
nisterial changes that have just now taken place
at Paris, _Le Pays contents itself with enumerating
—evidently with an air not expressive of one mo-
mentary regret in the past, but of satisfaction in
the present, and of confidence in the future—the
actual list of the French Ministry as it now
stands, viz., as follows:—
M. BILLAULT, Minister of State.
M. DROUYN DE L'HuYs, Foreign Affairs.
M. BAROCHE, Justice.

M. BOIIDET, Interior.
M. ACHILLE FOULD, Finances.
M. Di:MUT, Instruction.
M. BEHIC, Agriculture, Commerce and Public Works
Count CHASSELOUP•LAUBAT, Marine.

Marshal RANDON, War.
M. ROITHEB, President of the Council of State.

Marshal VAILLANT, Imperial Household.
It may be vexatious for the time being
to know little or nothing about M. BOUDET, for
example, but at any rate it must be matter of general
gratulation among the Parisian electors, and
among the members of our own profession through-
out France, that M. DE PERSIGNY is no longer in-
stallcd at the Ministry of the Interior, there to pen
any more dictatorial circulars to the Constituencies,
or any more warnings (in the name of the Liberty
of the Press !) to the Journalists.

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 bemore 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 humanity 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
areas 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 ohe 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 ? It is the
height of effrontery to boast of a .xact3ng a
day's labour from those who have tetki gaged
in arduous duties for twenty-six hot 1 at a
stretch. Then, again, Mr. ISAACSON ar why do
the young ladies stay ? That is no 'r IX of the
comfort or the convenience of the estnlishment ;
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 ; bait even that plea
cannot be urged in this instance, for MARY ANNE
WALKLEY 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 such 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 sempstresses. 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 needlewomen. 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 ranch to prevent the " awful abominations" they
had heard so tench of,
ELISE'S establishment had lately t furnished of
which
s o Madame
sad
a specimen. Lord GnaalvtanE's reply wasou mostany
g
unsatisfactory ; the noble lord
definite hope of anythin did not hold
t
being done. lie said that
the bill before introduced on
this subject was not
carried into effect because of the extreme difficulty
of putting it into practical execution. This aught
not to be a valid reason for Ministers
an instance to
idnonoontnehinogf
in a case of signal distress, and
great cruelty and irjustice. What is the use of
having responsible persons in authority if they
cannot reset difficulties and overcome them with
spirit and decision, Why should it be possible to

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 liy 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 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 ize 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 zither 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 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 proof of the culpability of
Englishmen of high standing and long-established
probity ? If so, wo 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 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 totally 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 LocoLrt
would find a slight degree of difficulty in the man-
ning of such vessels when built, and we fear that
Captain
theirSEMMES and his crew would still have the
best of it. W
lofty
boast hen the Federals have accomplished
dispof " sweeping British commerce
from the seas,,,
they will of course have more
leisure to ose
0f those impertinent Confederate

vessels which somehow or other have contrived to
elude the sagacity and valour of the North for such
an unconscionable period. But the intelligent
foreigner being of course unacquainted with the
refinements of diplomatic courtesy or the wholesome
dread which timid JOHN BULL entertains for The
terrible Yankee, might happen to suggest that both
sides should be treated alike in a case of strict
neutrality. He might say that if we could not
build ships for the South, neither should the North
be allowed to obtain arms and ammunition; that if
the existence of the one party were not even offi-
cially recognised, spies and informers should not be
tolerated on behalf of the other. He might even
go so far as to say that before our Government
granted the extraordinary requests of the North,
they might demand fair treatment for our own
merchant vessels trading to neutral ports; they
might exact from the American Government the
observance of those laws of nations which they
themselves laid down when their own in-
terests were concerned. They might suggest
that the watching and dogging of our
merchant vessels is insulting to the nation,
injurious to trade, and opposed to all prin.
ciples of common sense or justice. If a vessel is
bound with a neutral cargo to Matamoros or Nassau,
what right has a Federal Commander to arrest her
progress, on the supposition that she is afterwards
going to a Southern poi t As for the complaints
of the frequent running of the blockade by English
ships, that is only what any man of common sense
might have expected from the attempt to stop a
large and flourishing trade by a totally inefficient
force. The effort was worthy of Northern bravado
—the result is worthy of Federal " strategic" ability.
But it is not our affair if the Americans choose to
call their blunders, misfortunes, and to abuse us for
the consequences of their own incapacity. What
does concern us is their arrogant assumption of a
right to direct and conduct. Let them be thankful
that we have stood aside in the contest, and not
decided the fate of their cherished Union by open
interference. Let them be grateful for any soil of
impartiality, and not question the character of our
neutrality too closely. Who are they that their
tale-bearers should be recognised agents, and their
intelligence tolerated by any English Minister.
Let them first account for the Adela and the Peter-
hoff, for Mr. ADAMS'S guarantee, and the increased
rate of insurance on our American merchantmen.
If this system of organised impertinence and reck-
less disregard of justice be pursued much further,
it will rouse England into doing an act of greater
kindness to America than she has yet shown, by
stepping forward in the breach and declaring that
she will no longer be a party to the conflict by
tolerating this fratricidal strife between the two
great people 3 who once formed the United States.

We are glad to see that the House of Commons
has declined to reverse its previous decisions on the
subject of Hampstead Heath. The Leases and Sales
of Settled Estates Act Amendment Bill came on for
the second reading last night, but was rejected by
a majority of more than three to one. It professed,
indeed, to protect the interests of the public, and to
secure them the enjoyment of Hampstead Heath;
but hon. members saw reason to suspect the disia-
terestedness of the arrangement, and decided ac-
cordingly. The bill had, it was said, two objects;
first, to give Sir THOMAS MARYON WILSON, and
other persons similarly situated, a right to apply to
the Chancery Court for powers to lease and sell
portions of their estates, of which right they were
deprived by the general Act of 1856; and, secondly,
the preservation of public rights over Hampstead
Heath and other open-grounds. We do not wonder
that the House found it difficult to reconcile these
two objects, which certainly appear to neutralise
one another. If it be true, as Sir MORTON PETO
and some other members asserted, that Sir THOMAS
WILSON has been unfairly treated with respect to
his other property, there are probably some means
of repairing the special injustice without granting
such a dangerous permission as that given by this
bill. It was significantly remarked by Mr. DOUL-
TON, that the Metropolitan Board, which might be
regarded as the advocate of the public wishes and
interests, had petitioned against this bill, the prac-
tical effect of which in their estimation would be to
destroy Hampstead Heath. If the grounds in the
neighbourhood now open were encicsed the genera)
'enjoyment would be very much interfered with,
and the precedent would, undoubtedly, be a dan-
gerous one. Are there no means by which all these
vexed questions can be finally disposed of ; which
can ensure tha undisturbed freedom of Hampstead
Heath, Tooting Common, and all such places, to
the toil-worn bees of our busy hive ? It is time
that some such scheme were devised, that either
by Act of Parliament, or public grant, or general
subscription, these fidgetty owners were bought
out, and requested to transfer their territorial rights
to some of the many districts where they may
build as far and wide as they please without
trenching on a popular privilege of long standing
and unquestionable benefit.