The Sun.
London, England, 1864-05-26 00:00:00

11HE THIRD EDITION OF " THE SUN,"
IL Containing the Latest SPORTING INTELLIGENCE,
An be had Every Evening of _

G. K. GLENIE, NEWS AGENT,
No. 4, Connaught-terrace, Hyde-park.

The Weather—Sun Office, May 26, 1864.

THERMOMETER..
This day at Two o'clock 6O

Barometer-29.92.
Wind—N.lV.; moderate breeze, and cicudy.

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.
THIS DAY.—!Morning, sd. 11m.—Afternoon, sh. MIL
fo-goßß.ow.-Morning, 6d. 3.n.--Afternoon. 63. 30m.

fMM
,
31
4 (VI

LONDON, THURSDAY, MAY 26, 1864.

If report be true, her MAJESTY'S Ministers have
thought discretion to be the better part of valour,
and have prudently avoided the risk of another
legal defeat. Their " meddling and muddling"
brought them so little credit or profit in the case of
the Alexandra that it has beeta considered advisable
to hush up the matter of the rams by effecting a
convenient compromise. There is accordingly to
be no farther question as to the ownership of the
EL Toussin and El Monassir, since they are added
to the national possessions, and certainly if the
public are to pay in either event, it is more satis-
factory to give a larger sum and obtain two first-
class steam rams than to fritter away some thou-
sands in carrying a case from court to court. It
cannot be denied, however, that this movement is
a manifest confession of weakness on the part of the
Government, since, if the rams were really illegally
constructed, they had a right to seize them without
payment. Why give a large sum for that which
was already forfeited to the Crown ? We hope some
explanation will be demanded from the Ministerial
benches of the conduct of this affair. The truth is
that, as in the world famed Schleswig-Holstein
dispute, our Government have suffered themselves
to be drawn into a me ze of perplexities and troubles
by their vacillation and one-sidedness. The want
of an open, straightforward, and decisive policy,
which threatens to embroil us with half the Powers
of Europe, will probably end by alienating us from
both the contending parties in the Western Hemi-
sphere. Inconsistency is Never respected, and the
very Federals, whose cause has been so much
favoured, now load us with abuse for neglecting
their interests. Had the English Government
recognised the South from the first, the terrible
slaughter now desolating the fair and fertile
States of the or es prosperous Union might have
been stayed, while our northern manufacturers
would not have stood idle for so many weary
months. The question of personal interest should
not of course outweigh the consideration of what is
due to others, but it must be evident to the most
superficial observer that to refuse to recognise the
South was virtually to side with the North by treat-
ing their opponents as rebels and not as belligerents.
Oar professions of neutrality were consequently
insincere from the very first, and almost every
subsequent act has confirmed the impression.
The correspondence between Mr. BARING and Lord
R. CECIL respecting some observations let fall in
the heat of debate in reference to our commercial
dealings with America has been published oppor-
tunely enough, together with the news about the
rams. The one affords the best commentary on
the other, but the correspondence is especially
interesting, not only from the high position of
both parties, but from the curiosity naturally fell
to see what can be said by a gentleman who
does not attempt to deny having had a large share
in the transport of munitions of war. It will be
felt by most readers that Mr. BARING would have
done more wisely to remember the old adage about
the impoliay of throwing stones when your resi-
dence is peculiarly brittle, and bad better have
let the matter alone. Certainly, as Lord ROBERT
CECIL admits, the public and the Government
have coincided in regarding the transmission of
goods to the American states as justifiable, but
public opinion goes a little further than the Cabi-
net, and cannot see the immense difference be-
tween sending oat an unarmed ship to one party,
and " properly forwarding" arms and ammunition
to the other; except, perhaps, that the ship may
possibly be put to peaceful use, while rifles and per-
cussion caps are not generally available for any pur-

poses but those of war. It is true that the 7easel
may be armed on her way, but with that, strictly
speaking, the law has nothing to do. The order
is to build a ship of a certa;.ri kind, and English
judges full juries are no: bound to know what is
to be done by a thi.A party, after the contract
is completed. I.: it be contended that the building
of such ships. es the steam rams is of itself a virtual

infraction of the proclamation, it cannot possibly be 1
dented that the manufacture of arms and ammu•
nition—articles whose transmission to the contend-
ing parties is expressly forbidden by the same
document—is decidedly a contradiction, not only of
the spirit but the letter. Mr. BARING'S defence
that his firm took no part in giving the orders for
the munitions of war, cr in the execution of them,
is certainly begging the question, since he must be
perfectly aware that the " giving effect to the credit
lodged in favour of the parties furnishing those
supplies," and the " seeing them pro-
perly forwarded to their destination," were
no less important parts of the transaction.
No one blames Mr. BARING for the part he has
taken in these matters ; but it is a little too much
for English common sense and love of fair play for
a gentleman whose firm has been so openly con-
cerned in assisting one party to appeal to the House
of Commons against the infraction of neutrality
committed by those who have been engaged in help
ing the other side. If the South could not pillage
Northern commerce without ships, neither could
the North fight without arms and ammunition, and
the American war owes more to Messrs. BARING
than to Messrs. LAIRD. The fact is, a strict neu-
trality is the very last thing desired by the friends
of the North in this country. It is so easy to de-
nounce piracy, slavery, and every other evil in
round terms—so easy to declaim about our duties as
a great nation, our interest as a commerce-loving
neutral ; but it is both difficult and unsatisfactory to
descend from eloquence to argument. If the judo.
ment of the people so entirely supports the Mini-
sterial policy, if, as a Cabinet Minister observed,
our Foreign Enlistment Act is so faultily worded
that a fleet of ships can sail through it, why does
not this wise and popular Government take some
steps towards reforming so great an evil ? Why
does not some member of the Government bring
forward a measure for amending this inefficient and
ill-constructed Act ? Is it that a neutrality strictly
defined end rigidly enforced would prove a more
startling customer to Mr. ADAMS than the Alabama,
the Georgia, and all their kindred combined ? Is
it that if a new act were laid before Parliament and
subjected to its rigid scrutiny it might leave no
convenient loopholes whereby what is "fraudulent"
on the part of the South become "properly forward-
ing" on the part of the North? Or is the reluctance
to introduce so pressing a reform due to on uneasy
misgiving that perhaps, after all, the conduct of
the Govermiftnt has not been altog-.. her that which