The Sun.
London, England, 1864-05-24 00:00:00

(Copy.)

"Bishopsgate-street, May 18, 1864.
"My dear Lord,—l found on return to town yesterday
your letter of 14th inst.
" Before you assumed that my firm had been mainly in-
strumental in conveying assistance to the Federals in vio-
lation of her Majesty's proclamation of neutrality it would
have been well that you should have acquainted yourself
with the part which my firm really has taken in these
matters. I am not at all prepared to admit that those who
have been instrumental in forwarding munitions of war
either to the Federal or Confederate States have thereby
violated her Majesty's proclamation. On the contrary, it
was notorious that such shipments were taking place, and
not only was no intimation given on the part of her
Majesty's Government that the parties engaged in them
were in any way infringing the laws, international or
otherwise ; but, on the contrary. the right of neutrals to
sell to both or either of the belligerents has been fully re-
cognised. I am, therefore, justified in assuming that the I
parties are not open to that imputation; but, be that as it
may, my firm has not, in fact, been so engaged. In those I
matters we have acted merely as bankers representing
large banking establishments in the United States, which
opened credits with my firm in favour of parties to whom
orders were given, but not through us for the purchase and
transmission of warlike stores for the use of the Federal
Government. We took no part in giving these orders or in
the execution of them. All that we had to do was, when
the shipping documents were furnished to us to give effect
to the credit lodged in favour of the parties furnishing those
supplies, and to see that they were properly forwarded to
their destination.
" I cannot, therefore, admit that in the conduct of these
proceedings we have infringed either the letter or the spirit
of her Majesty's proclamation.
" With reference to my having characterised the proceed-
ings of the parties charged with equipping vessels of war
for the use of the Confederate Government as fraudulent,
I did not thereby intend to stigmatise as fraudulent the
mere fast of such equipment, illegal as such equipment
undoubtedly would be, but my remark had reference to
the manner in which these proceedings were carried out.
As I have already observed, it was perfectly well known
that warlike stores were ordered in this country for the use
of the Federal and Confederate Governments, but in the
ease of the vessels which are supposed to have been
equipped for the use of the Confederate States every species
of concealment has been resorted to in order to cover the
real intentions of the parties, and it was in this view of the
subject that I alluded to these transactions as being fraudu-
lent. When Mr. Laird named last year my firm, in com-
mon with others, as concerned in the shipment of arms and
ammunition to the United States, I did not think that any
observation was required from me, as he only mentioned a
fact unaccompanied by any charge of illegality or impro-
priety.
"I ought certainly, as you Fay, to have been present
during your speech ; but from the previous temper of the
debate I had not anticipated any personal observation, and
I had intended to return if the debate continued. As, how-
ever, I was prevented, although from my own fault, from
making any remark upon your charge, and as everything
that falls from your lordship must have great weight, you
will, I suppose, have no of jection to the publication of this

correspondence when it closes,—Believe me, my dear lord,
faithfully yours,

(Signed) "THOMAS BARING.
"The Lord Robert Cecil, M,P., Brussels,"

(Copy.)

"Brussels, May 20, 1864.

"My dear Mr. Baring,—l beg to acknowledge your letter
of the 18th instant, which I received to-day. I confess that
I am unable to follow the construction you place upon the
language of the Queen's proclamation. It seems to me, so
far as I am in a position to judge, that the transactions of
your firm, as now described by you, fall within the letter of
the prohibition which I quoted at length in my last letter.
The proclamation forbids the Queen's subjects to carry'
contraband of war to either belligerent. You tell me that
warlike supplies have been ordered for the use of the Fede-
ral Government, and that your firm has been engaged in
'seeing that they were properly forwarded to their destina-
tion.' In other wordy, you have been superintending the
' carrying,' which is pointedly forbidden by the proclama-
tion. At the same time I most fully grant that a very much
laxer interpretation has been put upon the proclamation
both by public opinion in this country, and (what is of
more importance) by her Majesty's Government themselves,
and that the practical result of that interpretation has been
to make the clause I have quoted inoperative. Under
these circumstances it clearly follows that the
transactions in question cannot be looked upon
as in any degree censurable or improper. That such
is, in fact, the state of the case, is sufficiently indi-
cated, if other proof were wanting, by the fact that opera-
tions of this kin _I have been countenanced by such a house
as yours. But nay complaint is, that in many recent
discussions this latitude of interpretation has not been fairly
extended to both sides. Ships are contraband of war just
as much as, and no more than, arms, and the exportation
of the one, so far as international law is concerned, is as
legitimate a transaction as the exportation of the other.
There seems to be an inclination, however, among Federal
advocates, to put the two upon a different footing in that
respect, and to assume in defiance of international prece-
dents, that the ' exporter of ships' makes private war, or
commits a fraud on our neutrality' in some sense in which
tbose phrases are not applicable to the exporter of arms.
Those who, like me, believe, such a distinction to be
groundless and unjust are compelled, therefore, when an
attack is made upon the firms who sell ships to the Confe-
derates, to insist 'en the exactly parallel character of the
transactions entered into by those who sell warlike stores
to the Federals.

"With respect to the personal' character of the
debate, to which you again refer, I must repeat the
observation that it, in fact, began with your opening
speech. Had you been satisfied with passing a general
censure upon those who have sold ships to the Confede-
rates, or who have in your opinion broken the Foreign
Enlistment Act, I should undoubtedly been guilty of
giving a personal character to the debate, if in such a
case I had referred specially to any particular house that
had exported arms to the Federals. But you designated
a particular firm as a special mark of your severe accusa-
tions—the Liverpool firm that sent out the Georgia. That
you did not utter their names was of small. importance,
for those names may be found in a public document, and
were well known to all who were familiar with the
question.
"Before I conclude this letter you must forgive me if I
enter a word of protest against the accusation of fraud which
you made against that firm, and which in your last letter
you repeat. Concealment is not necessarily fraud. They
had two fair geounds of concealment which justified them
employing it. One was the course pursued by the Govern-
ment, the other was the vigilance of the Federals. The Go-
vernment, actuated by politic considerations, whose gravity
I do not underrate, but which should have been submitted
to Parliament before they were allowed to operate in preju-
dice of private interests and rights, was harassing this
particular trade by every means, legal and illegal,
within its reach. On the other hand, the spies
of the United States embassy were in every port ; and
a Federal frigate was always at hand of suffi •
cient force to give effect to their information by capturing
so important an article of contraband the moment she had
left British waters. Under these circumstances I think a
shipbuilder might fairly keep his own counsel without ex•
posing himself to the charge of fraud.
"1 trust I may have persuaded you that the proceedings
of your house were introduced by me into the debate merely
for the purpose of strengthening my case on behalf of those
who I thought were being hardly dealt with, and not in
any spirit hostile to yourself. Of course I have no sort of
objection to the publication of the correspondence.—Believe
me yours very faithfully,
(Signed) "ROBERT R. CECIL.
"T. Baring, Esq., M.P."