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

their interests.

recognised the South from the first, the terrible
slaughter now desolating the fair and fertile

States of the occ3 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 rofuse to recognise the

South was virtually to side with the North by trea'

ing their opponents as rebels and not as belligerents.
Our 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
The one affords the beat commentary on
the other, but the correspondence is especially
interesting, not only from the high position of
both parties, but from the curiosity naturally felt
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 had 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 out 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 vessel
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 certain kind, and English
judges and juries are not bound to know whet is
to be done by a third party, after the contract
is completed. If it be contended that the building
of such ships as the steam rams is of itself a virtual
infraction of the proclamation, it cannot possibly be
denied that the manufacture of arms and arcmu.
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, or in the execution of them,
is certainly begging the question, since he must be
perfectly aware that the "giving effect to the credit
Ilodged in favour of the parties furnishing those
supplies," and the " seeing them pro-
perly fcr warded 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

rams.

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 judg-
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 acme member of the Government bring
forward a measure for amending this inefficient and
ill-constructed Act ? Is it that a neutrality strictly
defined and 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 an uneasy
naisgiNing that p.,..-rhaps, after all, the conduct of
the Government has not been altogether that which