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

r" THIRD EDITION OF " THE SUN,"
Containing the Latest SPORTING INTELLIGENCE,
On be had Every Evening of
G. R. GLENIE, NEWS AGENT,
No. 4, Connaught-terrace, Hyde-park.

The Weather—Sun Office, May 26, 1864.

THERMOMETER.
• 60
This day at Two o'clock ....................

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

HIGH WATER. AT LONDON BRIDGE.
rHis DAT.—Morning, sh. 11m.—Afternoon, sh. 28m.
ro„.a„,....moraing, 6h. 3al.—Afternoon, 6h. 30m.

,
WO' - - SUIT,

LONDON, THURSDAY, MAY 26, 1864.

If report be true, her MAJESTY'S Ministers have
hou;ht 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

he Alexandra that it has been considered advisable

o hush up the matter of the rams by effecting a
!onvenient compromise. There is accordingly to

be no further question as to the ownership of the
El Tonssin and El Monassir, since they are added
to the national possessions, and certainly if the

publ;c are to pay in either event, it is more satin.
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 bad a right to seize them without

payment. Why give a large Eum 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 maze of perplexities and troubles

by their vacillation and one-sidedness. The wan

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 Governmen

recognised the South from the first, the terrible
slaughter now desolating the fair and fertile
States of the or ca 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 ou.Aveigh 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 belligeren

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
It 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 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 ierpoliay of throwing stones when your resi-
dence is peculiarly brittle, and Lad better have
let the matter alone. Certairily, as Lord ROBERT
CECIL admits, the public and the Government
have coincided in regar;:iing the transmission of
goods to the American states as justifiable, but
public opinion goof, a little further than the Cabi•
net, and canno'c 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 aremu.
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 t1:.,0 orders for
the munitions of war, or in the e xecntion of them,
is certainly begging the ciae',":ion, since he must, be
perfectly aware that the ``, giving effect to the credit
lodged in favour of the parties furnishing those
supplies," r.ud the " seeing them pro-
perly far 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
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, es 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 'ake 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 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 looplaelis 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
misgiving that perhaps, after all, the conduct of
the Government has not been altogether that which