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

(Copy.)

"Bisliopigate-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. lam 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
parties are not open to that imputation; but, be that as it
may, my firm has not, in fact, been so engaged. In those
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 felt 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
case of the vessels which are supposed to have been
equipped for the use of the Confederate Stales every species
V 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 trandu-
-I,nt. When Mr. Laird named last year my firm, in com-
mon with others, as concerned in the shi?ment of arms and
ammunition to the United States, I did not think that any
observation was required Irons me, as ha only mentioned a
fact unaccompanied by any charge of illegality or impro-
priety.

" I ought certainly, as you say, to have been present
during your speech; but from the previous temper of the
debate 1 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 otjection to the publication of this

correspondence ichen 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. Bering,—l beg to acknowledge your letter
of the 18th instant, which li received to-day. I confess that
I am unable to follow the constetzetien 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 fir r/ lies been engaged in
seeing that they were properly forwarded to their destina-
tion.' in other word 4, 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 mach
taxer interpretation line been put upon the proclamation
both by public opinion in this country, and (what is of
more importance) by herMejesty'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 have been countenanced by such a house
as yours. But my complaint ie, that in many recent
discussions this latitude of interpretation has not been fairly
extended to both sides. Shits 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 defience 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 on 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 fict, 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 fait grounds 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
dent-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.
" I trust I may have persuaded you that the proceedings
of your house were introduced by me into the debate merely
(or 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."

Launch of the Prince Albert,

- -

Yesterday another rather important addition was
made to our iron clad fleet by the successful launch
of this fine vessel from Messrs. Samuda's yard at
Pcplar. The Prince Albert has a double claim to
defensive strength, inasmuch as she is not only iron-
cased, but has her battery in cupolas, or circular
turrets also. It would be, of course, useless to
deny that these turret ships have numerous oppo-
nents to their claims to be considered as efficient
sea going war frigates, and that these oppo-
nents include not only some of the most distin-
guished officers of the Royal navy, but some of
our most experienced iron-shipbuilders as well
Certainly, the practical experience of rough every
day warfare which has been illustrated by the
Federal gunboats constructed on this principle would
not lead us to be over sanguine as to the success of
ships built after the same pattern, if it were not
also known that almost everything connected with
the guns and plating and speed of the American
turret-ships was so far behind our own as really to
leave no safe data on which to found a comparison
between the two. The attempts which in America
have been made to work out the theory of turret-
ships have been by no means so comprehensive and
perfect as to warrant our Government in consider-
ing them as final, and, whatever may be the differ-
ences of opinion which prevail here as to the value
of the principle, it is satisfactory to see that the
Admiralty are bent or, trying it with all the auxi-
liary Bids to success, which form, horse-power, and
perfect workmanship can contribute. The length
of the Prince Albert turret-ship over all is 24011.,
while her breadth is as much as 4S, proportions
which 'give her a rather heavy and unwieldy ap-
pearance, and which are certainly like to tell
against a very high rate of speed in heavy water.
Her depth is no less than 28ft., and her burden, in
tons, 2,529. All the details relating to her general
principle of construction are almost precisely similar
to those adopted in the Warrior, the Black Prince,
and other of cur armour ships. The same care is
shown to give extra strengta by longitudinal brac-
ings ; there are the same wing passages along the
broadside, which virtually make a double ship of
her; she has no external keel, but two bilge plates
at each side, which are supposed to answer the
same purpose in giving her stability. The plating,
too, is the same as on the Warrior, &tin. iron anti
18in. of teak, but the Prince Albert is plated from
end to end, instead of only over the broadside. At
the extreme end of the bows and stern, however,
the thickness of the armour is diminished gradu-
ally to three inches, and, instead of going 5
feet below the water-line, as in other armour clads,
it is only taken down 4 feet—a slightness of immer-
sion which seems to bring the vulnerable parts dan-
gerously near the surface. Her upper deck is of
pine, with a three-quarter inch iron deck beneath it
to keep out shells—a thickness which the recent ex
periencu of the Danish ironclad the Rolfe Krake has
shown to be insufficient. She is to be furnished with
furnaces for heating shot and melting iron, and is
to be driven by engines of 500 horsepower nominal
—an amount of horsepower which certainly seems
small when compared with the tonnage or the area
of her midship section. The screw is to be four-
bladed, and not to lift. On deck are to be four tur-
rets or shields, as they are indifferently called, with
an ironplated pilot house in the bows. Three of the
turrets are 22ft diameter and one of 20ft. The Pilo'
house is a mere oval about Oft wide by 12ft long, but
plated, like the turrets, with 51 inches of armour
over 7 inches of diagonal planking. All theseon
tur-
rets, of course, are movable, and are revolved
ot rtnhtea bt
ulersr
cmt'so,rikt eids
ufrnedme r
st ht
oe m
o d, aairne
dectoe
ka
rbreyl otww.o
glusst-loe,
the heaviest
calibre that can be got.
All the turrets being
each, and two are to carry one each of'
placed amidships the bulwarl.'s round the upper deck
have to be movable, and are accordingly made of light
iron fastened by
Binges to the deck, so as to he cap-
able of being lowered at a moment's notice, leaving
the guns free to
fire anywhere. `The launch yestei -
day was most successfully accomplished, Miss Ada
Samuda naming the vessel as it glided rapidly into
the river. She was sent afloat with the lower streak
of armour on from end to end, and with the midship
portion of her broadside entirely plated. The rest
of her fitting and equipment will be proceeded with
at Woolwich, but nearly, if not quite, a year is
likely to elapse before she is commissioned and afloat
an effective membtr of the Channel equidron.

SECOND EDITION.

SUN OFFICE, HALF-PAST 4 O'CLOCK.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

-
EPSOM RACES.—Tars DAY.
(BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.)
CRAVEN STAKES.

Fairwater
Cutaway

Blarney

Five ran,

LATEST BETTING ON THE COURSE.

DERBY.
11 to 2 agst Scottish Chief (taken freely)
6to 1 agst General Peek (taken)
7to 1 agst CatubuEean (taken)
15 to 2 agst Bir,:hbroorn (taken)
15 to 1 agst Baragah (taker.)
18 to 1 agst Coast Guard (taken)
100 to 3 agst Ackworth (taken)
40 to 1 agst Holiyfox (taken)
THE OAKS.
4to 1 agst Fille de I'Air (taken)
ARRlVED—Benanoar, Izaak Walton, Attraction, Odine
Lovelace, Ely, and Eltharo.

DERBY SCRXTCHINGS.—Forager, about 11 25 a.m.,
Monday, May 23; Greville and Vauxhall, at 4 18 p.m.,
Monday, May 23.