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

(Copy.)

" Bishopsgate-street, May 14, 1864_
"My dear Lord,—ln the report of your speech of
last night you are stated to have said—
" I want you to consider the feelings with which
tha Confederates regard these enormous reinforce-
ments which have been conveyed by the English
people through the hands of Messrs Baring and Co.,
in violation of her Majesty's proclamation of neu-
trality.'

"Until your lordship rose the mention of namc,.s
had been avoided, in order not to give a personal
character to a discussicn of great national questions,
and, unfortunately, not anticipating such a charge
as you made, I was absent during your speech, and
did not return to the House of Commons. As,
however, such an accusation would not be lightly
made by you, and cannot lightly be treated by me,
may I ask of you the favour to let me know to what
proclamation you referred, and what are the terms
of that proclamation which you consider to substan-
tiate your charge P—Believe me, my dear lord,
yours faithfully,

(Signed) " THOMAS BARING,
"The Lord Robert Cecil, ALP,"

(Copy.)

n, Duchess-street, May 14.

"My dear Mr Baring,—l beg to acknowledge your letter,
which I received this evening, asking me to what procla.
Illation I referred when I said that the munitions of war
exported by Messrs. Baring and Co. to the Federal States
have been conveyed in violation of her Majesty's proclama-
tion of neutrality.
"In reply I beg to say that the proclamation of which I
spoke is that issued May 13th, 1861, and that the passages
in it to which I referred were the following :
" We do hereby strictly charge and command all our
loving subjects to observe a strict neutrality in and during
the aforesaid hostilities, and to abstain from violating or
contravening either the laws and statutes of the realm in
this behalf, or the law of nations in relation thereto, as
they will answer to the contrary at their peril.

•
" ' And we do hereby further warn all our loving sub-
jects and all persons whatsoever entitled to our protection,
that if any of them shall presume in contempt of this our
Royal proclamation, and of our high displeasure, to do any
acts in derogation of their duty as subjects of a neutral
sovereign in the said contest, or in violation or contraven-
tion of the law of nations in that behalf, as for example and
mare especially . . . . by carrying officers, soldiers,
despatches, arms, military stores, or materials, or any
article or articles considered and deemed to be contraband
of war, according to the law or modern usage of nations,
for the use or service of either of the said contending
parties, all persons so offending will incur and be liable to
the several penalties and penal consequences by the sail
statute or by the law of nations in that behalf imposed or
denounced.

" And we do hereby declare that all our subjects, and
persons entitled to our protection, who may misconduct
themselves in the premises will do so at their peril, and of
their owu wrong, and that they will in nowise obtain any
protection from us against any liabilities or penal conse-
quences, but will, on the contrary, incur our high displeasure
by such misconduct.'

"In the same connection I may also quote the statement
made by Mr Laird in your hearing, on the 27th of March,
1663, and not contradicted by you :
" I have referred to the bills c,f entry in the Custom
Houses of London and Liverpool, and I find that there
have been vast shipments of implements of war to the
Northern States. 1 find among those who have been
engaged in these transactions the celebrated house ';of
Baring and Co.'
" I presume that the word ' carrying' in the proclama-
tion includes those who employ others to carry, or abet
others in carrying. In strictness it seems to me that the
letter of the proclamation prohibits all transactions having
for their object to supply contraband of war to either
belligerent. But I think it is generally agreed that, as a
rule of practice, its meaning must be interpreted by usage.
All I claim is that the interpretation shall be impartial, and
that the proclamation shall not be held to prohibit the ex•
port of one kind of contraband of war—viz., ships to one
belligerent, while it is held to permit the export of another
kind—vic, arms—to the other belligerent. Of course I
am speaking exclusively of the proclamation of neutrality,
and am not referring to any ships which may be plover" to
have violated the special enactments of the Foreign Enlist-
ment Act.

" In tho course of your note you intimate that I first gave

a personal character to the discussion of a great national
ques..ion.' I cannot plead guilty to the charge. I think
you must have forgotten that you twice applied the word
' fraudulently' to the proceedings of the Liverpool firm that
sent out the Georgia—a firm of the highest respectability,
whose name is well known, and is, indeed, mentioned in the
papers that have been presented to Parliament. The word
conveys a severe imputation—probably, in reference to the
conduct of a British merchant, the very severest you could
have made. I cannot admit that it was I who gave a
personal character to the discussion of a great national
question.'
" The name of the house of Baring was only introduced

in order to show how unfair and one-sided were the charges
which were made in the course of the debate against those
who sent out the Georgia and other ships which afterwards
became ships of war, It was said that they acted in fraud
of our neutrality, and that they were stirring up feelings
of rancour between two friendly nations. Those who were
accused were not there to defend themselves ; and it did
seem to me only fair to show how little they were really
open to censure, by pointing to proceedings equally in vio-
lation of the letter of the Queen's proclamation, and equally
irritating in their effect to the feelings of a friendly nation
on the part of one of the first mercantile houses in the
world—one to whose authority no Federal advocate would
be likely to demur,
" I learn for the first time from your note that you were
not present in the house when I spoke. It never occurred
to me that you were likely to leave before the discussion
you had raised was finished ; and the seat you usually
occupy is so exactly behind mine that I could not see that
yon were away when I was speaking—Believe me, yours
very faithfully,

(Signed)

" ROI3ERT G. CECIE.

"Thomas Baring, Esq., M.P.
" P.S.—lf you should desire any further explanation 0'
anything I have said, my direction for the next week will
be, .Poste liestanto, Bruxelles. "

(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. 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. Ia those
matters we have acted merely as bankers representing
largo 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 is 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
case of the vessels which are supposed to have been
equipped for the use of the Confederate Stales 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 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 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
tha6 falls from your lordship must have great weight, you
will, I suppose, have no of jection to the publication of this