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 l‘laj,sty's proclamation of neu-
trality.'

" Until your lordship rose the mention of nam'is
had been avoided, in order not to give a personal
character to a discussion 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 ?—Believe me, my dear lord,
yours faithfully,
(Signed) "THOMAS BARING,
"The Lord Robert Cecil, M.P."

(Copy.)
" 11, Duchess-street, May 14.
"My dear Mr Baring,—l beg to acknowledge your letter,
which I received this evening, asking me to what procla-
mation 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
more 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 said
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 Gf 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 emplcor 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—vis., 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 'moved to
have violated the special enactments of the Foreign Enlist-
ment Act.

" Iu the course of your note you intimate that I first gave
a personal character to the discussion of a great national
question.' 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-aided 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
you were away when I was speaking—Believe me, yours
very faithfully,

(Signed)

"ROBERT G. CECIE.

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