The Sun.
London, England, 1864-08-26 00:00:00

Claremont also ran.

Betting-2 `,o lon Blair Athol, 7to 2 agst Claremont, 7
to 1 agst Ely, and 20 to 1 agst any other.
They got away in company, but after running a short dis-
tance liollyfox went to the fore, and made the running at a
good pace, Claremont lying second, with Ely third, and
Miner next,the favourite and Lord Glasgow's colt bringing
up the rear. These positions were retained as they reached
the mile-post, where the pace slackened, and Claremont

took a slight lead of Hollyfox, Ely still going on third,
with Blair Athol next, Miner and Ascham, who followed
side by side, being close in their wake. Rounding the
bend for home Claremont and Hollyfox were disposed of,
which left By in possession of the lead, but as they neared
the road he was joined by the favourite, who in a stride or
two further got his head in advance, followed by Miner,
on the retirement of Aschaui, to the enclosure,
where Osborne brought up Mr Launde's colt, apparently
full of running, headed the pair without an effort, and won
very easily by a length, half a length separated the second
and third, Ascham finished a bad fourth. Claremont was
pulled up, and did not pass the post.

The Consolation Scramble of 50 sovs, added to a handicap
stakes of 5 soya each, T.Y.C. 13 subs.

Mr Brodie's Kilkenny, 4 yrs, Bat 41b .(W hiteley) 1
Mr Sidney's Chir,quot the Jester, 3 yrs, 7st (Loates) 2
Mr Hodgznan's Hawkshaw, 3 yrs, 7st 41b (Morris) 3
Mr J. Scott's Tooi Tooi, 3 yrs, Bst 41b (Fcrdharn) 4
The following also ran:—Newchurch, Skylark, Wood-
bine, Lyra, Queen Bee, Verdant, and Catalogue.
Betting-2 to 1 agst Catalogue, 3to 1 agst Queen Bee,
100 to 12 Kilkenny and Hawkshaw, 10 to 1 agst New-
church.

Kilkenny, in company with Chicquot the Jester, Hawk-
shaw, Newchurch, and Tooi Tooi, made the running to
the enclosure, where the former quitted his horses aud won
very cleverly by a length. Tooi Tooi finished fourth, close
up, Skylark was fifth, and Newchurch sixth, Catalogue
and Queen Bee were the two last.
The First Year of the Eleventh Aske Produce Stakes of
50 soya each, h ft, for 2-yr-olds ; colts Bst 101 b, fillies
untried stallions or out of un-
-Btrsited7lmb'artehossae goreat b
allowed 31b, but only one allowance.
T.Y.C.
Lord Zetland's St. Magnus, Bst 71b (car 31b ex)
(J. Snowden) 1
Mr T. Valentine's Celerrima, Bst 71b (T. French) 2
Mr Alexander's Pampa, Bst 71b
Betting-5 to 4 agst Celerriwa, 2to 1 agst Magnus, and
3 to 1 agst Pampa.

They ran in company to the road, when St. Magnus
drew slightly in advance, and won with great ease by a
length and a half; a like distance separated the second and
third.
The Tyro Stakes of 5 sous each, with 50 added ; for 2-yr•
olds; colts, 9st ; and fillies and geldings, Bst 101 b; with
selling allowances. T.Y.C. 7 subs.
Mr I'. Dawson's Pinch (VO), 7st 101 b ...... (Dickson) 1
Mr G. Crook's Brown Willy (XSO), 83r, 51b (E. Taylor) 2
Mr W. G. Bennett's Chelmstord (£3O), 8s1; (Challoner) 3
Captain Gray's Lady Dorcas (£3O), 7st 101 b (car 7st 121 b)
(Fordhaw) 4
Mr-w, Scott's Zcnobia (£3O), 7st 101 b (Cranshaw) 5
Mr Yerward's Arno (£3O), 7st 10lb (French) 6
Betting-5 to 2 atst Pinch filly, 3to 1 apt Brown
ChelmsfordWillylto 1.
each aget Dorcas and Chelmsford.
Chelmsford made play, with the Pinch filly and Brown
Willy next, and the three came on together to the stand,
where the Pinch filly drew ahead, and won cleverly by a
length, the same distance separating Brown Willy from

The Gimcrack Stakes of 10 sous each, with 100 added, for
2-Yr-olds ;colts, Bet 10Ib ;
and fillies, Bst 51b. Winners
extra. The second horse to receive 25 soya out of the

stakes, and the third to save his stake. One mile. 32

subs, --
Mr J. Osborne's Wild Agnes, Bst 51b .... (Osborne) 1
Mr Mackenzie's The Oppressor, Sat 101 b (Doyle) 2
Mr J. Osborne's Dubiety Bat Mb (Whiteley) 3
Colonel Towneley's Puck, Sat 101 b (J. Marsden) 6
Mr It. Hemingway's Blackiston, Sat 101 b.... (Challoner) 6
Betting—Even on Oppressor, 2 to 1 agst Wild Agnes,
and 100 to 8 agst any other.
Dubiety made the running, with Wild Agnes lying second
and Oppressor third, but by the time they had gone 200
yards Wild Agnes went to the front, and, with Oppressor
in attendance, came on with a clear lead, was soon headed,
and won very easily by a length, three lengths separating
Dubiety from Oppressor, and Puck finishing a length be-
hind Dubiety.

The Members' Plato of 50 sovs added, for 3-yr-olds and
upwards. Weight for age, with maiden and selling allow-
ances. Three-quarters of a mile. Eight subs.
Mr W. G, Bennett's Vuluptas, 4 yrs, 7st lllb
(Challoner) 1
Mr T. Hughes' Rest, 4 yrs, 7st lllb (French) 2
Mr J. Osborne's Vanessa, 3 yrs, Bst 11lb (Carroll) 3
Mr Snewino's Greyhound, 3 yrs, Gst 101 b .. Sharp) 4

The following also ran :—Wisdom, Lady Chaytor, Yen ng
Aladdin.

Betting-6 to 4 agst Rest, sto 3 agst Voluptas, and 100
to 15 agst Wisdom.
Rest jumped off with the lead, with Voluptas and Vanessa
in attendance, and with nct hing else near them, came on to
the Stand, where Voluptas headed the favourite and won
cleverly by half a length; Vanessa finished two lengths
behind Rest, and Gazehound was a bad fourth. The winner
was brought in for 134 guineas.
Her Majesty's Plato of 100 guineas!, for mares; 3-yr-olds,
Sst 21b; 4-yr-olds, 9st 71b ; 5-yr-olds, lOst ; 6-yr-olds

and aged, lOst 11b. Three miles,
Mr I'Anson's Caller Ou, 6 yrs „ (Challoner) w.o.

SALE OF BLOOD STOCK AT YORK.
Yestnday (Thurs Jay) News, Tattersall contiaued their

sale of blood stock. The company was not so numerous, nor
the competition so good as on the previous day, and many
lots were withdrawn. The sales are below:—

Guineas.
Brown yearling filly, by Windhound—Lima (Mr.
Wittaker)
Chestnut yearling colt, by Oxford—Area
Bay yearling filly, by Fandango—The Layer's dam
(Captain Machell) 70

Brown yearling filly, by Fandango, dam by Tho

Castor 65
Bay yearling colt, by Amsterdam—Jet (Mr Jacobs) 165
The following yearlings were sold with their engage-
ments :

Mountaineer, by Cariboo—Louisa 9O
Harlequina, by Fandango—Columbine, with en-
gagements at York, Richmond, and Epsom
(Lord Stamford)
Cora, by Leamington—Cypriana, engaged at York
meetings 1865 and 1866
Croft, 5 yrs, by Chanticleer—Honeysuckle 45
Security, 3 yrs, by Vindex—Confidence
Bay filly, 2 yrs, by Fandaogo—Elcho's dam (Mr
Danhill) l2
Nottingham, 5 yrs, by Kingston—Athol Brose
(the Hadji's dam)
Rouge Dragon, by Windbound—Paradign (with-
draw n) no bid.
Yearling. filly, by Fandango—Clarlemagne's dam 55
Elfrida, 6 yrs (Mr Holmes)
Lorenzo, 5 yrs (Mr Langdale)

Mr Robert Johnson also sold the following blood stock :
Brown filly, by Fugleman—Louisa (Mr Slater) .. 11
Bay filly, by Fingal, dam by Caldar
Bay filly by Fingal—Boundless

Also tho following brood mares, the property of Lord
Middleton :

Gipsy, by Jeereed—Fortune-teller .. 6
The Witch (steeplechase mare), by Crotton Oil or
Broomstick (Mr Dixon) l7
Mr Mills sold a chestnut yearling filly, by Mar3on,
dam by Bay Middleton
There were several lots of hunters offered, some of which
sold very well, but the majority were a drug.

LATEST BETTING.
ST. LEGER,

2to 1 agst General Peel (offered)
• sto 2 agst Blair Athol (offered)
10 to 1 agat Miner (taken)
12 to 1 agat Baragah (offered)
100 to 6 agst Ely (offered)
20 to 1 agst Claremont (offered)

SPIRIT OP THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

TImES.—If we were required to state in a single
' phrase the secret of England's greatness, it might,
perhaps, be described as the economy of force. A
population limited in numbers, and pent np in a
very narrow space, have taken the lead in the
world, because they have known how to use the
powers given them to the best advantage. Thrifty
of results we are not ; the products of our industry
are consumed without stint, and Mr. Gladstone was
right when he pointed some time since to the
French people as models of frugality. But thrift
of results is of small account beside thrift of produc•
tion, and in that we are unrivalled. No nation has
so fully understood the advantage of dividing and
adapting labour, or has learnt to a similar degree
the mystery of increasing the ratio between pro-
ducts and forces. Recent events have forcibly
shown us that the economy we have practised in
the works of peace is equally necessary in the con-
duct of war. Prudent and peazetul as our states-
men may be, it is hopeless to suppose that we can
live for ever without coming into collision with
anybody. Passions of ambition and aggrandise-
ment have not disappeared from the world, and a
nation which boasts itself to be a great Power can-
not always look on while justice is outraged and
the weak are maltreated by the strong. We are not
prepared definitely to abandon all notions of inter-
national order, and to allow violence to run its
course without any interference of police. But our
force is limited, our soldiers are few, and the cha-
racter of our population forbids us to hope that their
numbers can be much increased. The fact is not
new. Iv has been felt in every Continental war in
which we have been engaged since the establish-
ment of the modern system, and we have been
obliged, under the specious form of subsidy, to hire

the -armies of other nations to enlist with us and
assist in carrying on our campaigns. A more worthy
method of meeting the difficulty is to icereuse the
efficiency of the forces at our disposal. Our mili-

ary education has improved since the time when
Picton could declare that English officers, though
brave as lions, were totally and utterly ignorant of
their profession, and we now know that the need
of better weapons is not less imperative than im-
proved military education. We have been for years
perfecting our artillery, but the miserable cam-
paigos in the Duchies and in Virginia have brought
out the importance of the small arms of an army.
Two armies may meet each other equal in numbers,
in intelligence, and in spirit, and the one may be
hopelessly driven off the field because it is armed
with a muzzle-loading instead of a breech-loading
rifle. I'he breech-loading arm of the Prussian
infantry gave them an advantage over the Dines
which trustworthy wi;nesses declared to be incal-
culable. It is creditable to the Secretary for War
that the report of the facts brought out in the
Schleswig campaign prompted him to instant
action. Early in June, Lord De Grey, with the
concurrence of the Commander-in-Chief, appointed
a Committee, consisitng of General Itussell, Colonel
Steele, Lord Longford, and four others, to inquire
into the subject, and to report on the propriety, of
arming the Infantry wholly or partially with breech-
loaders. There could be little doubt as to the result
of an impartial inquiry. A comparison had to be
made between two weapons, one of which could be
fired three times as often as the other, so that the
destructive power of an army would be at once
trebled by being furnished with it. But, in addition
to this, there was not only a loss of time, but a loss
of power in the soldiers to be taken into account;
an easy process is substituted for what was often a
laborious operation. A breechloader, agr.in, re-
mains serviceable for a much longer time, it does
not foul so easily, and it can be exposed freely to
damp and wet without being injured. Nor does
the comparison end there. While the destructive
efficiency of Infantry is increased by means of
breech-loaders, their exposure to the enemy is
9bsolutely diminished. A soldier armed with a
muzzle-loading rifle is for a considerable part of
his time a helpless mark to the enemy ; while he
is painfully ramming a charge down a barrel
too soon fouled, be is exposed without protection
to the fire of the opposing army. With a breech-
loader everything is different. He can load it
in perfect security while he is quietly lying down
on the ground. Tee advantages which might thus
be almost guessed at were fully established by the
evidence laid before Lord De Grey's Committee.
There were not wanting, indeed, witnesses to raise
objections to the introduction of a new arm into the
British army, as there never will be wanting wit-
nesses to object to any novelty. But the prepon-
derance of evidence was unmistakable, and the later
the experience of the witnesses the stronger was
their testimony in favour of breech-loaders. n.jor
Young, of the artillery, who had been present at
the autumn manoeuvres of the Prussian army on
the Rhine in 1861, was of opinion that breech-
loaders were not adapted for general use; the
Austrians had discarded the needle-gun, and the
Prussians would, he was assured, have done the same
were they not entirely committed to its use. Bu.
this evidence was entirely at variance with more
recent accounts. Colonel Walker, who was in
Schleswig in March, reported that the Prussians
and Austrians were unanimous in praising the
needle-gun; the Prussians could not say enough of
it, and the Austrians compared it with their own
muzzlesloading arms to the disadvantage of the
latter. The needle-gun fired three shots to one from
the Danes, was loaded in perfect security, and re-
mained in good order when the muzzle-loaders of
the Austrians had become almost useless through
exposure to snow and rain. Colonel Tower, who
was present at the siege of Dybbol, gave evidence
to the same effect. It is to be regretted that the
experience of America was of little service to the
Committee. Two officers attended before them to
state the results of their investigations made during
a visit to the United States, but as they had been
refused permission by Mr. Secretary Staunton to
accompany the Federal army, they were unable to
speak from personal observation. The general opie
nion in America seemed, however, to be in favour of
restricting. the use of breech-loaders to picked bodies
of troops; but in the absence of special details vague
opinions arc of little value. A gentleman from the
Confederate States had been sent to New York to
procure machinery for making Lreech-loiders, but his
mission was abruptly terminated by his arrest. The
evidence laid before the committee was, however, on
the whole so convincing that they could only arrive
at one conclusion. They reported unanimously their
opinion to the Secretary for War in favour of arming
the infantry wholly with breech-loading arms,
There were, indeed, but two reasons alleged against
the adoption of breech-loaders, and one of them may
be dismissed in a sentence. It was said that they
furnished a temptation to young soldier to fire away
their ammunition. If a rifle is more useful the sel-
domer it can be fired, it would be advisabie to give
soldiers a weapon which cannot be fired at all. The
objection that a large supply of ammunition is fired
away in a short time is of no weight, unless it can
be shown that it is expended to no purpose. If the
ratio of effective shots remain the same, there is an
advantage in rapid shooting, and there is no doubt
that this the fact. The battles in America prove
that modern war, without being less bloody, is swifter
than the warfare of our grandaires• Armies do not

remain firing at each other throughout a long sum-
mer's day, expending an incalculable amount of
ammunition, with but one man disabled for some
thousands of cartridges spent. A graver objection
arose from the difficulty of storing the ammunition
necessary for breech-loaders. The quantity required
is necessarily increased, and as in the needle-gun cf
Prussia the ammunition carries its own means of
combustion, a danger might be anticipated from its
carriage. Practically, however, this danger appears
to be very small, nor is there any difficulty found in
keeping up the supplies in the field. The experience
of the Schleswig campaign has explained away
these anticipated difficulties. There is now no reason
to think that breech-loaders may incidentally en-
danger an army, while it is clear that they increase
its efficiency. The recommendation of the committee
has already we are glad to see, produced its proper
effect, as Lord De Grey has issued advertisements
requesting gunmakers to communicate with him on
the best means of converting the Enfield into a
breech-loader. There can be no dkrubt that the in-
genuity of our gunsmiths will devise many me-ins
of making the conversion, and we may soon hope to
see the infantry armed with a weapon which will
put them on equal terms with any enemies they may
have to encounter.

POST.—The intelligence of the capture of the
Georgia, the quondam Confederate privateer, but at
the time of seizure the property of an English mer-
chant and sailing under the British flag, has given
rise to a variety of speculations in respect to the
legality of the proceeding by which she has been
made a prize of war by a Federal cruiser. We think
it right, therefore, to take the earliest opportunity
of explaining to the public the law as applicable to
captures belonging to the same class with that which
has just been made, and placing in the clearest
light what seems to us the course most expedient
for the Government to pursue, There are many
who are inclined to invest with a peculier sanctity
the banner of their country, and who conceive that
in every imaginable case where it floats at the gaff
of a vessel on the high seas it secures for the ship, the
cargo, and the crew the protection of the State whose
flag it is. This rule is, however, only general in its
character, and has its exceptions, and the point for
decision now is whether the present is not one of
those cases in which an almost universal principle
ceases to operate. When Captain Wilkes seized the
Confederate Commissioners on board the Trent, a
mail steamer sailing under the English flag, his in-
fraction of international law was patent to all, and
the English Cabinet did not hesitate for a moment
to demand the restitution of the gentlemen who had
been made prisoners when sailing under the protec-
tion of the English flag. But the capture of the
Georgia, though to all appearances a British vessel,
stands on a footing far different from the outrage
committed on the passengers in the Trent. In what
that difference consists, and how far it affects the
validity of the capture, we will now proceed to ex-
plain. The Georgia was, as our readers are aware,
a Confederate cruiser, armed and equipped for pur-
poses of war, and in that capacity inflicted no
little damage on the merchant shipping of the
Federal States. Some months since she put into
the port of Liverpool, and, for reasons which
cannot perhaps be precisely ascertained, was sold by
order of the agent of the Confederate Government.
The sale took place, if we are rightly informed, by
auction, and a gentleman named Bates, connected
with the East India trade, became the purchaser.
Shortly afterwards the Georgia, as was alleged, was
chartered 'by the Portuguese Government for the
conveyance of passengers between Lisbon and the
Coast of Africa or the West Indies, and the interior
of the vessel was fitted up to meet the requirements
of a passenger ship. On the Bth of August the
Georgia left the Mersey, under the command of
Captain Withycombe, a seaman notorious for the
skill and success with which he has frequently
eluded the blockade of the Confederate ports, and
all seems to have gone well until the vessel came
within sight of Lisbon, the port to which she was
bound. She was then brought to by a couple of
shots fired across her bows by a Federal war
steamer, called the Niagara, and which had left
Liverpool two days previous to the Georgia's de-
parture. A boat containing armed men from the
Niagara the❑ boarded the Georgia; the captain of
the latter was conveyed on board the Federal
cruiser, and, despite his protests that the ship was
British, and sailing under a British flag, was told
that she had become prize of war. The Georgia's
papers were then given up, her crew transferred
to the Niagara, and a fresh crew placed on board,
with directions to take her to an American port.
The Niagara then steered for the English Chan-
nel, and on Wednesday landed at Dover the captain
and previous crew of the Georgia. She then took
her departure and pat out to sea. Such being the
facts, the only point to be determined is, whether
this sale of the Georgia to the subject of a neutral
State has the effect of depriving the Federal Go-
vernment of the right which at one time they un■
doubtedly possessed of capturing that vessel if
found beyond tne bounds of neutral juris-
diction. The general rule of international
law is, that the character of a ship depends on the
national character of the owner, as ascertained by
his domicile; but, when the vessel sails under the
flag and pass of a foreign country, she becomes
invested with the national character of the country
under whose flag she sails. Tested simply by this
rule, the capture of the Georgia would unquestion-
ably be illegal, since—both in virtue of the national
character of the owner and of the flag under which
she sailed—she was a British vessel. But the
question still remains whether this national charac-
ter was rightly acquired, and this depends on the
validity of her transfer from the Confederate Go-
vernment to Mr Bates. Now, in respect to the right
which a belligerent possesses of transferring vessels,
whether ships of war or merchantmen, to the sub-
jects of a neutral State, so as to deprive the other
belligerent of his right of capture, the custom ob-
served by all maritime Powers is not uniform. The
French, for example, laid it down, in the regula•
tions published in 1778, that no enemy-built vessel,
whether intended for purposes of war or for the
conveyance of merchandise, could be legally trans•
ferred to a neutral, so as to defeat the belligerent's
right of capture, unless the transfer was effected
previous to the commencement of hostilities. The
justice of this rule, in so far as it relates to mer-
chant shipping, is, however, questioned by Haute-
feuille, who says—" Commerce is free between
neutrals and nations at war; this liberty is un-
limited with the exception of the two restrictions
relative to contraband of war and to besieged,
blockaded, or invested places. Nations at peace
can thus, when they think proper, buy merchant
ships of one of the parties engaged in hostilities
without the other party having the right to com-
plain." This latter is the view taken by American
and English jurists, who maintain that neutrals
have an undoubted right to purchase and employ,
without rish of capture, the merchant shipping of
a belligerent. During the late Russian war the
question was raised more than once in the English
Admiralty courts, and, on the authority of Lord
Stowell's decisions, it was held that the sales of
merchant shipping were valid and binding as against
belligerents. In the case of the Johanna Emiiia, a
Russian merchantman claimed by a Hamburger as
having been purchased after the commencement of
hostilitics,Dr Lushington said, " With regard to the
legality of the sale, assuming it to be bonajide, it
is not denied that it is competent to neutrals
purchase the property of enemies in another
country, whether consisting of ships or anything
else." But, in respect to ships of war, all States
concur in denying to neutrals the right of purchas-
ing them from a belligerent, and investing them with
the national character of the State by whose subjects
they are bought. Nor is it difficult to understand
why this should be so. Vessels employed for hostile
purposes against a belligerent are contraband of
war, and it, when pursued, they took refuge in a
neutral port, it would be easy for them to avoid cap-
ture, which would otherwise be imminent, by the
process of a sale to a subject of the neutral State.
Was the Georgia a vessel of war used by the Con-
federate Government ? If this question be answered
in the affirmative, and it seems impossible to answer
it otherwise, then the sale which took place in
Liverpool was inoperative, and she was during the
continuance of the war as liable to capture when
sailing under the British flag as under that of the
Confederacy. Under these circumstances, then, we
do not consider that our Government have any
grounds for interference. The vessel will be taken
for adjudication to a prize court, and before that
tribunal those who deny the validity of the capture
can, if they please, appear and matte good, if they
are able to do so, their title to the vessel.

Foreign Mail Packet List.