The Express.
London, England, 1849-02-28 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 28, 1849.

marched to the Indus, the Prince DI .ThEIVILLE not
scuttled our fleet off Bpitheasl, the Americans not
made a foray across the Columbia, it is all owing
to the little additional five thousand that successive
ministers have been adding each year to oar fight-
ing men.
Now, does the Than or can its political patrons
soberly suppose, that augmentations of fives or tens of
thousands ever deterred Russia from an enterprise ?
If Russia ever meditated& warlike advance they may
depend upon it that what she would look to would
not be the numbers on our army or navy list'-our
number of admirals, generals, seamen, or soldiers—
but our finances, our deficit, our hold of Ireland, our
relations with France and with America. In these
lie our means of deterring enemies • these are our
capabilities for war, and not our actual readiness.
It is a well-known fact that when we were in
dispute with the Americans about the Oregon, and
when we raised our forces and expenditure in con-
sequence, the American government were strongly
pressed by tho war party to do the same.
But the American minister said "No; we
shall insist on our rights, and not waive one half-inch
of territory for British armament; depend upon it
the Brit sh will argue the same respecting us." And
it turned out that the American minister was right.
England got no better terms for all her augmenta-
tion of force, and America no worse for magnani-
mously trusting to her strength in paws., and not
adding a gun or a soldier to her estimates.
Our actual army is too small to terrify any foreign
power. Our military force consists in their eyes of our
capability, not of what actually is. An army of
80,000 English is quite as formidable as one of
113,000. As to the navy, that is a force that always
consists of capability ; hulls of vessels, stores, guns
and sailors constitute a navy. Oar trade will sup-
pmt the last, and the rest may be piled safely at home.
We never ran any. risk of naval war since 1815
save upon one occasion, and that was when the French
admiral hadafar superior force to us inlB4o in the Medi-
terranean, his ships being more numerous and better
manned. He was for a moment tempted to attack,
but he thought better of it. It was not the actual
fleet of England that deferral him, but the capability
of England to rats= facet af:er fleet, and infallibly
sweep the Frenchmen, even if victorious, from the

Ind
If the principles of our domestic, foreign, and
colonial policy be what the Times would have them,
those of intimidation, we must own that we thick
our army and navy quite insufficient, and that in
lien of eighteen millions, we should spend forty upon
security and might. But we disbelieve the principle
altogether, and think that as forty millions are im-
possible to spend for any such necessity, so
eighteen millions are thrown away as badly
between the two principles. Instead of going
the length of intimidation, we only proceed
so far as provocation. We administer Ireland, ar.d
we negotiate abroad, on the strength of our bayonets.
Had we less force, we may depend upon it that our
rulers and diplomatists would apply more wisdom,
and that we should find the latter more efficient and

more cheap.
But we fear that the Tim's, even in this, overrates
the respectability of motives. The nation may
sanction the military expenditure on the
ground that such intimidation is necessary,
but who can teed Mr. GIBBON'S analysis of our navy
list and navy expenditure without being convinced
that the estimates are swelled rather to feed the
" uneasy classes" at home than to intimidate the tur-
bulent ones either at home or abroad ? We cannot
imagine how Lords of the Admiral can meet after
reading such a speech as Mr. Chinos's, without
shaking their beads like Clem's two Augurs, and
laughing in each other's faces.
If Mr.Gtesos exposed the humbugof the naval esta-
blishments, Mr. BRIGHT showed the flimsiness of the
pretexts for increased expenditure in the extension of
trade. Have not the Americans doubled their lice of
sea-board without adding a sloop to their nary ?
Are not their merchants as secure from insult or
plunder as our own? Does not their absence
of financial debt give them more strength
in the eyes of the world than oar great
navy, paid by the creation of a yearly deficit ? I
Have they not managed to have a fleet without a
batch of admirals, costing more than the seamen ?
And has not their army conquered an empire without
colonels of either supernumerary rank or clothing
emoluments? Moreover, is there a nation that so fully
inspires a salutary awe of offending it, not by numbers
of bayonets or ships, but by the manifest capacity of
having any amount of either that necessity may re-
quire ?
Such ought to be English policy—and would but
for the predominance of the aristocratic and expen-
sive element—to hoard and cherish the means and ca-
pabilities of putting forth strength, by decreasing the
actualities, and economising the resources spent upon
provocation and parade.

Tax cue of the subordinate airier, in the landing
department of the customs is not an isolated or excep-
tional one. The effect of Treasury patronage, upon
the position of subordinates and the general efficiency
of the civil service, is no doubt felt with more or less
irksomeness in all departments. A petition was pre-
sented to the House of Commons on Monday evening
by Mr. WILLIAMS, the member for Macclesfield,
which will, it is to be hoped, have the effect of lead-
beg to an investigation as to how matters stand in
this respect in the Post-office. The statements in the
petition referred to can of course only be received as
exports: they are not conclusive against the esta-
blishment in general, or the heads of the department
in particular. Bat, added to what has transpired
ken time to time respecting the Post-office, they
.ctr-
s tainlytible. seem to render an appeal for inquiry irre-
is
Mr. SANDERS (the petitioner) was for mine time
=eyed in the money-order department of the Post*
His story is—and at the present stage of the
=
we give it merely am his story—that having
simit deal of irregularity and mismanage-
ment k that department, he ventured to present a
memorial or representation to the Postmaster-General
on the sallied. He suggested arrangements by means
of which it appeared to him the department might be
rendered more efficient, and a considerable saving to
the public made at the same time. In this representa-
tion it so happened that he was called upon, or
imagined himself called upon, to state some com-
plaints against the superintendent of his of-
fice. According to Mr. SANDERS, his suggestions
were passed over with contemptuous 'silence ; but for
complaining of hie superior officer he was sharply re-
buked, and ordered to apologise to that gentleman,
without an opportunity being afforded him to make
good his charges. Rather than do this he tendered
his resignation, which was immediately accepted, and
he now tries the experiment whether parliament be
as deaf to hie representations as the Postmaster-
General.
Oar comment on the personal dispute involved in
this story shall be brief. Nothing is more possible
than that an inferior may complain of his superior
from improper motives and on inadequate grounds.
Every inferior bringing a charge against a superior
must be prepared to struggle against a
prepossession to this effect. He makes his ac-
cusation, aware of this circumstance, aud pe-
rils his place upon his ability to substantiate
it. If he fait to make good his accusation, he has no
reason to complain, should he be required to make a
most humble apoloxy, or should he even be dismissed.
But if Mr. SANDERS state the truth, when he says
that he was called upon to apologise without being
previously called upon to substantiate his charge, he
(and the public too) have had a scanty allow-
ance of justice administered. Superiors in office are
, entitled to be guarded against the malevolence, or
even petulance, of inferiors ; but inferiors are MA to
be condemned without trial for advancing charges
against superiors, inasmuch as to have withheld these
charges, assuming them to be well founded, would
have been to participate in the delinquency, com-
plained of The right of an inferior to complain, if
oppressed, it would be waste of words to argue in
support of—it is so self-evident.
But be the personal cue of Mr. SANDERS what it
will, the representations which he made unavailingly
to the Postmaster-General, and which he now repeats
to the House of Commons, ought, in justice to ete, tax-
' paying public, to be listened to. Coming from any
source, they demand attention.
Mr. SANDERS states in his petition that within the
space of ten years no less than six different methods
of keeping the itccouuts of th, mor.ey order dtp..rt-
ment have been tried, but that the recommendation
of the Lords of the Treasury to adopt a method of
book-keepioo by, double entry has been uniformly dis-
regarded amid ad these choppings andchanger. None of