The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-13 00:00:00

2-AYiellinrt .-I,llt

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 1830.

Last evening the Honourable Member for Mon-
;rose gave notice of his intention to take the opinion

of the House upon the propriety of reducing the
number of admirals in the Royal Navy of England,

according to the recommendation of last year's

Select Committee. Whether Mr. Huhn prove suc

cessful or not in this endeavour, he is certain to have

our most cordial sympathy in it, and the sympathy
too of every genuine well-wisher of the great national
service. Often as we have already referred to the

preposterous number of flag-officers in the British
navy when contrasted with that observable in any other
of the naval powers of Christendom, we shall not cease
to comment upon the absurdity, the inapolicy, and
the extravagance of the system until such time as
that system has been thoroughly reformed. We have
observed that the number of admirals is glaringly
preposterous, if it be contrasted with the number in
any other of the maritime principalities on the face of
the globe, but we will go further, and say that it is pre-
posterous if it be considered only in reference to
the requirements of our marine, to the extent
of our naval forces, the list of our ships
of war, and the aggregate of our seamen, whether
afloat or in the dockyards. In this, of course, as in all
the other departments of the national service, precau-
tions should be taken to remove the possibility of
embarrassment, in case of any emergency. A margin
should be allowed for all casualties ; sudden death,
pestilence, mortality in battle, and all the other " ills
that flesh (in the garb of an admiral) is heir to,"

should be counted upon as possibilities—not as
probabilities, GOD forbid but as possibili-
ties ; and with the chance of such possibilities
allowances should be made in the event of their re-
currence. Hence we would by no means see the list
of admirals reduced to a number barely sufficient to
take the command of our squadrons. 01) the con-
trary, we would see a reasonable catalogue of a sup-
plementary character—embracing at once the vigo-
rous accessions to the rank of flag-officers and those
superannuated veterans who might chance to have
survived their physical or intellectual capacity for

command. We would see in this liberal catalogue of
the British admirals a wholesome blending of age
and, comparatively speaking, cf youth (Ifm.sos, be
it remembered, having only attained his 47th year
when he expired at Trafalgar !), of vigour and
experience, of ardour and of judgment. We
would see ample opportunities afforded for
the reward of the meritorious by promotion, and
ample encouragement afforded to those who were
aspiring to the dignity of such elevation. But we
would not see, as we can see now, a list so huge and
superfluous as to militate against the character" and
efficiency of the whole service. We would not see a
catalogue so lengthy that we may find as many as
three admirals for every line-of-battle ship in the
navy of England. We would not see enrolled among
the admirals of Great Britain men, whose names are
unadorned by any of those great services, or by any
of that conspicuous capacity, or by any even of that
apparent promise of ability which should be regarded
as essentials, with the chief captains of the marine of
England. We would not, in short, see the perpetua-
tion of that system of monstrous and unpardonable
extravagance which provides for the naval service of
this country the enormous number of one hundred and

.fijeS/ flag officers, thirty admirals, or ten
of each squadron, forty-five vice-admirals, or
fifteen of each squadron, and seventy-five
rear-admirals, or twenty-five of each squadron—
to say nothing of forty-five retired rear-admirals.
Such an accumulation of expensive supernumeraries
one cannot of course expect to see overlooked in the
midst of a gigantic movement towards financial re-
form and retrenchment. Therefore it is that we
have so repeatedly protested against the persistence
of the Government in the same ruinous conduct of
affairs at the Admiralty. Tnerefore it is, also,
that in the hope of seeing before long a general
and comprehensive innovation made in that
policy, we here cordially express our sympathy
in the promised introduction of the matter to the con-
sideration of the Commons louse of Parliament.
Far be it from our intention to advocate any in-
terference with the prevailing system which could
prove unjustly injurious to the interest of the gallant
officers in the navy. Any movement which should ap-
pear unjustifiably detrimental to their interest, by ab-
ruptly, and harshly, and unfairly preventing their
reasonable promotion, would be certain to
call from us, among the very first, an indignant pro-
test. But such injustice we do not recognise in a
gradual reduction conducted on some such principle
as this,—say a restriction of the promotion of captains
during the next three years to every three vacancies,
and after that:time for so many years to two vacancies—
thereby, without injury to any one, bat with material
advantage to the interests of the service, diminishing
surely, but almost imperceptibly, the number of flag-
officers from 150 to some more rational aggregate,
say a hundred. Some interference has become abso-
lutely and imperatively requisite; and a change of
the kind now indicated would prove, we are satisfied,
the least irksome because the most judiciously gra-
duated. When, therefore, Mr. HUME fulfils his
promise, be it on Friday evening or afterwards. we
trust the House will receive his remarks with the
attention to which they are entitled.

The Bari of G;RANVILLE, in bringing in the Go-
vernment Audit Bill, last week, declared that " the
object was to secure, with the smallest amount of id=
teiference, an independent and continuous audit of
all the railway accounts in the kingdom." If such
was really the desire of the Cabinet, we are con
vinced that they will not obstinately persist

forcing the measure thus introduced upon the railway
interest, more especially as the Noble Lord asaerted
that it was brought forward solely because it was
not likely that any large number of shareholders
would combine to bring in a Bill for that purpose
during the present session. That excuse is no
longer available. A measure sanctioned and
approved of by persons representing capital
to the amount of 120,000,000/. is actually en-
grossed and ready to• be laid on the table, and if on
full consideration it. should be found adequate to the
acknowledged exigencies of the case, we submit that
Ministers would not be warranted in pressing a law,
in inoitunt, on those who were principally, if not ex-
clusively, interested in the sub ject. This would be
the case even though the Government Bill were really
to be preferred to that emanating from the greut body
of the shareholders. But when the latter will be
found in every respect superior to the former, as we
confidently assert to be the case, there can be no pos-
sible reason why the government should persevere,
from any natural predilection for their own compo-
sition.

It will be seen that Ministers no longer insist upon
the new auditors being nominated by themselves.
They nominally relinquish any extraordinary control
over the parties who may be selected. The choice
of the audit board is left to delegates chosen by
the different railway companies, who are to have
votrs in proportion to the paid-up capital of the un-
dertakings which they respectively represent. There
will thus be no less than one hundred and eight-three
persons (that being the number of different companies
incorporated under different Acts of Parliament), who
will form the constituency by which the three
members of the board ]oral to be chosen, several of
whom will have a pity of votes. It will
manifestly be impossible for a body so numerous to
exercise that due care and attention in the selection