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

obi bra
LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 1850.

Last evening the Honourable Member for Mon
trose 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. HUME 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 irepolicy, 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..
postorous 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
afl ;at 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. On 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, of youth (NELSON, 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 sea 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 fur 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 no!-, 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
AM/ 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 cur sympathy
in the promised introduction of the matter to the con-
sideration of the Commons House of Parliament.

Far be it from our intention to advocate any in-
terference with the prevailing system which could
pruve 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 bs 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 ) ears 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-
duate]. When, therefore, Mr. HumE fulfils his
promise, be it on Friday evcniug or afterwards, we
trust the House will receive his remarks with the
attention to which they are entitled.

The Earl of GueNvILLE, in bringing in the Go.
vernment Audit Bill, last week, declared that " the
object was to secure, with the smallest amount of in-
terference, an independent and continuous aud►t 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 in
forcing the measure thus introduced upon the railway
interest, more especially as the Noble Lord asserted
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 parsons representing capital
to the amount cf 120,000,0001. is actually en-
grosed 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 invitunt, on those who were principally, if not ex-
clusively, interested in the subject. This would be
the case even though the Government Bill were really
to be preferred to that emanating from the great 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 teen 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
votes 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 are to be chosen, several of
whom will have a plurality of votes. It will
manifestly be impossible for a body SQ numerous to
exercise that due cae and attention in the selectivai I

that is of such vital importance to the proper work-
ing of the measure. Very little responsibility
attach to each indis idual member, who may possibly
be influenced by other considerations than that of
obtaining the most efficient men, best qualified to
discharge the arduous duties confided to their charge.
'Acre will not therefore be the same security for a
proper selection that will be afforded by the audit
committee proposed by the shareholders' Bill, where
five persons wholly unconnected with the
directors, each of whom must bold a
heavy stake in the undertaking—a stake
which would qualify him for a seat at
the board—are collectively and individually respon-
sible to their brother proprietors for the competency
of the parties whom they may recommend, and who
would not, for their own sakes, venture to exercise
their franchise on trivial or insufficient grounds.
Again, if there should be an error committed in
the choice of the audit, it will practically be irreme-
diable. A person once elected will hold office for
life. He cannot be removed except by a vote of two-
thirds of the delegates, sanctioned by the board of
Railway Commissioners. We need not enter into any
prolonged argument to prove how difficult it would
be to obtain the votes of one hundred and
twenty-two persons having confhcting interests, and
throughout the entire country, to a resolution so in-
jurious to all individuals; and even if this were ob-
tained, nay, if the delegates were perfectly unani•
mous on the subject, the consent of the Theilway CMS.
missioners must still be obtained, which would not
be given if the person objected to made himself agree-
able to their beard, and obeyed their high behests,
with implicit and unreasoning obedience. An
enormous degree of influence will thus practically be
exercised by the Commissioners, althougla avowedly
the principle of Government interference is
asserted to be given up. On the other
hand, even if the audit committee should make a
mistake, if they should recommend a person
not fully qualified for the office, and that such a re-
commendation should be acted on by the shareholders,
the error could easily be amended; the auditor tlius
selected would again appear before the proprietors in
the succeeding year, and after two years' tenure of
office, he would not be capable of re• election. New
blood would be infused into the auditory, and thus an
additional guarantee would be afforded of obtaining
competent persons not exposed to•any undue or under-
hand influence.

Again, the principle cf extraneous influence is just
as objectionable if exercised by the shareholders of
other companies, as it would be if entrusted to the
Government itself. The party who owed
his election to the exertions of a delegate
from one undertaking would naturally be
disposed to view the affairs of the company
in which his zealous supporter was interested with
greater leniency and favour than those of a rival com-
pany, whose delegate had opposed his election; secrets
of considerable importance might possibly be per-
mitted to ooze out, or even a direct pecuniary
consideration might lead to untoward revelations. It
is notorious that the intended reports of the railway
branch of the B >ard of Trade were known in various
quarters before they were publicly promulgated, and
that they led to heavy operations in the share mar-
ket. It is impossible to say that a greater degree of
secrecy would be observed by the members of the
audit board, or that the result of their inquisitorial
investigations would be kept wholly concealed within
their own breasts. And if so, the aggrieved parties
would have no mode of remedying the evil, and re-
moving the person whom they suspected of being
guilty of so base an act.

But the great and irresistible objection to the Go-
vernment Bill is the principle of " centralizetion"
involved therein. As Lord STANLEY justly re-
marked :—" No; these persons should have in them-
selves such authority and control over all the rail-
ways of the country as would be given by the Bill.
Until these gentlemen were fully satisfied, no divi-
dend could possibly be declared. The expectant
shareholders might in vain endeavour to pacify their
clamorous creditors—to excuse the delays occasioned
by the default of the audit board, who had duties
imposed on them which they could not possibly dis-
charge. Many and general complaints would be the
inevitable adjuncts of the system, complaints which
would not emanate from shareholders only, but
would be uttered by all who were in any way con-
cerned with them in business, and who would suffer
from the necessary procrastination."
How could these persons possibly revise and scru-
tinise the accounts of one hundred and eighty-three
companies, so as to give two reports of any real
value of each within a single year ? It is proposed
that the board should report once in every half-year
to each company on these points :—" Whether their
financial transactions were regularly organized ?
whether their accounts of receipts and ex-
penditure were rightly set forth ? whether
the heads of capital and dividend were distinctly set
apart ? whether the dividends declared were or were
notinjurious companies, and whether
thelaw charges
re t o
sthewe r
er e
correct or not." It is also pro-
pcsed that they shall lay their reports before Parlia-
ment at the beginning of each year, and they will be
ha
expected to inspect all books, papers, documents, and
vouchers, to enable them to form a perfect balance-
sheet of the receipts and expenditure of every com-
pany. This, too, must be done by the entire board in
each case, as two at least of their number must affix
their signatures to each report. It would, therefore,
be impossible for them to divide their labours. How
then could this important duty be discharged
for the 183 different companies ? A single
day could not be devoted to each, even
though no time whatever were allowed for travelling.
The duty would be got through in a slovenly and in-
efficient manner, or entrusted to irresponsible subor-
dinates, and the much vaunted board would confer
but little real security on the shareholders, or the
public, of having a scrutinizing, efficient, and con-
tinuous audit--which, too, of the companies should be
first served, and of which should the dividends be
postponed sine die, for if the dividends should be paid
before the report, there would be no security that they
had been fairly received. The übiquitous board
should be in every part of the kingdom, should be at
the principal station of every company—from the
Land's-end to John-o'-Groats—from Cape Clear to
the Giant's CI
eauseway—ia each and every half-year,
and some would necessarily be delayed until the
commencement of a new period.
We have thus put forward some of the most obvious,
but by no means all the objections to the Government
Bill. But we believe that these will be quite sufficient
to ensure its condemnation by the entire body of
shareholders throughout the country.