The Sun.
London, England, 1855-05-16 00:00:00

MR. LAYARD'S RESOLUTIONS.

Mr. LAYARD gave notice that, on going into corn.
mitee of supply on Thursday 'week, he should bring for.
ware his resolutions.
RAMSGATE HARBOURS.

Mr. MACKINNON 'roved for a select committee to
ascertain the condition, revenue, and expenditure of the
harbours of Ramsgate and the Cinque Ports.
Mr. BOUVERIE said that, with regard to the Cinque
Ports, the hon. member had said nothing, and he (Mr.
Bouverie) would follow his example, and confine his re-
mar'is to Rarnsgate alone. He could not assent to a
select committee on this subject, because the subject of
Ramsgate harbour was exhausted, and nothing further
cou'd be gathered with respect to it. The papers he held
in his band referred .to Ramsgate harbour, besides
which he had with him a report relating to the same
matter. At the same time the question of Ramsgate
harbour was an important one. (Hear, hear.) It was
maintained by tolls on the shipping, but lately those
tolls had been reduced. In 1851 the reductions amounted
to something like 4,6001: per annum, and in 1852 to
5,0001., whilst the toll now levied was at the rate
of 63 per cent. less than the rate to which the trustees
were entitled. The shipping was benefited by the pas-
sing toll upon shipping, arid he therefore did not think
that it would be desirable to take away from the harbour
all means of maintenance. At present the harbour was
not in an efficient condition ; but the question arose, how
the harbour was to be maintained when it was placed
upon a proper footing. He was himself favourable to a
change of mamgerient. The control of the harbour was
now in the hands of a body of trustees, men of eminence
and character in the city of London, who, whilst devot-
ing some time to the harbour, could not give that
attention to it which its importance deserved.
The first step necessary to put the harbour in a
proper state of efficiency would he the alteration of man-
agement—and he proposed that the direction should be
taken from the trustees and vested in another authority
under the control of the Board of Trade. Under these
circumstances, and as all had been ascertained which
could be collected on the subject, he trusted his hon.
friend would n.,t press for a committee. (Hear, hear.)
Sir G. B. PECHELL did not think the Vice Pre-
sident of the Beard of Trade had afforded any strong
reasons against the committee, and he should, therefore,
give it his cordial support.
After a few words from Mr. JAMES MACGREGOR,
on the importance of Ramsgate being maintained as a
harbour of refuge,
Mr. CARDWELL said, that many motions had been
made with regard to Ramsgate harbour, and at last Sir
William Cuhitt was sent down there, and his report was
to the effect., that at the end of the present year it would
he perfectly safe to abandon passing tolls.
He had himself personally gone to Ramsgate,
and prepared a bill for abolishing passing
tolls. This was in 1853, but it was not intro
duced because there was a large searching, comprehen-
sive inquiry then in progress into the matter. Now was
the time, however, for legislation, and he should join with
his right hon. friend in opposing this unnecessary
inquiry.
Mr. G. HUDSON opposed the committee, after
which

Mr. MACKINNON withdrew hie motion.
THE HARDWARE TRADE.

Mr. HADFIELD moved for a committee of the
whole house, to consider the laws for the securing the
property of manufacturers of iron, steel, cutlery, edge
tools, hardware, gold, silver and silver plated, Britannia
metal, German silver, copper and brass articles, and
other metals, mother of pearl, shell, tortoise shell, bone,
horn, ivory, leather, and wood, and also for securing the
wages of the workmen engaged in such manufacture 3 ;
and asked for leave to bring in a bill to extend the 6th
and 7th Vie., c. 40, to thellard ware trades of Wolver-
hampton, Birmingham, and Sheffield.
Mr. BOUV ERIE said the provisions of the act al-
luded to by the hon. member had reference only to the
hosiery and linen trade. He saw no prima facie
grounds for objecting to its introduction, aid leave was
accordingly given, and the bill read a first time.
COMPENSATION TO THE PATENTEES OF
SCREW PROPELLERS.

Captain SCOBELL moved for a select committee to
inquire into the circumstances under which the
sum of 20,0001., voted by the House of Commons as a
reward or compensation to the patentees of the screw
propeller, as used in her Majesty's ships and vessels, had
been applied, and as to what persons have preferred
claims, either to the Admiralty, or other public depart-
ments, to share in the public grant in respect to their
patent rights, and to report thereon, This question was
mooted at the end of last session in the other house
by Lord Lyndhurst, which showed it was a grievance
requiring investigation. The question was, who had the
20,0001. granted by the Admiralty, and why was it so
paid ? He found that the five who shared the money
had quarrelled. They were in a questionable posi-
tion when they obtained it, and it had come before the
highest judicial authorities, who have decided the screws
used in the Navy were not those for which the money
was granted. The question then came to be considered
who had got the money ; that was a question well worth
considering, because Parliament had granted it. Of that
there was no doubt. (Hear, hear.) Now the party
who had the money was Hr. Henry Currie, and he
would show it from his letter to the Admiralty. It must
be remembered that the vote was for the screw used in
the navy, but Mr. Currie had put all the five screws
together. Why was any other inventor rewarded ? It
it was Smith's alone, why did not Smith alone receive
the money But the fact was, the invention was Capt.
Carpenter's. That gallant officer was in the navy ; that
was his profession. Was not his the ,crew that the Duke
of Wellington, the Agamemnon, and other steam war
ships were now known by ? There could be no doubt
about it. Yet the money (20,0001.) was shared between
five persons, of whom Captain Carpenter -was not one.
Mr. Lowe claimed to be one of the inventors, but the
Privy Council did net think so, and decided accordingly.
Captain Carpente , in 1838 or 1839, made communica-
tions to the Adinir thy cf that day. In 1840 he took
out a patent for a screw, and lodged everything with the
Admiralty. This was long before Smith's screw was
talked of. The Rattler was fitted with Carpenter's
screw ; he received encouragement from the Govern-
ment ; was appointed to a ship-of-war, and ordered to
the Mediterranean in a pinnace fitted with his screw,
which astonished all the other boats by the way in which
it screwed and steamed about. When he returned, after
some years, he found others endeavouring to reap the
reward of his ability ; he made representations to the
authorities ; and up to the last few months had con-
tinued to press his chino. By desire of the Admiralty
he made an application to Mr. Currie. Captain Car-
penter's patent was almost exhausted. He went la-t
year to the Commiuee of the Privy Council for a re-
newal ; and the Government officers testified, then, that
it was Captain Carpenter's screw which was used in the
navy, which he had shown from the evidence. The
Admiralty was, in point of fact, now using Captain
Carpenter's screw, but of course no subject could bring
an action against ;he Government. Time Agamemnon,
as he had already stated, which went 11 miles an hour,
was worked by Carpenter's screw. The Government
officer in Woolwich dockyard had so testified before the
Judicial Cominitzee of the Privy Council. The hon.
and gallant gent eman went on to quote the evidence
given before diet udicial Committee (Attie Privy Council,
and to observe that Captain Carpenter's screw was the
maximum of power with the minimum of resistance.
Captain Parry'3, Mr. Galloway's, and other evidence
were entirely cinfirmatory of the value of Captain
punter's Judg vent was given by the Judicial
Committee on the 30th of May last, and they said they
were particularly struck by the circumstance that the
Government, having had notice of the present applica-
tion, might be taken as not contesting the validity of
the pat,ot, the general utility of the invention, or that it
was iu use in ber Majesty's navy. He contended that
Captain Carl:enter, ‘‘ho was the sole inventor of the
screw used in the royal navy, had not been a particivator
in the amount granted by Parliament for the invention,
but that the looney had gone into the hands of 'five screw
companies, who had joined together, and who were not
entitled to i;. The hon. and gallant gentleman con-
cluded by calling upon the Admiralty to do justice to
the claims of Captain Carpenter, by making Mr. Currie,
Mr. ‘Vestheid, and the other persons who had received
the money under an indemnity to the Crown to refund