The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-30 00:00:00

G, JUNE 30, 1860.

but the fact was the anchor broke. The next day very much
the same sort of thing again occurred. The vessel again hove
up to her anchor (also a Trotman's), and it again broke. He
(the noble lord) was very glad that the hon. gentlem9n had
brought this question forward, because when it was stated

that the Admiralty had some prejudice against the use of
Trotman's anchors in the R yal Navy, it was right to point
out that here was proof that those anchors did sometimes

break. He (the noble lord) was not prepared to say that
Trotman's anchor was not a good one, because he had used
it himself in his own yacht, and he found that it did very
well for that purpose. But if he were asked his opinion of
its suitableness for large ships, he should distinctly say that

it was not a good anchor for them. Holding qualities were
but a small part of those that were required in an anchor ;

and Trotman's had a vice that was common to the whole
family of what were called "tumbling flaked" anchors,
namely, that there was great difficulty in fishing them. He
did not know whether the lion. gentleman would under-
stand what he meant ; but when there was any considerable
sea at the bow there was a great difficulty in applying the
fish hook so as to catch the fluke of the anchor. With the
common anchor ;they could catch either one side or the
other ; but with Trotman's the hook must go into a large
ring bolt that there was close to the shank ; and it would
be a verydifficult operation with a heavy sea to effect that
manoeuvre. He was not prepared to say that Trotman's
anchor ought never to be used ; and the Admiralty had
certainly been desirous of giving it a fair chance. The
late Secretary to the Admiralty had offered to supply two
ships with it; but Mr. Trotman declined the offer, and
asked for another committee. But no committee that could
be formed ashore, or which could experiment on the
Thames, would be capable of judging of the merits of an
anchor; because it is well known that other anchors which
had passed the test of such experiments had been found to
fail when they came to be used at sea. He could assure the
house that if any captain would take out one of Trotman's
anchors it should be supplied to him ; and it was for Mr.
Trotman's interest that some captain should be induced to
ask for one ; because it was obvious that no officer who was
compelled to take out a particular anchor against his will
would be likely to make a favourable report upon it. He
(the noble lord) had sent to Captain Denman, of her
Majesty's yacht, to come to him and describe the merits
of Mr. Trotman's invention; and what did the gallant
officer say ? Why, that they seldom let the anchor go
on board her Majesty's yacht. In the first place, she
was only used in the summer time, when there were but
few opportunities of testing the merits of anchors; and be-
sides that she generally lay at moorings when she was not
at sea. Captain Denman said that Mr. Trotman's was a
good anchor, but that there was a difficulty in fishing it.
Now, if that was the case with a vessel like the Victoria
and Albert, what would it be with a heavy line-of-battle
ship ? It was for these reasons, and not because they had
any prejudice against Mr. Trotman's anchors, that the Ad-
miralty declined to compel officers to take on board anchors
of which they disapproved. Though he (the noble lord)
liked them well enough for small ships, he should be sorry
to have one on board any line-of-battle ship which he might
happen to be commanding. There was one point upon
which Mr. Trotman was deceiving the public. He stated
that his anchors were cheaper than the Admiralty ones :
but that was not the case. The anchor of the Victoria and
Albert weighed 47 cwt., and cost £ll9 13s. 6d. In a letter
which he had inserted in one of the newspapers, kowever,
Mr. Trotman expressed his willingness to submit to a com-
petent committee, whose decision should be final, the merits
of one of his anchors of 60 cwt., and costing £9O, to be
tested at his own risk. Now the price of a5O cwt. anchor
at the same rate as the Victoria and Albert would be £125,
and not £9O. He (the noble lord) repeated that Mr. Trot-
man's anchor was dearer than the Admiralty anchor, and
that the Government would not feel themselves justified in
obliging captains to take them on board the ships they com-
manded unless they were willing to have them. (Hear.)
NETLEY HOSPITAL.

Mr. DUTTON asked the Secretary of State for War
whether a commission was not appointed in 1857 to inquire
and report upon the question of the salubrity of Netley and
the adjacent district, and whether the report was not en-
tirely favourable as regarded the site and position of the
hospital.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR expressed a hope, as lax ge sums
of money had been expended in building near the hospital,
that the right honourable gentleman did not adopt the
language which he had quoted on a previous occasion
in disparagement of the salubrity of the site. He
(Mr. D. Seymour) thought it was of importance to be
known that the Registrar-General, after taking an average
of the health of various parishes, found the minimum of
deaths throughout the country to be 15 per 1,000, and the
maximum 36 per 1,000.
Mr. S. HERBERT said though it was true that a scien-
tific committee h‘d reported that Netley and the adjacent
district was favourable for the military hospital, he retained
his opinion that the selection was an unfortunate one, and
the climate debilitating instead of bracing for invalids.
ENTRY OF THE SHERIFF ON THE ROMAN
CATHOLIC CHAPEL AT GORTLITERA.

Mr. BRADY asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland
whether it was true that the sheriff of Leitrim, supported
by a large a rmed force, took legal possession for the Earl of
Leitrim of the Roman Catholic chapel of Gortlitera, in that
county.
Mr. NEWDEGATE deprecated any attempt to interfere
with the rights of landlords to give or withhold sites for
chapels, though he hoped that the landlord and tho inha-
bitants of Headford would come to an amicable understand-
ing on the subject. He rose mainly, however, to notice a
question put on the paper by Mr. Bowyer, though he had
not put it, respecting the progress of the Roman Catholic
Charities Bill. If the hon. and learned gentleman did not
do so he would himself put it on Monday, as it was essen-
tial that the house should have ample time to discuss that
bill.

Mr. BUTT hoped the parties in these church sites would
come to a friendly understanding, but he thought that good
feeling would be expedited by an expression of opinion on
the part of this house.
Mr. CARDWELL had no official knowledge of the acts
referred to, and he would not presume to judge the motives
of the persons concerned ; but he would express his opinion
in the words of the committee that investigated the refusal
of sites to the Free Church of Scotland, that this refusal
was a great hardship to the people, and they strongly urged
on the proprietors the propriety and necessity of conciliat-
ing the people resident on their property.
After some remarks to a similar effect from Col. FRENCH
and Col. DUNNE,
Mr. BOWYER urged on the Government and the house
the necessity of giving opportunity for the discussion of the
Roman Catholic Charities Bill. His wish and desiro was
that the Roman Catholic charities should be put under the
• ame law as the Protestant charities. There were several
amendments proposed to the bill, and as far as he recollected
there were only two to which he objected. The discussion
might be finished in an hour and a half, and he hoped the
Government would allow it to come on at an early hour.
Sir G. LEWJS said the Government were disposed to
facilitate the progress of this bill as far as the other business
would allow, but he could not fix a day.
After some further conversation the subject dropped, the
motion for adjournment was agreed to, and the house went
into committee of