The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-28 00:00:00

ADMIRALTY TREATMENT OF

INVENTORS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.

Sir,----Last week Lord Raynham asked the Se-
cretary of the Admiralty " Why the description of
anchor, reported by the Anchor Committee of 1352
as the most approved, and now used on board her
Majesty's yacht Victoria and Albert, had not been
generally adopted in the:Royal Navy ?" To which
question Lord Clarence Paget is said to have re-
plied, " There was no objection to any officer hav-
ing one of these anchors supplied to him, if he
asked for it; but there are few officers who do not
object to the use of them, and they are objected to
generally by the profession."
Fortunately, I am enabled to transmit herewith
a Parliamentary return, printed by order of the
House of Commons, February the 7th, 1860,
wherein it is stated, " No reports have been re-
ceived at the Admiralty from any officer of the
Royal Navy, or from the Hon. Captain Denman, on
Trotman's anchors, as supplied her Majesty's yacht
Victoria and Albert."

It also furnishes a copy of Captain Sir William
Peel's application to their lordships for a Trot-
man's anchor to be supplied her Majesty's ship Dia-
mond, also the official stereotyped reply to all si-
milar applications from officers—viz., " to be sup-
plied if in store, but no new anchors can be ordered,
as the establishment of anchors is complete."
Now, sir, I solemnly declare there is not, and
never has been, a single Trotman's anchor supplied
into store or used in the Royal Navy save the one
Od which the Royal yacht still depends for her
safety, and 'the security of that noble vessel neces-
sarily must depend upon the anchor in question
being equal to every emergency. Nevertheless, they
hesitate to permit its use in the fleet, though con-
siderably less costly than the established anchor of
the navy, which their own committee have con-
demned as wanting in all the essentials looked for
in a good anchor.

The said Admiralty Anchor Committee, com-
prising some of the most distinguished officers in
the service, were appointed by their lordships in
1852 specially to investigate and determine the re-
lative merits of different descriptions of anchors,
and they were unanimous in their decision that
Trotman's anchor was superior to all others. This
may be seen from the following extract from the
official report :
" 29. The committee here beg to recapitulate the order
in which they consider the anchors to stand, together with
their relative percentage of inferiority or superiority to the
Admiralty anchor, the value of which as given in the fore-
going table (18 17) being takeu as the standard or unit :
Superior to Admiralty
Anchor.
Trotman
Rodgers 1.26 or 26 do.

Nitcheson
Lenox PI3 or 13 do.
lloniball(orPorter's) PO9 or 9 do.
1 ()it or 0
Admiralty 1. = the standard.
Isaacs •73 = 27 per cent. inferior to Admiralty."
The cost of these trials iu preliminary and actual
expenses entailed an outlay upon me exceeding
£4OO, and I naturally looked torward to being
indirectly reimbursed by the adoption of my anchor
in the Royal Navy. From that day to the present,
however, I have sought from successive Boards of
Admiralty the adoption of my improved anchor,
but all in vain. I have further expressed my wil-
lingness to submit to a competent committee of

their Lordships' selection, but whose decision shall
be deemed final, a Trotman's anchor of 50 cwt.,
costing £OO, to be tested at my own risk and cost
against any anchor now in her Majesty's dock-
yards of 100 cwt. or more, the contract value of
which exceeds £305. It shall sustain a higher
proof of strength, possess greater holding-power,
and perform in a more efficient manner every duty
required in the larger anchor, such as bringing a
ship to, holding-on at long or short scope of cable ;
in fact that it may be subjected to the most severe
tests professional ingenuity can devise, in order to
ascertain the relative qualities and values of the
Admiralty anchor and Trotman's, this latter
anchor being half the weight and one-fourth the
cost of the former.

It will be seen by my correspondence with the
Admiralty that I have proffered plans and all the
necessary specifications (without fee or reward) for
making my anchors in her Majesty's dockyards.
In return, I ask only for truth and justice at their
Lordships' hands. Indeed, no harder lot can be
reserved for any man than that of endeavouring by
his skill and enterprise to improve any branch of
the naval service, and uphold his invention against
every official mis-statement or prejudice.—l have
the honour, &c., JOHN TROTMAN.
42, Cornhill.

(From the Times.)
A reasonable man would suppose that if there
were a worse kind of anchor, and a better which,
after long and repeated trials, had been proved to
possess qualities of which the other was almost
devoid, it would be not altogether impolitic to
make use of the contrivance which would afford
the best security to the ship. If, in addition to the
security so obtained, it was found that the better
anchor of the two could be supplied at one-fourth
the ec:t of the loss efficient one, there would appear
to be an end of argument upon the matter. Or
course, a certain first loss would have to be incurred,
but this loss would not, in all probability, be a
matter of very serious account when it is con-
sidered that the new anchor, used in place of the
old one, would cost the nation only about one-
fourth of the price, and that the principal value of
the old anchors is in the iron of which they are
made. Indeed, the difference of cost and weight is
so great that it may be doubted if in the end the
nation would not be a gainer by the transaction,
even considering it simply as a question of anchor
account, and without the smallest reference to the
security of the ships, which, after all, is the only
reason for having anchors at all.
Now, in the year 1852 a committee, entitled
" the Anchor Committee," sat to inquire into the
inventions of rival inventors, and generally into this
most important matter. They reported that, assum-
ing that the Admiralty anchor the standard,
it was the least efficient anchor brought under
their notice, saving one of which we need not
further speak, as the Admiralty have not, luckily,
adopted it in consequence of the report. Of the
other anchors, the best—Trotman's—was 28 per
cent. better than the Admiralty one ; the worst—
Aylen's—was 9 per cent, better. Rodgers' anchor
stood second on the list, and was put at 26 per cent.
better than the Admiralty standard. The only
practical result has been that Trotman's anchor has
been adopted on board the Queen's yacht, the 'Vic-
toria and Albert, but has been consistently frowned
upon, for some inscrutable reason, by the authorities
at the Admiralty. A very practical illustration of
the advantages of the invention may be given merely
by mentioning that in the terrific storm of last
autumn the Great Eastern rode securely in Holy-
head Harbour, held in position by her anchors, and
these were supplied by Mr. Trotman. Now, if that
enormous surface of metal, acted on by that furious
gale, was held in its place by these anchors, it seems
probable enough that under circumstances equally
, trying they might do the same good service for our

ships of war. The other night Lord Raynham asked
the Secretary of the Admiralty why the Trot-
man anchor had not been adopted generally in
the Navy ? The reply was, that there was no ob-
jection to any naval officer having one of these
anchors supplied to him, if he asked for it, but that
the use of them was generally objected to by the pro-
fession. Upon this point Mr. Trotman addressed
a letter to this journal, which was printed in the
Times of last Monday, and it is only fair that his
statement sbosld be laid before the public, not
only in justice to himself, but, what is of far
more importance, in justice to the English nation,
who could have a better anchor to insure the safety
of their ships, and are compelled to have a worse
one. Mr. Trotman solemnly declares " that there
is not, and never has been, a single Trotman's
anchor supplied into store, or used in the Navy,
save the one on which the Royal yacht still de-
pends for her safety." Mr. Trotman further quotes
an instance of an officer who applied for one of his
anchors—the late Sir William Peel,—who asked
for one for the Diamond. The answer he received
was " to be supplied if in store, but no new anchors
can be ordered, as the establishment of anchors is
complete." There were no Trotman's anchors in
store, as the writer of that disingenuous order was
perfectly aware, but this was the roundabout me-
thod employed to reconcile an absolute refusal of
the anchor with an ostensible regard to the report
of the Anchor Committee. What Mr. Trotman
now asks does not seem very unreasonable, if the
Admiralty refuse to be bound by the report of the
former committee. He says, let us have another
trial, and let it be a final one. Let the Lords of
the Admiralty select their own committee, and they
shall be the judges. He will then supply an anchor
of his own, weighing 50 cwt., and costing £9O
to be tested, at his own risk and costs, against
any anchor now in the Royal Dockyards of 100
cwt. or more, the contract value of which ex-
ceeds £365. He undertakes that his anchor shall
sustain a higher proof of strength, that it shall
possess a greater holding power, that it shall bring
a ship to in a more efficient manner, holding on at
a long or a short scope of cable. In a word, what
Mr. Trotman asks for is a final and decisive trial
between the Admiralty anchor and his own, the
latter being one-half the s eight and one-fourth the
cost of the former. Why is this not done ? The
trial would not cost the country one sixpenee, un-
less the old-fashioned anchor should be damaged in
the process, and even then the cost would be
well repaid by the knowledge of which really was
the best anchor. We recommend the subject to
Lord Raynham's attention again. It is clear that
Lord Clarence Paget was misinformed when he
gave his reply to the question put to him the other
night, and it would be very easy to frame it so
as to relieve the Secretary of the Admiralty of all
formal difficulty about the reply. Lord Clarence
Paget has not as yet answered the expectations
which were formed of him when he was appointed
to his present office. He was to be a great naval
reformer, and he has not done anything to justify
the opinion of his friends. As yet the public
know him but as a man good at excuses, and, ac-
cording to the famous saying of the great Duke,
" a man who is good at excuses "is not often
good at anything else."

POLICE INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAL)