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

FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

Sir R PEEL gave notice that, on the motion for adjourn-
ment to-morrow, he would draw attention to the proposed
annexation of Sicily to Piedmont, and ask whether Govern-
ment wnnld afford any information as to what mizht he the
demand of France in consequence thereof. lie would also
ask whether any intimation had been conveyed to the Sar-
dinian Government that the unconstitutional policy pur-
sued by the King of Sardinia was viewed a ith disapproba-
tion by this country.
DESPATCH OF M. THOUVENEL.

Sir R. PEEL inquired of the noble lord the Secretary for
Foreign Affairs when the despatch of M. Thouvenel Would
be submitted to the house.

Lord J. RUSSELL said that the despatch alluded to
would be laid on the table in the course of next week.
EUROPEAN FORCES (INDIA) BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. A. MILLS said it was most desirable that the ques•

tion raised with respect to this subject should be settled.
The matter at issue between those favourable and those
opposed to this measure was whether they should continue
an ancient military machinery or not, and ono that had
rendered essential service in moments of peril, and to
which this country was indebted for the dominion
of India, without providing any adequate substitute. The
abolition of this local military force, as proposed by
the bill, would have the effect of burdening the re-
venue of India with an annual impost of £200,000. It
should be recollected also that the mortality amongst
natives of this country was much greater during the
first five years of their residence in India than during sub-
sequent years, so that there was the strongest ground for
maintaining an acclimatised army. Having cited the
authority of several military writers in support of
his views, the hon. member proceeded to con-
tend that, on political grounds, the proposed alteration
was most inexpedient. They could not argue from
analogy in regard to India, because our relation with that
country was altogether different to those with other coun-
tries. He admitted that a speedy settlement of this ques-
tion was of the first importance, and if ho thought this bill
would have that effect he would abandon his oppo-
sition, but be denied that it would produce such a result.
He considered this bill was a hasty and ill considered at-
tempt to determine a question that, for a considerable time,
had occupied the attention of those best ac-
quainted with the subject without any satisfactory
solution of -the problem involved being obtained. He
repeated that the bill proposed to abolish one system with-
out the slightest substitute, and that it intended to violate
the rights and privileges guaranteed to the officers of the
Indian army by the 56th, 57th, and 58th sections of the

- .
Indian BU in J, passed 18)8. His firm conviction was that
this bill Would do far more injury than any good it could

possibly effect, and he denounced it as a dangerous and
most unconstitutional measure. He concluded by moving
that the bill be read a second time that day three months.

Sir E. COLEBROKE said that if this question was one
that merely affected the organisation of troops in India he
would not have taken an active part in this debater _not-
withstanding that he was in favour of the maintenance of
a local army in India. He considered, however, that the
matter at issue was far more important, and was intimately
connected with the financial position of India, as well
as with the Indian patronage of this country. It involved
further Parliamentary and political interests whose import-
ance could not be exaggerated. If the question was merely
whether they should have a force composed solely of
royal troops in India, he admitted that he would be
in favour of such a proposition, but the measure did not
make any such proposition. He contended that, on the_
ground of economy, it was most desirable to continue the
local force, because if they adopted a different course they
would have to maintain their home garrisons in this country
to enable them to afford the necessary military reliefs to
India. He strongly objected to the increased patronage
which the measure would confer on the military adminis•
tration. The bill in the outset proceeded on the principle
that it was necessary to maintain a European force of
80,000 men in India, in order to secure the tran-
quillity of that country, which was illustrated ty
the recent mutiny of the native troops. Circumstances,
however, had led to that mutiny which were not likely
to occur again, as it was not to be supposed that
this country would repeat the folly of confiding too
largely to the local force, and that there would
be an efficient number of garrisons of British troops
maintained in India. However, there was a large margin
between the force in the garrisons at the tiThe of the mutiny
and that increase now proposed. Besides the advance
in military science, and the extension of railways in India
rendered unnecessary the maintenance of so large a force as
that proposed. The hon. member referred to different
writers on the subject in confirmation of his opinion, and

(LEFT SPEAKING).

ADMIRALTY TREATMENT OF

INVENTORS.

Tel TTIV P-TITTOR OF Plll TIMEg.

Sir,—Last week Lord Raynham asked the Se-
cretary of the Admiralty " Why the description of
anchor, reported by the Anchor Committee of 1852
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 iustore, but no ROW 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
ca 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. Tho 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 givan in the fore-
going table (13 17) being takeu as the standard or unit :
Superior to Admiralty
Anchor.
Trotman
Rodgers
Mitcheson l•'2o or 20 do.
Lenox 1.13 or 13 do.
Honiball (or Porter's).. 1.09 or 9 do.
Aylen
Admiralty 1. the standard.
Isaacs •7S -= 27 per cent. inferior to Admiralty."
The cost of these trials in preliminary and actual
expenses entailed an outlay upon me exceeding
£lOO, and I naturally looked torvvard 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 £9O, to be tested at my own risk and cost
against any anchor now in her AlPjesty's dock-
yards of 100 cwt. or more, the contract value of
which exceeds £365. 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 brinch of
the naval service, and uphold his invention against
every official misstatement or prejudice:—l have
tliu horaouw, Sze., TD cvrxr 1 A•
42, Cornhill.

(Front 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 afforJ
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 cost of the less efficient one, there would appear
to be an end of argument upon the matter. Of
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-1
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 o£ 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 I.= 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 a. t 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 bas been consistently
bythe authoritiesfrowned
upon, for some inscrutable reason,
at the Admiralty. A very practical illustration of
the advantages of the invention may be given merely
m
by mentio
ng• that in the terrific storm of last
autumn the Great Eastern rode oecurely in 17101 -

head Harbour, held in position by her anchors, and
these were supplied by Mr. Trotman. Now, if that
enormous surface of metals acted on by that furious
gale, was held in its place by these aachors, 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 1:0 ab-
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 should 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. Trotrzaan 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 ree( ived
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 oue. 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 £9
to be tested, at his own risk aint 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 m eight and one-fourth 014
cost of the former. Why is this not done ? The
trial would not cost the country one sixpenee,
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."

NEWCASTLE BACES.-(THIS DAT.)

T--

[BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.]
TYNE HANDICAP.

Breeze

Gardener

Eight ran.
GOLD CUP STAKES.

Wildman Vv
_ 1
Hefty
Tousle

Seven ran.
CORPORATION ELATE.

Syringe
Craniond
Laird .of Proudhoo

Fifteen ran.

LATEST BETTING.
GOODWOOD STAKES.
13 to 2 apt Gridiron (taken)
9to 1 agst Itattlebone (taken)
100 to 8 agst Tocher (taken) .

DERBY.
40 to 1 agst Robin Hood (offered)

IPSWICH RACES.-(THIS DAY.)

[BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.]
RACING STAKES.

Stratagem
CHAUNTRY STAKES.

lAdy Derby.
Tornyris
Knightsbridge

Eigb ran.
INNKEEPERS' PLATE.

Boabdil

Pescieore

Six ran.
MEMBERS PLAT E.

Clio
Rattlesnake

Six ran.
SUFFOLK HANDICAP

Yorkshire Grey
.
Independence
Mclior

Six ran.
Dead Heat between Yorkshire Grey and Independence.
Yorkshire Grey walked over.

POLICE INTELL IGEN C.E-( THIS VAI .)

• - ---

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

STEALING A DIAMOND LOCA•.':T AT ♦ JEWELLERS.--
James Barber and Caleb former giving his ad-
dress, 24, Fore-street, Leith, and the latter 4 Nora Scotia
Gardens, Hackney, were charged before Mr. Beadon with
sealing a diamond and torquoise locket of the value of £ll,
the property of Mr. John Turner, jeweller. 58 and 59 Bond-
street.

Mr. Edward Lewis, assistant to Mr. Turner, said that
about 4 the previous afternoon the two prisoners entered
Me shop, and Barber asked to be shown some of the Mal-
tese Crosses. Not liking their appearance ho told them he
did not keep anything of the kind. They did not seem sa-
tisfied with this, but moved down the centre till they
came to a tray when Barber said, " Oh hero's
the Crosses. Hero's a nice locket, what is the
price." Ho told him £ll. Suspecting he had got
something in his hand he took up another locket, and said,
" Here's a nice one," thinking he might open his hand to
take it from him. He then moved his hand on the tray in
a particular manner, and afterwards turning to his com-
panion Hall, said, " I don't think there's anything that
will suit us—we will send the lady to choose for herself."
They then moved towards the door, upon which he went
up to Barber and said he should be obliged if he would
hand over the locket he had in his hand. Thor prisoner
Barber at first denied having it, but afterwards throw it
on the floor.

Evidence of a confirmatory nature having been given by
Mr. Richards, manager to Mr. Turner,
The constable, who took the prisoners into custody, hav-
ing proved that he found only about lls., and Sergeant
Cole having stated that he believed they were well known,
they were remanded.