The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-14 00:00:00

TO TIIE EDITOR. OF THE TIMES.

SIR,—In the debate on the naval estimates, last
night, a long discussion arose on the subject of
anchor contracts, more especially in reference to
the non-adoption of my invention for the navy,
after the official Anchor Committee of 1851 had
reported so strongly in its favour. Sir John Pak-
ington's statements in reply to the charges were so
calculated to mislead the House as to the true state
of the case that I ventuee to aik for a small space
in your columns to inform hon. members and. the
public of what has really taken place.
We hear of committees appointed to inquire into
the Dover and Galway mail contracts. I am sure
there is no subject for inquiry which would result
in such important benefits to the public service as
an investigation into the conditions of all existing
contracts, either for the supply of stores to the navy
or materials to our dockyards.
Unfortunately I represent a numerous class who
are all suffering more or less grievously from the
dilatoriness and obstructions which are thrown in
the way of modern improvements by successive
Boards of Admiralty. When to the evils of routine
are added the delays consequent upon the peculiar
construction of our naval administration, which in
practice requires every subject to be begun de novo
before each Board of Admiralty, no matter how often
they may change or how universally recognised is
the improvement sought to be introduced, it will
be admitted that 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 I
ser-
vice.

My case is now briefly as follows :—ln 1852, the
then Board of Admiralty nominated Admirals Sir
Montague Stopford, G.C.8., George R. Mundy,
and C. Hope, the Master-Attendants of her Ma-
jesty's dockyards at Sheerness and Portsmouth;
Mr. J. Aylen and Mr. J. Tonkin, also Mr. W. S.
Lindsay, M.P., Mr. Duncan Dunbar, chairman of
the General Shipowners' Society; Mr. Anthony
Ridley, deputy chairman of the Mercantile Marine
Board ; and the following members of Lloyd's Com-
mittee,—Messrs. William Drew, William Philips,
and George Marshall, to act as a committee, or arbi-
trators " to determine the relative merits of different
descriptions of anchors."
Acting upon the belief usually implied in cases
where Government invite competition at the ex-
pense of the competitors, that the best invention
would be adopted, I, with seven other gentlemen,
agreed to submit to every test, even to the destruc-
tion of our anchors, and the trials accordingly be-
gan. The committee made their report in 1853,
and their decision was unanimous that " Trotman's
anchor was the best of all. This may be seen from
the following extract from the official report :

Art. 29. The committee here beg to recapitulate the
order in which they consider the anchors to stand, together
with their relative per centage of inferiority or superiority
to the Admiralty anchor, the value of which (18-17) being
taken as the standard or unit. _ _ _

Trotman.. 1.28 or 28 per cent. superior to Admiralty anchor.
Rodgers 1.26 or 26 „
Mitcheso•i.l.2o or 20 „
If

Lenox ....1 13 or 13 „
Porters _1.09 or 9 ~

Aylen 1.09 or 9 „
Admiralty ]• = the standard."
The cost of those trials in preliminary and actual
expenses entailed an outlay upon me exceeding £4OO,
and I naturally looked forward to being indirectly re-
imbursed by the ad ,ption of my anchor in the Royal
Navy. From that day to the present, however, I
have sought from successive naval administrations
the adoption of my improved anchor, but all in vain.
A consideration for her Majesty's safety has, of
course, been paramount over all the delays of exe-
cutive or subordinate officials, and my anchor has
therefore been ordered by the Lords Commissioners
for the Royal yacht Victoria and Albert. By this
act the Admiralty have endorsed in the strongest
possible manner their adherence to their committee's
report of its superior efficiency, since, when afloat,
the security of that noble vessel is necessarily de-
pendent upon the anchor in question being equal
to every emergency. With singular inconsistency,
however, they hesitate to permit its use in the fleet,
though considerably less costly than the anchor
which their own committee has condemned.

Upon these facts I entered into a correspondence
with the late Board of Admiralty, and pointed
out the extraordinary success of my competition,
and the injustice with which I was treated in my
claims being ignored and the acknowledged merits
of my invention neglected. Copies of that corre-
spondence have been moved for by Mr. Bentinck,
and when laid before the house will show in the
strongest light the manifest unfairness with which
I have been met. On the 17th of March I received
a letter from the Admiralty, saying " they had no
objection to make further trials of my anchors, and
'therefore, if I pleased, I might supply one to her
Majesty's ship Doris and one to her Majesty's ship
Leopard."
Thus after haviann• submitted to every test which
the ingenuity of the Admiralty Committee could
devise, and proved the valuable nature of my im-
proved anchors, I am now, after the lapse of seven
years, coldly told " that my Lords will permit fur-
ther trials to be made on their merits." The
proffered tests, too, will necessarily be made behind
my back, and at the end of five years or so I may
be told by another Board of Admiralty that fur-
ther trials are desirable still, and so on till my life
or patience is exhausted.
It is for this evasion of my just claims that Sir
J. Pakington takes credit to himself when he stated
to the house last night " that one of his last acts
before 'caving office was to offer another trial to
Mr. Trotman." It', however, their lordships were
indeed serious, and desired only additional proof of
superiority, there was the result of the Hon. Capt.
Denman's experience of more than four years with
my anchor on board the Royal yacht; also the
testimonies of commanding officers of the Canard
line, the Peninsular and Oriental Company, and
the world-wide experience of the mercantile
marine, throughout. which Trotioan's anchor is
almost universally used.
Last year Sir J. Pakington stated to the house
that " he believed the fact was, that Trotman's
anchors had not been brought into general use on
account of the great number of anchors of the old
construction which were still in her Majesty's
dockyards." This year his refusal is couched in a
new form, and he told the house " he knew
nothing of the quality of these anchors from his
own personal knowledge, but on consulting prac-
tical naval officers, the reply he received was that
they did not in their experience find them to

answer. He was told that Trotman's anchof,
when once it could be got to hold, wa.s.a good one,
but that officers could not rely on its holding."
Now, Sir, I solemnly declare there is not, and never
has been, a single anchor of my construction used
in the navy, save the one on which the Royal
yacht still depends fop-her-safety. What ground,
then, has Sir John for making so grave and so in-
jurious a mis-statement ?

That no doubt may exist in the mind of any one
as to the motives which led me to decline their
Lordship's offer of the 17th of March, I am will-
ing to submit a Trotman's anchor of 50 cwt., cost-
ing .£9O, to be tested at my own risk and cost,
against any anchor now in her Majesty's dockyard
of one cwt. or more, the contract value of which
exceeds £365. It shall sustain a higher proof, pos-
sess 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 cable—in fact, that it may be subjected
to the most severe test professional ingenuity can
devise, in order to ascertain the relative quali-
ties and values of the Admiralty anchor and Trot-
man's, the latter being half the weight and one-
fourth the cost of the former.

The price of 17 Admiralty anchors, increasing
from one ton, by five cwt. each, to five tons, is no
less than £3,434 17s. 6d. The market value of the
same anchors made by the first makers of the day
is £1,428, or two-thirds less than the price paid by
the Admiralty, under the terms of an old contract,
dated 1841. This excessive overcharge may, in a
measure, be accounted for by the fact that anchor
contracts have not been subjected to the test of
public competition for a least a quarter of a cen-
tury, or since the introduction of Nasmyth's steam-
hammer, by which invention the cost of anchor
manufacture and of large forgings is reduced one-
half, at least. _

I am, Sir, &c.
JOHN TROTMAN.
42, Cornhill, London, July 12.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.-July 13.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT—YORK, JULY 12.
Mr. Baron Watson and Mr. Justice Hill, the
learned judges commissioned to go this circuit, ar-
rived in this city yesterday afternoon, and imme-
diately opened the commission and attended Divine
service at the Cathedral.

This morning, after breakfasting with the Lord
Mayor and disposing of the city prisoners, their
Lordships proceeded to the Castle at 12 o'clock.
Mr. Justice Hill charging the grand jury in the
Criminal Court and Mr. Baron Watson taking his
seat in the Nisi Prius Court.

The calendar is very heavy in point of numbers,
there being no less than 83 prisoners in gaol and 25
out on bail. Of these, however, 17 are charged
with a riot. Of those remaining one is charged
with murder, and one with attempt to murder, and
the rest with the usual variety of criminal offences.
The cause list is not yet published, but it is un-
derstood to he very light.
_ _

Mr. Baron Watson, after disposing of an eject,
ment case, sat for the trial of prisoners.

CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Hill.)

Henry Yokes, 34, was indicted fo'r forging an
acceptance to a bill of exchange, and for uttering
the same knowing it to be forged.
Mr. W. S. Cross prosecuted ; Mr. Digby Sey-
mour defended the prisoner.
It appeared from the evidence of Mr. Haldenby,
lath merchant, Hull, whose name was alleged to be
forged, that the prisoner applied to him in Septem-
ber, 1857, to lend his acceptance to a three months'
bill. Haldenby, accordingly, for the accommoda-
tion of the prisoner, accepted such a bill for £2O,
payable to the prisoner's order, and delivered the
bill to the prisoner. When this bill became due
the prisoner came to Haldenby and said he had
paid it and made it all right, and asked him if he
would be bound again. This Haldenby declined.
In March last Haldenby heard that there was a
bill out in his name about to arrive at maturity.
It was a bill drawn by the prisoner on Haldenby
for £1.4, and purporting to be accepted by Hal-
denby. The prisoner came to Haldenby, and they
went together to the house of Messrs. Peck and
Co , who had discounted the bill. Fewgill, the
cashier, was there, and Haldenby told Fewgill that
the name on the bill for £l4 then arriving at matu-
rity was not his signature. Fewgill said it was a very
serious .1 flair. The prisoner agreed to pay £4 at once,
and in a day or two £lO, which would then become
due to him from the railway company.
Fewgill, the cashier, said that the prisoner came
to ask for time. Haldenby was withhim. Haldenby
said that the name on the bill was not his signature.
Fewgill turned to the prisoner with some surprise
and asked how this was. He answered that he was
sorry ; he dithet know that he had done wrong, as
the original bill was signed by Haldenby, and he
thought he had a right to sign any renewal.
Mr. Seymour then addressed the jury for the pri-
soner, and contended that the prisoner had signed
the bill believing he was authorised by Haldenby.
. The learned Judge summed up, and
The jury, after retiring some little time, found
the prisoner guilty, but with a recommendation to
mercy, on account of his previous good character
and his youth.
Sentence was deferred.