The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-12 00:00:00

kinds of anchors, all superior to those used by the Admiralty
—why had no notice been taken of the report of that commit-
tee ? why had it not been acted on ? There was a person
who offered to produce anchors of half the weight and half
the price of those used by the Admiralty; why had he not
been allowed a trial in order to prove whether his assertions
were correct or not ? Still he thought it was not right to
press the noble lord on a point which concerned all the
Boards of Admiralty for the last seven years. He would
invite the right hon. gentlemen the members for Droitwich,
Carlisle, Halifax, and Portsmouth, who had held office in
that time, to give a distinct answer to the question why the
report of the committee had been disregarded, and why Mr.
Trotman's anchors had not been at least tried in the navy.
Sir J. PAKINGTON admitted that it was not fair to
require an answer from the present Secretary of the Admi-
ralty on matters which had been going on for seven years.
He (Sir J. Pakington) could only answer as far as his own
term of office. He was informed that the opinion of
experienced naval officers was opposed to the report of
the committee on anchors. It was said that Trotman's
anchor, when it held, was admirable, but you could not
rely en its biting, and so the valuable and critical quality
of an anchor was wanting. As to giving Mr. Trotman a
further trial, one of his first acts at the Admiralty was
to offer Mr. Trotman a further trial. As to the gunboats,
complaint had been made of the supplemental estimate ot*
£1,800,000. It had two parts ; one related to the increasr, in
the number of men, and the other related to the builo..ing of
18 gun-vessels, of a large and powerful descript!ion, and
which differed from other gun-boats, inasmuch 9.73 they were
of sufficient size to enable them to carry their guns all over
the world, as well as on the coast.
Lord C. PAGET said the question of anchors was a very
difficult one. He professed to be a naval reformer, and was
all for reform where there was a question about efficiency.
But if there was anything on which they cakould not be par-
ticular it was the cost of anchors. It was a curious thing
that among professional men, if there was one thing which
they differed about it was an anchor ; and if they saw five or
six line-of-battleships together they would almost all be sure
to have different anchors. He admitted that many approved
of Trotman's anchor. He could not say that he did, but still
he thought Mr. Trotman should have fair play. With re-
gard to the question as to coals, an important inquiry and
experiments were going on at Vroolwich. The cost was not
the only point to be considered, but the effect of different
kinds of coal on the funnel, and the experiments were di-
rected to that point, as to burning the smoke, and as to
super-heating the steam. With regard to the cost of machi-
nery, he might menticm that a committee had sat upon en-
gines and boilers—(a laugh)—and the committee reported
that they had no reason to believe that Government paid a
higher price frJr engines and boilers than private parties.
The vote was agreed to.
£467,420, new works, improvements, &c., at various na-
val stations was agreed to.
The following votes were also agreed to :
£45,000 for medicines, medical stores, &c.
£52,221 for divers miscellaneous services. •
£368,311 for half-pay and retirements to officers of the
navy and Royal Marines.
Upon this vote,
Mr. LINDSAY moved that the chairman should report
progress.

Sir J. PAKINGTON said that this vote involved seve-
ral most important questions.
After a conversation between Sir C. NAPIER and Sir J.
PAKINGTON as 1-j a supposed plan of retirement, in which
the latter accu,Led the former of divulging confidential com-
munications

1117::io'n for reporting progress was agreed to, and the
house 7esurited.
P(? OR LAW BOARDS (PAYMENT OF DEBTS)
BILL.

Mr. GILPIN moved the second reading of this bill.
Mr. WALTER moved that the bill be read a second
time that day three months.
Mr. ESTCOURT said that equity and justice required
that the house should pass this bill.
Mr. HENLEY moved the adjournment of the debate,
remarking that this was a question which required full
discussion.

Mr. AYRTON supported the amendment.
Sir G. C. LEWIS did not oppose the adjournment,
though having made such progress with the debate on the
second reading- it might have been more convenient to con-
clude it nuw, and discuss the clauses in committee.
The house then divided :
I'or the adjournment
Against it
Mr. HENLEY would not again move the adjournment
if the right hon. gentleman would undertake to bring on
the discussion on going into committee at a reasonable
hour.

Sir G. C. LEWIS would do his best, but he must re-
mind the house that as every Government night would be
devoted to supply, he would have some difficulty unless a
morning sitting were appointed.
The house then divided on the bill—

For the second reading.... 6O
Against it. 43
Majority —l7
COURT OF PROBATE, &c., (ACQUISITION OF
SITE), BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
CLERK OF THE COUCIL BILL.

The bill was read a third time and passed.
CONSTABULARY FORCE (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
LAW OF PROPERTY AND TRUSTEES' RELIEF
AMENDMENT BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill ; clauses 1
and 2 were agreed to, and the house resumed.

WESTMINSTER NEW BRIDGE.

Mr. FITZROY obtained leave to bring in a bill to em-
power the Commissioners of her Majesty's Works and Pub-
lic Buildings to acquire additional space for the western
approach to Westminster New Bridge.
PAWNBROKERS' ACT.

On the motion of Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN, the house
went into committee on the act passed in the 39th and 40th
years of the reign of King George 111., intituled " An Act
for better regulating the business of Pawnbrokers."
A resolution on which to-frame a bill to amend the act
was agreed to.
The house then adjourned.