The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-06 00:00:00

THE ARMY.

After the' Commander-in-Chief had inspected the
53d Regiment at Devonport on Wednesday his
Royal „Highness said—" I am well pleased with
your appearance to-day, as also your drill, both
officers and men. My gallant friend, Lord Clyde,
has given me a most excellent account of your
bravery, &c., while in India, and I am glad to hear
that your conduct while in this command has been
very good, notwithstanding the many temptations
you have experienced since your arrival, all of you,
having money in your pockets."
In order to afford the well-conducted and well-
drilled soldiers of the line composing the garrison
of Chatham greater opportunities than are at pre-
sent afforded them for outdoor games and recrea-
tions during the fine season of the year Major-
Gen. Eyre has just issued a garrison order, autho-
rising the commanding officers of the several batta-
lions of infantry under his command to grant those
troops who for perfection in drill or conduct are
deserving of such consideration an additional
afternoon's holiday in each week, exclusive of
Saturday. Major-Gen. Eyre, in issuing the
above order, observes :—" In granting this in-
dulgence it must be well understood by the men
that all such exemption from parades, drills
&e., is to give them an opportunity of engaging
themselves either in manly games and recreations
or in some profitable and creditable manner, and
not to enable them to frequent publichouses, or
even to go into the town. Men seen in town on
these occasions before evening meal, or abusing the
indulgence in any manner, are to be reported to
their commanding officers, who will make them at-
tend all drills or parades for the rest of the season."
Commanding officers are to use their discretion
in granting the same indulgence to any well con-
ducted young soldiers who are painstaking and
attentive at their drills, and who, therefore, deserve
encouragement.

Since the removal of the Tipperary Artillery from
Sheerness the authorities at the Horse Guards have
considerably strengthened that garrison by the
transfer from Woolwich of several additional bat-
teres of Royal Artillery, in order to form a depot
brigade of Artillery, with the usual staff. The fol-
lowing batteries have accordingly proceeded from
Woolwich, and are now doing duty at Sheerness—
viz., No. 1 battery, under the command of Captain
C. P. Roberts ; No. 2 battery, commanded by Captain
H. Cardew ; and No. 4 battery, commanded by Cap-
tain C. H. Hutchinson. The entire force of Royal
Artillery now in garrison at Sheerness consist of one
complete field battery and three batteries of garri-
son artillery, numbering 18 officers, 134 non-com-
missioned officers, 730 gunners, and 87 horses, the
whole under the command of Col. W. R. Nedham.

ANCBOR AND CABLE CONTRACTS

FOR THE NAVY.

Captain Trotman, in a letter to a contemporary,
says :—On the 28th of November last I addressed
the Commissioners on Dockyard and Naval Ex-
penditure as follows :
"I respectfully transmit the annexed statement
relative to the prices paid for anchors; also to
request that I may be permitted an opportunity to
substantiate the same, and make known other
matters to her Majesty's Royal Commissioners."
The statement referred to embodied the following
facts, viz. :
" That anchor contracts have not been subjected
to the test of public competition for at least a quar-
ter of a century, or since the introduction of
Nasmyth's steam hammer, by which invention the
cost of anchor manufacture is reduced fully one-half.
"That the official scale of prices paid under con-
tract dated 1841 is 140 per cent. in excess of the
published price-lists of the most eminent anchor-
makers of the day—specification, proofs, and tests
identically the same."
I would now beg reference to the said Commis-
sioners' report and questions ; also to the answers
of Mr. James R. Clark, chief clerk in the depart-
ment of the Storekeeper-General of the Navy
(page 399) :
" (Question).—ls it an usual thing that contracts
should run for a period from 1841 to 1861—say 20
years ?----No ; it is unusual.
" (Question).—Has there been any public compe-
tition advertised upon the subject of anchors during
that time ?—No competition since 1840.
" (Question).—A statement has been made that
17 anchors from 20 cwt., increasing 5 cwt. each, up
to 5 tons weight, can be supplied for £1,428, as
against £3,434 17s. 6d. paid by the Admiralty. Has
any such statement been brought before your de-
partment P—No.

"(Question).—You adhere to the opinion that it
is not desirable to disturb a contract which has
existed since 1841 P—l do, for the important reason
that the anchors supplied are as efficient and secure
as they can possibly be. And there is another rea-
son why this contract has been continued a much
longer period than usual—namely, that its execu•
tion required a large outlay of capital. Tenders
were tried at that period.
" (Question).—That is 20 years ago ?—Yes, and
until very recently there never has been any question
about it ; but the Board of Admiralty have investi-
gated the whole subject very fully in the last twelve
months, and they have arrived at the conclusion
that it would not be adviseable to disturb present
arrangements for obtaining anchors, so strong and
so efficient as those supplied to the navy."
Doubtless her Majesty's Royal Commissioners
considered my evidence unnecessary after this, as I
received no intimation or acknowledgment of my
letter and the accompanying statement ; else I
might have referred them to official letters and
documents in my possession, to the discussions in
Parliament, returns made, &c., on the subject of
prices paid for anchors, and
so repeatedly brought
u n
Idte rwll
b noticee rememberedo of the authorities
that
inbythme year
yself
1852 a
professional committee of six distinguished naval
officers, 'with whom were associated Mr. Dun can
Dunbar, chairman of the General Shipowners' So-
ciety, and five other gentlemen, members of Lloyd's
Committee, presided over by Admiral the Hon. Sir
M. Stopford, K.C.8.&c., were appointed by the
Board of Admiralty " to investigate and determine
by a series of practical proofs and tests the relative
merits of different descriptions of anchors." Their
decision was unanimous and unequivocal—that
" the established anchor of the navy"• was the worst
of all, and' Trotman's" the best of the seven com-
peting anchors brought under their notice, and sub-
jected by them to the severest ordeal, the most
powerful and varied tests. The Admiralty, acting
upon this officially recorded judgment of their own
Anchor Committee, at once discarded the " con-
demned anchor" from her Majesty's yacht Victoria
and Albert, and it was replaced with mine (Trot-
man's) ; so also from the state yacht Osborne and
tha Admiralty yacht Black Eagle; but for the Royal
Navy it is yet a reserved speciality.
Surely there ought to be some strong and very
cogent reasons why so anomalous a state of things
should continue longer ? It is said the execution of
the contract entered into in 1841 " requirel a large
outlay of capital ;" most assuredly a large amount of
official assurance was expended thus to impose upon
the Commissioners' credulity. Why, sir, the cost
and erection of a steam hammer, by which a saving
in labour of from 400 to 500 per cent. is effected,
repays itself in six months; thenacroomupglhe,tien.exper-
sive crane, fire •hearths, and a dozen sledge hand
hammers, and your anchor shop is
For this the principle of public competition is
complacently repudiated, a snug contract of twenty
years' standing is to be perpetuated, and the "foul
anchor" (condemned in 1853 as the worst of seven
competing plans by a professional committee of
• I naval officers, the highest and ablest in the service,
and s
Pecially nominated by the Admiralty them..