HC Deb 29 June 1860 vol 159 cc1217-21
MR. MILDMAY

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to a letter in the The Times of Monday the 25th, signed "John Trotman," stating that no Trotman's anchor has been supplied to the Navy, except the one used by the Royal Yacht; and whether he adheres to his statement that any Officer can have one of these Anchors if he asks for it? Of course anything falling from a man of the noble Lord's high character was of the greatest weight, but Gentlemen in office were occasionally misled by their subordinates, and he had no doubt that was the case in this instance. Mr. Trotman had stated most distinctly that he had supplied no anchors to the navy except that on board the Royal Yacht. The merits of this anchor had been investigated by a Committee appointed by the Admiralty, and they reported in its favour as the best which had been brought under their notice, adding that the anchor used by the Royal Navy was the worst but one of eight different sorts submitted to them. Mr. Trotman had spent £600 in his trials, and it seemed rather hard that the Admiralty, after the result, should neither have reimbursed him his expenses nor compensated him by ordering any of his anchors. The anchors now in use were supplied under a contract of 1841, since which time great improvements had taken place in the forging of iron; the invention of Nasmyth's steam-hammer, for instance, made the process much cheaper; and to give the same price for forging now, as nineteen years ago, seemed almost like paying the same for calico as before the invention of the power-loom and spinning-jenny. A shipbroker, from whom he had made inquiries respecting the opinion of the commercial marine in reference to the anchor, told him that he never chartered a ship without insisting that it should carry a Trotman, though, he added, that the captains were rather unwilling to use them, except on extreme occasions, on account of the difficulty of getting them up again. But that seemed to him to be the best character they could receive, as it showed that they held so tight it was not easy to draw them up. He was informed that every ship in the navy carried four bower anchors, and he would suggest that one of those should be a Trotman, and that at the end of six months all the captains should be asked to send in a report of the manner in which they worked.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, that in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Stanley) he had to state that though he was not in possession of an official report of the Harbour-master of Holyhead Harbour as to the casualties which occurred in the gale there last October, yet he was able to confirm the hon. Gentleman's account of what took place on that occasion. There was no doubt that some casualties did occur among the vessels lying in the harbour on that occasion, yet none of them were caused by any defect of the harbour or by a heavy sea running in, but by the collisions of the vessels one with another. One vessel came in without an anchor, having lost it off Liverpool, and she ran foul of several others, and, as might be expected in a heavy gale, they drove athwart others, and they all drove on shore together. The proof that there was no heavy sea in the harbour was that the damage done to these vessels was generally very slight. The only serious damage done was to a yacht, which was run into by a steam-tug, and both went ashore together, and the yacht was considerably damaged. As for the Great Eastern, she never was under the shelter of the breakwater at all, for she lay all the time outside the harbour. She certainly was in a state of great danger at one time, not from any fault of the harbour, but from the fault of Trotman's anchor. It was thought desirable at one time of the gale to lift the anchor, in order to shift the vessel into a more sheltered berth. She steamed up to the anchor in order to lift it, but whether there was too much way on, or the anchor was not strong enough, he could not tell, but the fact remained that Trotman's anchor broke. The same thing happened the next day. The vessel again hove up to her anchor (also a Trotman's), and it again broke. He (the noble Lord) was very glad that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mildmay) had brought this question forward, because when it was stated that the Admiralty had some prejudice against the use of Trotman's anchors in the Royal Navy, it was right to point out that there was proof that Trotman's anchors could break like any other. He was not prepared to say that Trotman's was not a good anchor, because he had used it in his own yacht, and had found it do very well; but if he were asked, as commander of a large ship, whether he thought Trotman's acted well, he should distinctly say that, apart from its holding qualities, it was not the anchor he should recommend. Holding qualities were but a small part of the qualities required in an anchor; and Trotman's had a vice that was common to the whole family of what were called "tumbling fluke" anchors—namely, that there was a great difficulty in fishing them. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman would understand what he meant; but when there was any considerable sea there was a great difficulty in applying the fish hook so as to catch the fluke of the anchor. With the common anchor they could catch either one side or the other; but with Trotman's the hook must go into a large ring bolt close to the shank; and it would be a very difficult operation with a heavy sea to effect that manœuvre. Still he was not prepared to say that on that account the anchor was not to be used. Mr. Trotman made application to the late Board of Admiralty, and the late Secretary to that Board replied that the Admiralty had no objection to a trial being made on board of two of Her Majesty's ships if anchors were supplied for the purpose; but Mr. Trotman by letter declined this offer stating that nothing would satisfy him but another Committee. Now, if a Committee on shore, or on the River Thames, were to test the merits of anchors, it might be found, as it had been found before, that anchors which best stood the test in all such experiments were, when brought into practical use at sea, inconvenient and insufficient for their purpose. An idea had got abroad that all Boards of Admiralty had combined against this unfortunate Mr. Trotman, but nothing of the sort was the case, for the Admiralty would be very glad if any captain would take one of his anchors, and it was to Mr. Trotman's interest to persuade some captain to ask for one of the anchors, because it was more likely that a favourable report would proceed from such an officer than from one who had, against his will, a Trotman's anchor placed on board his ship. He had seen Captain Denman, and had asked him as to the different merits of the Trotman's anchors on board Her Majesty's yacht. He ascertained that the anchors of that vessel were very seldom let go. The yacht was generally used in summer time, when the merits of anchors could not be fully tested, and the yacht generally lay at moorings. Captain Denman said that he thought Trotman's anchor, from what he saw of it, a good anchor, but there was the defect in "fishing" it. If that was the case in a vessel like the Victoria and Albert, how great would be the inconvenience in a heavy line-of-battle ship? It was because officers disapproved of these anchors that they were not used, and he for one, though he liked Trotman's anchors in a small vessel, should be very sorry to have one in a line-of-battle ship. In one thing Mr. Trotman was deceiving the public—namely, in stating that his anchors were very much cheaper than the Admiralty anchors. Now, he took the trouble to ascertain what was the cost of the anchor supplied to the Queen's yacht, it was an anchor of 47 cwt.,, and cost £119 13s. 6d. Mr. Trotman, in a letter he wrote to The Times, stated:— I have further expressed my willingness 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 £90. That would lead the public to believe that these anchors of 50 cwt could be supplied for £90; but as the anchors on board the Victoria and Albert of 47 cwt., cost £119, the cost of an anchor of 50 cwt. would necessarily be more, and amount to somewhere about £125, instead of £90. The truth was that Mr. Trotman's anchors were dearer than the Admiralty anchors instead of being cheaper, and were disapproved by the officers of the fleet. Under these circumstances it really was a question whether the Board of Admiralty, with whom lay the responsibility for the security of Her Majesty's ships, would be justified in ordering captains of ships to use a particular anchor against their own will.