§ MR. HANBURYI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, with a view to the introduction of a smokeless powder, certain private inventors were invited to send in particulars of their inventions to the War Department; whether those were submitted to a committee of experts, of which Sir F. Abel was a member, and were rejected; whether subsequently Sir F. Abel and Professor Dewar took out a patent for cordite, the manufacture of which for public reasons is kept a secret; whether, nevertheless, Sir F. Abel assigned the patent for use abroad to a foreign manufacturer, and whether this was done with the previous consent of the War Office; whether, in conjunction with Dr. Anderson, now Director of Ordnance Factories, he patented machinery for the manufacture of cordite; whether that machinery is now in use at the Government Factory; whether the orders for that machinery were given to Messrs. Easton, Anderson, and Co.; and what, at the time the order for such machinery was given or repeated, was the connection of the present Director of Ordnance Factories with that firm?
§ *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANIn reply to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the hon. Member's question, I have to say that in 1888, in the early stages of the inquiry regarding smokeless powder, one inventor was invited to submit samples. Several other explosives had previously bean submitted to the Department, and others were sent in from time to time without special invitation. In 1890 several inventors, whoso explosives were thus before the Department, were invited to submit samples for competitive trial, with each other and with cordite and walthamite, for use in the .303" rifle. These trials were carried out by the Explosives Committee, of which Sir F. Abel was President. The results having been submitted to and carefully considered by the Military Authorities, it was decided by them that cordite was distinctly superior to the other explosives, and its adoption was recommended to the Secretary of State. The answer to question 3 is that it was not subsequently to these trials of 1890 that the Abel-Dewar patents were taken out. They were taken out in 1889, and the British and Colonial patents were transferred to the Secretary of State. It is not the case that the manufacture of cordite is kept a secret. Certain Arms who might be able to tender for its supply were, in fact, invited to inspect the process at Waltham; but as the question whether this manufacture is or is not an infringement of certain previous patents is now the subject of a suit in Court, it was thought right by the holders of those patents, as well as by the War Office, that the works should be for the present closed to the public. In regard to paragraph 4, Sir F. Abel and Professor Dewar did take out patents abroad and assigned them to a foreign manufacturer. The previous consent of the War Office was not asked for, but the fact was reported to the Department. As regards the fifth paragraph, the answer is, Yes, in conjunction also with Professor Dewar. The patent was applied for before Dr. Anderson joined the Government Service. On its completion, the patent was assigned to the Secretary of State, Dr. Anderson having been in the meantime appointed Director General of Ordnance Factories. The answer to paragraph 6 is, Yes. As to the last paragraph also, the answer is 431 in the affirmative. Some of these orders were given before Dr. Anderson joined the Department, the machinery being principally of his invention, and the firm having had large, and, to the War Office, most satisfactory, experience in supplying similar machinery for the Public Service. Since that time about one-third of the machinery has been supplied by Messrs. Easton and Anderson and two-thirds by the Royal Arsenal. Since Dr. Anderson joined the Service he has had no connection with the firm of Easton and Anderson.
§ MR. HANBURYWhen the right hon. Gentleman says that this patent was applied for before Dr. Anderson joined the Public Service, is he aware that it was applied for on July 22, 1889; that Dr. Anderson joined the Public Service a week later, on August 1st, 1889; and that the specifications of the patent were not sent in till more than six months later?
§ *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI am not aware of the dates, but I may point out that in a case such as this the reason why it is desirable, when someone connected with a Government Department has made an invention useful for the Department, that he should be allowed to take out a patent, is obviously that it prevents its falling into other people's hands. As the inventor immediately assigns the patent to the Secretary of State, he gets no profit from it.
§ MR. HANBURYI shall call attention to the matter on the Estimates.
§ MR. J. E. ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)At the date of these transactions did the right hon. Gentleman occupy his present position, and is he responsible for them?
§ *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANIt is a matter of common knowledge, I should think. These questions are connected with a transaction for which I have no personal responsibility.
§ *SIR C. W. DILKEWhat is the advantage of assigning the patent to the Secretary of State, seeing that it has been ceded also to foreign manufacturers?
§ MR. HANBURYWas not the direct result of Dr. Anderson's taking out this patent that the manufacture of the machinery was given to the private firm in which Dr. Anderson was interested?
§ *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThis is a matter of argument which could better be dealt with when the subject is brought up on the Estimates. But the potential reason for the making of this machinery being given to the firm referred to was that that firm had already been employed more largely than any other by the War Office for making similar machinery. The machinery for manufacturing gun-cotton at Waltham Abbey was made by this firm, and gives great satisfaction.