§ *LORD SUDELEYIn rising to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they were now in a position to state what reward they proposed to give to Admiral Colomb for his invention of flashing signals, said: My Lords, before I put the question of which I have given notice I wish for a few moments to refer to a rumour which I have heard, namely, that the Treasury propose to offer to Admiral Colomb the paltry sum of £2,000. How, my Lords, if that be true, such a sum is so far below what the merits of the case deserve, and would be such an insult to the Navy, that I sincerely trust the matter may be re-considered, and that, at any rate, my noble Friend who will answer this question will be able to say that the statement is incorrect. Your Lordships are aware that when this question was brought forward some three weeks ago the matter was gone very thoroughly into, and my noble Friend who represents the Admiralty stated at once that he fully concurred in the statements I had made; 186 he showed how very valuable this invention was; he showed that our fleets could not go to sea, or proceed in fogs, or at night, if they had not the advantage of being able to use these flashing signals; and he showed generally that the Admiralty thoroughly approve of Admiral Colomb receiving a suitable reward. At that time my noble Friend showed also very clearly that while the Admiralty were very strongly of opinion that a great deal ought to be done for Admiral Colomb, they were fettered and controlled entirely by the Treasury. If the head of one public Department thinks a sufficient reward should be offered to a meritorious officer it is un constitutional und unusual for that Department to throw the blame entirely on the Treasury. The Treasury is really the servant of the Government. If the First Lord of the Admiralty and his colleagues know a grievous wrong is being done to the Navy, there are ways of forcing the Treasury to do what they consider right. Surely, my Lords, the Admiralty, and through them the Government, are alone responsible, and it is a very weak procedure to say they cannot do it because the Treasury are opposed. As I stated on the former occasion, unfortunately there is a strong feeling growing up in the Navy that as regards rewards the same attention is not paid to that branch of the Service as to the Army. Here we have a case in point. I could name other instances, but I will name one which is a very clear case. Only a short time ago Major Watkin made an invention which will be of great use in time of war for the Army, and no less a sum than £25,000 and £1,000 a year for 10 years was awarded to him, making altogether £35,000. But in the Navy what do we see? Admiral Colomb invents a system by means of which our ships can be safely navigated in the dark and in fogs. It has been acknowledged that without that invention our ships could not go to sea; yet year after year this matter has been postponed, and we are now told that the Treasury propose to give the inventor the paltry sum of £2,000! My Lords, the two cases are exactly similar. Here you have in one case Major Watkin receiving for his invention of the range-finder a sum of £35,000—and I do not for a moment say that is too much—and, 187 on the other hand, if the rumour I have heard is correct, the paltry sum of £2,000 is offered. My Lords, I do not think it is necessary for me to say any more. I will only add this: that if it is true my noble Friend, on behalf of the Admiralty, is going to say that is really the case, every officer in the Navy will feel that an insult has been offered to the Navy, and a very painful feeling will be aroused. I sincerely trust my noble Friend will be able to say something different. I am quite certain that if he does mention £2,000 it will bring great discredit on Her Majesty's Government. I beg to ask the question of which I have given notice.
§ *LORD ELPHINSTONEMy Lords, I must, in the first place, thank my noble Friend for having from time to time put off this question, which has undoubtedly been a very long time on the notice paper. When last Friday he put the question I asked him to defer it until to-day, because there was a correspondence going on between the two Departments, the Treasury and the Admiralty, at the time; and it was only to-day that we received a definite reply from the Treasury, in effect that they had fully considered Admiral Colomb's claim in all its various points, and they made a definite proposal to the Admiralty for Admiral Colomb's acceptance. There were certain conditions attached to this proposal, and the letter from the Treasury, or a copy of it, would be forwarded to Admiral Colomb. My noble Friend asks what the sum named was. The sum which is proposed in the Treasury Minute is, I understand, £2,000.
§ THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAMWell, my Lords, I was never more astonished! Upon my word, I really cannot express my astonishment at such behaviour. Such treatment of a Naval Officer! No words can express my astonishment. My Lords, the reward is totally inadequate.
§ VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHMy Lords, I am very sorry the noble Lord has no power in this matter, and that my noble Friend has made his statement to so very thinly-attended a House. I can fully confirm, not from personal experience but from evidence which is perfectly trustworthy, and I think impossible to contradict, the value of Admiral Colomb's signals. However, I 188 may refer to my own experience when another system of signals was used, of which I was very cognisant. It was my lot very many years ago to serve as officer of the watch in a very large fleet where the old code of signals was used. A fog came on, and they at once became invisible. I am told on the best authority that, with the present system of Admiral Colomb's signals, every species of danger, all fear of confusion, may be avoided by using them. I well remember at the time I mention sailing with that large fleet off the coast of Portugal. Signals were made; I myself repeatedly saw them, but they were extremely confusing—quite incomprehensible; the vessel anchored, and when, the fog cleared away there was not another ship out of 25 in sight. I can only join my noble Friend in expressing entire astonishment at the course which has been taken by the Admiralty in this case. With regard to what my noble Friend opposite has said in reference to rewards in the Army, I may mention that Major Palliser, who invented a gunnery system and introduced the use of chilled shot, received £10,000, was made a baronet, and was promoted in the Service. Another case was that of Mr. Hale. His invention was in regard to the manufacture of rockets. He received £8,000. Captain Moncrieff received £10,000—I forget exactly what the subject of his invention was—I believe it was for gun-carriages, but it was vastly inferior in value to Admiral Colomb's. For that invention Captain Moncrieff received £1,000 a year for some years and £10,000 down. Within the last few days I see that a foreign Government, only a third or fourth-rate Naval Power, has offered four times this amount for an invention which has been made for it, even before it has turned out to be successful. If naval officers are to be treated in the way Admiral Colomb has been, and if the Naval Sarvice, which entails such hard conditions upon sailors, is to be so disregarded and discouraged, I can only say that, in the future, there will be no inducement to naval men to employ their skill and leisure, as Admiral Colomb has done, in bringing out valuable inventions which in this case have been of great advantage, not only to the Navy, but to the Merchant Service, and 189 every ship that sails. I think my noble Friend will agree with me that the original reason why Admiral Colomb's claims were put aside was that there was a misapprehension as to his position. I believe it was understood that Admiral Colomb had accepted the paltry sum of £500 as putting an end to all his claims. That, I think my noble Friend is now perfectly aware, was a misconception on the part of the Admiralty; the matter has gone on for nearly 30 years; Admiral Colomb has borne it all with great patience, and I think both ho and the Navy deserve better treatment.
§ *LORD ELPHINSTONEI only desire to correct one statement of my noble Friend: he has referred to the Admiralty as having awarded £2.000 to Admiral Colomb. The Admiralty had nothing to do with it; it is entirely in the hands of the Treasury.
§ VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHThat was a mistake of mine. I do not think the Admiralty can have considered the matter, and I do not think the matter was thoroughly laid before them.
§ *LORD SUDELEYA great deal of correspondence has, I understand, taken place between the Admiralty and officers in the Navy with regard to Admiral Colomb's invention, and I beg to give notice that I shall move for a copy of that correspondence on Tuesday next.