![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article explores the complex and changing relationship between technological development, intellectual property, and national security in late Victorian and Edwardian Britain. Its specific case study concerns an important invention developed by a naval officer. Technological innovations not only were vital to British security but also embodied commercially valuable intellectual property. The state’s interest in acquiring control of the intellectual property to maintain Britain’s naval supremacy was not automatically aligned with the interests of inventors. The alignment was especially fraught in the case of service inventors—that is, inventors in government service, rather than in the private sector. Service inventors, who played a crucial role in maintaining Britain’s naval-technological edge, were governed by special regulations, and they invariably utilized state resources for their inventive work. Exploring these issues sheds important light on the attitude of the British state toward innovation and technological development from the 1850s through the 1920s.
Acknowledgements
I thank David Edgerton, Richard Immerman, Roy MacLeod, Geoffrey Parker, Philip Scranton, and two anonymous readers for reading and commenting on this manuscript. I am also grateful to Tiago Saraiva and Amy Slaton for their editorial suggestions, which sharpened and clarified my argument at several critical points. Last but certainly not least, I am obliged to Mrs. Anna-Clare Priester-Reading for kindly permitting me to consult and reproduce an image from her grandfather’s papers.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Archival Sources
- Admiralty Library, Portsmouth, England
- Ships’ Covers, Brass Foundry, Woolwich, England
- Naval Torpedo Station records, Newport, RI, United States
- The National Archives, Kew, England
- ADM [Admiralty] 1, Admiralty Secretariat
- ADM 189, Annual Reports of the Torpedo School
- ADM 245, Admiralty Awards Council Papers
- ADM 256, Principal Questions dealt with by the Director of Naval Ordnance
- T [Treasury] 1, Treasury Secretariat
- T 161, Supply Department Registered Files
- T 173, Records of the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors (Tomlin Commission)
- WO [War Office] 32, Registered Files
- Sydney Hardcastle Papers, courtesy of Mrs. Anna-Clare Priester-Reading
- Tyne & Wear Archives, Newcastle, England
- Vickers Archive, Cambridge University Library, Cambridge, England
Bibliography
- Bastable, M. J. Arms and the State: Sir William Armstrong and the Remaking of British Naval Power, 1854–1914. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004.
- Edgerton, D. “Liberal Militarism and the British State.” New Left Review 185, January-February (1991): 138–169.
- Edgerton, D. England and the Aeroplane: Militarism, Modernity, and Machines, 1sted. London: Penguin,2013. 1991.
- Epstein, K. C. Torpedo: Inventing the Military-Industrial Complex in the United States and Great Britain. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014.
- Epstein, K. C. “Scholarship and the Ship of State: Rethinking the Anglo-American Strategic Decline Analogy.” International Affairs 91, no. 2, (2015, March): 319–331. doi:10.1111/1468-2346.12237.
- Fisk, C. L. Working Knowledge: Employee Innovation and the Rise of Corporate Intellectual Property, 1800–1930. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999.
- Friedman, N. Naval Firepower: Battleship Guns and Gunnery in the Dreadnought Era. Barnsley, England: Seaforth Publishing, 2013.
- Gooday, G. “Combative Patenting: Military Entrepreneurship in First World War Telecommunications.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44 (2013): 247–258. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2012.11.005.
- Lambert, N. Sir John Fisher’s Naval Revolution. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1999.
- LeClair, D. 2015.“Supervising a Revolution: British Ordnance Committees, Private Inventors, and Military Technology in the Victorian Era.” PhD dissertation, University of Houston.
- MacLeod, C. “‘A Delicate Business’: Wartime Airplane Designs and Their Post-War Evaluation, 1919–1924.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44 (2013): 269–279. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2012.11.008.
- MacLeod, R. “Science and the Treasury: Principles, Personalities and Policies, 1870–85.” In The Patronage of Science in the Nineteenth Century, edited by G L'E Turner, 115–172. Leyden: Nordhoff International Publishing, 1976.
- MacLeod, R., and E. Kay Andrews “The Origins of the D.S.I.R.: Reflections on Ideas and Men, 1915–1916.” Public Administration 48, no. 1 (1970, March): 23–48.
- MacLeod, R., and E. Kay Andrews. “Scientific Advice in the War at Sea, 1915–1917: The Board of Invention and Research.” Journal of Contemporary History 6, no. 2 (1971): 3–40. doi:10.1177/002200947100600201.
- March, E. British Destroyers: A History of Development, 1892–1953. London: Seeley Service & Co., 1966.
- McNeill, W. The Pursuit of Power: Technology, Armed Force, and Society since AD 1000. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.
- Millett, L. “Tomlin, Thomas James Chesshyre, Baron Tomlin (1867–1935).” In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/36531.
- O’Dell, T. H. Inventions and Official Secrecy: A History of Secret Patents in the UK. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.
- Pattison, M. “Scientists, Inventors and the Military in Britain, 1915–19: The Munitions Inventions Department.” Social Studies of Science 13 (1983): 521–568. doi:10.1177/030631283013004004.
- Pila, J. “‘Sewing the Fly Buttons on the Statute’: Employee Inventions and the Employment Context.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 32, no. 2 (2012): 265–295. doi:10.1093/ojls/gqs003.
- Pottage, A., and B. Sherman. Figures of Invention: A History of Modern Patent Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
- Roseveare, H. The Treasury: The Evolution of a British Institution. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1969.
- Sir Kenneth L,” Journal of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts.” Manufactures and Commerce 116, no. (5137) (1 December 1967): 71.
- Sumida, J. In Defence of Naval Supremacy: Finance, Technology, and British Naval Policy, 1889–1914. Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989.
- Varcoe, I. “Scientists, Government and Organised Research in Great Britain 1914–16: The Early History of the DSIR.” Minerva 8, no. 2, (1970, April): 192–216. doi:10.1007/BF01553212.
- Zimmerman, D. “‘A More Creditable Way’: The Discovery of Active Sonar, the Langevin-Chilowsky Patent Dispute and the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors.” War in History 25, no. 1 (2018): 48–68. doi:10.1177/0968344516651308.
Notes
1. Minute by Bacon, 17 December 1908, G18178/08, Ship’s Cover 224/F34, Brass Foundry, Woolwich, England [hereafter BF].
2. For the numbers for fiscal year 1913/14, see minutes on G01080/12, “Reserves of Torpedoes,” Principal Questions Dealt with by the Director of Naval Ordnance [hereafter PQ]12/F43/P330–36, Ja 397, Admiralty Library, Portsmouth, England [hereafter AL]; and Winston Churchill, speech to the House of Commons, 26 March 1913, Parliamentary Debates, vol. 50, col. 1775.
3. March, British Destroyers, 84; Sumida, In Defence of Naval Supremacy, Table 16.
4. Bastable, Arms and the State, 25–33, 60–61; and McNeill, The Pursuit of Power, 238–41.
5. William McNeill famously dubbed the results of these new arrangements ‘command technology’ (see McNeill, The Pursuit of Power, 278–80).
6. O’Dell, Inventions and Official Secrecy, 4–9.
7. Ibid. 19–24. See also Daniel LeClair, “Supervising a Revolution” – he does not deal with secret patents, but intellectual property is a recurring issue in his story, and he traces more carefully than any other historian the bureaucratic reforms in army ordnance procurement following the Crimean War.
8. See, e.g. Pottage and Sherman, Figures of Invention.
9. O’Dell, Inventions and Official Secrecy.
10. The major exception is Sumida’s In Defence of Naval Supremacy, which pays careful attention to both secret patents and the military value of the patented technology.
11. Specifically, they were entitled by Section 27 of the 1883 Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, which was repeated as Section 29 in the 1907 Patents and Designs Act.
12. See, e.g. Section 415 of The King’s Regulations and Admiralty Instructions for the Government of His Majesty’s Naval Service of 1906 and 1913.
13. See “Report of the Departmental Committee on Awards to Inventors,” 1 November 1918, para. 3, Treas 8952/18, Docket “Minute. Awards to Inventors. Extension of Power of Depts to award up to £1,000 without reference to Treasury,” T 1/12,325, the National Archives, Kew, England [hereafter TNA].
14. Fisk, Working Knowledge, 24–31; and Pila, “Sewing the Fly Buttons on the Statute,” 269–75.
15. The patent lawyer Kenneth R. Swan, who would go on to lead major inquiries into the patent system during and after World War II, made precisely this point in a paper delivered in 1920, for which see Swan, “A Review of the Law Relating to the Use and Patenting of Inventions by Government Departments and Their Officials,” December 1920, Folio B(6)a, p. 5, enclosed in Swan to Tindal Robertson, 24 February 1921, T 173/17, part 1, TNA.
16. McNeill, The Pursuit of Power, 223–306, esp. 271–72.
17. Babcock to Twining, 1 September 1912, B73-315, Naval Torpedo Station records, Newport, RI, USA.
18. Recent and valuable studies by Christine MacLeod and Graeme Gooday look at air and army, not navy, inventors, respectively. See MacLeod, “‘A Delicate Business’: Wartime Airplane Designs”; and Gooday, “Combative Patenting.”
19. See, e.g. Varcoe, “Scientists, Government and Organised Research”; MacLeod and Andrews, “The Origins of the D.S.I.R”; idem, “Scientific Advice in the War at Sea”; and Pattison, “Scientists, Inventors and the Military in Britain.”
20. These last four features distinguish Hardcastle’s case from the naval-technological case discussed in Zimmerman, “‘A More Creditable Way.’”
21. For further development of these points, see Epstein, “Scholarship and the Ship of State.”
22. On Leavitt’s superheater, see idem, Torpedo, chapters 1 and 3. On the Admiralty’s rejection of Leavitt’s superheater, see docket “Application of Heat to Compressed Air for Torpedoes,” ADM 1/7657, TNA.
23. Transcript of proceedings in Hardcastle’s RCAI claim [hereafter Hardcastle’s RCAI claim], 28 March 1927, p. 5, T 173/649, TNA.
24. Briggs to Jellicoe, 5 October 1905, T 173/257, TNA. The originals of Hardcastle’s three secret patents (21,176/1905, 16,929/1906, and 27,347/1908) no longer survive. What do survive are typed purported copies of the three patents in the records collected for Hardcastle’s RCAI claim, which can be found in T 173/257, TNA.
25. Jellicoe to Briggs, 7 October 1905, T 173/257, TNA.
26. For the debate over the provenance of the copies used in the RCAI claim, now in T 173/257, TNA, see transcript of RCAI meeting of 28 March 1927, 7–12; examination and cross-examination of Gibbs and Hardcastle, 4 April 1927, 18–34; examination of Hardcastle, 34–39, cross-examination of Hardcastle, 55–61, 63–65, and re-examination of Hardcastle, 73–76, all in Hardcastle’s RCAI claim, T 173/649, TNA.
27. Examination of Hardcastle by Moritz, 4 April 1927, Hardcastle’s RCAI claim, p. 37; re-examination of Hardcastle by Moritz, 4 April 1927, ibid.
28. “Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee Appointed to Consider the Regulations as to the Taking out of Patents by Officers and Subordinates in Government Employment, with Appendices, 1905–06,” 30 April 1906, 5, WO 32/5080, TNA.
29. Appendix VI, ibid. These suspicions were echoed after the war. See Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee Appointed to Consider the Methods of Dealing with Inventions Made by Workers Aided or Maintained from Public Funds (London: HMSO, 1922), para. 33. See also Civil Service National Whitley Council, Report of the Patents Committee (London: HMSO, 1930), para. 5.
30. Examination of Hardcastle by Moritz, 39, and cross-examination of Hardcastle by Whitehead, 65–69, 4 April 1927, Hardcastle’s RCAI claim, T 173/649, TNA.
31. For the Admiralty’s acceptance of the date, see Whitehead’s cross-examination of Hardcastle, 4 April 1927, Hardcastle’s RCAI claim, 71–72; ibid. See also hearing before the RCAI, p. 12, 28 March 1927, ibid.
32. Hardcastle to Gamble, 29 September 1908, enclosed in Hardcastle to Robertson, 15 April 1926, T 173/257, TNA.
33. Ibid.
34. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1907, 25–30 [hereafter cited in the format ART07/25–30], ART08/18. This was the superheater described in GBP 3,495/1905, Sodeau’s second superheater patent. Copies of the annual reports of the Torpedo School (HMS Vernon) may be found in several archives; the most complete run is in ADM 189, TNA.
35. Hardcastle to Gamble, 29 September 1908, enclosed in Hardcastle to Robertson, 15 April 1926, T 173/257, TNA; Gamble to Jellicoe, 28 October 1907, ibid. ART06/23.
36. See above 32.
37. For these performance figures, see ART08/19 and ART 09/11.
38. Bacon, “Paper Prepared by the Director of Naval Ordnance for the Information of his Successor,” 24 November 1909, G19535/09, 22, AL; Lees to SecAdm, 13 April 1907, enclosed in Lees to Albert Vickers, 13 April 1907, microfilm M306, Vickers Archive, Cambridge University Library, Cambridge, England; Armstrong board minutes of 30 May 1907, 25 July 1907, 18 June 1908, Accession 130/1267 (Minute Book #2), Tyne & Wear Archives, Newcastle, England [hereafter T&W].
39. ART06/23, ART09/11.
40. HMS Dreadnought was 527 ft long. The probability of hitting is the ratio of ship lengths to the total length of the line.
41. Quoted in Lambert, Sir John Fisher’s Naval Revolution, 79 (see also 330n51).
42. For further elaboration of these points, see Epstein, Torpedo, 94–98, 196–204.
43. ART07/19, ART10/12.
44. See “Paper Prepared by the Director of Naval Ordnance for the Information of his Successor,” 24 November 1909, G19535/09, 22–23, AL; minutes on G5891/09, PQ/08–11/3360/178–80, ADM 256/44, TNA; minutes on G18178/08, SC224/F34, BF; and minutes on G01080/12, “Reserves of Torpedoes,” PQ/12/F43/P330–36, Ja 397, AL. For the cost of Acasta-class destroyers, see March, British Destroyers, 124.
45. Minute by Currey, 22 October 1907, G16396/07, PQ/09/3345/156–57, ADM 256/44, TNA (contains first quotation); minutes by Currey, 17 December 1908 (contains second quotation; emphasis added), and Bacon, 17 December 1908, G18178/08, SC 224/F34, BF.
46. Bacon, ‘The Battleship of the Future,’ paper read at the 51st session of the Institution of Naval Architects, 16 March 1910, published in Transactions of the Institution of Naval Architects 52 (1910): 2.
47. Minute by Jellicoe, 22 October 1907, G16396/07, PQ/09/3345/156–57, ADM 256/44, TNA.
48. For more on these tactical issues, see Epstein, Torpedo, 128–30, 204–11.
49. Lawrence memorandum, “Patents, Designs and Inventions,” para. 6, enclosed in Lawrence to Tindal Robertson, 9 December 1918, Treas 7388/19, Docket “Minute. Awards to Inventors. Memoranda by Sir A. Lawrence on legal difficulties of present position,” T 1/12,283, TNA.
50. Hardcastle to Captain of Vernon, 29 September 1908, enclosed in Hardcastle to Robertson, 15 April 1926, T 173/257, TNA.
51. Pila, “‘Sewing the Fly Buttons on the Statute,’” 269–75.
52. Admiralty Awards Council, Report 26, “Award to Engineer Lieutenant S. U. Hardcastle,” 3 November 1908, ADM 245/1, TNA.
53. SecAdm to CINC Portsmouth, 3 December 1908, CP Patents 237/43,255/08, forwarded to Hardcastle on 4 December 1908, copy in T 173/257, TNA.
54. Hardcastle to SecAdm, 8 December 1908, ibid.
55. In a February 1918 memorandum, the Exchequer and Audit Department observed that “some uncertainty appears to exist as to the relation of awards to the assessment of income tax” (Secretary, Exchequer and Audit Department to SecTreas, 18 February 1918, Treas 7136/18, Docket “Exchequer and Audit Department. Grants of rewards and royalties for inventions,” T 1/12,325, TNA).
56. Minute by Toop [Engineer Admiral, Personnel], 6 January 1922, on Treasury letter S11342/22, copy in T 173/257, TNA.
57. See esp. Hardcastle to Director of Torpedoes and Mining, 5 May 1920, ibid.
58. See “Extract from Report of Conference held at the Office of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research,” Docket “Scientific and Industrial Research Department. Tin and Tungsten Research Bd.’s investigations,” T 1/12,467, TNA; folio ‘O,’ “Admiralty Practice as Regards Service Patents,” n.d. but probably 1920, T 173/18, Part I, TNA; hand-written note on the document entitled “Licences Granted” (n.d. but probably c. June 1925), Treas S13017/01/2, Docket “Interdepartmental Committee on Patents,” T 161/556/4, TNA.
59. There is a ‘gratuity for an invention’ of £5,000 – presumably Hardcastle’s – appearing in the Navy Appropriation Account for fiscal year 1909/10 under Vote 11, Subhead K, ‘Gratuities for Special Services, etc.’ See Navy Appropriation Account, 1909–1910, House of Commons report no. 18 (London: HMSO, 1911).
60. Hardcastle’s account books, as well as certain other of his papers, are in the possession of his younger grand-daughter, Mrs. Anna-Clare Priester-Reading, who kindly let me consult them. There are two account books, one in a vertically bound notebook with an unmarked black cover and the other in a horizontally bound notebook with a black cover marked ‘Book B.’ When I viewed them, both were kept in a black tin box stamped with Hardcastle’s initials on the front. All of the figures used in this article come from the unmarked black book.
61. Testimony of Colonel H. C. L. Holden (Superintendent of RGF), 25 October 1905, Appendix VII, “Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee Appointed to Consider the Regulations as to the Taking out of Patents by Officers and Subordinates in Government Employment, with Appendices, 1905–06,” WO 32/5080, TNA.
62. Reginald Bacon, the first, joined the Coventry Ordnance Works. Edgar Lees, the second, joined the Whitehead Torpedo Company. S. S. Hall, the third, was discovered in the course of flirting with Yarrow.
63. The best account of the fire-control case remains Sumida, In Defence of Naval Supremacy, which has been corroborated by Friedman, Naval Firepower.
64. I am grateful to an anonymous referee for suggesting this formulation to me.
65. Hardcastle to Director of Torpedoes and Mining, 1 July 1919, copy in T 173/257, TNA. See also MacLeod, “‘A Delicate Business,’” 270.
66. Minute by Toop, 6 January 1922, Treas S11342, copy in T 173/257, TNA.
67. Minutes by DTM and Director of Contracts, described and dated in Admiralty Awards Council, Report 243, “Proposed further award to Engineer Commander S. M. [sic] Hardcastle, R.N.,” n.d. but 1920, ADM 245/3, TNA.
68. Admiralty to French, Italian, and American naval attachés, 6 April 1920, CP G7734, and replies, copies in T 173/257, TNA.
69. An entry in his account book for December 1919 refers to “11 months at increased rate of pay + 1 at old rate of pay.”
70. See minute by Pinsent, n.d. but late May/early June 1921, CE12784/20, Docket “Admiralty. Engr-Commander S. O. [sic] Hardcastle, Assistant to Chief Inspector, Naval Ordnance Dept, Appointment,” Treas S11342, T 161/134, TNA.
71. Hardcastle entered £48 for his actual pay for December 1919 as compared to his entries of £40 for the war years, and as late as February 1919. There are no entries for March-November 1919.
72. Minute by DTM, 14 October 1920, CE12784/20, copy in T 173/257, TNA.
73. Minutes by Hardcastle et al., December 1921-January 1922, on Treasury S11342 of 19 November 1919, ibid. See also SecAdm to SecTreas, 28 February 1922, CE12783/21, Docket “Admiralty. Engr-Commander S. O. [sic] Hardcastle,” Treasury S11342, T 161/134, TNA.
74. SecAdm to SecTreas, 10 July 1920, CE4410/20; SecAdm to SecTreas, 28 February 1922, CE12783/21, Docket “Admiralty. Engr-Commander S. O. [sic] Hardcastle,” Treas S11342, T 161/134, TNA.
75. SecTreas to SecAdm, 16 September 1920, E805; SecTreas to SecAdm, 24 March 1921, E3326, ibid.
76. SecAdm to SecTreas, 3 May 1921, CE12784/20, ibid.
77. Minute by Medica [sp?], 11 May 1921, CE12784/20, ibid.
78. Minute by Pinsent, n.d., CE12784/20, ibid.
79. Minute by Mikar [sp?], 17 November 1921, CE6671/21, ibid.
80. Minute by Pinsent, 18 October 1921, CE6671/21, ibid.
81. See Lambert, Sir John Fisher’s Naval Revolution, 111–14.
82. For a nuanced exploration of the Treasury’s attitude towards the spending departments, see Roseveare, The Treasury, 199–210. Roy MacCleod’s excellent study of the Treasury’s attitude towards science from 1870 to 1885 (“Science and the Treasury”) is the only work I know of which seeks to analyze as such the Treasury’s attitude towards science and/or technology over any period of time.
83. SecAdm to SecTreas, 28 February 1922, CE12783/21, Docket “Admiralty. Engr-Commander S. O. [sic] Hardcastle,” Treasury S11342, T 161/134, TNA.
84. Minute by Ray, 21 April 1922, CE12783/21, ibid.
85. Minute by Mikar, 27 April 1922, CE12783/21, ibid.
86. SecTreas to SecAdm, 29 April 1922, S11342, ibid.
87. Armstrong Executive Committee minute of 21 December 1921, Accession 130/1298 (Executive Committee Minute Book #8), T&W.
88. See Hardcastle to SecAdm, 22 November 1922, enclosed in Hardcastle to Robertson, 15 April 1926, T 173/257, TNA; and 41 RPC 33, 36.
89. Hardcastle to SecAdm, 22 November 1922, enclosed in Hardcastle to Robertson, 15 April 1926, T 173/257, TNA.
90. Pila, “‘Sewing the Fly Buttons on the Statute,’” 276–78, provides a good analysis of the Baldwin Committee’s final published report, but does not cite archival sources. Most recently, David Zimmerman mistakenly asserted that “records pertaining to the establishment of the Commission do not survive” (‘“A More Creditable Way,”’ 52). In fact they do survive, but in the T 1 (Treasury Secretariat) files, not in the T 173 files, where Zimmerman (and others) have looked.
91. Minutes of the first meeting of the Inter-Departmental Conference on Patents [Graham Committee], enclosed in Smallwood to Tindal Robertson, 11 April 1918, Treas 9237/18, Docket “Ministry of Munitions. Inventions and Patents. Decisions required. For Treasury representative at Interdepartmental Conference”; Greene to SecTreas, 4 March 1918, and enclosed memorandum on ‘Inventions and Patents’, Treas 9237/18, ibid. Waterfield to Barstow, 15 April 1918, para. 5, Treas 9237/18, ibid. SecMinMun to SecTreas, 26 April 1918, Treas 16,767/18, Docket “Ministry of Munitions. Methods of dealing with awards for inventions as to appt of formal Committee to draw up scheme”; SecTreas to SecMinMun, 1 June 1918, Treas 16,767/18, ibid. minute by Waterfield, 27 June 1918, Docket “Ministry of Munitions. Awards for Inventors. Committee to discuss methods of dealing with. Vice Admiral Sir R. H. S. Bacon and Sir Philip Henriques to represent Dept,” all in T 1/12,325, TNA.
92. SecAdm to SecTreas, 7 January 1919, para. 3, Treas 1089/19, Docket “Admiralty. Commission for dealing with awards to inventors. Remarks on proposed formation of,” ibid.
93. “Report of the Departmental Committee on Awards to Inventors,” 1 November 1918, Treas 8952/18, Docket “Minute. Awards to Inventors. Extension of Power of Depts to award up to £1,000 without reference to Treasury,” ibid.
94. “Proposed Instructions to Commission,” appendix to ibid.
95. “Report of Conference Called To Consider Various Questions in Connection with Patents” [Greene Committee], n.d. but c. April 1918, Docket “Ministry of Munitions. Patents. Report of Conference called to consider various questions in connection with,” T 1/12,325, TNA; Lawrence memorandum, 6 November 1918, sec. 1, ibid. SecAdm to Hardcastle, 21 January 1921, Adm G14590/25,271, T 173/257, TNA.
96. Waterfield to Barstow, 15 April 1918, para. 4, Docket “Ministry of Munitions. Inventions and Patents. Decisions required. For Treasury representative at Interdepartmental Conference,” T 1/12,325, TNA.
97. Lawrence, “Patents, Designs and Inventions,” enclosed in Lawrence to Tindal Robertson, 2 August 1918, Treas 7388/19, Docket “Minute. Awards to Inventors. Memoranda by Sir A. Lawrence on legal difficulties of present position,” T 1/12,283, TNA.
98. “Report of the Departmental Committee on Awards to Inventors,” 1 November 1918, Treas 8952/18, Docket “Minute. Awards to Inventors. Extension of Power of Depts to award up to £1,000 without reference to Treasury,” T 1/12,325, TNA.
99. 41 RPC 33–46; 41 RPC 189–200; 42 RPC 543–60.
100. Hardcastle to SecAdm, 9 November 1925, enclosed in Hardcastle to Robertson, 15 April 1926, T 173/257, TNA.
101. SecAdm to Hardcastle, 12 January 1926, CP Patents 2563/25/79, enclosed in Hardcastle to Robertson, 15 April 1926, ibid.
102. Hardcastle to SecAdm, 16 February 1926; SecAdm to Hardcastle, 25 February 1926, CP Patents 2693/26/413, enclosed in Hardcastle to Robertson, 15 April 1926, ibid.
103. Hardcastle’s service record, ADM 196/133, ff. 165–66, 176, TNA.
104. Hardcastle to Robertson, 25 March 1926, T 173/257, TNA.
105. Hardcastle to Robertson, 15 April 1926; Cobb (for Director of Contracts) to Robertson, 8 February 1927, CP Patents 2766/26/912; ibid. On the Treasury Solicitor’s role, see Cobb (for Director of Contracts) to Robertson, 18 December 1926, CP Patents 2827/26/2452, ibid.
106. Hardcastle to Robertson, 15 April 1926, T 173/257, TNA.
107. Comment by Tomlin, 4 April 1927, Hardcastle’s RCAI claim, 14–15, T 173/649, TNA.
108. Comment by Tomlin, 28 March 1927, Hardcastle’s RCAI claim, 16, ibid.
109. See above 106.
110. Comments by Moritz, 4 April 1927, Hardcastle’s RCAI claim, 2–3, T 173/649, TNA.
111. Comment by Tomlin, 4 April 1927, Hardcastle’s RCAI claim, 3, ibid.
112. The King’s Regulations and Admiralty Instructions for the Government of His Majesty’s Naval Service, 1906 (London: HMSO, 1906), section 415, 127.
113. Hardcastle to Tindal Robertson, 15 April 1926, T 173/257, TNA.
114. Comment by Moritz, 28 March 1927, Hardcastle’s RCAI claim, 21, T 173/649, TNA.
115. Unfortunately, only a small fragment of what seems to have been a much larger file dealing specifically with Hardcastle’s pension has survived. For the fragment, see the extract from a minute by the Director of Torpedoes and Mining, 14 October 1920, CE12784/20, copy in T 173/257, TNA. For evidence that it was part of a larger file, see Hardcastle to Tindal Robertson, 15 April 1926, ibid.
116. Comment by Tomlin, 28 March 1927, Hardcastle’s RCAI claim, 21, T 173/649, TNA.
117. Comment by Moritz, 4 April 1927, Hardcastle’s RCAI claim, 43, ibid.
118. Comment by Tomlin, 4 April 1927, Hardcastle’s RCAI claim, 43–44, ibid.
119. See, e.g. Tomlin’s comments of 28 March 1927, 21–22, and 4 April 1927, 44, 107, Hardcastle’s RCAI claim, ibid.
120. Comment by Moritz, 4 April 1927, Hardcastle’s RCAI claim, 107, ibid.
121. See Lord Millett, “Tomlin.”
122. On Lee, see his obituary, “Sir Kenneth Lee,” Journal of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, 116, no. 5137 (1 December 1967): 71.
123. Baddeley to SecTreas, 9 May 1922, Adm CP1395/22/1476, para. 5, Docket “Inter-Departmental Committee on Patents: Report of,” S13017, T 161/145/12, TNA; Creedy to SecTreas, 3 August 1922, War 84/Gen.No./4839 (C.1.), ibid.
124. Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee Appointed to Consider the Methods of Dealing with Inventions Made by Workers Aided or Maintained from Public Funds, para. 16.
125. Cobb to Pinsent, 16 July 1925, Treas S13017/01/2, Docket, “Interdepartmental Committee on Patents,” T 161/556/4, TNA.
126. See the note on the document entitled “Licences Granted” (n.d. but probably June 1925), Treas S13017/01/2, Docket “Interdepartmental Committee on Patents,” ibid.
127. Baddeley to SecTreas, 9 May 1922, Adm CP1395/22/1476, Docket, “Inter-Departmental Committee on Patents: Report of,” S13017, ibid.
128. See Meiklejohn to Tindal Robertson, 6 April 1923, T 173/17, Part II, TNA; minutes and correspondence in Treas S13017/01, Docket “Interdepartmental Committee on Patents,” T 161/556/3, TNA, esp. Barstow to SecTreas, 11 January 1923 and Ashley to SecTreas, 26 February 1923.
129. Treasury circular #10,124, “Exploitation of Inventions Made by Government Servants,” 30 April 1924, copy in Treas S13017/01, T161/556/3, TNA.
130. See the correspondence in Treas S13017/01/2, Docket “Interdepartmental Committee on Patents,” T 161/556/4, TNA.
131. For background, see Bunning to Scott, 30 September 1924, along with minutes and reply, Treas S13017/01, Docket “Interdepartmental Committee on Patents,” T 161/556/3, TNA. For the Whitley committee’s report and Treasury approval, see Treasury circular “Patents Committee of the Civil Service National Whitley Council: Application of Recommendations,” 5 December 1930, Treas S36335, Docket “Patents. Central Committee on Awards,” T 161/537/6, TNA. See also Pila, “‘Sewing the Fly Buttons on the Statute,’” 278–83.
132. The Lee Committee’s Report makes this point nicely in para. 3. See also Edgerton, England and the Aeroplane, 56, and idem, “Liberal Militarism and the British State,” 138–169.
133. SecBoT to SecTreas, 4 June 1925, Treas S13017/01/2, Docket “Interdepartmental Committee on Patents,” T 161/556/4, TNA.
134. My thanks to Tiago Saraiva and Amy Slaton for suggesting this point to me.