The Paravane Adventure:
...In February 1915, Lieutenant Burney advised the Admiralty that the Paravane inventions should be protected by patents. Accordingly, the Admiralty Patent Agent obtained secret patents in Lieutenant Burney's name. These were lodged in June 1915. In accordance with the King's Regulations, Burney assigned the patents to the Admiralty, under a deed of assignment, so that the Paravane patents became the property of the Admiralty, and the granting of an award to the inventor rested in the discretion of their Lordships. Lieutenant Burney then laid before the Admiralty, in writing, his view of the position. Foreseeing the necessity of forming an immense commercial organisation for the manufacture and fitting of the Paravane, which would be furnished to H.M. ships, the ships of the Allied Navies and the merchant shipping of Great Britain and of the Allies, Burney submitted that two courses were open to H.M. Government: (1) That H.M. Government should take out patents in Allied countries, and should use the royalties thereby accruing as appropriations in aid of the Navy Estimates; (2) If that course was rejected, that Lieutenant Burney should be allowed to take out patents in Allied countries or to sell to them outright the drawings of the invention. Neither then nor at any subsequent time did Burney ask for an award to be granted to him by the Admiralty in respect of the fitting with the Paravane of H.M. ships; and subsequently Burney informed the Admiralty that he would accept nothing on that account.
It will be observed that the first proposal was that the Government should work the patents and take what profit resulted therefrom; and that the second and alternative proposal was that Lieutenant Burney should conduct the whole enterprise in terms to be decided by the Admiralty. Their Lordships elected to choose the alternative. In a letter dated May 17th, 1916, the Admiralty authorised Lieutenant Burney to take out patents in any part of the world, at his own expense and for his own benefit, or to sell the drawings outright; with regard to Paravanes and gear manufactured at the expense of the Admiralty and supplied by them to foreign Governments, the Admiralty were to charge a royalty, a proportion of which would be paid to Lieutenant Burney; and with regard to the use of the apparatus by the British Navy, the Admiralty were to consider the granting of an award to Lieutenant Burney. In that letter, therefore, the Admiralty instructed Burney, a lieutenant whose pay was about £250 a year, and who was already charged with as much work as he could well perform, to organise a system of international manufacture upon a scale requiring an initial capital expenditure of at least a million sterling.
Burney accepted the enterprise and at once began to execute their Lordships' instructions. He concluded the agreements with France and Russia, during June and July 1916. All this time he was also engaged in his work at the Paravane department at Portsmouth. In August 1916, Burney proposed to Sir George White, of Bristol, that Sir George White should take over the whole financial and commercial side of the enterprise. Sir George White had helped Burney to conduct his experiments with aeroplanes, during which Burney had acquired the knowledge and experience enabling him to devise the Paravane, and upon which Sir George White had expended some £10,000. Sir George White accepted Burney's proposal, and concluded an agreement with Burney under which Sir George White was to recover his initial expenditure of some £10,000 from the first payments received from foreign countries, and was to pay Burney a proportion of the subsequent profits received.
On 30th August, Burney received a letter from the Admiralty in which their Lordships, altering the arrangements they had authorised Burney to make with foreign countries, precluded the charging of royalties. As Sir George White was now in possession of Burney's rights in the matter, Burney referred the Admiralty to Sir George White. The immediate effect of the Admiralty letter was of course to prevent Sir George White from proceeding with the business. After an interval, on October 30th, 1916, Burney received a letter from the Admiralty which, in fact, cancelled their letter of May 17th, 1916, in which Burney was instructed to conduct the whole enterprise at his own expense and (excepting in respect of the British Navy) for his own profit. The Admiralty forbade the charging of royalties to foreign countries as regards the fitting of naval vessels, and the terms and conditions of the fitting of merchant ships were to be submitted to the Admiralty for approval.
Sir George White represented to the Admiralty that if he was forbidden either to charge royalties or to receive a fixed sum in payment, he would be deprived of the means of raising the capital upon which he relied both to make up his initial expenditure already incurred, and to start the business of manufacture. These representations were made in vain. On November 22nd, 1916, Sir George White died suddenly, and his son, Sir G. Stanley White, continued the negotiations with the Admiralty. Sir G. S. White offered to begin the work of manufacture upon condition that he received a sum in compensation for the rights withdrawn by the Admiralty. Their Lordships delaying their reply, Sir G. S. White, unable for lack of capital to build and to equip a factory, decided to transfer his rights to a firm possessing the requisite resources. He therefore assigned his rights to Messrs. Vickers, Ltd. Sir G. S. White had concluded his agreement with Messrs. Vickers, when he received a letter from the Admiralty, omitting any suggestion as to finance, but urging him to arrange to equip merchant vessels with the utmost despatch. It was now the end of December 1916. So far, the commercial side of the enterprise had been entrusted to Burney upon conditions which, with the help of a private firm, made the enterprise possible; the conditions were then so altered as to make the enterprise impossible; and Messrs. Vickers had replaced Sir G. S. White.
Messrs. Vickers, soon afterwards, at the end of January 1917, received from the Admiralty a definite order for the supply of 4,000 Otters. It thus became possible, for the first time since May 1916, after the lapse of eight months, to begin the manufacture and supply of protector Paravanes on a large scale. Here it should be stated that, by reason of the alteration by the Admiralty of the original terms laid down by the Admiralty, both Lieutenant Burney and Sir G. S. White were deprived of the monetary profits which would have accrued to them under the terms originally formulated by the Admiralty. In a letter, dated February 23rd, 1917, the Admiralty requested Lieutenant Burney to furnish their Lordships with information as to the amounts privately expended on experimental work, such information being required in connection with the question of an award to be granted for the use of the Paravane in H.M. Naval Service. Lieutenant Burney, under date February 27th, 1917, replied that he desired to state that he had never asked for, and did not wish to receive, any monetary award whatever for the use of any of his inventions by the British Naval Service.
The statements which appeared in the Press, that Lieutenant Burney had received an award of £30,000, were false. Lieutenant Burney received nothing from the Admiralty. And in a clause of the agreement concluded by Lieutenant Burney with Messrs. Vickers, it was stipulated that Burney should receive no portion whatever of any profits, direct or indirect, which Messrs. Vickers might make out of the manufacture or supply of any of the Paravane apparatus ordered by the British Admiralty for the use of H.M. ships. The expenditure upon Paravanes supplied or approved to be supplied to H.M. ships and the ships of the United States Navy in Home waters, was over four millions sterling. If the usual royalty of ten per cent, was charged on that sum, and if on that royalty the inventor received twenty-five per cent, he would receive £100,000...
The Paravane Adventure:
H.M. Hospital Ship 'Goorkha'
Salonika, 19th November 1918.
The Managers,
Union Castle Mail S.S. Co., Ltd.,
3-4 Fenchurch St., London,
Gentlemen, — I would like to pay a tribute to the efficiency of the Otter Gear as fitted to the Goorkha. The last minefield I passed through in daylight, the Otters cut adrift three enemy moored mines (in 15 minutes) which came to the surface just abaft the bridge. In dangerous areas, especially such as some of the pro-enemy waters we have to traverse just now, the Otters are more than ever necessary, and look-outs are placed in Nos. 5 and 6 boats to watch the water surface above the Otters. The patients (who are able) are kept on deck with lifebelts on, and the crew also, as far as possible. The tremendous tearing sound and vibration caused by the mine mooring wire rushing along the Otter towing wire, does not leave many of the crew in their quarters forward, and is felt quite strongly on the forecastle head.
In the event of getting among mines, I see nothing for it but to steer a straight course, full speed if possible, as slowing down too much, or stopping, brings the Otters to the surface where they are useless, and turning under helm renders the stern liable to strike a mine, which the Otters have cut adrift. The very hard steel cutting teeth in the jaws of the Otter show little or no signs after cutting mine wires, although in one case, portions of the wire were found in the jaws, and in another a length of wire and the depth nipper were brought on board with the Otter. In another instance, the port Otter refused to work and came alongside ship, when it was found on hoisting it out of the water, that though it had cut the mine adrift, it had fouled the wire with some anchoring arrangement attached. The wire was cut with an axe, and the Otter freed.
In most cases, the mines cut adrift by the Goorkha's Otters have very shortly afterwards been sunk by gunfire. In the Mediterranean from 28th June to 17th November, the ship steamed 1594 hours, during which time the Otters were in use 361 hours.
Yours obediently,
(Signed) John D. Whitton.
