\idcd the greater part of the stt-i'l production of the 

 I'nited States. It concerns four men for whom 

 ])riority of invention in one or more aspects of the 

 ])rocess has been claimed. 



The process consists in forcing through molten cast 

 iron, held in a vessel called a converter, a stream of 

 cold air under pressure. The combination of the 

 o.xygen in the air with the silicon and carbon in the 

 metal raises the temperature of the latter in a spec- 

 tacular way and after "blowing" for a certain period, 

 cHminates the carbon from the metal. Since steel of 

 various qualities demands the inclusion of from 0.15 

 to 1.70 percent of carbon, the blow has to be terini- 

 nated before the elimination of the whole carbon 

 content; or if the carbon content has been eliminated 

 the appropriate percentage of carbon has to be put 

 back. This latter operation is carried out by adding 

 a precise quantity of manganiferous pig-iron (.spiegel- 

 eisen) or ferromanganese, the manganese serving to 

 remove the oxygen, which has combined with the 

 iron during the blow. 



The controversy which surrounded its do\elo|3inent 

 concerned two aspects of the process: The use of the 

 cold air blast to raise the temperature of the molten 

 metal, and the application of manganese to overcome 

 the problem of control of the carbon and oxygen 

 content. 



Bessemer, who began his experiments in the making 

 of iron and steel in 1854, secured his first jjatent in 

 Great Britain in January 1855, and was persuaded to 

 present information al)out his discovery to a meeting 

 of the British Association for the Advancement of 

 Science held at Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, in 

 .•\ugust 1856. His title "The Manufacture of Iron 

 without Fuel"" was given wide jiublicity in Great 

 Britain and in the United States. Among those who 

 wrote to the papers to contest Bessemer's theories 

 were several claimants to ])riority of invention. 



Two men claimed that they had antici|3ated Bes- 

 semer in the invention of a method of treating molten 

 metal with air-blasts for the purpose of "purifying" or 

 decarbonizing iron. Both were Americans. Joseph 

 Gilbert Martien, of Newark, New Jersey, who at the 

 time of Bessemer's address was working at the plant 

 of the Ebbw \'alc Iron Works, in South Wales, 

 secured a provisional patent a few days before Bes- 

 semer obtained one of his series of patents for making 

 cast steel, a circumstance which provided ammunition 

 for those who wished to dispute Bessemer's somewhat 

 spectacular claims. William Kelly, an ironmaster ol 

 Eddyville, Kentucky, brought into action by an 



P.A,PER j: 



BEGINNING.S OF CHE.M' .SIKIX 



.\inerican report of Bessemer's British A.ssocialion 

 paper, opposed the granting of a United States 

 patent to Bessemer and substantiated, to the satis- 

 faction of the C^ommissioner of Patents, his claim to 

 priority in the "air boiling" process. 



A third man, this one a Scot resident in England, 

 intervened to claim that he had devised the means 

 whereby Martien's and Bessemer's ideas could \x: 

 made practical. He was Robert Mushet of Coleford, 

 Gloucestershire, a metallurgist and self-appointed 

 "sage" of the British iron and steel industry who abo 

 was associated with the Ebbw Vale Iron Works as a 

 consultant. He, like his American contemporaries, 

 has become established in the pui)lic mind as one 

 upon whom Henry Bessemer was dependent for the 

 origin and success of his process. Since Bessemer was 

 the only one of the group to make money from the 

 expansion of the steel industry consequent upon the 

 introduction of the new technique, the suspicion has 

 remained that he cxijloited the inventions of the 

 others, if indeed he did not steal them. 



In this study, based largely upon the contemporary 

 discussion in the technical press, the relation of the 

 four men to each other is re-examined and an attemjjt 

 is made to place the controversy of 1855-1865 in 

 focus. The necessitv for a reapprai.>al arises from the 

 fact that today's references to the origin of Bessemer 

 steel ' often contain chronological and other inac- 

 curacies arising in many cases from a dependence on 

 secondary and sometimes unreliaiile sources. .As a 

 result, Kelly's contribution has, perhaps, been over- 

 emphasized, with the effect of derogating from the 

 work of another .American, .\lexander Lyman Holley, 

 who more than any man is entitled to credit for 

 establishing Bessemer steel in .\merica.' 



Steel Before the 1850's 



In spite of a rapid increase in the use of machines and 

 the overwhelming demand for iron products for the 

 expanding railroads, the use of steel had expanded 



-See especially mateiial distributed by the American Iron 

 and Steel Institute in connection with its celebration of the 

 centennial of Steel: "Steel centennial (19S7), prcia informa- 

 tion,"' prepared by Hill and Knowllon. Inc., and released by 

 the Institute as of May 1, 1957. 



5 Holley's work is outside the scope of this paper. Belatedly, 

 his biography is now beinp written. It can hardly fail to sub- 

 stantiate the contention that during his short life (1832-1882) 

 Holley, who negotiated the purchase of the .American rights 

 to Bessemer's process, also adapted his methods to the .American 

 scene and laid a substantial part of the foundation for the 

 modern .American steel industry. 



29 



