fact which did not come lo Mushet's knowledge uniil 

 1861. when he himself declared that the patent ''was 

 never in my hands at all [so] that I could not enforce 

 it." '" 



Further support for the thesis that Ehbw Vale's 

 policy was in part dictated ljy a desire to make Bes- 

 semer "see the matter difl'erently"" is lo be found in 

 the climatic episode. Work on Marlien's patents 

 had not been abandoned and in 1861 certain patents 

 were taken out by George Parry, Kbliw Vale's 

 furnace manager. These, represented as improve- 

 ments oi Martien's designs, were regarded by Bes- 

 semer as clear infringements of his own patents." 

 When it came to Bes.semer's knowledge that Ehbw 

 \'ale was proposing to "go to the public" for addi- 

 tional capital with which to finance, in part, a large 

 scale working of Parry's process, he threatened the 

 financial promoter with injunctions and succeeded 

 in opening negotiations for a settlement. All the 

 patents "which had been for years suspended" over 

 Bessemer were turned over to him for £30,000. 

 Ebbw Vale, thereupon, issued their prospectus ** 

 with the significant statement that the directors 

 "have agreed for a license for the manufacture of 

 steel by the Bessemer process which, from the peculiar 

 resources they possess, they will be enabled to produce 

 in very large quantities. . . ." So Bessemer became 

 theownerof the Martien and Parry patents. Mushet's 

 basic patents no longer existed. 



Mushct and Bessemer 



That Mushet was "used" by Ebbw \'ale against 

 Bessemer is, perhaps, only an assumption; but that he 

 was badly treated by Ebbw Vale is subject to no 

 doubt. Mushet's business capacity was small but it 

 is difficult to believe that he could have been so foolish 

 as to assign an interest in his patents to Ebbw \'ale 

 without in some way insuring his right of consultation 

 about their disposition. He claims that even in the 

 drafting of his specifications he was obliged to follow 

 the demands of Ebbw \'ale, which firm, believing, 

 "on the advice of Mr. Hindmarsh, the most eminent 

 patent counsel of the day," " that Martien's patent 

 outranked Bessemer's, insisted that Mushet link his 



process to Martien's. This, as late as 1861, Mushet 

 believed to be in effective oiieration.'" His later 

 repudiation of the process as an absurd and impracti- 

 cable patent process "possessing neither value nor 

 utilit\ " ^' may more truly represent his opinion, espe- 

 cialK as, when he wrote his 1861 comment, he still 

 did not know of the disappearance of his patents. 



Mushet's boast '-' that he had never been into an 

 ironworks other than his own in Cloleford is a clue to 

 the interpretation of his behavior in general and also 

 of his frecjuent presumptuous claims. \Vhen, for in- 

 stance, the development of the L'chatius process was 

 publicized, he gave his opinion ^' that the process was 

 a useless one and had been patented before L'chatius 

 "understood its nature"; yet later ^' he could claim 

 that the jirocess was "in fact, m\' own invention and 

 I had made and sold the steel thus produced for some 

 years previously to the date of Captain L'chatius' 

 patent." Moreover, he claims to have instructed 

 L^chatius' agents in its operation! He may, at this 

 later date, have recalled his challenge (the first of 

 many such) in which he offered Uchatius' agent in 

 England to pay a monetary penalty if he could not 

 show a superior method of fjroducing "sound service- 

 able cast steel from British coke pig-iron, on lite slomic 

 plan and without any mi.xture of clay, oxide of man- 

 ganese or any of these pot destroying ingredients." ^^ 



It was David Mushet (or Robert, using his 

 brother's name)''" who accused Bessemer, or rather his 

 patent agent, Carpmael, of sharp practice in connec- 

 tion with Martien's specification, an allegation later 

 supported by Martien's first patent agent, Avery." 

 The story was that for the drafting of his final specifica- 

 tion, Martien, presumably with the advice of the Ebbw 

 Vale Iron Works, consulted the same Carpmael, as 

 "the leading man" in the field. The latter advised 

 that the provisional specification restricted Martien 

 to the application of his method to iron flowing in a 

 channel or gutter from the blast furnace, and so 

 prevented him from applying his aeration principle 

 in any kind of receptacle. In effect, Carpmael was 



*' Robert Mushct, //« Bessemer-Mushcl process, Chcllcnhaiii, 

 1883, p. 24; The Engineer, \?,b\, vol. 12, pp. 177 and 189. 



" The Engineer, 1862, vol. 14, p. 3. Bessemer, op. cil. (foot- 

 note?), p. 296. 



*' Mining Journal, 1864, vol. 34, p. 478. 



" The Engineer, 1861, vol. 12, p. 189. 



=0 Ibid., p. 78. 



" Mushet, op. cit. (footnote 46), p. 9. 



" Ibid., p. 25. 



" .Mining Journal, 1857, vol. 27, p. 755. 



'* Mushet, op. eil. (footnote 46), p. 28. The Uchatius process 

 became the "You-cheat-us" process to Mushet {.Mining Journal, 

 1858, vol. 28, p. 34). 



*' .Mining Journal, 1857, vol. 27, p. 755 (italics supplied). 



" See footnote 22. 



" Mining Journal, 1856, vol. 26, pp. 583, 631. 



P.APER 3: BEGINNINGS OF CHE.AP STEEL 



37 



