actinij unprorcssionally by giving Bessemer the |5iior 

 claim to the use of a receptacle. According to 

 Musliet, Marticn had in fact "actually and pviblich- 

 proved" his process in a receptacle aiui not in a 

 gutter, so that his claim to priority could be main- 

 tained on the basis of the provisional specification. 



This, like other Mushet allegations, was ignored by 

 Bessemer, and probably with good reason. At any 

 rate, Martien's American patent is in terms similar 

 to those of the British specification; he or his advisers 

 seem to have attached no significance to the dis- 

 tinction between a gutter and a receptacle. 



Mushet's claim to have afforded Bessemer the 

 means of makine: his own process useful is still sub- 

 ject to debate. Unfortunately, documentation of the 

 case is almost wholly one sided, since his biggest 

 publicizer was Mushet himself. An occasional edi- 

 torial in the technical press and a few replies to 

 Mushet's "lucubrations" are all the material which 

 exists, apart from Bessemer's own story. 



Mushet and at least five other men patented the 

 use of manganese in steel making in 1856; his own 

 provisional specification was filed within a month of 

 the pui)licatioii of Bessemer's British .Association ad- 

 dress in August 1856. So it is strange that Robert 

 Mushet did not until more than a year later join in 

 the controversy which followed that address. ■'*''* In 

 one of his early letters he claims to have made of 

 "his"' steel a bridge rail of 750 pounds weight; al- 

 though his brother insists that he saw the same rail 

 in the Ebbw Vale offices in London in the spring of 

 1857, when it was presented as a specimen of Uchatius 

 steel!" Robert Mushet's indignant "advertisement"' 

 of January 5, 1858,"" reiterating his parentage of this 

 sample, also claimed a double-headed steel rail 

 "made by me under another of my patent processes," 

 and sent to Derby to i)e laid down ihcrc lo be "sub- 

 jcted to intense vertricular triturations." Mushet's de- 

 scription of the preparation of this ingot "' shows that 

 it was derived from "Bessemer .scrap" made by Ebbw^ 

 Vale in the first unsuccessful attempts of that firm 

 to simulate the Bessemer process. This .scrap Mushet 

 had remelted in pots with spiegel in the proportions 

 of 44 pounds of scrap to ?> of melted spiegel. It was 



his claim that the rail was rolled direct from the 

 ingot, soniethinu; Bessemer himself could not do at 

 that time. 



This was the beginning of a series of claims by 

 Mushet as to his e.s.sential contributions to Bessemer's 

 invention. The silence of the latter during this jieriod 

 is impressive, for according to Bessemer's own ac- 

 count "■ his British Association address was premature, 

 and although the sale of licenses actually provided him 

 with working funds, the impatience of those experi- 

 menting with the process and the flood of competing 

 "inventions" all embarrassed him at the most critical 

 stage of this development of the process: "It was, 

 however, no use for me to argue the matter in the 

 press. All that I could say would be mere talk and I 

 felt that action was necessary, and not words." '' 



Action took the form of continued experiments and, 

 by the end of 1857, a decision to build his own plant 

 at Sheffield."* An important collateral development 

 resulted from the visit to London in May 1857 of 

 G. F. Goran.s.son of Gefle. .Sweden. L sing Bessemer 

 equipment, Goransson began trials of the process in 

 November 1857 and by October 1858 was able to 

 report: "Our firm has now entirely given up the 

 manufacture of bar iron, and our blast furnaces and 

 tilt mills are now wholly employed in makinu; steel by 

 the Bessemer process, which may, therefore, be now 

 considered an accomplished commercial fact." '^ 



Goransson was later to claim considerable improve- 

 ments i;n the method of introducing the blast, and, in 

 consequence, the first effective demonstration of the 

 Bessemer method "" — this at a time when Bessemer 

 was still remelting the product of his con\erter in 

 crucibles, after granulating the steel in water. If 

 Mushet is to be believed, this success of Goransson's 

 was w holly due to his ore being "totally free from phos- 

 phorous and sulphur." '" However, Bessemer's own 

 progress was substantial, for his Sheffield works were 

 rejjorted as being in acti\'e operation in .April 1859, 

 and a price for his engineers' tool and spindle steel was 



'* October 17, 1857, writing as "Sidcros" {Mining Journal, 

 1857, vol. 27, p. 723). 



^' Mining Journal, 1857, vol. 27, p. 871, and 1858, vol. 28, 

 p. 12. 



"/Airf. (1858), p. 34. 



" Mushet, op. cil. (footnote 46), p. 12. The phrase quoted is 

 typical of Mushet's style. 



'- Bessemer, op. cil. (footnote 7), pp. 161 ff. and 256 ff. 



«'/*/(/., p. 171. 



''* This enterprise, started in conjunction with Galloway's of 

 Manchester, one of the firms licensed by Bessemer to make his 

 equipment, was under way by .April 1858 (see Mining Journal, 

 1858, vol. 28, p. 259). 



"' Mining Journal, 1858, vol. 28, p. 696. Mushet commented 

 (p. 713) that he ha<l done the same thing "eighteen 

 months ago." 



«« Swank, op. cit. (footnote 42), p. 405. 



»' The Enginffr, 1859, vol. 7, p. 350. 



38 



BULLETIN 218: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OI- HIS^OR^• AND TECHNOLOGY 



