ituluclcti in the Mining Journal ''Minini;; Market" 

 weekly ciuotations for the first time "** on June 4, 1859. 

 In Ma\ 1859 Bessemer gave a paper, his first public 

 |)r()nouncement since August 1856, before the Institu- 

 tion of Ci\il Engineers.'^' The early process, he 

 admitted, had led to failure because the process had 

 not reduced the fiii.mtity of sulphur and |)hosphorous, 

 but his accoimt is xa^ue as to the nianncr in which he 

 dealt with this problem: 



Sicam and pure hydrogen gas wore tried, wiili more or 

 less success in the removal of sulphur, and various flues, 

 composed chiefly of silicates of the oxide of iron and 

 manganese were brought in contact with the fluid nieufl. 

 during the process and the quaniiiy of ])hosphorous was 

 thereby reduced. 



But the clear implication is that the commercial o|K-ra- 

 tion at Sheffield was based on the use of the best 

 Swedish pig iron and the hematite pig from Work- 

 ington. The use of manganese as standard practice 

 at this time is not referred to,™ but the rotary con- 

 verter and the use of ganister linings are mentioned 

 for the first time. 



Mushet had, with some intuition, found opportunity 

 to reassert his contributions to Bessemer a few days 

 before this address, describing his process as perhaps 

 lacking "the extraordinary merit of Mr. Bessemer,"' 

 being "merely a vigorous offshoot proceeding from 

 that great discovery; but, combined with Mr. Besse- 

 nier's process, it places within the reach of every iron 

 manufacturer to produce cast steel at the same cost 

 for which he can now make his best iron." '' 



One of Mushet's replies to the pa])er itself took the 

 form of the announcement of his pro\isional patent lor 

 the use of his triple coinpound which, in the opinion 

 of The Mining Journal appeared to be "but a very slight 

 modification of seveial of Mr. Bcssenier's inventions." 

 Another half dozen patents appeared within two 

 months, "so that it is apparent that Mr. Mushet's 



*" Mining Jnitrnal. 18.S9, vol. 29, pp. 396 and tOl. llic price 

 quotation was continued until .•\pril 1865. 



«» Thf Engineer, 18S9, vol. 7, p. 437. 



'"Jeans, op. cit. (footnote 5), p. 349 refers to the hematite ores 

 of Lancashire and Cumberland as "the ores hitherto almost 

 exclusively used in the Bessemer proces.s." 



\ definitive account of the Swedish development of the 

 Bessemer process, leading to a well-documented claim that the 

 first practical realization of the proces,s was achieved in Sweden 

 in July 1858, was recently published (Per Carlbcrg, "Early 

 Production of Bessemer Steel at Edsken," Journal of the Iron and 

 Steel Institute, Great Britain, July 1958, vol. 189, p. 201. 



"' The Engineer, 1859, vol. 7, p. 314. Bessemer's intention to 

 present his paper had been announced in .April. 



faihuc to make the public appreciate his theories has 

 not injured his inventive faculties." "^ These patents 

 include, besides variations on his "triple compound" 

 theme, his important patent on the use of tungsten for 

 cutting tools, later to be known as Mushet steel."'' 



Mushet's formal pronouncement on Bessemer's 

 paper, dated June 28, 1859, is perhaps his most 

 intelligible communication on the subject. He alone 

 ■■from the first consistent!)' advocated the merits and 

 pointed out the defects of the Bessemer process," and 

 within a few days of the British .■Xs.sociation address he 

 had shown Ebbw Vale "where the defect would be 

 found and what woidd remedy" it. It was not, in fact, 

 the |3resence of one-tenth of a percent of sulphur or 

 phosjjhorous which affected the result if the Bessemer 

 process were combined with his process by adding a 

 triple compoimd of iron, carbon, and manganese to 

 the pia;. "There never was a bar of first-rate cast 

 steel made b\- the Bessemer process alone"; (and that 

 included Gorans.son's product) "and there never can 

 be, but a cheap kind of steel applicable to several 

 purposes may be thus produced." .\fter emphasizing 

 the imiciueness of his attempt to make Bessemer's 

 process successful, he asserts:"* 



In short, I merely availed myself of a great metallurgical 

 fact, wliic/i has been for years before the eyes of the metallurgical 

 world, namely that the presence of metallic manganese in 

 iron and steel conferred upon both an amount of toughness 

 cither when cold or when heated, which the presence at the 

 same time of a notable amount of sulphur and phosphorous 

 could not overcome. 



The succeeding years were enlivened, one by one, 

 by some controversy in which Mushet invoked the 

 shadow of his late father as support for some pro- 

 nouncement, or "edict," as some said, on the subject 

 of making iron and steel. In 1860, on the question of 

 suitable metal for artillery, later to be the subject of 

 high controversy among the leading experts of the 

 day, Mushet found a ready solution in his own gun 

 metal. This he had developed fifteen years before. 

 It was of a tensile strength better even than that of 

 Krupp of Essen who was then specializing in the 

 making of large blocks of cast steel for hea\y forginsjs, 

 and particularly for guns. Indeed, he was able 



'- Mining Journal, 1 859, vol. 29, p. 539 and 640. .\nothcr 

 Mushet patent is described as .so much like Uchatius' process 

 that it would seem to be almost unpatentable. 



"' Sec Jeans, op. cit. (footnote 5), p. 532. 



'* The Engineer, 1859, vol. 8, p. 13 (italics supplied). It is 

 noted that Mushet's .Xmcrican patent (17389, of May 26, 1857) 

 prefers the use of iron "as free as possible from Sulphur and 

 Phosphorous." 



F.\PER 3: 



BEGINNINGS OF CHE.AP STEEL 



39 



