publicly to challcnsrc Riupi) to produce a cast gun 

 metal or cast steel to stand test against his."'' A year 

 later his attack on the distinguished French metal- 

 lurgist Fremy, whom he descriix-s as an "ass" lor his 

 interest in the so-called cyanogen process of steel 

 making, did little to enhance his reputation, whatever 

 the scientific justification for his attack. His attitude 

 toward the use of New Zealand (Taranaki) metal- 

 liferous sand, which he had ]5re\iousl\- favored and 

 then condemned in such a wa\- as to "injure a project 

 he can no longer control," "" was anotlier exami)lc of a 

 public l)eha\i()r e\identl\ resented. 



By niid-1861, on tlie otlier liaiul, Bessemer was 

 beginning to meet with increasing respect from the 

 trade. The .Sociel\ of Engineers reccixed a dispas- 

 sionate accoiml of the achievement at the Sheffield 

 Works from E. Riley, whose firm (Dowlais) was 

 among the earlier and disai)pointcd licensees of the 

 process." In August 1861. i'i\e \cars after the ill- 

 fated address before the British A.s.sociation, the 

 Institution of Mechanical Engineers, meeting in 

 Sheffield, the center of the British steel trade, heard 

 papers from Bessemer and from John Brown, a 

 famous ironmaster. The latter described the making 

 of Bessemer rails, the |)ro(hicl which above all was 

 to absorb the Bessemer plants in America after 1865. 

 .•\fter the meeting, the engineers visited Bessemer's 

 works; and later it was reported," "at Messrs. John 

 Brown and Company's works, the Bessemer process 

 was repeated on a still larger scale and a heavy 

 armor plate rolled in the presence of some 2.S0 

 visitors. ..." 



These ]3rocecdings invited Robert Mushet's inter- 

 vention. Still imder the iui]5ression that his jiatent 

 was still alive and, with Martien's, in the "able 

 hands" of the Ebbw \'ale Iron Company, he con- 

 demned Bessemer for his "lack of grace" to do him 

 justice, and took the occasion to indict the patent 

 system which denied him and Martien the fruits of 

 their labors.™ 



The Engineer foimd Mushet's position untenable on 

 the very groimds he was pleading — that patents 

 should not be issued to different men at different 

 times for the same thing; and showed that Bessemer 

 in his patents of January 4, 1856, and later, had 

 clearly anticipated Mushet. In a subsequent article. 



The Engineer disposed of Martien's and Mushet's 

 claims with a certain finaliiv . The Ebbw Vale Iron 

 Works had spent £7.11110 trying to carry out the 

 Martien process and it was imlikely that they would 

 have allowed Bessemer to infringe upon that patent 

 if they had any grounds for a case. Bessemer was 

 not iniiiaiini; Musiiet. The latter's "triple com- 

 pound" recjuired manganese pig-iron (with a content 

 of 2 to 5 percent of manganese) at £13 per ton while 

 Bessemer used an oxide of manganese (at a 50 peicciu 

 concentration) : at £7 per ton. 



The alloy of manganese and otlicr materials now u.sed in 

 the atmospheric process contains 50 percent of manganese, 

 a proportion which could never be obtained from the blast 

 furnace, owing to tlie highly o.xidisablc nature of that metal. 

 .\nd it is absolutely necessary, in order to apply any useful 

 alloy of iron, carbon and manganese, in the manufacture of 

 malleable iron and very soft steel that the manganese should 

 be largely in excess of the carbon present."" 



Sutlicient answer to Mushet was at any rate avail- 

 able in the fact that manv hundreds of tons of ex- 

 cellent "Bessemer metal" made without anv- mixture 

 of manganese or spicgeleisen in any form were in 

 successful use. .And, moreover, spiegeleisen was not 

 a discovery of Robert Mu.shet or an exclusive product 

 of Germany since it had been made for twent)- years 

 at least from Tow Law (Durham) ores. If Bessemer 

 had refused Mushet a license (and this was an ad- 

 mitted fact), Bessemer's refusal must have been made 

 in self-defense: 



Mr. Mushet having sei up a number of claims for "im- 

 provements" upon which claims, we have a right to suppose, 

 he was preparing to lake toll from Mr. Bessemer, but which 

 claims, the latter gentleman discovered, in time, were 

 worthless and accordingly declined any negotiations with the 

 individual making them,*' 



Mushet's claims were by this time rarely supported 

 in the periodicals. One interesting article in his favor 

 came in 1864 from a source of special interest to the 

 American situation. Mushet's .American patent ^^ had 



" The Engineer, 1860, vol. 9, pp. 366, 416, and passim. 



■» The Engineer, 1861, vol. 11, pp. 189, 202, 290, 304. 



" The Engineer, 1861, vol. 12, p. 10. 



" Ibid., p. 63. 



" Ibid., pp. 78 and 177, 



»" Ihul., p. 208. TlKMr is an intrit;uini{ reference in this edi- 

 torial to an interference on behalf of Martien against a Bessemer 

 application for a U. S. patent. No dates are given and the case 

 lias not been located in the record of U. S. I'atent Commis- 

 sioner's deci.sion. 



»' Ibid., p. 254. 



*! U. S. patent 17389, dated May 26, 1857. The patent was 

 not renewed when application was made in 1870, on the 

 grounds that the original patent had been made co-terminal 

 with the British patent. The latter had been abandoned "by 

 Mushet's own fault" so that no right existed to an .American 

 renewal (U. .S. Patent Office, Decision of Clommissioner of 

 Patents, dated .September 19, 1870). 



40 



Bl'I.I.F.TIN 218: CONTRIBl'TIONS FROM THK MUSEl'M Ol" HISrnRV .\ND TK.CHNOI.OGV 



