Ik'cii bouylu l)\ an American group interested in the 

 Kelh' jjrocess at about tliis tiine,'*^ and Bessemcr's 

 American rights had also been sold to an American 

 group that inchided Alexander Lyman Holley,'^ who 

 had long been associated with Zerah Colburn, another 

 American engineer. Oolburn, who subsequently 

 (1866) established the London [jcriodical Engineering 

 and is regarded as one ol the founders of engineering 

 journalism, was from 1862 onward a frequent con- 

 tributor to other trade pa])ers in London. C'.olburn's 

 article of 1864 ''^ seems to ha\-e been of some impor- 

 tance to Mushet, who, in the prospectus of the Titanic 

 Steel and Iron Company, Ltd., issued soon after, 

 brazenly asserted *^ that, "by the process of Mr. 

 Mushet especially when in combination with the Bessemer 

 process, steel as good as Swedish steel" would be 

 produced at £6 per ton. Mushet may have intended 

 to invite a patent action, but evidently Bessemer 

 could now more than ever afford to ignore the "sage 

 of Coleford." 



The )ear 1865 saw Mushet less provocative and 

 more appealing; as for instance: "It was no fault of 

 Mr. Bessemer's that my patent was lost, but he ought 

 to acknowledge his obligations to me in a manh . 

 straightforward manner and this would stamp him 

 as a great man as well as a great inventor." *' 



But Bessemer evidently remained convinced of the 

 security of his own patent position. \i\ an address 

 before the British Association at Birmingham in 

 September 1865 he made his first public reply to 

 Mushet."* In his long series of patents Mushet had 

 attempted to secure — 



almost every conceivable mode of iiuroducing manganese 

 into the metal. . . . Manganese and its compounds were 

 so claimed under all imaginable conditions that if this series 

 of patents could have been sustained in law, it would have 

 been utterly impossible for [me] to have employed man- 

 ganese with steel made by his process, although it was 

 considered by the trade to be impossible lo make steel from 

 coke-made iron without it. 



'' .See below, p. 45. The exact date of the purchase of 

 Mushet's patent is not known. 



«' Engineering, 1882, vol. 33, p. 114. Ihe deal was coinpletcd 

 in 1863. 



»5 Tlie Engineer, 1864, vol. 18, pp. 405, 406. 



"« Mining Journal, 1 864, vol. 34, pp. 77 and 94 (italics sup- 

 plied). It has not yet been possible to ascertain if this com- 

 pany was successful. Mushet writ<-s from this time on from 

 C:heltcnham, where the company had its ofTices. Research 

 continues in this interesting aspect of his career. 



" Mining Engineer, 1865, vol. 35, p. 86. 



s« The Engineer. 1865, vol. 20, p. 174. 



I'.VPER 3: BEGINNINGS OF CHEAP STEEL 



T he failure of tho.se who controlled Mushet's batch 

 of patents to renew them at the end of three years, 

 Bessemer ascribed to the low public estimation to 

 which Mushet's process had sunk in 1859, and he had 

 therefore, ''u.scd without scru|)le any of these numer- 

 ous patents for manganese without feeling an over- 

 whelming sense of obligation to the patentee." He 

 was now using fcrromanganese made in Glasgow. 

 Another alloy, consisting of 60 to 80 percent of metallic 

 manganese was also available to him from Germany. 



This renewed publicity brought forth no immediate 

 reply from Mushet, but a year later he was invited to 

 read a paper before the British Association. A report 

 on the meeting stated that in his paper he repeated 

 his oft-told story, and that "he still thought that the 

 accident (of the non-payment of the patent stamp 

 duties) ought not to debar him from receiving the 

 reward to which he was justly entitled." Bessemer, 

 who was present, reiterated his constant willingness to 

 submit the matter to the courts of law, but pointed out 

 that Mushet had not accepted the challenge.** 



Three months later, in December 1866, Mushet's 

 daughter called on Bessemer and asked his help to 

 prevent the lo.ss of their home: "They tell me you use 

 my father's inventions and are indebted to him for 

 your success." Bessemer replied characteristically: 



I use what your father has no right to claim; and if 

 he had the legal position you seem to suppose, he could stop 

 my business by an injunction tomorrow and get many 

 thousands of pounds compensation for my infringement of 

 his rights. The only result which followed from your 

 father taking out his patents was that they pointed out to 

 me some rights which I already- possessed, but of which I 

 was not availing myself. Thus he did me some service and 

 even for this unintentional service, I cannot live in a state of 

 indebtedness. . . . 



With that he gave Miss Mushet money to cover a 

 debt for which distraint was threatened.** Soon after 

 this action, Bessemer made Mushet a "small allow- 

 ance" of £300 a year. Bessemer's reasons for making 

 this payment, he describes as follows: "There was a 

 strong desire on my part to make him (Mushet) my 

 debtor rather than the reverse, and the payment had 

 other advantages: the press at that time was violently 

 attacking my patent and there was the chance that if 

 any of my licensees were thus induced to resist my 

 claims, all the rest might follow the example." " 



S9 .Mechanics' .Magazine, 1866, vol. 16, p. 147. 

 «• Bessemer, ofi. cit. (footnote 7), p. 294. 

 »' Ibid. 



41 



