303 
by R. Mallet, Esq.’”’ &c., and by his continuation, read on the 28th of 
May last,* arising out of the discussion upon the former. 
I regret that I was so engaged elsewhere since the meeting of 14th 
May, as to have been unable to supply, as I had intended, a written 
memorandum of what I said then in reply; and that I was unavoidably 
absent upon the last occasion, and therefore unable at the moment to 
reply to the statements by which, now for the third or fourth time since 
the year 1855, Captain Blakely has endeavoured to take from others rights 
of priority, as a discoverer and inventor, that I cannot admit ever be- 
longed to him. Iam now, however, enabled, by permission of the Aca- 
demy, to place upon permanent record the facts by which those rights 
must be adjudged. I hope to do so in a clear and consecutive manner, 
and I challenge Captain Blakely to impugn the correctness of the state- 
ments I am about to make, in any way material to the issue. 
The two issues raised are, first, Is Captain Blakely the true and ori- 
ginal inventor of the method of constructing ordnance in superimposed 
rings, with initial tension,—the first man who had clearly grasped the 
tdea, that by such construction a vast accession of strength might be 
given to the cylinder,—-the first who comprehended its importance,—and 
the first who pointed out or invented the method by which the idea 
should practically be carried out or realized? This issue lies between 
Captain Blakely and myself, in the first stance. 
The second issue lies between Captain Blakely and Dr. Hart, and 
arises on the question, Which of those two gentlemen first znvestiguted, 
in mathematical form, how much additional strength this construction 
could give, and what were the laws that should regulate it ? © 
The determination of both issues resolves itself into a question of dates. 
It has been long recognised and understood all over Europe, as a 
principle, that first publication establishes the right to priority in invention, 
investigation, or discovery ; hence the maxim of patent law, that ‘‘ second 
inventors have no rights’--a maxim equally acted on throughout the 
world of science, as respects the rights of scientific investigators or dis- 
coverers, ever since the days of Newton and Leibnitz. 
The dates, then, upon which Captain Blakely’s claim to prior publica- 
tion rests are as follow :—Upon the 27th of February, 1855, he applied 
for a patent for improvements in ordnance, lodging a provisional specifi- 
cation. This patent was specified on the 14th of August, 1855. Its 
claims, as specified, are for ‘‘the forming guns of an internal tube, en- 
closed in an external casing. The latter may be formed in rings, which 
may be driven on upon the internal tube, made conical to receive them ; 
or may be heated and shrunk on. ‘Two or more plies of such rings may 
be used; and old guns, i. e. guns cast on the then ordinary plan, may be 
strengthened by such rings.”’ This specification (No. 431, for A. D. 1855, 
in Patent Records), therefore, contains the idea and invention of increasing 
the strength of guns by superimposed rings, with initial tension ; although 
it is remarkable that no allusion whatever is made throughout to the 
* [Mr. Mallet was not present on this occasion.—Ep. | 
