Contributions from
The Museum
of History
axd Technology:
Paper
3
The Beginnings of Cheap Steel
Philip If. Bishop
STEEL BEFORE THE
1850s
29
BESSEMER AND HIS COMPETITORS
30
ROBERT MUSHET
33
EBBW VALE AND THE BESSEMER
PROCESS
35
MUSHET AND BESSEMER
37
WILLIAM Kelly's air-boiling process
42
CONCLUSIONS
46
27
471274—59
3
THE BEGINNINGS OF CHEAP STEEL
Bv Philip
Other
W.
Bishop
claimed a part in the inven-
inroitors
Here,
the Bessemer process of making steel.
the contemporary discussion in the technical press
tioii of
re-examined to throw light on the relations of
these various claimants to the iron and steel industry
of their time, as having a possible connection with
is
shown by
the antagonism
ironmasters toward
the
Bessemer' s ideas.
The Author:
arts
nology,
in
the
States National
THK
DEVELOPMENT
Philip
general by major innovations in the field of power,
occurrence
certain
affected
of
the
materials
to
irxiiles,
tion, the
One
of
the
these
and economical rawthe machine tool and transportation
flow of suitable
industries: in spite of a rapid
were
was retarded by
bottlenecks.
methods of making
in the previous century;
growth of iron producsteel
remained as they
and outputs remained
negligible.
In the decade 1855-1865, this situation w-as
pletely
28
changed
in
Great Britain and
in
/s
curator of
of History and Tech-
Museum.
of the world's i)rociuctivc re-
and
Bishop
Smithsonian Institution's United
sources during the 19th century, accelerated in
transportation,
W.
and manufactures. Museum
com-
Europe
and when tiie United States emerged from
War, that country found itself in a position
take advantage of the European innovations and
generally;
the Civil
to
to start a [)eriod of
was
growth which,
in the
next 50 years,
to establish lier as the world's largest
producer of
steel.
This study reviews the controversy as to the origin
more than 35 years ' pro-
of the process which, for
'
From 1870 through
1907,
"Bessemer"
production
ac-
than 50 percent of United States steel
production. From 1880 through 1895, 80 percent of all steel
came from this source: Historical Statistics of the United .States
counted
for not less
1789-1945 (Washington, U. S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, 1949), Table- J. 165-170 at p. 187.
BULLETIN 218: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY
\idcd the greater part of the
States.
I'nited
production of the
stt-i'l
concerns
men
four
invention in one or
])riority of
more
aspects of the
under pressure.
air
after
and carbon
"blowing"
demands
if
Since steel of
the inclusion of from 0.15
the carbon content has been eliminated
the appropriate percentage of carbon has to be put
This
back.
latter operation
is
A
man,
third
this
one a Scot resident
in
England,
whereby Martien's and Bessemer's ideas could \x:
made practical. He was Robert Mushet of Coleford,
Gloucestershire, a metallurgist and self-appointed
"sage" of the British iron and steel industry who abo
was associated with the Ebbw Vale Iron Works as a
consultant.
He, like his American contemporaries,
has become established in the pui)lic mind as one
upon whom Henry Bessemer was dependent for the
origin and success of his process. Since Bessemer was
the only one of the group to make money from the
expansion of the steel industry consequent upon the
nated before the elimination of the whole carbon
content; or
priority in the "air boiling" process.
in the
percent of carbon, the blow has to be terini-
to 1.70
A.ssocialion
intervened to claim that he had devised the means
for a certain period,
cHminates the carbon from the metal.
various qualities
British
of the
metal raises the temperature of the latter in a spec-
way and
of Bessemer's
report
opposed the granting of a United States
patent to Bessemer and substantiated, to the satispaper,
stream of
The combination
o.xygen in the air with the silicon
tacular
.\inerican
faction of the C^ommissioner of Patents, his claim to
process consists in forcing through molten cast
iron, held in a vessel called a converter, a
cold
whom
for
has been claimed.
])rocess
The
It
carried out by adding
a precise quantity of manganiferous pig-iron (.spiegel-
manganese serving to
remove the oxygen, which has combined with the
eisen) or ferromanganese, the
introduction of the
new
remained that he
cxijloited
others,
iron during the blow.
if
technique, the suspicion has
the
inventions of the
indeed he did not steal them.
do\elo|3inent
In this study, based largely upon the contemporary
concerned two aspects of the process: The use of the
cold air blast to raise the temperature of the molten
discussion in the technical press, the relation of the
metal, and the application of manganese to overcome
the problem of control of the carbon and oxygen
is
The
controversy which surrounded
its
men to each other is re-examined and an attemjjt
made to place the controversy of 1855-1865 in
focus. The necessitv for a reapprai.>al arises from the
four
content.
fact that today's references to the origin of
Bessemer, who began his experiments in the making
of iron and steel in 1854, secured his first jjatent in
Great Britain in January 1855, and was persuaded to
present information al)out his discovery to a meeting
steel
of the British Association for the
Science
.•\ugust
held
1856.
at
His
Cheltenham,
Advancement of
Gloucestershire,
"The Manufacture
title
without Fuel"" was given wide jiublicity
Britain
in
of Iron
in
Great
wrote to
many
cases
from a dependence on
secondary and sometimes unreliaiile sources.
result,
.As
a
Kelly's contribution has, perhaps, been over-
emphasized, with the
effect of derogating
from the
work of another .American, .\lexander Lyman Holley,
who more than any man is entitled to credit for
establishing Bessemer steel in .\merica.'
United States. Among those who
the papers to contest Bessemer's theories
and
in the
were several claimants
to ])riority of invention.
Two men
claimed that they had antici|3ated Bessemer in the invention of a method of treating molten
metal with air-blasts for the purpose of "purifying" or
decarbonizing iron. Both were Americans. Joseph
Gilbert Martien, of Newark,
New
Jersey,
who
at the
time of Bessemer's address was working at the plant
of the Ebbw \'alc Iron Works, in South Wales,
secured a provisional patent a few days before Bessemer obtained one of his series of patents for making
which provided ammunition
dispute Bessemer's somewhat
cast steel, a circumstance
for those
curacies arising in
Bessemer
chronological and other inac-
contain
often
'
who wished
to
William Kelly, an ironmaster ol
Kentucky, brought into action by an
Steel Before the 1850's
In spite of a rapid increase in the use of machines and
overwhelming demand for iron products for the
expanding railroads, the use of steel had expanded
the
-See especially mateiial distributed by the American Iron
and Steel Institute in connection with its celebration of the
centennial of Steel: "Steel centennial (19S7), prcia information,"'
prepared by Hill and Knowllon.
the Institute as of
5
Holley's
work
May
is
1,
Inc.,
and
outside the scope of this paper.
now beinp
released by
1957.
Belatedly,
can hardly fail to substantiate the contention that during his short life (1832-1882)
Holley, who negotiated the purchase of the .American rights
to Bessemer's process, also adapted his methods to the .American
his
biography
is
written.
It
spectacular claims.
scene and laid a substantial part of the foundation for the
Eddyville,
modern .American
P.A,PER
j:
BEGINNING.S OF CHE.M' .SIKIX
steel industry.
29
litilf
The im-lhoils
prior lo 185i>.
lari^cly those of a
still
tion of the steel
production wen-
ol
Slow prepara-
century earlier.
by cementation or
in cruciljlcs
and a
a disproportionate consumption of fuel
high
Production
cost.
meant
the adoption of steel in uses wltich required large
Steel was. in fact, a luxury
masses of metal.
initial
product.
The work of Reaumur and, especially, of Huntsman,
whose development of cast steel after 1740 secured an
international reputation for Sheffield, had established
the cementation and crucible processes as the primary
source of cast
steel,
100 years.
nearly
for
Marshall Heath's patents of 1839, were the
opments in the direction of cheaper steel,
first
from
the addition to the charge of
was
percent of carburet of manganese
Heath's failure to word
patent
his
to 3
1
.so
as to cover also
manganese led to
the efTective breakdown of that patent and to the
general adoption of his process without payment of
method
his
of producing carburet of
license or royalty.
cost of
its
In
production,
sjiile
of this reduction in the
remained, until after the
steel
midpoint of the century, an insignificant item in the
steel industry, being used prin-
output of the iron and
cipally in the
The
manufacture of cutlery and edge tools.
new methods of making steel
stimulus towards
and, indeed, of making
new
came
steels
curiously
enough from outside the established industry, from a
man who was not an ironmaster Henry Bessemer.
The way in which Bes.semcr challenged the trade was
There are few cases in which a stranger
itself unusual.
—
an industry has taken the
to
of a
new
process in a pul)lic
British Association for the
He
risk of
forum
giving a description
like a
meeting of the
Advancement
own
but to produce evidence from their
plants that
they could provide an alternative means of satisfying
an emergent demand.
Whether or not Bessemer
entitled to claim priority of invention,
agree with the ironmaster
who
said:
"
one can but
"Mr. Bessemer
has raised such a spirit of en(|uiry throughout
'
Andrew Ure,
is
.
.
Dictionary of arts, manujacturrs and mines.
.
the
New
York, 1856, p. 735.
abridgement of British patent 8021 of 1839 quoted by
James S. Jeans, Steel, London, 1880, p. 28 ff. It is not clear
that Heath was aware of the precise chemical effect of the use of
manfianesc in this way.
« Mining Journal, 1857, vol. 27, p. 465.
ended wiih
"
bear
successful
A
name, not
his
the
in
patent issued on the day before
a
birthday.
.seventieth
patents
117
of
total
all
of them, by
of producing a
sense
British
any means,
substantial
Curiously, Bessemer's financial stability was
income.
assured by the success of an invention he did not
patent.
This was a process of making bronze powder
and gold
Germany.
Bessemer's
imported product,
1830's a secret held
the
until
paint,
substitute
in the
for
in
an expensive
then state of the patent laws,
would have failed to give him an adequate reward if
he had been unable to keep his process secret. To
assure this reward, he had to design, assemble, and
organize a plant capable of operation with a
and with
of hired labor
fact
that
virtually
minimmn
The
close .security control.
he kept the method secret for 40 years,
suggests that his
machinery
automatic
*
(Bessemer describes
it
as
an
advance
represented
operation)
in
appreciation of coordinated design greatly in
of his time.
His experience must have directly con-
tributed to his conception of his steel process not as a
metallurgical trick but as an industrial process; for
when
the time came, Bessemer patented his discovery
as a process rather than as a formula.
of Science.
challenged the trade, not only to attack his theories
death, although the public record of his
his
his
as a deoxidizer.
^
uniil
devel-
'
secret
I
environment and his unusual ability to synthesize his
ob.servation and experience enabled Bessemer to begin
a career of invention by registering his first patent at
the age of 2.S.
His active experimenting continued
results
leading to a reduction of from 30 to 40 percent in the
Heath's
price of good steel in the Sheffield market.
manu-
ol
Henry Bessemer (1813-1898), an Englishman of
French extraction, was the son of a mechanical
lis
engineer with a special interest in mctalhugy.
Josiah
his process
syslciii
Bessemc-r and his Competitors
resulting
small ciuantities prevented
in
land as nuist Icid lo an improved
facture.''
In
the
light
of
subsequent developments,
it
is
necessary to consider Bessemer's attitude toward the
patent privilege.
as
He
describes his secret gold paint
an example of "what the public has had
not being able to give
in a situation
.
.
.
to
pay
for
security to the inventor"
where the production of the material
"could not be identified as having been made by any
particular form of mechanism.'"* The inability to
obtain a patent over the method of production meant
that the disclosure of his formula, necessary for patent
would openly
specification,
in\ile
competitors,
in-
'.Sec
30
~
Sir
Henry Bessemer, F. R.
S.,
an autobiography, London. 1905,
p. 332.
'
Ibid., p.
59
»
Ibid., p.
82.
fir.
BULLETIN 218: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THK MUSLIM OK HISTORY .XND TECHNOLOGY
Germans,
chidina; the
Bessemer coneludes:
Had
to evolve their
own
teehnic|iies.
'"
the invention been paK'nled,
would have become
public property in fovnieen years from the dale of the
patent, after which period the public would have been
able to buy bronze powder at its present [i.e., ca. i8go]
market i)rice, viz from two shillings and three pence to
two shillings and nine pence per pound. But this important
secret was kept for about ihirly-five years and the |)ublic
had
pay excessively high
to
it
prices for
twenis-one years
longer than they would have done had the invention become
public propert)' in fourteen years, as
Even
patented.
this
does
not
it
would have been
represent
was a profound
the
all
if
disad-
While every
there were no
vantages resulting from secret manufacture.
detail of production
secret,
improvements made by the outside public in any one of the
machines employed during the whole thirty-five years;
whereas during the fourteen years, if the invention had been
patented, there would, in all probability have been many
improved machines invented and many novel features
applied to totally different manufactures.
\\ hile these
an old man, Bessemer's career showed that
philosophy had a practical foundation; and, if
was indeed his belief, the cpi.sode explains in
large measure Bessemer's later insistence on the
this
legal niceties of the patent procedure.
this will
The
effect of
be seen.
and
of iron
field
was preceded by a period of experiments in the
manufacture of glass. Here Bessemer claims to have
made glass for the first time in the open hearth of a
His work in glass manureverberatory furnace."
facture at least gave him considerable experience in
the problems of fusion under high temperatures and
steel
provided some support
for
his
later
applying the reverberatory finnace
claim that in
to the
of malleable iron as describetl in his
manufacture
patent of
first
January 185.S, he had in some manner anticipated
'the work of C. W. Siemens and F.niil Martin.
Ibid., p. 83.
"
Ibi<t.,
"
Ibid., p.
"within
108
p.
Bessemer's assertion that he had approached
measurable distance" of anticipating the .Siemens-
American Society of .Mechanical Engineers, 1897, vol. 28,
evoked strong criticism of Be.wmer's lack of generosity
p. 459),
(ibid.,
it
p.
482).
One commentator,
that "Bessemer's relation
very
much
like Kelly's to
to
friendly to Bessemer, put
process was
the open-hearth
the Besisemer process
.
.
.
.Mthough
he was measurably near to the open-hearth process, he did
not follow
(1854-1856),
when
rotation
from a smooth-bore
fired
War
Bessemer's failure to interest the British
gun.'"'
Office
him to submit his design to the Emperor
Napoleon HI. Trials made with the encourageinent
of the Emperor showed the inadecjuacy of the castin the idea led
iron guns of the period to deal with the heavier shot;
and Bessemer was presented with a new problem
which, with "the open mind which derived from a
kitowlcdgc of the metallurgy of war,"
limited
experiments
his
he had applied
France,
in
patent for "Iinprovements in the
Iron and Steel."
he
Within three weeks of
attacked with impetuosity.
for
a
Manufacture of
This covered the fusion of steel
this must be regarded
'^
with pig or cast iron and, though
as only the
which
practical step toward the Bessemer
first
was
it
his
experiments with the furnace
with
Bessemer
provided
idea
the
for
his
later developments.
These were described
dated October
in his patent
1855 (British patent 2321). This patent is significant to the present study because his a[)plication for
17,
an .Xmcrican patent, based on similar specifications,
William Kelly and
subsequent
denial
of
the
.American
British patent 2321 Bes.semer
steel in crucibles,
arranged
to the
patent.'"
proposed to con\ert
in a suitable
In
his
furnace and
each basing a sertical luxere. through which
air
under pressure was forced through the molten metal,
.^^s
Dredge
air blast
'"
points out, Bessemer's association of the
with the increase in the temperature of the
metal "showed
and
appreciation of the end in \iew,
his
way
general
the
of attaining
were
mechanical details
still
though
it,
his
crude and iinperfect."
Experiments were continued and several more
British patents were applied for before Bessemer
his
appearance
Ix'fore
the British .Xssociaiion
141.
Martin process, made in a paper presented at a meeting of the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (Transacliom
nj Ihf
own
its
made
ff.
War
was shared by Bessemer, whose ingenuity soon produced a design for a projectile which could provide
led to the interference of
the
Bessemer's intervention in
'»
general interest in problems of ordnance and
process,'^
words, to some extent, were the rational-
izations of
his
The
armor, stimulated by the Crimean
it
{ibid., p.
491).
PAPER
3:
up and make
it
a commercial success
."
.
'3
<*
British patent 2489,
Bessemer,
cit.
November
24, 1854.
(footnote 7), p. 137
He
received British
patent 66. dated January 10, 1855.
'•'See
James W. Dredge, "Henry Bessemer
1813-1898."
Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1898,
vol. 19, p. 911.
'•
See U.
Patent Office,
S.
Patents, dated .\pril
ference.
This
is
13,
Decision of Commissioner of
1857, in Kelly
vs.
Bessemer Inter-
further discussed below (p. 42.)
.
" Dredge,
BEGINNINGS OF CHEAP STEEL
op.
op.
cit.
(footnote 15), p. 912.
31
—
-?^»>
'
*
r f
-?^«
I'igurc
I.
Bessemer's Design for a Converter, as
patent, dated
November
11,
i860.
on August 13, 1856.'** Bessemer described his first
converter and its operation in some detail. .\ltliiniL;ii
he was soon to realize that he '"too readih allowed
my
inventions tinder public notice,"'"
Bessemer had now thrown out a challenge which
eventually had to be taken up, regardless of the
strength of the vested interests involved.
'^
Bcsscmcr's paper was
August
14, 1856.
reported
in
'ihf
The
Times,
By the time the Transactions
prov-
London,
describes this decision as "sagacious."
32
B»-ssemer, op.
cil.
I
.
S
Patent 16082.
This
ocation
first
came
staye of
patent 578,
I'roin his
tlie
March
i,
noticeable.
claims that the [jrodiict of the
conxersion was the equivalent
ol
charcoal iron, the processes following the smeltinii
i)eing conducted without contact with, or the use ot.
any mineral fuel: and that further blowing could be
used to produce an\' quality of metal, that is, a steel
with any desired percentage of carbon. Yet, the
principal irritant 10 the complacency of the ironmaster must have been Bessemcr's attack on an
of the British
Association were prepared for publication, the controversy
aroused by Bessemcr's claim to manufacture "malleable iron
and steel without fuel" had broken out and it was decided
not to report the paper. Dredge (o/<. cil., footnote 1.S, p. 915)
'•
in
The more familiar design of converter appeared first in British
The contrast with Kelly's schematic drawing in Fig. 2 (p. 42) is
1856.
myself to bring
Shown
1856, corresponds with British patent 356. dated February 12,
(footnote 7), p. 164.
BULLETI.N 218: CONTRIBITIONS
industry which had gone on increasing the size of
its
smelting furnaces, thus improving the uniformity of
its
pig-iron, without modifying the puddling process,
which
at best could
pounds of iron
handle no more than 400 to 500
at a time, divided into the
"homeo-
FROM THE MUSEl'M OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY
pathic doses" of 70 or 80 pounds capable of being
every discussion concerning the manufacture of iron
by human labor.-" Bcsscmcr's claim to
"do" 800 pounds of metal in 30 minutes against the
puddlins; furnace's output of 500 pounds in two
hours was calculated to arouse the opposition of those
and steel, it is somewhat surprising that he refrained
from comment on Bessemer's British A.ssociaiion
address of August 1856 for more than fourteen months.
The debate was opened over the signature of his
brother David who shared the family facility with
handled
who
feared the loss of capital invested in puddling
furnaces and of those
might
be
in
Bessemer has
who suspected that their jobs
The ensuing criticism of
jeopardy.
to be interpreted,
therefore, with this
mind; not by any means was
in
objective consideration of the
Within a month of
it
entirely based
method
Bessemer had sold
his address,
and
licenses to several ironmasters (outside Sheffield)
so provided himself with capital with
which
to
tinue his development work; but he refused to
patents outright to the
by
this action, as will
Ebbw
on
or the product.-'
con-
sell his
Vale Iron Works and
be seen, he created an
enemy
for himself.
The
three years
Bessemer opened
his
between 1856 and 1859. when
own steel works in Sheffield, were
occupied in tracing the causes of
his initial difficulties.
There was continued controversy
the
in
technical
Bessemer (unless he used a nom-de-plume) took
press.
no part
in
it
and remained
silent
until
another public appearance before the
Civil Engineers in
London (May
he made
Instituii(jn of
1859).
By
this
time
Bessemer's process was accepted as a practical one,
and the claims of Robert Mushet to share
achievement was becoming clamorous.
in
his
ROBERT MUSHET
Robert (Forester) Mushet (1811-1891), born in the
Forest of Dean, Gloucestershire, of a Scots father
(David, 1772-1847) himself a noted contributor to
the metallurgy of iron and steel, is, like the .American
William Kelly, considered by many to ha\"c been a
victim of Bessemer's astuteness
— or
many important
facts
about
Because
villainy.
his
career are lack-
if his physical life was that of a recluse,
and verbose contributions to the correspondence columns of the technical press made him
ing; but
convenient, too powerful and too capable of further
development to be superseded by any retrograde
process," David Mushet greeted Bessemer's discovery
as "one of the greatest operations ever devised in
metallurgy."
Mushet had
come
even
his frequent
well-known to the iron trade. It is from these letters
that he must be judged.
In view of his propensity to intervene pontifically in
" A
month
however,
later,
so modified his opinion of
to the conclusion that the latter
David
Bessemer as to
"must indeed be
classed
with the most unfortunate inventors."
gave as
his reason for this
Joseph
turnabout
He
his discovery that
Martien had demonstrated
process
his
of
"purifying" metal successfully and had indeed been
granted a provisional patent a month before Bessemer.
The sharp practice of Martien's patent lawyer, Mushet
claimed,
had deprived him of an opportunity of
proving
priority
of
invention
Mushet was convinced
Bessemer.
against
that Martien's
was the
first
in
the field.-'
Robert Mushet's campaign on behalf of his own
made the Bessemer process effective
was introduced in October 1857, two years after the
beginning of Bessemer's experiment and after one
year of silence on Bessemer's part. Writing as
claims to have
"Sideros"
"
-'
he gave credit
See Mining Journal, 1857,
Mushet withdrew from the
into obscurity
family of
of Robert Mushet's preference for the quiet of Coleford,
the pen.^^ Recognizing Bessemer's invention as a
"congruous appendage to [the] now highly developed
powers of the blast furnace" which he describes as "too
is
Henry
to
Martien
vol. 27, pp.
for
"the great
David
839 and 853.
discussion after 1858
and
his relapse
only broken by an appeal for funds for the
Cort.
A
biographer of the Mushets
opinion that Robert Mushet wrote these
letters
is
of the
and obtained
M. Osborn, The slory of the
London, 1952, p. 44, footnote). The similarity in the
style of the two brothers is extraordinary enough to support this
idea. If this is so. Robert Mushet who disagreed with himself
as "Sideros"' was also in controversy with himself writing as
"David."
David's signature to them (Fred
Mushels,
Mining Journal, 1856, vol. 26, p. 567.
pp. 631 and 647. The case of Martien will be discussed below (p. 36). David Mushet had overlooked Bessemer's
-'
-* Ibid.,
patent of January 10, 1855.
=0
-'
The Times, London, .AuRiist
David Mushet rt-cognizcd
14, 1856.
that
was this effort to "raise the after
commensurate with the preceding
Bossi-mor's great feature
processes
case""
...
to
(Mining
.3:
level
him
to carry
praises.
1856, p. 599).
PAPER
a
Journal,
-'
Mining Journal, 1857, vol. 2"", p. 723. Robert Mushet was
a constant correspondent of the Mining Journal from 1848. The
adoption of a pseudonym, peculiar apparently to 1857-1858
(see Dictionary oj national biography, vol. 39, p. 429), enabled
BEGINNINGS OF CHEAP STEEL
on two debates
at a time
and
also to sing his
own
—
discovery that pig-iron can, whilst in the (luid slate, be
... by
purified
it
,"
.
.
though Marticn had
.
of
currents
forcing
under
air
to observe the
failed
use of temperature by the "dellation of the ironitself;
and
the
carbon has been
all.
or nearly
all.
dissipated,
the temperature increases to an almost inconceivable extent,
so that the mass,
when containing
requisite to constitute with
it
much carbon
only as
cast steel
.
.
.
still
as
is
retains a
had he had any
serious supporters, at
least in the early stasje.""
Publication in the Mining Journal o( n
of Mushet's
list
patents,"* evidently in response to .Sideros" complaint,
now
for discovering that
when
discussion; nor
presented
Mushet's
his
with
Bes.senier
e\en
acti\it\.
if
notice
claims as they were presented to the Patent Ollice.
Mushet, said the
appears
inlciid
to
Journal
.Mirii>ig
cany on
to
—
his
researches from the
perfect degree of fluidity.
point where
This, says "Sidcros," was no
on the Bessemer plan of patenting each idea as
new
observation; "it
had
been before the metallurgical world, both practical
and scientific, for centuries," but Bessemer was the
to show^ that this generation of heat
first
could be
attained by blowing cold air through the melted iron.
Mushet goes on
to
show, however, thai the
produced by Bessemer
w-as not
steel thus
commercially valuable
because the sulphur and phosphorous remained, and
through the mass
the dispersion
of oxide
"imported
the inveterate hot-short quality
to
it
of iron
no subsequent operation could
e.\pel."
which
'"Sideros"
concludes that Bessemer's discovery was "at least for
now shelved and arrested in its progress; and
had been left "to an individual of the name of
Mushet" to show^ that if "fluid metallic manganese"
were combined with the fluid Bessemer iron, the portion of manganese thus alloyed would unite with the
oxygen of the oxide and pass off as slag, removing the
hot-short quality of the iron. Robert Mushet had
demonstrated his product to "Sideros" and had
patented his discovery, though "not one print, literary
or scientific, had condescended to notice it."
"Sideros" viewed Mushet's discovery as a "spark
amongst dry faggots that will one day light up a blaze
which will astonish the world when the unfortunate
in\^entor can no longer reap the fruits of his life-long
toil and unflinching perseverance."
In an ensuing
letter he
summed up the situation as he saw it:
a time"
it
''^
Nothing that Mr. Mushet can hereafter invent can
him
and
entitle
Mr. Bessemer's great discovery
nothing that Mr. Bessemer may hereafter patent
can deprive Mr. Robert Mushet of having been the first to
remove the obstacles to the success of Mr. Bessemer's
to the merit of
.
.
.
.
.
his
Mr.
G. Marticn
J.
imaginative brain.
steel
1
course of action
...
to
proposes to
Ic
but does not appear
otf
left
and
proceeding
is
occurs to
it
make both
accomplish
his object,
and
and
iron
have quite decided as
to
to the
therefore
claims various processes, some of which are never likely to
expectations,
inventor's
the
realize
although
decidedly
novel, whilst others are but slight modification of inventions
which have already been
and
tried
failed.
The contemporary attitude is reflected
comment by the Mining Journal:''^
in
another
knowledge to
to produce
beneficial results, the quality of the metal depends more
upon the mechanical than the chemical processes
Without wishing in any way to discourage the iron chemists,
we have no hesitation in giving this as our opinion which we
Although
application
the
of
chemical
the manufacture of malleable iron cannot
fail
.
shall
maintain until the contrary be actually proved.
regard to
research
.
may
however, we
steel,
.
.
be a large
there
field
for
.
.
With
chemical
believe that unless the iron be
of a nature adapted for the manufacture of steel by ordinary
processes, the purely chemical inventions will only give a
metal of a very uniform quality.
.\nother correspondent. William Green, was of the
opinion that Mushet's
"new compoimds and
alloys,"
promised well as an auxiliary to the Bessemer process
but that "the evil which it was intended to remove was
more
visionar\'
than real."
Bessemer's chief dilliculty
was the phosphorus, not the oxide of iron "as Mr.
Mushet assumes." This, Bessemer no doubt wotdd
deal with in due course, but meanwhile he did well
"to concentrate
his
energies
upon
the steel opcra-
.
process.
Bessemer
still
did not intervene in the newspaper
-"
One William Green had commented extensively on Dasid
Mushet's early praise of the Bessemer process and on his
sudden reversal in favor of Martien soon after Bessemer's British
Association address {Mechanics' Magazinf, 1856, vol. 65, p. 373
ff.l.
Green wrote from Caledonian Road, and the proximity
to Baxter
*' Ibid.,
p.
823.
Mushet's distinction between an inventor
indicative of the disdain of a son of David
and a patentee is
Mushet for an amateur
34
Robert
of
he had not already observed
(see also p. 886).
BULLETIN
218:
House, Bessemer's London headquarters,
possibility that
Green was writing
2'
Mtmns; Journal, 1857,
=»
Ibid
,
for
su£;gests the
Bessemer.
vol. 27, p. 764.
p. 764.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM
OI-
HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY
which he wimld have time to tackle "the
which have so far retarded the iron
lions," after
difficiihies
'"'
operations."
—
ascenaincd, upon the ordinary scale of manu-
fully
facture that air-purified cast-iron,
my specifications, would
in
at the same time, I am bound in honor
no unfair advantage of the non-execution of
that deed." .\ possible explanation of this situation
own, though
Mushet ^' claims to have taken out his ])atent of
September 22, 1856, co\-crino- the famous "triple
compound," after he
had
the transfer was never executed," Mushet continued, however, to regard the patents as "wholly my
when
treated as set forth
afford tough malleable iron
.
.
to take
ma\- be found in
with
coke
in contact with
and
for
became evident
it
my
purpose
my
defect in
.
.
.
fuel,
.
hardened the iron too much,
was more proper
that an air-furnace
[the difficulties] arose, not
process, but
were owing
from anv
to the small quantity
upon and the imperfect arrangement of
which ought to be so constituted that
it may be turned upon an axis, the blast taken off, the alloy
added and the steel poured out through a spout
Such
a purifying vessel Mr. Bessemer has delineated in one of his patents.
of the metal operated
the purifying vessel,
.
.
Mushet
also
have designed
claimed to
,
his
own
"purifying and mixing" furnace, of 20-ton capacity,
which he had submitted to the Ebbw \'ale Iron
Works "many months ago, without comment from
them. There is an intriguing reference to the painful subject of two patents not proceeded with, and
not discussed "in the a\aricious hope that the parties
Ebbw
amends
.
.
these patents
.
my
will make me honorable
were suppressed without
knowledge or consent.
Lest his qualifications
should be cjuestioned, Mushet concludes:
I
"
do not
profess to be
an iron chemist, but
I
have un-
made more experiments upon the subject of
iron and steel than any man now living and I am thereby
enabled to say that all I know is but little in comparison
doubtedly
with what has yet to be discovered.
So began Mushet's claim
to
have solved
After
to
cokmnis of the engineering
jotirnals for the next ten
Interpretation of this correspondence
is
made
by our ignorance of the facts concerning the
control of Mushet's patents. These have to be pieced
together from his scattered references to the subject.
His experiments were conducted, at least nearly up
difficult
to the close
of the year 1856, with
the cooperation
Thomas Brown of the Ebbw Vale Iron Works. '"
The price of this assistance was apparently half inof
terest in
Mushet's patents, though
Mushet does not explain
British
his
pence per
for reasons
the deed prepared
which
to effect
IhiJ., p.
770
Ihid., p.
770.
PAPER
.3:
(italics
supplied).
BEGINNINGS OF CHE.\P STEEL
471274—59
4
.\ugust
in
,\niong those
ton.
who
started negotia-
was Mr. Thomas Brown of Ebbw Vale Iron
Works, one of the largest of the South Wales plants.
He proposed, however, instead of a liccn.se, an outright
purchase of Bessemer's patents
Bessemer refused
count
—
to
of
my
in
an
refusal
for the
.
irritated
differently yet"
.
.
.
.
.
£50,000.
to his
and anger quite got the
moment he
[He then]
tone
for
and according
.sell,
intense disappointment
[Brown] and
me
left
ac-
better of
very abruptly, saying
make you
"I'll
'*
could not realize the fact
and slammed the door
see the matter
him.
after
David Mushet's advocacy of Martien's claim
priority
over
(p. 33).
From him we
ments leading
has
Besseiner
to his
learn
already
'^
been
to
noticed
that Martien's cxf>eri-
patent of September 15, 1855,
had been carried out at the Ebbw Vale Works in
South Wales, where he engaged in "jx'rfectins; the
Renton process." "' Martien's own process consisted
in passing air through metal as it was run in a trough
from the furnace and before it passed into the puddling
furnace.
of the
known
Ebbw
fact nnist
was
Works by March
that Martien's patent
\'ale Iron
specific
"
reference
Ihtd., p.
in the
1857.^"
hands
This
be added to our knowledge that Mushet's
drawn up with
patent of September 22. 1856 was
to
a
application of his "triple
the
823,
"Bessemer, op. cit. (footnote 7), p. 169.
5' Mining Journal, 1856, vol. 26, p. 631.
'"James Rcnton's process (U.
S.
patent 8613.
December
23,
1851) had been developed at Newark, Now Jersey, in 1854,
It wa« a modification of the puddlini; furnace, in which the
ore
and carbon were heated
vol. 62, p. 246, 1855).
"/AiV., p. 791.
"
address
tions
of the revcrbcratory
"
.^s.sociation
had received applications from several
ironmasters for licenses, which were issued in return
for a down payment and a nominal royalty of 25
It is
years.
Vale and the Bessemer Process
Be.s.semer's
the correspondence
problem, a claim which was
fill
connection
1856, Be-ssemer
"
connected with the patents
\'ale's activities in
Austrian inventor, Uchatius,
found, however, that the remelting of the coke pig-iron,
I
Ebbw
Martien and Bessemer, as well as with an
in tubs, utilizing the waste heat
furnace
(sec
the
Mechanics'
Ronton died at Newark
1856 (Mechanics' Maga-int, 1856, vol. 65,
" Mining Journal, 1857, vol. 27, p. 193,
in
.\taga-ine,
September
p. 422).
J-T
compound"
to "iron
the
in
air,
Martien,"
'^
.
.
puriiied by the action of
.
manner invented
and that this and
l)y
his
Gilbert
Joseph
other manganese
Renton had not patented
Since
in
seems a reasonable deduction from these circumstances that Brown's ofler to buy out Bessemer and his
early records of the
subsequent threat were the consequences of a deter-
mination by
Ebbw
\'ale to attack Bi'sscnier
by means
Ebbw
aspects of the
way
Ebbw
show whether
will
exist,
Vale Iron Works,
this
if
they
episode was in some
linked to the firm's optimistic combination of
and Mushet.
That Ebbw Vale exerted every effort to
the British patents of Martien
of patent infringement suits.
Some
in
an attempt to upset Renton's priority is a curious
and at present unexplainable episode. Perhaps the
patents were imder the elVective control of Eblnv \'ale.
It
furnace
his
Great Britain, Martien's use of his earlier knowledge
of Renton's work and of his experience at Bridgend
\ ale siuiaiion are not
Martien came to South Wales from
Newark, New Jersey, where he had been manager of
Renton's Patent Semi-Bituminous Cloal Furnace,
owned by James Quimby, and where he had some-
alternative to Bessemer's process
thing to do with the installati(jn of Renton's
Octolaer
yet explained.
iiy
purchase
their
in
Uchatius process,
The
officer.
find
an
suggested, also,
is
1856 of the British rights to the
invented
by an
.Austrian
Army
provisional patent specifications, dated
gone to the United States, where he remained at least
until October 1858.''"
He seems to have taken the
showed that Uchatius proposed to
pig-iron by melting
granulated pig-iron in a crucible with puKerized
"sparry iron" (siderite) and fine clay or with gray
oxide of manganese, which would determine the
amount of carbon combining with the iron. This
process, which was to prove commercially successful
in Great Britain and in Sweden but was not u.sed in
.America,*" appeared to Ebbw \'ale to be something
from which, "we can ha\e steel produced at the [jrice
proposed by Mr. Bessemer, notwithstanding the
opportunity to apply for another patent for a furnace
failure of his process to fulfil the promise."
James Renton. This led to interwhich Martien showed that
he had worked on this furnace at Bridgend, Glamor-
So far as is known only one direct attempt was
made, presumably instigated by Ebbw \'ale, to
enforce their patents against Bessemer, who records "
The
furnace in 1854.
first
Martien next appears
Martien's
\'ale,
to
in Britain, at the
No information
Iron Works.
own
first
furnace was unsuccessful.^'
is
Ebbw
\'ale
available as to whether
furnace was actually installed at
Ebbw
although as noted above, I)a\id Mushet claims
have been in\iied to see it there.
Martien secured an .American patent
in 1857
and
to
his application
file
for his process
appears to have
similar to that of
ferences proceedings in
ganshire (one of the
Ebbw Vale
plants),
improving
1855,
1.
inake cast steel directly froin
a
visit
by Mushet's agent some two or three months
Renton's design by increasing the number of "de-
before a renewal fee on Mushet's basic
oxydizing tubes."
patents
This variation in Renton's design
was held not patentable, and in any case Renton's
firm was able to show that they had successfully
installed the furnace at
Newark
in
1852-1853, while
Martien could not satisfy the Commissioner that his
installation had been made before September 1854.
Priority was therefore awarded to Quimby. Brown,
Renton, and Creswell.'"
»»
BritLsh patent 2219,
"Joseph
1859, p. 34.
P. Lesley,
Martien's
tion of the furnace
is
ful
it
name
given in
1854, (vol. 9, p. 169).
referred to below,
September
22, 1856.
I'he iron manufacturer's guide.
is
New
spelled Martcen.
Scientific
A
In the patent interference proceedings
in success-
operation in 1854.
U. S. patent 16690, February 22, 1857. A correspondent
of the Mining Journal (1858, vol. 28, p. 713) states that Martien
*"
had not returned
became payable
repudiated" Mushet's patents and ofTered to perform
operations in the presence of Mushet's lawyers
his
and
witnes.ses at the Sheffield \\'orks so that a prose-
cution
infringement "would
for
matter."
That, he says, was the
- J.
S.Jeans,
36
op.cil.
The
(footnote 5), p. 108.
process
is
not
mentioned by James M. Swank, History oj the manujaclure of
iron in all ages, Philadelphia. American Iron and .Steel Association, 1892.
"
Mining Journal, 1856,
*'
Bessemer,
'^
The American
"vital" patent.
.
The renewal
was not paid and the patents were therefore
abandoned by Kl)bw \'aie and their associates, a
Martien.
.
heard from the
fee
nial
.
be a very simple
last
agent or from Mushet on the subject.*'
England by October 1858.
*' U. S. Patent Office, Decision of Commissioner
of Patents,
dated May 26, 1859 in the matter of interference between the
application of James M. Quimby and others
and of Joseph
to
manganese
Bessemer "entirely
in 1859.
York,
descrip-
American of February 11,
was stated that the furnace was
*^
op. cil.
vol. 26, p. 707.
(footnote 7), p. 290.
Iron and Steel Institute's "Steel centen-
press information"
(see footnote 2), includes a
." by Vaughn
pamphlet, "Kelly lighted the fireworks
Shclton (New York, 1956), which asserts (p. 12) that Bessemer
paid the renewal fee and became the owner of Mushet's
(1957)
.
BULLETIN 218: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM
()!
HIS!<)R^
.
ANU TECHNOLOGY
fact
which did not come
1861.
when he
my
never in
it."
Mushet's knowledge
lo
uniil
himself declared that the patent ''was
hands
at all [so] that
I
could not enforce
'"
Further support for the
was
policy
semer "see the matter
Ehbw
that
thesis
in part dictated ljy
a desire to
difl'erently""
is
Vale's
make
Bes-
be found in
lo
the climatic episode.
Work on Marlien's patents
had not been abandoned and in 1861 certain patents
were taken out by George Parry, Kbliw Vale's
furnace manager.
These, represented as improvements oi Martien's designs, were regarded by Bessemer as clear infringements of his own patents."
When
process to Martien's.
believed
utilit\
"
^'
may more
did not
with
the
statement
significant
prospectus
their
that
the
**
directors
"have agreed for a license for the manufacture of
steel by the Bessemer process which, from the peculiar
resources they possess, they will be enabled to produce
."
in very large quantities.
So Bessemer became
theownerof the Martien and Parry patents. Mushet's
.
basic patents
no longer
.
existed.
truly represent his opinion, espe-
Mushet's boast
'-'
own
his
still
had never been into an
that he
ironworks other than
in Cloleford
a clue to
is
the interpretation of his behavior in general
of his frecjuent presumptuous claims.
and
also
\Vhen, for in-
development of the L'chatius process was
^' that the
process was
a useless one and had been patented before L'chatius
"understood its nature"; yet later ^' he could claim
stance, the
publicized, he gave his opinion
many
issued
His later
oiieration.'"
when he wrote his 1861 comment, he
know of the disappearance of his patents.
Ebbw
thereupon,
Mushet
This, as late as 1861,
effective
cialK as,
later date,
Vale,
in
repudiation of the process as an absurd and impracticable patent process "possessing neither value nor
it came to Bes.semer's knowledge that Ehbw
was proposing to "go to the public" for additional capital with which to finance, in part, a large
scale working of Parry's process, he threatened the
financial promoter with injunctions and succeeded
in opening negotiations for a settlement.
All the
patents "which had been for years suspended" over
Bessemer were turned over to him for £30,000.
\'ale
be
to
that the jirocess
had made and
I
was "in
fact,
own
m\'
invention and
produced
sold the steel thus
years previously to the date of Captain
patent."
Moreover,
L^chatius' agents in
he claims
its
to
have recalled
his
have instructed
He may,
operation!
some
for
L'chatius'
challenge (the
at this
first
of
such) in which he offered Uchatius' agent in
England to pay a monetary penalty if he could not
show a superior method of fjroducing "sound serviceable cast steel from British coke pig-iron, on lite slomic
plan and without any mi.xture of clay, oxide of manganese or any of these pot destroying ingredients." ^^
It was
David Mushet (or Robert, using his
brother's name)''"
who accused
Bessemer, or rather his
patent agent, Carpmael, of sharp practice in connec-
Mushct and Bessemer
That Mushet was "used" by Ebbw
Bessemer
is,
is
\'ale against
perhaps, only an assumption; but that he
was badly treated by
doubt.
tion with Martien's specification,
Ebbw
Vale
is
subject to no
Mushet's business capacity was small but
difficult to believe that
as to assign
an
without in some
interest in his patents to
way
it
he could have been so foolish
Ebbw
supported by Martien's
The story was
tion,
about their disposition.
He
claims that even in the
demands of Ebbw \'ale, which firm, believing,
"on the advice of Mr. Hindmarsh, the most eminent
patent counsel of the day," " that Martien's patent
later
that for the drafting of his final specifica-
Ebbw
Vale Iron Works, consulted the same Carpmael, as
"the leading man" in the field. The latter advised
that the provisional specification restricted Martien
to the application of his
drafting of his specifications he was obliged to follow
an allegation
patent agent, Avery."
Martien, presumably with the advice of the
\'ale
insuring his right of consultation
first
method
to iron flowing in a
channel or gutter from the blast furnace, and so
prevented him from applying
in
any kind of receptacle.
his aeration principle
In effect, Carpmael was
the
outranked Bessemer's,
insisted
that
Mushet
link
his
Robert Mushct, //« Bessemer-Mushcl process, Chcllcnhaiii,
1883, p. 24; The Engineer, \?,b\, vol. 12, pp. 177 and 189.
" The Engineer, 1862, vol. 14, p. 3. Bessemer, op. cil. (foot*'
note?), p. 296.
*' Mining Journal, 1864, vol. 34, p. 478.
" The Engineer, 1861, vol. 12, p. 189.
P.APER
3:
BEGINNINGS OF CHE.AP STEEL
=0 Ibid.,
p. 78.
" Mushet, op.
" Ibid., p. 25.
cit.
(footnote 46), p. 9.
"
.Mining Journal, 1857, vol. 27, p. 755.
'*
Mushet,
op. eil.
(footnote 46), p. 28.
became the "You-cheat-us" process
to
The Uchatius
Mushet
process
{.Mining Journal,
1858, vol. 28, p. 34).
*'
.Mining Journal, 1857, vol. 27, p. 755 (italics supplied).
"
See footnote 22.
" Mining Journal, 1856,
vol. 26, pp. 583, 631.
37
by giving Bessemer the |5iior
receptacle. According to
Musliet, Marticn had in fact "actually and pviblichproved" his process in a receptacle aiui not in a
gutter, so that his claim to priority could be main-
his claim
tained on the basis of the provisional specification.
invention.
actinij unprorcssionally
claim
use
the
to
a
of
the rail
that
was
from the
rolled direct
Bessemer himself could not do at
ingot, soniethinu;
that time.
This was the beginning of a
Mushet
series of claims
by
as to his e.s.sential contributions to Bessemer's
The
silence of the latter during this jieriod
own
was ignored by
Bessemer, and probably with good reason. At any
rate, Martien's American patent is in terms similar
count "
to those of the British specification; he or his advisers
with working funds, the impatience of those experi-
have attached no significance to the disbetween a gutter and a receptacle.
Mushet's claim to have afforded Bessemer the
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
This, like other
seem
Mushet
allegations,
to
tinction
means of makine:
case
process useful
in
was Mushet
press
still
sub-
occasional edi-
and a few
replies
own
least five other
to
which
the material
all
apart from Bessemer's
Mushet and at
use of manganese
An
himself.
the technical
Mushet's "lucubrations" are
exists,
is
almost wholly one sided, since his biggest
is
publicizer
torial
own
his
Unfortunately, documentation of the
ject to debate.
story.
men
patented the
making in 1856; his own
was filed within a month of
in steel
provisional specification
the pui)licatioii of Bessemer's British .Association ad-
August 1856.
dress in
Mushet did not
until
So
it
is
strange that Robert
more than
a year later join in
the controversy which
followed that address.
one of
he claims to have
"his"'
his early letters
steel
though
in the
a bridge
when
Vale
made
In
of
pounds weight; althat he saw the same rail
of 750
rail
his brother insists
Ebbw
'*''*
offices in
London
in the spring of
was presented as a specimen of Uchatius
steel!" Robert Mushet's indignant "advertisement"'
of January 5, 1858,"" reiterating his parentage of this
1857,
sample,
it
also
"made by me
and sent
to
claimed
double-headed steel rail
under another of my patent processes,"
Derby
to
a
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
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
"'
it
?>
'*
October
17, 1857, writing as "Sidcros"
{Mining Journal,
1857, vol. 27, p. 723).
^'
Mining Journal, 1857,
vol. 27, p. 871,
and 1858,
vol. 28,
"/Airf. (1858), p. 34.
(footnote 46), p. 12.
typical of Mushet's style.
38
and although
the sale of licenses actually provided
"Our
ac-
address was premature,
him
now
entirely given up the
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 improvements i;n the method of introducing the blast, and, in
report:
firm has
manufacture of bar
iron,
consequence, the
first
Bessemer method
""
was
still
demonstration of the
effective
—
this at
after
when Bessemer
a time
remelting the product of
crucibles,
his
granulating the steel
con\erter in
in
water.
If
Mushet is to be believed, this success of Goransson's
was w holly due to his ore being "totally free from phosphorous 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
Bessemer,
«'/*/(/., p.
op. cil.
and spindle
(footnote 7), pp. 161
ff.
steel
and 256
was
ff.
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
"'
(p.
op. cil.
his British Association
.April
1858
(see
Mining Journal,
1858, vol. 28, p. 259).
p. 12.
" Mushet,
impressive, for according to Bessemer's
is
The phrase quoted
is
Mining Journal, 1858,
713) that he ha<l
months ago."
«« Swank, op.
»'
cit.
done
the
(footnote 42), p. 405.
The Enginffr, 1859,
BULLETIN 218: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM
Mushet commented
same thing "eighteen
vol. 28, p. 696.
OI-
vol. 7, p. 350.
HIS^OR^•
AND TECHNOLOGY
Mining Journal ''Minini;; Market"
for the first time
on June 4, 1859.
1859 Bessemer gave a paper, his first public
the
in
ituluclcti
weekly ciuotations
In
Ma\
"**
|)r()nouncement since August 1856, before the Instituof
tion
Ci\il
to failure
not reduced the fiii.mtity
but his accoimt
dealt with
The early process, he
because the process had
of sulphur and |)hosphorous,
Engineers.'^'
admitted, had led
is
xa^ue
Sicam and pure hydrogen gas wore
less
which he
as to the nianncr in
problem:
this
more or
and various flues,
tried, wiili
success in the removal of sulphur,
make
faihuc to
the public appreciate his theories has
"^
not injured his inventive faculties."
These patents
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
include, besides variations
within a few days of the British .Xs.sociation address he
Ebbw Vale "where
had shown
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
found and what woidd remedy"
thereby reduced.
phosjjhorous which affected the result
But the clear implication
is
that the commercial o|K-ra-
was based on the use of the best
Swedish pig iron and the hematite pig from Workington. The use of manganese as standard practice
tion at Sheffield
at this time
verter
and
is
not referred to,™ but the rotary con-
the use of ganister linings are mentioned
Mushet had, with some
to reassert his
intuition,
found opportunity
contributions to Bessemer a few days
lacking "the extraordinary merit of Mr.
being "merely a vigorous offshoot proceeding from
that great discovery; but, combined with Mr. Bessenier's process,
it
manufacturer
to
for
places within the reach of every iron
produce cast
which he can now make
One
steel at the
his best iron."
same
cost
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
it
is
apparent that Mr. Mushet's
*"
Mining Jnitrnal. 18.S9, vol. 29, pp. 396 and tOl.
quotation was continued until .•\pril 1865.
«»
Thf
compoimd
triple
the
not, in fact,
made
b\-
the Bessemer
if
by adding a
manganese to
his process
of iron, carbon, and
"There never was a bar of
pia;.
steel
first-rate cast
the Bessemer process alone"; (and that
included Gorans.son's product) "and there never can
be,
but a cheap kind of
may
steel
applicable to several
be thus produced."
.\fter
the imiciueness of his attempt to
emphasizing
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
cither
steel
when
amount of toughness
when heated, which the presence at the
notable amount of sulphur and phosphorous
conferred upon both an
cold or
same time of a
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 pronouncement, 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
among
high controversy
the leading experts of the
day, Mushet found a ready solution in his
metal.
This he had developed
own gun
fifteen years before.
llic price
It
was
of a tensile strength better even than that of
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
Krupp
Engineer, 18S9, vol. 7, p. 437.
(footnote 5), p. 349 refers to the hematite ores
of Lancashire and Cumberland as "the ores hitherto almost
'"Jeans, op.
was
could not overcome.
''
of Mushet's replies to the pa])er itself took the
months, "so that
combined with
process were
before this address, describing his process as perhaps
Bessemer,"'
It
the |3resence of one-tenth of a percent of sulphur or
purposes
for the first time.
would be
the defect
it.
cit.
exclusively used in the Bessemer proces.s."
account of the Swedish development of the
Bessemer process, leading to a well-documented claim that the
Sweden
first practical realization of the proces,s was achieved in
in July 1858, was recently published (Per Carlbcrg, "Early
\
definitive
Production of Bessemer Steel at Edsken," Journal of
the Iron
July 1958, vol. 189, p. 201.
The Engineer, 1859, vol. 7, p. 314. Bessemer's intention to
Steel Institute, Great Britain,
"'
and
present his paper had been
F.\PER
3:
announced
in .April.
BEGINNINGS OF CHE.AP STEEL
'Mining Journal, 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.
1
"'
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."
39
publicly to challcnsrc Riupi) to produce a cast
gun
The Engineer disposed of Martien's and
A
year
claims with a certain
metal or cast
stand
steel to
test
against
his."''
later his attack on the distinguished French metal-
whom
Fremy,
lurgist
he
making, did
little
lor his
cyanogen process of steel
his reputation, whatever
the so-called
in
interest
an "ass"
descriix-s as
enhance
to
His attitude
the scientific justification for his attack.
toward the use of New Zealand (Taranaki) metalliferous sand, which he had ]5re\iousl\- favored and
then condemned in such a wa\- as to "injure a project
""
was anotlier exami)lc of a
he can no longer control,"
Bessemer was
By niid-1861, on tlie
to meet with increasing respect from the
liaiul,
beginning
The
trade.
of Engineers reccixed a dispas-
.Sociel\
sionate accoiml of the achievement at the Sheffield
Works from
whose firm (Dowlais)
was
the earlier and disai)pointcd licensees of the
among
In August
process."
Institution
1861.
before
address
fated
Riley,
E.
the
\cars after the
British
Mechanical
of
i'i\e
A.s.sociation,
meeting
Engineers,
in
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.
the meeting, the engineers visited Bessemer's
was reported," "at Messrs. John
it
Brown and Company's works,
was repeated on a
armor plate rolled
in
the Bessemer process
larger scale
still
the
presence
and a heavy
of some 2.S0
..."
visitors.
to
Iron
carry out
the
The latter's "triple commanganese 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
not
Musiiet.
iniiiaiini;
pound"
recjuired
concentration)
alloy of
:
£7 per
at
ton.
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
.\nd
is
it
highly o.xidisablc nature of that metal.
tlie
absolutely necessary, in order to apply any useful
and manganese,
alloy of iron, carbon
malleable iron and very
in the
soft steel that the
in excess of the
be largely
Sutlicient
the
papers
works; and later
trying
£7.11110
Mushet's
The Ebbw Vale
manufacture of
manganese should
carbon present.""
ill-
Sheffield, the center of the British steel trade, heard
.•\fter
spent
.
Martien process and it was imlikely that they would
have allowed Bessemer to infringe upon that patent
Bessemer was
if they had any grounds for a case.
The
public l)eha\i()r e\identl\ resented.
otlier
Works had
finaliiv
These ]3rocecdings invited Robert Mushet's intervention. 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 condemned 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
answer
to
able in the fact that
Mushet was at any rate
manv hundreds of tons
avail-
of ex-
"Bessemer metal" made without anv- mixture
spicgeleisen in any form were in
successful use. .And, moreover, spiegeleisen was not
cellent
manganese or
of
Robert Mu.shet or an exclusive product
it had been made for twent)- years
If Bessemer
at least from Tow Law (Durham) ores.
had refused Mushet a license (and this was an ada discovery of
of
Germany
mitted
fact),
since
Bessemer's refusal must have been
made
in self-defense:
Mr. Mushet having sei up a number of claims for "improvements" 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
One
in the periodicals.
came
in
1864 from
a
this
time rarely supported
interesting article in his favor
source of special interest to the
American situation. Mushet's .American patent
^^
had
their labors.™
The Engineer foimd Mushet's position untenable on
the
very
groimds
he
was pleading
should not be issued to different
his
same
clearly anticipated
"
»
The Engineer, 1860,
The Engineer, 1861,
" The Engineer,
" Ibid., p. 63.
"
40
men
patents
at different
and showed that Bessemer
patents of January 4, 1856, and later, had
times for the
in
— that
Ibid.,
pp. 78
thing;
Mushet.
In a subsequent article.
vol. 9, pp. 366, 416,
and
passim.
vol. 11, pp. 189, 202, 290, 304.
1861, vol. 12, p. 10.
and
Ihul., p.
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
The latter had been abandoned "by
with the British patent.
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).
177,
Bl'I.I.F.TIN
208. TlKMr is an intrit;uini{ reference in this edian 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»"
torial to
218: CONTRIBl'TIONS
FROM THK MUSEl'M
Ol"
HISrnRV .\ND TK.CHNOI.OGV
—
bouylu
Ik'cii
.
an American group interested
l)\
Kelh' jjrocess at about
American
had
rights
tiine,'*^
tliis
been sold
also
in the
and Bessemcr's
to an American
group that inchided Alexander Lyman Holley,'^ who
had long been associated with Zerah Colburn, another
Oolburn, who subsequently
American engineer.
(1866) established the
and
is
regarded as one
London
ol the
[jcriodical Engineering
founders of engineering
was from 1862 onward a frequent conLondon. C'.olburn's
seems to ha\-e been of some imporarticle of 1864
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
journalism,
tributor to other trade pa])ers in
''^
could
but evidently Bessemer
patent action,
a
invite
to
now more than
ever afford to ignore the "sage
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
acknowledge
man
his obligations
manner and
straightforward
as a great
me
to
a
in
manh
would stamp him
this
as well as a great inventor."
*'
But Bessemer evidently remained convinced of the
own patent position. \i\ an address
the
which Mushet's process had sunk
therefore, ''u.scd
ous patents for
under
of patents could
all
mode
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
on the meeting
below,
is
manganese
of iiuroducing
its
compounds were
in law,
it
if
this series
exact date of the purchase of
not known.
Engineering, 1882, vol. 33, p. 114.
Ihe deal was coinpletcd
1 864, vol.
34, pp. 77 and 94 (italics suphas not yet been possible to ascertain if this company was successful. Mushet writ<-s from this time on from
"«
Mining Journal,
It
C:heltcnham, where the
company had
its
ofTices.
ought not
reward
to
who was
" Mining
Engineer, 1865, vol. 35, p. 86.
The Engineer. 1865,
I'.VPER
present, reiterated his constant willingness to
Mushet had
Three months
to the courts of law,
but pointed out
not accepted the challenge.**
that
later,
December
in
1866, Mushet's
daughter called on Bessemer and asked
his
help to
home: "They tell me you use
prevent the
are indebted to him for
inventions
and
father's
my
lo.ss
Bessemer replied characteristically:
what your
use
I
of their
father has no right to claim;
he had the legal position you seem
to suppose,
business by an injunction
tomorrow and
my
and
if
he could stop
get
many
infringement of
which followed from your
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
rights.
his
The
only
result
even for
this
unintentional service,
indebtedness.
.
.
I
cannot
live in
a state of
.
With
that he gave Miss
Mushet money
to cover a
which distraint was threatened.** Soon after
debt
this action, Bessemer made Mushet a "small allowance" of £300 a year. Bessemer's reasons for making
for
payment, he describes as
strong desire on
my
part to
follows:
"There was a
make him (Mushet) my
debtor rather than the reverse, and the payment had
other advantages: the press at that time was violently
3:
any
of
my patent and there was the chance that if
my licensees were thus induced to resist my
claims, all the rest might follow the example."
"
Research
continues in this interesting aspect of his career.
s«
to debar him from receiving the
which he was justly entitled." Bessemer,
duties)
attacking
Tlie Engineer, 1864, vol. 18, pp. 405, 406.
plied).
thought that the
would have
to
in 1863.
»5
still
public reply
it.
The
45.
p.
that "he
accident (of the non-payment of the patent stamp
this
«'
and
his oft-told story,
first
have been sustained
coke-made iron without
.See
report
stated that in his paper he repeated
thousands of pounds compensation for
have employed manganese with steel made by his process, although it was
considered by the trade to be impossible lo make steel from
''
A
read a paper before the British Association.
my
imaginable conditions that
been utterly impossible for [me]
Mushet's patent
to
and he had
without scru|)le any of these numermanganese without feeling an over-
to
Manganese and
.
.
years,
in 1859,
in
to secure
.
end of three
the low public estimation
to
father taking out his patents
almost every conceivable
into the metal.
controlled Mushet's batch
at the
Birmingham
In his long series of patents Mushet had
attempted
so claimed
his
who
them
at
Association
British
September 1865 he made
Mushet."*
Bessemer ascribed
your success."
security of his
before
failure of tho.se
submit the matter
of Coleford."
to
T he
of patents to renew
vol. 20, p. 174.
BEGINNINGS OF CHEAP STEEL
S9
.Mechanics' .Magazine, 1866, vol. 16, p. 147.
«•
Bessemer,
ofi. cit.
(footnote 7), p. 294.
»' Ibid.
41
Mushei's Titanic Steel and
liquidated in 1871 and
special steel," that
its
his tungsten alloy tool metal,
is,
was taken over by the
and Company. The
Company was
Iron
principal asset, "R. Miishet's
Sheffield firm of
from
royalties
Samuel Osborn
with Besse-
this,
brood over the injustice done
recorded his story of the
"Bessemer-Mushet" process
mer's pension .seem to ha\e left Mushet in a reasonably
comfortable condition until his death in 1891;''- but
medal by the Iron
and Steel Institute in 1876 failed to remove the conOne would
viction that he had been badly treated.
like to know more about the politics which preceded
Bessemer
the award of the trade's highest honor.
at any rate was persuaded to approve of the presentaMushet himself did
tion and attended the meeting.
e\-en the
award
so
commiiting himself
William Kelly
s
his earlier
many
to
statements
inconsistencies.
"Air-boiling" Pfoccss
of the Bessemer
not accept the invitation, "as
then alive."
'''
in
apparently without reference to
and
him and eventually
and progress of the
a pamphlet
written
to
rise
^ The
may probably
I
not be
emphabetween Mushet and
President of the Institute
sized the present
good relations
Bessemer and the
latter
recorded that the hatchet had
Yrx .\luslu-t continuccl to
"long since" been buried.
An
account of Bcssemer's address to
.Association
See Fred
»'
Journal of the Iron and Steel
M. Osborn,
7 he story of
the Atushets,
Institute,
1876, p.
London, 1852.
])ul)lishccl in
the
ilu-
British
American on
Scienlijic
September 13, 1856."^ On .September 16, 18.S6,
Martien filed application for a U. S. patent on his
furnace and .Mushet for one on the apjilication of his
triple
compound
while
particles
•*
it
Robert Mushet,
decarbon-
to cast iron "(jurificd or
ized by the action of air
is
blown or forced into ... its
in a molten
state."'"
.
The Bessemer-Mushet
.
process,
.
Chellenliam,
1883.
^^ Scientific
"
was
»«
U.
.S.
American, 1856, vol. 12, p. 6.
patent 17389, dated
May
26, 1857.
Martien's U. S.
patent was i;ianted as 16690, dated February 24, 1857.
.^.
}i: Jfelh/.
cMa/iiif.
Figure
of Iron ,^' Steel.
2.— Only Known Design for Kelly's Air-Boiling
S. Patent 17628.
A is '-the flue to
Furnace, From U.
carr>' off the
42
carbonic gas formed in decarbonizing the iron."
BULLETIN
218:
B
is
the port through
ceived,
C and
C
which the charge of
are the tuyeres, and
D
is
fluid iron
is
re-
the tap hole for
letting out the refined metal.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISI'ORV .\ND TECHNOLOGV
by
Muslut.
time,
this
had apparently decided
i^encralize the ap[)Hcation of his
compound
its
or, as
he put
he had been obliged
it,
Ebbw
English specification by the
to
do
for his
Vale Iron W'orks.
The discussion in the Scientific American, which was
mostly concerned with Martien's claim to priority,
soon evoked a letter from William Kelly. Writing
under date of September 30, 1856, from the Suwanee
Iron Works, Eddyville, Kentucky, he claimed to have
started "a series of experiments" in
November 1851
which had been witnessed by hundreds of persons and
"discussed amongst the ironmasters, etc., of this section, all of whom are perfectly familiar with the whole
...
principle
as discovered
A number
new
to see his
in\ention
nearly five years
him
"Several of them have since
process.
invention there."
public."
me
by
of English puddlers had visited
may have
returned to England and
the
spoken of
Kelly expected "shortly
and
perfected
bring
before
it
my
have
to
the
•'
Bessemer's application for an American patent was
granted during the week ending
November
18, 1856,
and Kelly began his interference proceedings sometime before January 1857.'*
Kelly's witnesses were almost wholly from the ranks
of employees or former employees.
Dr.
Eddyville.
fall
The
only excep-
was Dr. Alfred H. Champion, a physician of
tion
of the
use in conjunction with Marticn's process,
citing
ago."
The Doctor does not
"company" went
lo
instead of
Champion
describes a meeting in the
"two or three practical Ironmasters
which Kelly described his process and
of 1851 with
and others"
at
invited all present to see
The company
present
Kelly and appealed to
of their doubts.
I
at
all
me
it
in operation.
differed in
stated:
opinion from Mr.
as a chemist in confirmation
once decided that Mr. Kelly was
Theory and then went on
correct in his
He
to explain
the
received opinion of chemists a century ago on this subject,
and the present received opinion which was in direct
also
I
confirmation of the novel theory of Mr. Kelly.
mentioned the analogy of said Kelly's process in decarbonising iron to the process of
decarbonising blood in the
human
lungs.
Ten
of
the.se
experiments conducted
Two knew
1851 work.
American, 1856, vol. 12, p. 43, Kelly's suggestion of
piracy of his ideas was later enlarged
.John
Newton Boucher, WiUuim
called Bessemer process,
»' Ibid.,
p. 82.
Kelly:
upon by
A
his
biographer
true history oj
llie
so-
Greensburg, Pennsylvania, 1924.
Kelly's notice of his intention to take testimony
was addressed to Bessemer on January 12, 1857. See papers
on "Interference, William Kelly vs. Henry Bessemer Decision
April 13, 1857." U. S. Patent Office Records. Quotations
below arc from this file, which is now permanently preserved
in the library of the
I'APER
3:
U.
S.
Patent Office.
BEGINNINGS OF CHEAP STEEL
he or any
manager
recorded their recollections of
in
1847.
Five described the
had seen both. One of
Evans who became forge
of or
was John B.
Union Forge, a few miles from
the last group
of Kelly's
Suwanee.
This evidence
his position
should have been in a position to
is
of interest since a
man
in
some-
tell
thing about the results of Kelly's operations in terms
of usable metal.
Unfortunately, he limits
hiiiLself lo
comment on
which had
around a
a
the metal
chilled
tuyere which had been sent back to the Forge ("it was
partly malleable and partly refined pig-iron") and to
an account of a conversation with others who had
worked some of Kelly's "good wrought iron" made
by the new process.
Only one of the witnesses (William Soden) makes
a reference to the phenomenon which is an accompaniment of the blowing of a converter: the prolonged
and violent emission of sparks and flames which
startled Bessemer in his first use of the process ^ and
which still provides an exciting, if not awe-inspiring,
interlude in a visit to a steel mill. Soden refers,
without much excitement, to a boiling commotion,
but the results of Kelly's "air-boiling'' were, evidently,
not such as to impress the rest of those
to
have seen
his
furnace in operation.
who claimed
Only
five of
the total of eighteen of the witnesses say that they
witnessed the operations.
knew
some with
.Soden, incidentally,
of seven different "air-boiling" furnaces,
four and some with eight tuyeres, but he also neglected
on the use of the metal.
known, Kelly satisfied the Acting ComAs
missioner that he had "made this invention and
showed it by drawings and experiment as early as
1847," and he was awarded priority by the Acting
lo report
is
well
Commissioner's decision of April
13, 1857,
and U.
S.
Patent 17628 was granted him as of June 23, 1857.
The Scientific American sympathized with Bessemer's
realization that his
Scientific
if
Kelly obtained aHidaviis from another seventeen
witnesses.
American patent was "of no more
value to him than so
"
say, specifically,
to see the process in operation.
much
waste paper" but took the
opportunity of chastising Kelly for
his
negligence in
not securing a patent at a much earlier date and ccmplained of a patent system which did not require an
inventor to luake known his discovery promptly. The
journal advocated a "certain fixed time" after which
such an inventor "should not be allowed to subvert
w
Bessemer, op
cit.
(footnote 7), p. 144.
43
who
a patent granted to another
measures
to put the piihlic in
Little authentic
known about
is
Kelly's activities
His biographer ""
following the grant of his patent.
does not document his statements,
Kelly's family, and it is diHicult
them with what few facts are
own account
from
which
of
to reconcile
some
of
Kelly's
available.
of his invention,'"^ itself undated, asserts
hundredweight of metal
that he could "refine fifteen
in
many
be based on the recollections of members of
to
five to ten
minutes," his furnace "supplying a
cheap method of making run-out metal" so that
"after trying it a few days we entirely dispensed with
This
the old and troublesome run-out fires." '"^
statement suggests that Kelly's method was intended
do
to
just this;
and
it
is
not without interest to note
that several of his witnesses in the Interference pro-
ceedings, refer to bringing the metal "to nature," a
term often used
If this
is
in
so, his
connection with the finery furnace.
assumption that he had anticipated
Bessemer was based on a misapprehension of what the
was intending
latter
to do, that
is,
to
make
steel.
This statement leaves the reader under the impression that the process
was
in successful use.
It is to
be
contrasted with the statement quoted above (page
September 1856, when the process had,
43), dated
been perfected.
clearly, not
In this connection,
should be noted that in the report on the
Iron
Works,
included
The
in
guide,^"* it is stated that "It
is
it
Suwanee
manufacturers
iron
at this furnace that
Mr.
Kelly's process for refining iron in the hearth has
been most
fully
experimented upon."
'»'
Boucher,
'°-
U.
op. cit.
lent/i
census {June
7,
on
tlie
1SS0)
manu/arturets of
.
was included
.
.,
llie
Manufacture
by James M. Swank, special
124.
Mr. Swank was secretary
report prepared
steel,
agent, Washington, 1883, p.
of the American Iron and Steel Association.
This material
in his History oj the rnanujaclure oj iron in atl ages,
Philadelphia, 1892, p. 397.
"" Ibtd., p. 125. The run-out
was a
charcoal fire "into which pig-iion, having been melted and
partially refined in one fire, was run and further refined to
convert it to wrought iron by the Lancashire hearth process,"
according to .^. K. Osborn, An encyclopaedia oj the iron and steel
industry.
'"«
New
fire
(or "finery" fire)
York, 1956.
J. P. Lesley, op.
dated April
6,
1859.
cit.
United States
affected
It
began
in the first
patent
The data was
The
preface
largely collected by
is
Joseph
weeks only of 1857 (i.e., through November 4 or 5, 1857) it is
concluded that Lesley's visit was in the last few weeks of 1857.
BULLETIN
218:
The
application.
of the
success
obtaining patents'"" in the United States in
latter
in
November
1856, covering "the conversion of molten crude iron
.
.
into steel or malleable iron, without the use of
.
fuel
.
.
." also
escaped the attention of
l)oth Entjlish
and .American WTiters.
It was not until 1861 that the question arose as to
what happened to Kelly's process. The occasion was
the publication of an account of Bessemer's paper at
the Sheffield meeting of the (British) Society of
Mechanical Engineers on August 1, 1861. Accepting
the evidence of "the complete industrial success" of
Bessemer's
process,
the
Scientific
'"*
American
asked:
"W'ould not some of our enterprising manufacturers
make a good operation by getting hold of the [Kelly]
patent and starting the manufacture of
steel in
this
country?
to this rhetorical question,
to
whether the Kelly patent
"could be bought" '"'' elicited a response from Kelly.
Writing from Hammondsville. Ohio, Kelly "" said, in
part:
I would say that the New England states and New York
would be sold at a fair rale ... I removed from Kentuckv
^"^
Economist (London), 1857, vol. 15, pp. 1129, 1209.
'"*
Swank,
Autobiography
during
his
July 1860.
op. cit.
Fritz, in his
1912, p. 162), refers to experiments
time at Johnstown,
The
John
(footnote 42), p. 125.
(New York,
i.e.,
refers to Kelly's process as
1854 and
between June
iron manufaiturer^s guide (see
footnote 104) also
having "just been
tried wiih great
success" at Cambria.
">
(footnote 39), p. 129.
Lesley of Philadelphia, brother of the author, during a tour
of several monllis. .Since Suwanee production is given for 44
44
of 1857.
There was no response
(footnote 97).
Bureau of the Census, Report
United Slates at the
of iron and
crisis
week
October and by October 31 the Economist (London)
reported that the banks of the United States had
"almost universally suspended specie payment." '"*
Kelly was involved in this crisis and his plant was
According to Swank,'"* some expericlosed down.
ments were made to adapt Kelly's process to need of
rolling mills at the Cambria Iron Works in 1857 and
1858, Kelly himself being at Johnstown, at least in
June 1858. That the experiments were not particularly successful is suggested by the lack of any American contributions to the correspondence in the English
technical journals.
Kelly was not mentioned as
having done more than interfere with Besscmer's first
fall
but a further inquiry as
"» Scifnlific American, 1857, vol. 12, p. 341.
S.
major financial
business in the
of
vention."**
appear
A
has taken proper
possession of the in-
U.
S. patents
dated November
16082, dated
18, 1856.
November
11, 1856,
and 16083,
Bessemer's unsuccessful application
corresponded with his British patent 2321, of 1855
(see foot-
note 98).
"" Scientific .American, 1861,
'« Ihid., p. 310.
new
sen, vol. 5, pp.
148153.
""/AiW., p. 343.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY
—
about
years ago. and
tlircf
now
New
reside at
Salisbury
about three miles from Haminondsville and sixty miles froin
Pittsburg.
Accept my thanks for your kind efforts in
endeavoring to draw the attention of the community to the
advantages of my process.
This
letter suggests that the
dormant
Kelly jMocess had been
Whether
since 1858.
or not as a result of
the publication of this letter, interest
Diirfee of
.S.
New
attempt
secure
to
a
returned to the United
process.'"
fall
Durfee
of 1861
an
in
He
Bessemer.
fall
of 1862.
1862,
W^
F.
Durfee, was asked by
report "-
The
process.
abandoned works
in
Kelly, that
1862 Mr. Kelly returned to Johnstown for a crucial,
in
report on Kelly's
to
was
"The
unfavorable.
Mr. Kelly
description of [the apparatus] used by
his
During the organization of the plant at Wyandolte,
was called back to Cambria, probably by
Daniel J. Morrell, who, later, became a partner with
Ward and Z. S. Durfee in the formation of the KelK
Pneumatic Process Company."* We learn from John
E. Fry,"^ the iron moulder who was assigned to help
Kell\-
Durfee, a cousin of Z. S.
Ward
Kentucky
satisfied
me
that
at
suggests the possibility that
French source that Z. S. Durfee obtained his
technical data on the operation of the Bessemer
this
of
assuming that he was the only "citizen of the United
States'' who had even seen the Bessemer apparatus.'"
In June,
and the rcciniitit was from
ment of Hart
Ward
Bedford, Massa-
the early
.States in
Bcsscmcr's part-
initial
from
license
The Jacksons had become
ners in respect of the French rights;
in
chusetts, obtained control of Kelly's patent.
himself went to England in the
the Jackson Brothers at St. Seurin (near Bordeaux)
France.
was resumed
Captain Eber Brock
Kelly's experiments.
Detroit and Z.
this country of a \oung man, L. M. Hart, who had
been trained in Bessemer operations at the plant of
and
as
it
turned out, a final series of experiments by him
with a rotative [Bessemer converter] made abroad and imported
This converter embodied
for his purpose.
in its materials
and
it
construction several of Mr. Bessemer's patented factors, of
was not suited for an experiment on so large a scale
as was contemplated at
Wyandotte [Detroit]."
Since it was "confidently expected that Z. S. Durfee
would be successful in his efforts to purchase [Besse-
which, up to the close of Mr. Kelly's experiments above
mer's patents],
it
was thought only
the acquisition of property rights
his inventions as best suited the
Thus
the
first
came
States
be anticipating
to use such of
purpose in view."
in
United
the
a patent "'not suited" for a
Kelly seems to have had no part
developments.
They took some time
to
was
ready by September 1862, the blowing engine was
not completed until the spring of 1864 and the first
"blow" successfully made in 1864. It may be no
come
formation.
to
more than
seems
to
Although
the
converter
a coincidence that the start of production
have been impossible before the arrival
was
in
as late as
recognized, by
adoption, the necessity for or the impor-
its
tance of any after treatment
Fry
convert
to
Holley,
claim
is
somewhat
who was later to be
doubtful.
Alexander
Lyman
later asserted "* that
first Bessemer plants in the United States had been in
England in 18.S9, 1860, and 1862. In view of his interest in
ordnance and armor, it is unlikely that Bessemer could have
escaped his alert obseivation. His first visit specifically in
connection with the Bessemer process appears to have been in
is
said to have
begun
to interest financiers
masters in the Bessemer procc-ss after his
ing,
visit in
and
iron-
1862 {Engineer-
1882, vol. 33, p. 115.
W. F. Durfee: "An account of the experimental
works at Wyandotte, Michigan," Transactions of the American
Society of Stechanical Engineers, 1884, vol. 6, p. 40 fl".
steel
11-
PAPER
?>:
Kelly's experiments in
(The
ods.
possibility
is
under investigation that the
now on
so-called "pioneer converter"
U.
S.
Museum from
National
Company,
William
the converter referred
is
Kelly,
in
of his patent of
June
to
by
disappeared
eflfect,
when he
record until 1871
loan
to
the
the Bethlehem Steel
Fry.)
frotti
the
applied for an extension
The
23, 1857.
application was
opposed (by whom, the record does not state) on the
grounds that the invention was not novel when it was
and
that
public interest to extend
its
it
would be against the
The Coinmissioner
term.
responsible for the design of most of
the
1863, but he
or additions required by the
of,
into steel.
it
1862 were simply attempts to copy Bessemer's ineth-
originally issued,
'" His
.And
on the occasion of his return in 1862. to
operate the experimental Bessemer converter, that he first
it
blown metal
into being without benefit of a license
large experiment.
these
...
"Bessemer" plant
and supported only by
in
to
noted, he seemed to have no knowledge or conception.
BLGINNINGS OF CHEAP STEEL
1" Research in the French sources continues.
M. Hart at Boston is recorded as of April
of L.
ship being the
SS
A/riea out of Liverpool,
The
1,
England
arrival
1864, his
(.\rchivcs
of the United States, card index of passenger arrivals 1849-
1891
list
No.
39).
11*
Swank,
'^^
Johnstown
1894
(italics
op. cit. (footnote 42), p. 409.
Daily
supplied).
Works from 1858
11'
Democrat,
souvenir
Mr. Fry was
at
autumn
Cambria Iron
edition,
the
until after 1882.
Engineering, 1896, vol. 61, p. 615.
45
ruled that,"" on the
tice of the
was
clearer light
Iron Works.
first
qucsiion.
it
on questions of fact; the novehy of Kelly's
invention iiad been re-examined when the patent
was reissued in November 1857. Testimony showed
cisions
was very valuable; and
that the patent
"had been
that Kelly
untirinij in his efforts to introduce
it
into
use but the opposition of iron manufacturers and the
amount
on
settled prac-
Patent Ollice not to reconsider former de-
of capital required prevented
him from
re-
ceiving anythine; from his patent until within very
few years past." Kelly's expenditures were shown to
have amounted to $11,500, whereas he had received
only $2,400. Since no evidence was filed in support
of the public interest aspect of the case, the
sioner found
no substantial reason
for
Commis-
denying the
his relationship with the
may
It
I".l)i)w
Vale
well be that the "opinion of
"''
is .sound, and liiat iioih
Mushci and Bessemer had successfulK worked at the
same proijlem. The study of Mushei's letters to the
technical press and of the attitude of the editors of
those papers to Mushet suggests the possibility that he,
too, was used by Ebbw Vale for the pin-poses of their
attacks on Bessemer. Mushet admits that he was not
a free agent in respect of these patents, and the failure
of Ebbw Vale to ensure their full life under English
patent law indicates clearly enough that by 1859 the
firm had realized that their position was not strong
enough to warrant a legal suit for infringement
metallurgists in later years"
Their purchase of the Uchatius
against Bessemer.
"very few patentees are able to
process and their final attempt to develop Martien's
present so strong grounds for extension as the appli-
which exposed them
by Bessemer, are also indications of the politics in the case. Mushet seems to
have been a willing enough victim of Ebbw \'ale's
scheming. His letters show an almost presumptuous
assumption of the mantle of his father; while his
sometimes absurd claims to priority of invention (and
extension; indeed
cant in the
In
a
similar
Bessemer had
application
failed to
patent 16082, of
reason that his
made
in
November
Briti.sh
the
previous
win an extension of
11,
his
year,
U.
patent with which
and
S.
1856, for the sole
it
had been
co-terminal had duly expired at the end of
its
would have been inequitable to give Bessemer protection in the United
States while British iron-masters were not under
similar restraint. But if it had not been for this
consideration, Bessemer "would be justly entitled to
what he asks on this occasion." The Commissioner '"*
ob.served". "It may be questioned whether [Be.s.semer]
was first to discover the principle upon which his procBut we owe its reduction to pracess was founded.
tice to his untiring industry and perseverance, his
superior skill and .science and his great outlay."
fourteen years of
ideas through the Parry patents,
very real
to a
ca.se."
life,
it
demonstration) of practically every new idea
manufacturing of iron and
name.
the respect for his
steel progressively
Bessemer
steel
making and, given his attitude to
on professional advice in this
reliance
is
steel.
In the ])resent state of the record,
it
not an unreasonable a.ssumption that his patent
was never
seriously
exploited and
Vale Iron Works hoped to use
the
Mushet
it,
in
that
the
Rbbw
conjunction with
A
dispassionate
owed more
judgment would be
development work
to the
The position of Mushet is not so clear, and it
hoped that further research can eventually throw
is
a
Bessemer
Kelly's right to be adjudged the joint insentor of
is
now
often called the Kelly-Bes.semer process
no means
clear,
is
Admittedly, he experimented in the
blasts,
but
it is
by
on the evidence, that he got beyond
the experimental stage.
It
had the objective of making
mer's primary aim.
Nor
is
is
certain that he never
steel,
which was Besse-
there evidence that his
process was taken beyond the experimental stage by
Cambria Works.
by W.
F.
at least,
The
rejection of his
upon
the
Johnstown
1884.
'" U. S. Patent OfTice, Decision of Commissioner of Patents
dated February 12, 1870.
Engineering, 1896, vol. 61, p. 367.
'" William
'^''
"apparatus"
Durfee must have been based, to some extent
'" Sec U. S. Patent Office, Decision of Commissioner of
PatcnU, dated June 15, 1871.
46
that
of his Swedish
Mushet.
licensees than to
the
patents, to upset Bessemer's patents.
he
respect,
should perhaps, be given the benefit of the doubt.
treatment of molten metal with air
making
an impres-
claiiTis
manganese in
patents and his
questionable.'^"
Martien was probably never a serious contender for
the honor of discovering the atmospheric process of
in the
reduced
sive array of precedents for the use of
what
Concl usions
risk of a suit
1'.
trials.
Jeans, The creators of
There are strong
the age of steel,
Bessemer dealt with Kelly's claim to priority
London,
in a Utter to
BULLETIN 218: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY .AND TECHNOLOGY
grounds then, for agreeing with one
Iiistorian
who
'^'
The
Kelly was an American
fact that
is
evidently the
made
principal reason vvh\- certain popular writers have
much
had not Bessemer developed
would never have attracted notice. Kelly's
of an invention that,
process,
his
patent proved very useful
country
as
bargaining
a
to
industrial
weapon
in
interests
in
negotiations
this
'-'
Louis C. Hunter,
F.
New
Williamson
York, 1944,
PAPER
.3:
"The heavy
(editor),
'^^
that
some
his secret to
ably, never be verified.
puddlef s may
Bessemer can, prob-
British
All that can be said
Bessemer was not an ironman;
his contacts
is
that
with the
iron trade were, so far as can be ascertained, nonexistent until he himself invaded SheHield.
unlikely that such a secret
with
the Bessemer group for the exchange of patent rights.
H.
Kelly's suggestion
have communicated
conchides:
him, even
if
So
it
is
would have been taken
to
he were a well-known inventor.
industries since 1860," in
Thf growth
of the American economy.
p. 469.
BEGINNINGS OF CHEAP STEEL
'--
Later developed into a dramatic story by Boucher,
op. cil.
(footnote 97).
47