Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY:
PAPER 3
THE BEGINNINGS OF CHEAP STEEL
_Philip W. Bishop_
STEEL BEFORE THE 1850's 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
THE BEGINNINGS OF CHEAP STEEL
By Philip W. Bishop
_Other inventors claimed a part in the invention of the Bessemer
process of making steel. Here, the contemporary discussion in the
technical press is 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 the antagonism shown by the
ironmasters toward Bessemer's ideas._
THE AUTHOR: _Philip W. Bishop is curator of arts and manufactures,
Museum of History and Technology, in the Smithsonian Institution's
United States National Museum._
The development of the world's productive resources during the 19th
century, accelerated in general by major innovations in the field of
power, transportation, and textiles, was retarded by the occurrence of
certain bottlenecks. One of these affected the flow of suitable and
economical raw materials to the machine tool and transportation
industries: in spite of a rapid growth of iron production, the methods
of making steel remained as they were in the previous century; and
outputs remained negligible.
In the decade 1855-1865, this situation was completely changed in Great
Britain and in Europe generally; and when the United States emerged
from the Civil War, that country found itself in a position to take
advantage of the European innovations and to start a period of growth
which, in the next 50 years, was to establish her as the world's
largest producer of steel.
This study reviews the controversy as to the origin of the process
which, for more than 35 years[1] provided the greater part of the steel
production of the United States. It concerns four men for whom priority
of invention in one or more aspects of the process has been claimed.
[1] From 1870 through 1907, "Bessemer" production accounted for
not less 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 1789-1945 (Washington,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1949), Tables
J. 165-170 at p. 187.
The process consists in forcing through molten cast iron, held in a
vessel called a converter, a stream of cold air under pressure. The
combination of the oxygen in the air with the silicon and carbon in the
metal raises the temperature of the latter in a spectacular way and
after "blowing" for a certain period, eliminates the carbon from the
metal. Since steel of various qualities demands the inclusion of from
0.15 to 1.70 percent of carbon, the blow has to be terminated before
the elimination of the whole carbon content; or if the carbon content
has been eliminated the appropriate percentage of carbon has to be put
back. This latter operation is carried out by adding a precise quantity
of manganiferous pig-iron (spiegeleisen) or ferromanganese, the
manganese serving to remove the oxygen, which has combined with the
iron during the blow.
The controversy which surrounded its development concerned two aspects
of the process: The use of the cold air blast to raise the temperature
of the molten metal, and the application of manganese to overcome the
problem of control of the carbon and oxygen content.
Bessemer, who began his experiments in the making of iron and steel in
1854, secured his first patent in Great Britain in January 1855, and
was persuaded to present information about his discovery to a meeting
of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held at
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, in August 1856. His title "The Manufacture
of Iron without Fuel" was given wide publicity in Great Britain and in
the United States. Among those who wrote to the papers to contest
Bessemer's theories were several claimants to priority of invention.
Two men claimed that they had anticipated 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 Vale Iron Works, in South Wales,
secured a provisional patent a few days before Bessemer obtained one of
his series of patents for making cast steel, a circumstance which
provided ammunition for those who wished to dispute Bessemer's somewhat
spectacular claims. William Kelly, an ironmaster of Eddyville,
Kentucky, brought into action by an American report of Bessemer's
British Association paper, opposed the granting of a United States
patent to Bessemer and substantiated, to the satisfaction of the
Commissioner of Patents, his claim to priority in the "air boiling"
process.
A third man, this one a Scot resident in England, intervened to claim
that he had devised the means whereby Martien's and Bessemer's ideas
could be made practical. He was Robert Mushet of Coleford,
Gloucestershire, a metallurgist and self-appointed "sage" of the
British iron and steel industry who also was associated with the Ebbw
Vale Iron Works as a consultant. He, like his American contemporaries,
has become established in the public 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 introduction of the new
technique, the suspicion has remained that he exploited the inventions
of the others, if indeed he did not steal them.
In this study, based largely upon the contemporary discussion in the
technical press, the relation of the four men to each other is
re-examined and an attempt is made to place the controversy of
1855-1865 in focus. The necessity for a reappraisal arises from the
fact that today's references to the origin of Bessemer steel[2] often
contain chronological and other inaccuracies arising in many cases from
a dependence on secondary and sometimes unreliable sources. As a
result, Kelly's contribution has, perhaps, been overemphasized, with
the effect of derogating from the work of another American, Alexander
Lyman Holley, who more than any man is entitled to credit for
establishing Bessemer steel in America.[3]
[2] See especially material distributed by the American Iron and
Steel Institute in connection with its celebration of the
centennial of Steel: "Steel centennial (1957), press
information," prepared by Hill and Knowlton, Inc., and released
by the Institute as of May 1, 1957.
[3] Holley's work is outside the scope of this paper. Belatedly,
his biography is now being written. It 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 scene and laid a substantial part of the foundation for
the modern American steel industry.
Steel Before the 1850's
In spite of a rapid increase in the use of machines and the
overwhelming demand for iron products for the expanding railroads, the
use of steel had expanded little prior to 1855. The methods of
production were still largely those of a century earlier. Slow
preparation of the steel by cementation or in crucibles meant a
disproportionate consumption of fuel and a resulting high cost.
Production in small quantities prevented the adoption of steel in uses
which required large initial masses of metal. Steel was, in fact, a
luxury 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, for nearly 100 years. Josiah Marshall
Heath's patents of 1839, were the first developments in the direction
of cheaper steel, his process leading to a reduction of from 30 to 40
percent in the price of good steel in the Sheffield market.[4] Heath's
secret was the addition to the charge of from 1 to 3 percent of
carburet of manganese[5] as a deoxidizer. Heath's failure to word his
patent so as to cover also his method of producing carburet of
manganese led to the effective breakdown of that patent and to the
general adoption of his process without payment of license or royalty.
In spite of this reduction in the cost of its production, steel
remained, until after the midpoint of the century, an insignificant
item in the output of the iron and steel industry, being used
principally in the manufacture of cutlery and edge tools.
[4] Andrew Ure, _Dictionary of arts, manufactures and mines_, New
York, 1856, p. 735.
[5] See 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
manganese in this way.
The stimulus towards new methods of making steel and, indeed, of making
new steels came curiously enough from outside the established industry,
from a man who was not an ironmaster--Henry Bessemer. The way in which
Bessemer challenged the trade was itself unusual. There are few cases
in which a stranger to an industry has taken the risk of giving a
description of a new process in a public forum like a meeting of the
British Association for the Advancement of Science. He challenged the
trade, not only to attack his theories but to produce evidence from
their own plants that they could provide an alternative means of
satisfying an emergent demand. Whether or not Bessemer is entitled to
claim priority of invention, one can but agree with the ironmaster who
said:[6] "Mr. Bessemer has raised such a spirit of enquiry throughout
... the land as must lead to an improved system of manufacture."
[6] _Mining Journal_, 1857, vol. 27, p. 465.
Bessemer and his Competitors
Henry Bessemer (1813-1898), an Englishman of French extraction, was the
son of a mechanical engineer with a special interest in metallurgy. His
environment and his unusual ability to synthesize his observation and
experience enabled Bessemer to begin a career of invention by
registering his first patent at the age of 25. His active experimenting
continued until his death, although the public record of his results
ended with a patent issued on the day before his seventieth birthday. A
total of 117 British patents[7] bear his name, not all of them, by any
means, successful in the sense of producing a substantial income.
Curiously, Bessemer's financial stability was assured by the success of
an invention he did not patent. This was a process of making bronze
powder and gold paint, until the 1830's a secret held in Germany.
Bessemer's substitute for an expensive imported product, in the 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 minimum of hired labor and with close security
control. The fact that he kept the method secret for 40 years, suggests
that his machinery[8] (Bessemer describes it as virtually automatic in
operation) represented an appreciation of coordinated design greatly in
advance of his time. His experience must have directly contributed 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.
[7] _Sir Henry Bessemer, F.R.S., an autobiography_, London, 1905,
p. 332.
[8] _Ibid._, p. 59 ff.
In the light of subsequent developments, it is necessary to consider
Bessemer's attitude toward the patent privilege. He describes his
secret gold paint as an example of "what the public has had to pay for
not being able to give ... security to the inventor" in a situation
where the production of the material "could not be identified as having
been made by any particular form of mechanism."[9] The inability to
obtain a patent over the method of production meant that the disclosure
of his formula, necessary for patent specification, would openly invite
competitors, including the Germans, to evolve their own techniques.
Bessemer concludes:[10]
Had the invention been patented, it would have become public
property in fourteen years from the date of the patent, after which
period the public would have been able to buy bronze powder at its
present [_i.e._, _ca._ 1890] market price, viz. from two shillings
and three pence to two shillings and nine pence per pound. But this
important secret was kept for about thirty-five years and the
public had to pay excessively high prices for twenty-one years
longer than they would have done had the invention become public
property in fourteen years, as it would have been if patented. Even
this does not represent all the disadvantages resulting from secret
manufacture. While every detail of production was a profound
secret, there were no 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.
[9] _Ibid._, p. 82.
[10] _Ibid._, p. 83.
While these words, to some extent, were the rationalizations of an old
man, Bessemer's career showed that his philosophy had a practical
foundation; and, if this was indeed his belief, the episode explains in
large measure Bessemer's later insistence on the legal niceties of the
patent procedure. The effect of this will be seen.
Bessemer's intervention in the field of iron and steel 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
reverberatory furnace.[11] His work in glass manufacture at least gave
him considerable experience in the problems of fusion under high
temperatures and provided some support for his later claim that in
applying the reverberatory furnace to the manufacture of malleable iron
as described in his first patent of January 1855, he had in some manner
anticipated the work of C. W. Siemens and Emil Martin.[12]
[11] _Ibid._, p. 108 ff.
[12] _Ibid._, p. 141. Bessemer's assertion that he had approached
"within measurable distance" of anticipating the Siemens-Martin
process, made in a paper presented at a meeting of the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (_Transactions of the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers_, 1897, vol. 28, p. 459), evoked
strong criticism of Bessemer's lack of generosity (_ibid._, p.
482). One commentator, friendly to Bessemer, put it that
"Bessemer's relation to the open-hearth process was very much
like Kelly's to the Bessemer process.... Although he was
measurably near to the open-hearth process, he did not follow it
up and make it a commercial success...." (_ibid._, p. 491).
The general interest in problems of ordnance and armor, stimulated by
the Crimean War (1854-1856), was shared by Bessemer, whose ingenuity
soon produced a design for a projectile which could provide its own
rotation when fired from a smooth-bore gun.[13] Bessemer's failure to
interest the British War Office in the idea led him to submit his
design to the Emperor Napoleon III. Trials made with the encouragement
of the Emperor showed the inadequacy of the cast-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 limited
knowledge of the metallurgy of war," he attacked with impetuosity.
Within three weeks of his experiments in France, he had applied for a
patent for "Improvements in the Manufacture of Iron and Steel."[14]
This covered the fusion of steel with pig or cast iron and, though this
must be regarded as only the first practical step toward the Bessemer
process,[15] it was his experiments with the furnace which provided
Bessemer with the idea for his later developments.
[13] British patent 2489, November 24, 1854.
[14] Bessemer, _op. cit._ (footnote 7), p. 137 He received
British patent 66, dated January 10, 1855.
[15] See James W. Dredge, "Henry Bessemer 1813-1898,"
_Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers_,
1898, vol. 19, p. 911.
These were described in his patent dated October 17, 1855 (British
patent 2321). This patent is significant to the present study because
his application for an American patent, based on similar
specifications, led to the interference of William Kelly and to the
subsequent denial of the American patent.[16] In British patent 2321
Bessemer proposed to convert his steel in crucibles, arranged in a
suitable furnace and each having a vertical tuyere, through which air
under pressure was forced through the molten metal. As Dredge[17]
points out, Bessemer's association of the air blast with the increase
in the temperature of the metal "showed his appreciation of the end in
view, and the general way of attaining it, though his mechanical
details were still crude and imperfect."
[16] See U.S. Patent Office, Decision of Commissioner of Patents,
dated April 13, 1857, in Kelly vs. Bessemer Interference. This is
further discussed below (p. 42).
[17] Dredge, _op. cit._ (footnote 15), p. 912.
[Illustration: Figure 1.--BESSEMER'S DESIGN FOR A CONVERTER, AS SHOWN
IN U.S. PATENT 16082. This patent, dated November 11, 1856, corresponds
with British patent 356, dated February 12, 1856. The more familiar
design of converter appeared first in British patent 578, March 1,
1860. The contrast with Kelly's schematic drawing in Fig. 2 (p. 42) is
noticeable.]
Experiments were continued and several more British patents were
applied for before Bessemer made his appearance before the British
Association on August 13, 1856.[18] Bessemer described his first
converter and its operation in some detail. Although he was soon to
realize that he "too readily allowed myself to bring my inventions
under public notice,"[19] Bessemer had now thrown out a challenge which
eventually had to be taken up, regardless of the strength of the vested
interests involved. The provocation came from his claims that the
product of the first stage of the conversion was the equivalent of
charcoal iron, the processes following the smelting being conducted
without contact with, or the use of, any mineral fuel; and that further
blowing could be used to produce any quality of metal, that is, a steel
with any desired percentage of carbon. Yet, the principal irritant to
the complacency of the ironmaster must have been Bessemer's attack on
an 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 handle no more than
400 to 500 pounds of iron at a time, divided into the "homeopathic
doses" of 70 or 80 pounds capable of being handled by human labor.[20]
Bessemer's claim to "do" 800 pounds of metal in 30 minutes against the
puddling furnace's output of 500 pounds in two hours was calculated to
arouse the opposition of those who feared the loss of capital invested
in puddling furnaces and of those who suspected that their jobs might
be in jeopardy. The ensuing criticism of Bessemer has to be
interpreted, therefore, with this in mind; not by any means was it
entirely based on objective consideration of the method or the
product.[21]
[18] Bessemer's paper was reported in _The Times_, London, August
14, 1856. By the time the Transactions of the British Association
were prepared for publication, the controversy aroused by
Bessemer's claim to manufacture "malleable iron and steel without
fuel" had broken out and it was decided not to report the paper.
Dredge (_op. cit._, footnote 15, p. 915) describes this decision
as "sagacious."
[19] Bessemer, _op. cit._ (footnote 7), p. 164.
[20] _The Times_, London, August 14, 1856.
[21] David Mushet recognized that Bessemer's great feature was
this effort to "raise the after processes ... to a level
commensurate with the preceding case" (_Mining Journal_, 1856, p.
599).
Within a month of his address, Bessemer had sold licenses to several
ironmasters (outside Sheffield) and so provided himself with capital
with which to continue his development work; but he refused to sell his
patents outright to the Ebbw Vale Iron Works and by this action, as
will be seen, he created an enemy for himself.
The three years between 1856 and 1859, when Bessemer opened his own
steel works in Sheffield, were occupied in tracing the causes of his
initial difficulties. There was continued controversy in the technical
press. Bessemer (unless he used a _nom-de-plume_) took no part in it
and remained silent until he made another public appearance before the
Institution of Civil Engineers in London (May 1859). By this time
Bessemer's process was accepted as a practical one, and the claims of
Robert Mushet to share in his achievement was becoming clamorous.
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 have been a victim of Bessemer's
astuteness--or villainy. Because of Robert Mushet's preference for the
quiet of Coleford, many important facts about his career are lacking;
but even if his physical life was that of a recluse, his frequent and
verbose contributions to the correspondence columns of the technical
press made him 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 every discussion
concerning the manufacture of iron and steel, it is somewhat surprising
that he refrained from comment on Bessemer's British Association
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 the pen.[22] Recognizing Bessemer's invention as a
"congruous appendage to [the] now highly developed powers of the blast
furnace" which he describes as "too 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."[23] A month later,
however, David Mushet had so modified his opinion of Bessemer as to
come to the conclusion that the latter "must indeed be classed with the
most unfortunate inventors." He gave as his reason for this turnabout
his discovery that Joseph Martien had demonstrated his process 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 against Bessemer. Mushet
was convinced that Martien's was the first in the field.[24]
[22] See _Mining Journal_, 1857, vol. 27, pp. 839 and 855. David
Mushet withdrew from the discussion after 1858 and his relapse
into obscurity is only broken by an appeal for funds for the
family of Henry Cort. A biographer of the Mushets is of the
opinion that Robert Mushet wrote these letters and obtained
David's signature to them (Fred M. Osborn, _The story of the
Mushets_, 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."
[23] _Mining Journal_, 1856, vol. 26, p. 567.
[24] _Ibid._, pp. 631 and 647. The case of Martien will be
discussed below (p. 36). David Mushet had overlooked Bessemer's
patent of January 10, 1855.
Robert Mushet's campaign on behalf of his own claims to have 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 "Sideros"[25] he gave credit to
Martien for "the great discovery that pig-iron can, whilst in the fluid
state, be purified ... by forcing currents of air under it ...," though
Martien had failed to observe the use of temperature by the "deflation
of the iron itself"; and for discovering that--
when the carbon has been all, or nearly all, dissipated, the
temperature increases to an almost inconceivable extent, so that
the mass, when containing only as much carbon as is requisite to
constitute with it cast steel ... still retains a perfect degree of
fluidity.
[25] _Mining Journal_, 1857, vol. 27, 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 of national biography_, vol. 39, p. 429), enabled him
to carry on two debates at a time and also to sing his own
praises.
This, says "Sideros," was no new observation; "it had been before the
metallurgical world, both practical and scientific, for centuries," but
Bessemer was the first to show that this generation of heat could be
attained by blowing cold air through the melted iron. Mushet goes on to
show, however, that the steel thus produced by Bessemer was not
commercially valuable because the sulphur and phosphorous remained, and
the dispersion of oxide of iron through the mass "imported to it the
inveterate hot-short quality which no subsequent operation could
expel." "Sideros" concludes that Bessemer's discovery was "at least for
a time" now shelved and arrested in its progress; and it 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 inventor can no longer reap the fruits of his life-long
toil and unflinching perseverance." In an ensuing letter he[26] summed
up the situation as he saw it:
Nothing that Mr. Mushet can hereafter invent can entitle him to the
merit of Mr. Bessemer's great discovery ... and ... 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
process.
[26] _Ibid._, p. 823. Mushet's distinction between an inventor
and a patentee is indicative of the disdain of a son of David
Mushet for an amateur (see also p. 886).
Bessemer still did not intervene in the newspaper discussion; nor had
he had any serious supporters, at least in the early stage.[27]
[27] One William Green had commented extensively on David
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' Magazine_, 1856, vol. 65, p. 373
ff.). Green wrote from Caledonian Road, and the proximity to
Baxter House, Bessemer's London headquarters, suggests the
possibility that Green was writing for Bessemer.
Publication in the _Mining Journal_ of a list of Mushet's patents,[28]
evidently in response to Sideros' complaint, now presented Bessemer
with notice of Robert Mushet's activity, even if he had not already
observed his claims as they were presented to the Patent Office.
Mushet, said the _Mining Journal_--
appears to intend to carry on his researches from the point where
Mr. J. G. Martien left off and is proceeding on the Bessemer plan
of patenting each idea as it occurs to his imaginative brain. He
proposes to make both iron and steel but does not appear to have
quite decided as to the course of action ... to accomplish his
object, and therefore claims various processes, some of which are
never likely to realize the inventor's expectations, although
decidedly novel, whilst others are but slight modification of
inventions which have already been tried and failed.
[28] _Mining Journal_, 1857, vol. 27, p. 764.
The contemporary attitude is reflected in another comment by the
_Mining Journal_:[29]
Although the application of chemical knowledge to the manufacture
of malleable iron cannot fail 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 shall maintain until the contrary be actually proved. With
regard to steel, there may be a large field for chemical research
... however, we 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.
[29] _Ibid._, p. 764.
Another correspondent, William Green, was of the opinion that Mushet's
"new compounds and alloys," promised well as an auxiliary to the
Bessemer process but that "the evil which it was intended to remove was
more visionary than real." Bessemer's chief difficulty was the
phosphorus, not the oxide of iron "as Mr. Mushet assumes." This,
Bessemer no doubt would deal with in due course, but meanwhile he did
well "to concentrate his energies upon the steel operations," after
which he would have time to tackle "the difficulties which have so far
retarded the iron operations."[30]
[30] _Ibid._, p. 791.
Mushet[31] claims to have taken out his patent of September 22, 1856,
covering the famous "triple compound," after he--
had fully ascertained, upon the ordinary scale of manufacture that
air-purified cast-iron, when treated as set forth in my
specifications, would afford tough malleable iron ... I found,
however, that the remelting of the coke pig-iron, in contact with
coke fuel, hardened the iron too much, and it became evident that
an air-furnace was more proper for my purpose ... [the
difficulties] arose, not from any defect in my process, but were
owing to the small quantity of the metal operated upon and the
imperfect arrangement of the purifying vessel, 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._
[31] _Ibid._, p. 770 (italics supplied).
Mushet also claimed to have designed his own "purifying and mixing"
furnace, of 20-ton capacity, which he had submitted to the Ebbw Vale
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 avaricious hope that the
parties connected with the patents will make me honorable amends ...
these patents were suppressed without my knowledge or consent." Lest
his qualifications should be questioned, Mushet concludes:
I do not profess to be an iron chemist, but I have undoubtedly 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 with what has yet to be discovered.
So began Mushet's claim to have solved Bessemer's problem, a claim
which was to fill the correspondence columns of the engineering
journals for the next ten years. Interpretation of this correspondence
is made difficult 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 to the close of the
year 1856, with the cooperation of Thomas Brown of the Ebbw Vale Iron
Works.[32] The price of this assistance was apparently half interest in
Mushet's patents, though for reasons which Mushet does not explain the
deed prepared to effect the transfer was never executed.[33] Mushet
continued, however, to regard the patents as "wholly my own, though at
the same time, I am bound in honor to take no unfair advantage of the
non-execution of that deed." A possible explanation of this situation
may be found in Ebbw Vale's activities in connection with Martien and
Bessemer, as well as with an Austrian inventor, Uchatius.
[32] _Ibid._, p. 770.
[33] _Ibid._, p. 823.
Ebbw Vale and the Bessemer Process
After his British Association address in August 1856, Bessemer had
received applications from several ironmasters for licenses, which were
issued in return for a down payment and a nominal royalty of 25 pence
per ton. Among those who started negotiations was Mr. Thomas Brown of
Ebbw Vale Iron Works, one of the largest of the South Wales plants. He
proposed, however, instead of a license, an outright purchase of
Bessemer's patents for L50,000. Bessemer refused to sell, and according
to his[34] account--
intense disappointment and anger quite got the better of [Brown]
and for the moment he could not realize the fact of my refusal....
[He then] left me very abruptly, saying in an irritated tone ...
"I'll make you see the matter differently yet" and slammed the door
after him.
[34] Bessemer, _op. cit._ (footnote 7), p. 169.
David Mushet's advocacy of Martien's claim to priority over Bessemer
has already been noticed (p. 33). From him we learn[35] that Martien's
experiments leading to his patent of September 15, 1855, had been
carried out at the Ebbw Vale Works in South Wales, where he engaged in
"perfecting the Renton process."[36] 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.
[35] _Mining Journal_, 1856, vol. 26, p. 631.
[36] James Renton's process (U.S. patent 8613, December 23, 1851)
had been developed at Newark, New Jersey, in 1854. It was a
modification of the puddling furnace, in which the ore and carbon
were heated in tubs, utilizing the waste heat of the
reverberatory furnace (see the _Mechanics' Magazine_, vol. 62, p.
246, 1855). Renton died at Newark in September 1856 (_Mechanics'
Magazine_, 1856, vol. 65, p. 422).
It is known that Martien's patent was in the hands of the Ebbw Vale
Iron Works by March 1857.[37] This fact must be added to our knowledge
that Mushet's patent of September 22, 1856 was drawn up with a specific
reference to the application of his "triple compound" to "iron ...
purified by the action of air, in the manner invented by Joseph Gilbert
Martien,"[38] and that this and his other manganese patents were under
the effective control of Ebbw Vale. It seems a reasonable deduction
from these circumstances that Brown's offer to buy out Bessemer and his
subsequent threat were the consequences of a determination by Ebbw Vale
to attack Bessemer by means of patent infringement suits.
[37] _Mining Journal_, 1857, vol. 27, p. 193.
[38] British patent 2219, September 22, 1856.
Some aspects of the Ebbw Vale situation are not yet explained. Martien
came to South Wales from Newark, New Jersey, where he had been manager
of Renton's Patent Semi-Bituminous Coal Furnace, owned by James Quimby,
and where he had something to do with the installation of Renton's
first furnace in 1854. The first furnace was unsuccessful.[39] Martien
next appears in Britain, at the Ebbw Vale Iron Works. No information is
available as to whether Martien's own furnace was actually installed at
Ebbw Vale, although as noted above, David Mushet claims to have been
invited to see it there.
[39] Joseph P. Lesley, _The iron manufacturer's guide_, New York,
1859, p. 34. Martien's name is spelled Marteen. A description of
the furnace is given in _Scientific American_ of February 11,
1854, (vol. 9, p. 169). In the patent interference proceedings
referred to below, it was stated that the furnace was in
successful operation in 1854.
Martien secured an American patent for his process in 1857 and to file
his application appears to have gone to the United States, where he
remained at least until October 1858.[40] He seems to have taken the
opportunity to apply for another patent for a furnace similar to that
of James Renton. This led to interferences proceedings in which Martien
showed that he had worked on this furnace at Bridgend, Glamorganshire
(one of the Ebbw Vale plants), improving Renton's design by increasing
the number of "deoxydizing tubes." 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.[41]
[40] U.S. patent 16690, February 22, 1857. A correspondent of the
_Mining Journal_ (1858, vol. 28, p. 713) states that Martien had
not returned to England by October 1858.
[41] 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
Martien.
Since Renton had not patented his furnace in Great Britain, Martien's
use of his earlier knowledge of Renton's work and of his experience at
Bridgend in an attempt to upset Renton's priority is a curious and at
present unexplainable episode. Perhaps the early records of the Ebbw
Vale Iron Works, if they exist, will show whether this episode was in
some way linked to the firm's optimistic combination of the British
patents of Martien and Mushet.
That Ebbw Vale exerted every effort to find an alternative to
Bessemer's process is suggested, also, by their purchase in 1856 of the
British rights to the Uchatius process, invented by an Austrian Army
officer. The provisional patent specifications, dated October 1, 1855,
showed that Uchatius proposed to make cast steel directly from pig-iron
by melting granulated pig-iron in a crucible with pulverized "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 used in America,[42] appeared to Ebbw Vale to
be something from which, "we can have steel produced at the price
proposed by Mr. Bessemer, notwithstanding the failure of his process to
fulfil the promise."[43]
[42] J. S. Jeans, _op. cit._ (footnote 5), p. 108. The process is
not mentioned by James M. Swank, _History of the manufacture of
iron in all ages_, Philadelphia, American Iron and Steel
Association, 1892.
[43] _Mining Journal_, 1856, vol. 26, p. 707.
So far as is known only one direct attempt was made, presumably
instigated by Ebbw Vale, to enforce their patents against Bessemer, who
records[44] a visit by Mushet's agent some two or three months before a
renewal fee on Mushet's basic manganese patents became payable in 1859.
Bessemer "entirely repudiated" Mushet's patents and offered to perform
his operations in the presence of Mushet's lawyers and witnesses at the
Sheffield Works so that a prosecution for infringement "would be a very
simple matter." That, he says, was the last heard from the agent or
from Mushet on the subject.[45] The renewal fee was not paid and the
patents were therefore abandoned by Ebbw Vale and their associates, a
fact which did not come to Mushet's knowledge until 1861, when he
himself declared that the patent "was never in my hands at all [so]
that I could not enforce it."[46]
[44] Bessemer, _op. cit._ (footnote 7), p. 290.
[45] The American Iron and Steel Institute's "Steel centennial
(1957) press information" (see footnote 2), includes a pamphlet,
"Kelly lighted the fireworks ..." by Vaughn Shelton (New York,
1956), which asserts (p. 12) that Bessemer paid the renewal fee
and became the owner of Mushet's "vital" patent.
[46] Robert Mushet, _The Bessemer-Mushet process_, Cheltenham,
1883, p. 24; _The Engineer_, 1861, vol. 12, pp. 177 and 189.
Further support for the thesis that Ebbw Vale's policy was in part
dictated by a desire to make Bessemer "see the matter differently" is
to be found in the climatic episode. Work on Martien's patents had not
been abandoned and in 1861 certain patents were taken out by George
Parry, Ebbw Vale's furnace manager. These, represented as improvements
of Martien's designs, were regarded by Bessemer as clear infringements
of his own patents.[47] When it came to Bessemer's knowledge that Ebbw
Vale 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 L30,000.
Ebbw Vale, thereupon, issued their prospectus[48] with the significant
statement 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 the owner of the Martien and Parry
patents. Mushet's basic patents no longer existed.
[47] _The Engineer_, 1862, vol. 14, p. 3. Bessemer, _op. cit._
(footnote 7), p. 296.
[48] _Mining Journal_, 1864, vol. 34, p. 478.
Mushet and Bessemer
That Mushet was "used" by Ebbw Vale against Bessemer is, perhaps, only
an assumption; but that he was badly treated by Ebbw Vale is subject to
no doubt. Mushet's business capacity was small but it is difficult to
believe that he could have been so foolish as to assign an interest in
his patents to Ebbw Vale without in some way insuring his right of
consultation about their disposition. He claims that even in the
drafting of his specifications he was obliged to follow die demands of
Ebbw Vale, which firm, believing, "on the advice of Mr. Hindmarsh, the
most eminent patent counsel of the day,"[49] that Martien's patent
outranked Bessemer's, insisted that Mushet link his process to
Martien's. This, as late as 1861, Mushet believed to be in effective
operation.[50] His later repudiation of the process as an absurd and
impracticable patent process "possessing neither value nor utility"[51]
may more truly represent his opinion, especially as, when he wrote his
1861 comment, he still did not know of the disappearance of his
patents.
[49] _The Engineer_, 1861, vol. 12, p. 189.
[50] _Ibid._, p. 78.
[51] Mushet, _op. cit._ (footnote 46), p. 9.
Mushet's boast[52] that he had never been into an ironworks other than
his own in Coleford is a clue to the interpretation of his behavior in
general and also of his frequent presumptuous claims. When, for
instance, the development of the Uchatius process was publicized, he
gave his opinion[53] that the process was a useless one and had been
patented before Uchatius "understood its nature"; yet later[54] he
could claim that the process was "in fact, my own invention and I had
made and sold the steel thus produced for some years previously to the
date of Captain Uchatius' patent". Moreover, he claims to have
instructed Uchatius' agents in its operation! He may, at this later
date, have recalled his challenge (the first of many such) in which he
offered Uchatius' agent in England to pay a monetary penalty if he
could not show a superior method of producing "sound serviceable cast
steel from British coke pig-iron, _on the stomic plan_ and without any
mixture of clay, oxide of manganese or any of these pot destroying
ingredients."[55]
[52] _Ibid._, p. 25.
[53] _Mining Journal_, 1857, vol. 27, p. 755.
[54] Mushet, _op. cit._ (footnote 46), p. 28. The Uchatius
process became the "You-cheat-us" process to Mushet (_Mining
Journal_, 1858, vol. 28, p. 34).
[55] _Mining Journal_, 1857, vol. 27, p. 755 (italics supplied).
It was David Mushet (or Robert, using his brother's name)[56] who
accused Bessemer, or rather his patent agent, Carpmael, of sharp
practice in connection with Martien's specification, an allegation
later supported by Martien's first patent agent, Avery.[57] The story
was that for the drafting of his final specification, Martien,
presumably with the advice of the 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 method to iron flowing in a channel or gutter from
the blast furnace, and so prevented him from applying his aeration
principle in any kind of receptacle. In effect, Carpmael was acting
unprofessionally by giving Bessemer the prior claim to the use of a
receptacle. According to Mushet, Martien had in fact "actually and
publicly proved" his process in a receptacle and not in a gutter, so
that his claim to priority could be maintained on the basis of the
provisional specification.
[56] See footnote 22.
[57] _Mining Journal_, 1856, vol. 26, pp. 583, 631.
This, like other Mushet allegations, was ignored by Bessemer, and
probably with good reason. At any rate, Martien's American patent is in
terms similar to those of the British specification; he or his advisers
seem to have attached no significance to the distinction between a
gutter and a receptacle.
Mushet's claim to have afforded Bessemer the means of making his own
process useful is still subject to debate. Unfortunately, documentation
of the case is almost wholly one sided, since his biggest publicizer
was Mushet himself. An occasional editorial in the technical press and
a few replies to Mushet's "lucubrations" are all the material which
exists, apart from Bessemer's own story.
Mushet and at least five other men patented the use of manganese in
steel making in 1856; his own provisional specification was filed
within a month of the publication of Bessemer's British Association
address in August 1856. So it is strange that Robert Mushet did not
until more than a year later join in the controversy which followed
that address.[58] In one of his early letters he claims to have made of
"his" steel a bridge rail of 750 pounds weight; although his brother
insists that he saw the same rail in the Ebbw Vale offices in London in
the spring of 1857, when it was presented as a specimen of Uchatius
steel![59] Robert Mushet's indignant "advertisement" of January 5,
1858,[60] reiterating his parentage of this sample, also claimed a
double-headed steel rail "made by me under another of my patent
processes," and sent to Derby to be laid down there to be "subjected to
intense vertricular triturations." Mushet's description of the
preparation of this ingot[61] shows that it 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 3 of
melted spiegel. It was his claim that the rail was rolled direct from
the ingot, something Bessemer himself could not do at that time.
[58] October 17, 1857, writing as "Sideros" (_Mining Journal_,
1857, vol. 27, p. 723).
[59] _Mining Journal_, 1857, vol. 27, p. 871, and 1858, vol. 28,
p. 12.
[60] _Ibid._ (1858), p. 34.