The course of events now brings me to an incident connected with
Woolwich Arsenal, which I would fain pass over in silence, but, if
history is to be written at all, the historian must speak the truth. In
1859 the firm of Henry Bessemer and Company, of Sheffield, had
qualified themselves to receive proposals to tender to Woolwich
Arsenal, for the supply of steel for cutting tools, and on June 3rd of
that year, we tendered unsuccessfully, under a form of contract sent by
the War Office, at the same price as we were obtaining from several
first-class engineers -- namely , £42 per ton, the ordinary trade price
in Sheffield for such tool steel varying from £50 to £60 per ton. We
tendered again for another lot of tool steel on July 8th, at £40 to £42
per ton; again our offer was not accepted. We tendered also on
September 5th, at prices still lower, viz., from £32 to £40 per ton;
and again, on September 7th, for some bars at £40, and for some (the
greater part) at £32 per ton. But this low tender also failed to secure
us the order, and, as we could make the highest quality of tool steel
by my process from Swedish pig-iron at an extremely low cost, we were
determined on the next occasion to get the order, or know the reason
why. On December 7th, 1859, forms of tender were sent us for two
different sizes of steel bars, and we quoted as low as £20 per ton for
each of them; our tender was then accepted for the first time, and we
commenced at once to make the steel. Bars of each quality were
carefully tested by us in our own works, so as to prevent the
possibility of a single bar being sent out of any but the very highest
quality, my managing partner personally taking charge of these special
tests. This rigid inspection at our works was considered by our firm to
be absolutely necessary in this case, because we felt assured that our
former tender of £32 to £42
was far below that of any Sheffield house, although it was not
accepted; hence our belief that the steel about to be sent would
undergo the most severe and rigid tests.
In due course the steel was delivered to the carriage department at
Woolwich Arsenal, as directed, but, after several days, we were
informed that it was useless, and that we must take it back. Now, the
conditions of the tender were such that the Government officials were the
sole judges of the fitness of the material, and had absolute power of
rejection if not satisfied with it. In case of the steel not proving
satisfactory, the Government had also power to purchase a like quantity
of any other manufacturer, and charge the difference in price to the
person whose steel was rejected. Thus the Government could send back to
us all the steel which had been tendered for at £20 per ton, and
purchase a like quantity at £50 or £60, making our firm pay the
difference of £30 or £40 a ton. Under these circumstances I was
determined to investigate this matter for myself. I accordingly went
clown to the Arsenal, and was shown into the office of the head of the
carriage department. I asked him in what way the steel was defective.
Before replying, he got up from his chair, opened a drawer, and took
out ten or dozen "chipping chisels," which were made, as usual, out of
an octagon bar of steel known in the trade as 7/8 in. "octagon chisel
steel." All but two of the chisels were broken; they were very slender
and delicate, and had been a good deal punished by the prover's hammer.
Notwithstanding this, I was much astonished at such a result, and on
attentively examining the fractured parts I became convinced that they
were not made of the quality known as "chisel steel," which is
invariably used for this purpose. I then looked over the written
contract that had been sent to us, and found that among the specified
shapes and sizes of steel bars therein described, there was not one
single bar of octagon steel. I handed the list to the gentleman who
received me, and asked him to point out octagon steel, which, of
course, he could not do. In order that there should be no possible
mistake on this point, I have had the entry made by my clerk at the
time, in his rough order book at Sheffield, photographed, as shown in
Fig.64, thus furnishing unquestionable evidence of the absence of any
octagon bars in the contract.
On my pointing out the absence of octagon steel in the contract, the
gentleman touched the bell, and told the messenger to send the
storekeeper to him. On the arrival of this person, his chief said: "I
told you to make a dozen octagon chipping chisels, in order to test
the Bessemer steel, and now I find that we had not ordered any; what
did you do?" "Oh," said the man, "I gave out one of the larger bars,
and had it drawn down to octagon, and brought you the chisels." Now,
the nearest bar in size in the whole list that could be made into 7/8
in. octagon bars was in cross-section 3 in. by 1 1/2 in., or more than
six times the area of the 7/8 in. octagon chisels made from it, and it
was, as the fractures showed, of much too hard and highly carburised a
quality to be made into chipping chisels; not to mention the damage it
must have received from the excessive heating in a common blacksmith's
forge. Instead of being tilted down to the proper size, as in a steel
works, it was worked with a smith's hammer by an ordinary blacksmith,
and not a steelsmith -- a fact in itself enough to endanger this highly
carburised steel, which must not be overheated or "burnt." Hence it
must be clear that this so-called test of the quality of Bessemer
steel, supplied under this contract, was, even in the case of chisel
steel, no test at all of its quality. Under these circumstances, any
fair and impartial person would have apologised for such a gross
mistake and wholesale condemnation, and would have said that the other
bars should be carefully tested as to their suitability for the
several purposes for which they were required. But, on the contrary,
the chief, who never even pretended that any other tests had been made,
insisted on condemning the whole of the bars embraced under this
contract. I said: "I will take back the steel which you have power
under the words of the contract to reject so unfairly, and will wash my
hands of Woolwich for all time; but let me tell you that, having
condemned this steel, it is your duty to your employers to purchase an
equal quantity of some other manufacturer, and make our firm pay the
£30 to £40 difference in price. But this is just what you dare not do,
because I should resist such a claim, and that would bring the question
into a Court of Law, where your conduct would become known to the
world." The whole
of this steel was returned to our Sheffield works. We were at that time
regularly supplying this kind of tool steel to the most eminent
engineers in this country, among whom may be mentioned Sir Joseph
Whitworth, Messrs. Sharp, Stewart and Co., Sir William Fairbairn,
Messrs. Beyer, Peacock and Co., etc., who paid us £42 per ton for the
same quality for which we had quoted £20 per ton in the Woolwich
contract, in order to force the Arsenal authorities to accept it. Every
bar of this steel, so shamefully rejected at Woolwich, was marked in
the centre by a special punch, and sent as required to the eminent
firms above referred to, and not one of the bars was ever returned to
us or complained of.
In contrast with this summary rejection of Bessemer steel at Woolwich,
I may mention that we had, during the time when Colonel Eardley Wilmot
was Superintendent of the Royal Gun Factory, supplied him with tool
steel, which had given him every satisfaction. Indeed, he was so
pleased with it that, during the discussion which followed the reading
of my paper on May 24th, 1859, before the Institution of Civil
Engineers, he incidentally made the remarks which I reproduce below
from the printed Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institution. He said:
As regarded the steel, he had been using it for turning the outside of
iron guns, cutting off large shavings several inches in length, and he
had found none superior to it, although much more costly. It was only
necessary to witness the operation of the manufacture by the Bessemer
process, to be satisfied that the expense of converting the pig iron
into any of the products involved scarcely any cost beyond the labour,
and that for a very short period of time. And, as far as the price
went, Mr. Bessemer had offered to supply such sizes as it was worth his
while to make, at the prices stated.
So exceptionally heavy were the cuts and sizes of the shavings he
referred to, that he placed on the table a box full of them, to show
their unusual character.
In the latter part of the year 1859 important changes in the control
and management of the Arsenal took place, and on November 4th Sir
William Armstrong was appointed "Superintendent of the Royal Gun
Factory for Rifled Ordnance." It was on December 7th of the same year
that Henry Bessemer and Company, as one of the authorised
contractors to the Government, supplied a quantity of tool steel at the
low price of £20 a ton, which was summarily rejected under the
circumstances before described. It was quite clear to me that neither
I, nor my steel, was wanted at Woolwich, and I made up my mind to
leave the place severely alone in future.
In the year 1858 we were getting fairly into commercial working at
Sheffield, and on September 8th of that year we supplied a first sample
order of steel boiler-plates to Sir William Fairbairn, of Manchester.
It was deemed desirable to communicate these facts to the world,
through the Institution of Civil Engineers, whose members could not
fail to be deeply interested in the production of a new kind of
homogeneous cast steel, having greater toughness and cohesive strength
than the best wrought iron, and at a cost considerably less than that
of cast steel made by any other known process. I, therefore, wrote a
paper "On the Manufacture of Malleable Iron and Steel," which was
illustrated by many interesting examples of the metal that had been
subjected to various tests of the most severe description. This paper I
submitted to the Council of the Institution about the end of December,
1858. It was accepted, and read at a crowded meeting on May 24th, 1859.
Now, I had no intention whatever to ask Sir William Armstrong, as a
favour to myself, to adopt and use this wonderfully tough and rapidly
produced metal, for the manufacture of gun-tubes, in lieu of the
weaker, and much more costly, coiled iron employed by him for that
purpose. But, I felt that, notwithstanding the summary rejection of
Bessemer steel and Bessemer iron by Lord Herbert, it was a public duty
which I owed to my country to give him a further opportunity, both of
hearing and seeing what was daily being done with welded masses of
Bessemer iron and with Bessemer mild steel. I knew that Sir William
Armstrong had been, for several years, a member of the Institution of
Civil Engineers; he was, when my paper was accepted, also a Member of
Council , and, therefore, was one of the persons by whom all
communications submitted to the Institution were examined, criticised,
and finally voted worthy -- or otherwise -- of being read before a
public meeting of their members, and of being published in their
Proceedings. In the ordinary course of events, my paper would, I knew,
be examined by Sir William Armstrong, and that this would be so
appeared to me the more certain, because the careful and punctual
secretary, Mr. Forrest, was in the habit of sending the actual paper
that was to be examined to the private residences of all Members of
Council who might be absent from the Council meetings. It was also his
custom to invite important persons, who were supposed to be specially
interested in the subject, to attend and take part in the discussion
which follows the reading. Here again it seemed certain, if everything
else failed, that Sir William Armstrong would be invited to come and
join in the discussion of a subject in which he, as a paid servant of
the State, must, or should, take the deepest interest. It was in this
way that Colonel Eardley Wilmot was invited, and was present during the
reading of my paper. But the one man in all Great Britain who was -- or
who ought to have been most deeply interested in the subject, was not
present at this important meeting; and thus I lost the unique
opportunity I so much desired of bringing before him, while in the
presence of the most eminent engineers of Great Britain, the proofs of
the fitness of my metal for the construction of ordnance. But, such was
the impression made on the other members of the Council of the
Institution by the facts I brought before them, and by the marvellous
proofs afforded by the specimens exhibited, of the value of this new
kind of mild steel for constructive purposes, that they voted me the
Telford gold medal; later, they made me a member of the Institution,
and they also, "as the originator of the greatest improvement in the
Iron Manufacture of Great Britain during the preceding five years,"
presented me with the Howard Quinquennial Prize, a massive gold cup,
intrinsically worth 120 guineas. Finally, when advancing years rendered
my duties as a Member of Council too arduous, they further conferred on
me the great and distinguished position of Honorary Membership.
I will not trouble my readers with any lengthy abstracts from this
paper, but it may be of interest to show some important portions of it.
The following is one of the extracts referred to, which has been
reproduced from the report of my paper, and the discussion thereon,
printed by the Institution of Civil Engineers, and sent to all its
members.
In the early part of this Paper it was shown that the process of
puddling unavoidably introduces into the metal more or less cinder, and
other mechanically-mixed impurities; also, that the different degrees
of refinement and decarbonization of the numerous lumps of metal which
compose a puddle ball, render the production of a homogeneous mass, by
that means, a desideratum not yet achieved. It has likewise been
pointed out how, in the working of the other malleable metals, all
these difficulties are avoided by casting the metal in a fluid state
into moulds. Now this is precisely what the Bessemer process proposes
to accomplish -- that is, to bring malleable iron, or steel, into the
same category with the other malleable metals, and by its purification,
in a fluid state, to avoid the diffusion of cinder throughout the mass;
so that when cast into an ingot, or into a single homogeneous mass of
any desired form, or size, a metal of equal hardness in every part may
be produced, without the necessity of welding or joining of separate
pieces. That this can be accomplished, is shown by the specimens
exhibited. The iron bars of 3 inches square, which have been bent and
doubled-up cold, the twisted bars, and the collapsed cylinders which
do not split, but yield like copper to the blows of the hammer, prove
this. If assurance be required, that there are no hard ribs, or sand
cracks, the examples of the malleable iron gun, or the iron and steel
cylinders may be taken. With reference to the tensile strength of iron
bars, or boiler plate, so made from English coke pig metal, the careful
testing of plates made of puddled iron, according to Mr. W. Fairbairn,
has given an average of 45,300 lbs. per square inch for Staffordshire
plates, 45,000 lbs. for Derbyshire, and 57,120 lbs. for Yorkshire
plates. Now, four samples of the Bessemer iron plate, tested at the
Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, according to the report of Colonel Eardley
Wilmot, gave an average of 68,314 lbs., or 63,591 lbs. as the least,
and 73,100 lbs. as the highest proof for boiler plates 3/8 ths of an
inch in thickness. Here, then, is a result showing a greater amount of
tensile strength above Low Moor, or Bowling iron boiler plates, than
those plates possess above the ordinary quality of Staffordshire
plates.
Here there is proof that Bessemer iron plates, tested at Woolwich
Arsenal by Sir William Armstrong's immediate predecessor in office,
gave an average tensile strength of 68,314 lb. per square inch=30 1/2
tons, quite five tons over the best Yorkshire plates. Also, the fact
is demonstrated that this superior iron could be made from Swedish
charcoal pig iron at about one-half the cost of Yorkshire iron bars,
and that it could be made with great rapidity into masses of any form
of several tons in weight without welding. Again I quote from the
paper:
In order to show the extreme toughness of such iron, and to what a
strain it may be subjected without bursting, several cast and hammered
cylinders were placed cold under the steam hammer, and were crushed
down, without the least appearance of tearing the metal. Now these
cylinders were drawn from a round cast-iron ingot, only 2 in. larger in
diameter than the finished cylinder, and in the precise manner in which
a gun should be treated. They may, therefore, be considered as short
sections of an ordinary 9-pounder field gun. Iron
so made requires very little forging; indeed, the mere closing of the
pores of the metal seems all that is necessary. The tensile strength of
the samples, as tested at the Royal Arsenal, was 64,566 lb. per square
inch, while the tensile stress of pieces cut from the Mersey gun gave a
mean of 50,624 lb. longitudinally, and 43,339 lb. across the grain;
thus showing a mean of 17,550 lb. per square inch in favour of the
Bessemer iron.
If it be desired to produce ordnance by merely founding the metal, then
the ordinary casting process may be employed: with the simple
difference that the iron, instead of running direct from the melting
furnace into the mould, must first be run into the converting vessel,
where in from ten to twenty minutes it will become steel, or malleable
iron, as may be desired; and the casting may then take place in the
ordinary way. The small piece of ordnance exhibited will serve to
illustrate this important manufacture, and is interesting in
consequence of its being the first gun that ever was made of malleable
iron without a weld or joint. The importance of this fact will be much
enhanced when it is known that conical masses of this pure tough metal,
of from five to ten tons in weight, can be produced at Woolwich at a
cost not exceeding £6 12s. 0d. per ton, inclusive of the cost of pig
iron, carriage, re-melting, waste in the process, labour, and engine
power.
It will be interesting to those who are watching the advancement of the
new process to know that it is already rapidly extending itself over
Europe. The enterprising firm of Daniel Elfstand and Company, of
Edsken, who were the pioneers in Sweden, have now made several hundred
tons of excellent steel by the Bessemer process. Another large works
has since started in their immediate neighbourhood, and two other
companies are making arrangements to use the process. The authorities in
Sweden have most fully investigated the whole process, and have
pronounced it perfect. The large steel circular saw-plate exhibited was
made by Mr. Goranson, of Gefle, in Sweden, the ingot being east direct
from the fluid metal, within fifteen minutes of its leaving the blast
furnace. In France, the process has been for some time carried on by
the old-established firm of James Jackson and Son, at their steel
works, near Bordeaux. This firm was about to go extensively into the
manufacture of puddled steel, and indeed had already got a puddling
furnace erected and in active operation, when their attention was
directed to the Bessemer process. The apparatus for this was put up at
their works last year, and they we now greatly extending their field of
operations by putting up more powerful apparatus at their blast
furnaces in the Landes. There are also in course of erection, four
other blast furnaces in the South of France, for the express purpose of
carrying out the new process. The long and well-earned reputation of
the firm of James Jackson and Son is in itself a guarantee of the
excellent quality of the steel produced by this process. The French
samples of bar steel exhibited were manufactured by this firm. Belgium
is not much behind her neighbours in the race, as the process is being
put in operation at Liége. While in Sardinia preparations are being
made to carry it into effect, Russia has sent to London an engineer and
a professor of chemistry to report on the process, and Professor
Muller, of Vienna, and M. Dumas and others, from Paris, have visited
Sweden to inspect and report on the new system in that country.
These facts will serve to show how, on the Continent of Europe, the
fame of this new metal was spreading, and its manufacture extending. It
will be seen from the foregoing that Colonel Wilmot fully
corroborated what I have previously stated, and gave the results of
some experiments of his own with a mass of iron he happened to see
lying with other waste scrap at my works at Sheffield. This mass of
iron (see page 196 ante) he desired
to be sent to Woolwich, and from
it were cut the two cylindrical pieces which he described to the
meeting; he proved that Bessemer pure iron, only slightly hammered,
showed in the proving-house a tenacity of 64,426 lb., or 28.76 tons per
square inch.
Another year or more slipped away, almost unnoticed in the ardour and
excitement created by the rapid development and progress of my
invention. Our own works were crammed with orders for locomotive
double-throw cranks, which had hitherto been exclusively made at
Lowmoor, or at some other of the justly-celebrated Yorkshire ironworks,
but which were now being constructed of Bessemer steel. We were also
busy with plain engine and carriage axles, marine engine and
screw-propeller shafts, steel guns and gun blocks, locomotive engine
and carriage tyres, etc. Our works were daily engaged in superseding
welded Lowmoor tyres, and we were turning out, as fast as the mills
could roll them, mild steel weldless tyre-hoops from 4ft. 6in. to 5ft.
in diameter, to be shrunk on to locomotive engine driving-wheels, and
also 3ft. tyres for carriage wheels, of which many thousands were
ceaselessly running on our railways. All these hoops were tightly
shrunk on to the wheels with a firm grip, just in the same manner as
hoops are shrunk on to built-up guns. These thousands of hoops were
daily responsible for the lives of tens of thousands of passengers
seated immediately above them. Every train of twenty-five carriages
would have a hundred of these steel tyres supporting their heavy load
of wood and iron, and their still more valuable living freight, rushing
over the steel rails at a high speed, and tending, by their rolling
motion and heavy pressure at a single point of their circumference on
the steel rail, to become elongated and loosened from the wheel, a
tendency which this strong elastic steel most successfully resisted. It
must be borne in mind that the loosening of this firm grip on only one
of these hundred hoops, or the fracture of any one of them, might have
wrecked a whole train, and killed more people than the bursting of a
gun -- an instrument that may be required to do duty for a few hours,
at intervals of many years, or, perhaps, never be used at all. That
these thousands of Bessemer steel tyres did not fail in constant
service, and did not lose their grip upon the wheels, furnished no
proof to those obtuse intellects who could only recognise the virtues
of welded iron. Bessemer steel hoops, so extensively used with the full
sanction of the eminent engineers of our British railways, found,
however, no favour at Woolwich or at Elswick. They were, nevertheless,
employed by Captain Blakeley, the original inventor of built-up guns,
and also by the Blakeley Ordnance Company of London, for the
manufacture of built-up guns which were being made for Russia, and
other foreign governments, while Woolwich and Elswick were rapidly
manufacturing welded iron guns with welded iron hoops, for home use.
As a practical proof of how far weldless steel tyres would resist
fracture under the most severe trials, a locomotive engine-tyre, turned
and finished, was placed up on edge under a steam hammer, and received
blow after blow until its two opposite sides touched each other, when
its elasticity again allowed it to spring back a few inches. This large
tyre was thus formed into a long flat loop (see Fig. 65, Plate XXVI.,
in which its dimensions are indicated by the foot-rule lying in front
of it).
With all this ill-usage it showed no sign of cracking or
fracture. This tyre has for the last thirty-five years been exhibited
in South Kensington Museum, and is undeniable evidence of the toughness
and endurance of Bessemer steel under the most violent and abnormal
strains. It also affords a good example of the tough mild steel
manufactured at our Sheffield works at that early date.
In the summer of 1861, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers held a
provincial meeting at Sheffield, and, as a member of this Institution,
it was only natural that I should read a paper on the occasion of their
visit to the town where my steel works were located. I was still most
anxious that my own countrymen should use Bessemer steel for the
manufacture of ordnance: for this, as my readers are aware, was the
express purpose to which I had devoted myself for so long a period, and
striven so earnestly to accomplish.
The fact that I had succeeded in making a special mild steel, in every
way adapted for the purpose, was proved by a report of the
Belgian Government, which had spontaneously applied to me to make them
a trial gun, thirteen months before the date on which I read my paper
before the Sheffield meeting: a meeting which was presided over by Sir
William Armstrong. This gun was made at our works, and sent to the
Fort, at Antwerp, on the 16th June, 1860, its receipt being
acknowledged in the following letter.
Brussels, August 19th, 1860.
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the conical steel forging, rough
from the forge, which was manufactured in your establishment, and of
which you advised the shipment in your letter (stated in the margin),
was received by the Commander of Artillery, in the Fort of Antwerp.
Being submitted to the examination of a commission composed of officers
of the cannon foundry of Liége, it was found to weigh 840 kilos. (equal
16 cwt. 2 qrs. and 22 lbs.), and to be of good quality of steel. Be
pleased, Sir, to accept the assurance of my distinguished
consideration. (Signed) THE MINISTER OF WAR.
This gun-block was bored and finished under military inspection, at
Antwerp, and went through the regulation proofs in a perfectly
satisfactory manner. It was afterwards determined to bore it to a much
larger size, viz., 4.75 in. in diameter, suitable for 12-pounder
spherical shots, and to fire larger charges of powder and to increase
the number of shots, each of such additions being repeated three times,
until the gun should at last give way, the charges of powder rising
from 2 lb. up to 6 3/4 lb., and the shots from one to eight. On firing
the second round of eight shots the gun gave way, apparently by the
over-riding of the spherical shot.
I have annexed an accurate scale engraving of the gun as altered to a
4.75 in. bore, suitable for 12-pounder spherical shot (see Fig. 66,
Plate XXVI).
In re-boring, the gun was reduced to 9 1/4 cwt., only
about ten times the weight of the eight shot, the thickness of metal at
the breech being 2 3/8 in., and 1 3/4 in. at the muzzle. In fact, it
was little more than a mere gun lining, but it nevertheless afforded
the most incontestable proof of the extraordinary endurance of this
metal under conditions of extreme severity. The fact that the Belgian
Government should seek out a foreign manufacturer, and put this new
material to the test, only makes it more extraordinary that our own
Government should have passed it by.
Nor was this Belgian gun an isolated case, for, up to the date of which
I am writing (Midsummer, 1861), several agents of foreign Governments
had spontaneously applied to the Bessemer Steel Works, at Sheffield,
for steel guns. But our firm could not manufacture built-up guns with
a steel barrel or inner tube, because this would have manifestly been a
direct infringement of Captain Blakeley's patent of February, 1855; and
knowing that iron, in any welded form, would be vastly inferior to
steel for the inner tube of a gun, we declined to manufacture such an
inferior article, and confined ourselves to making simple solid-forged
steel guns and gun-tubes. Up to this tine we had supplied twenty-eight
guns, consisting of 12-, 18-, and 24-pounders, forged, and ready for
the boring mill, at £45 per ton, a price about three times their actual
cost, but still very considerably below that of crucible steel
forgings.
I may here mention that every gun, after being forged by our firm, had
its quality tested in the following simple and practical manner. The
gun when being forged had a part of both ends drawn down under the
hammer, into a flat bar of some 12 in. or 15 in . in length and 3 in.
wide by 2 in. in thickness -- this was our standard test. A gun so
forged is shown in the annexed engraving, Fig. 67.
In this illustration
the view A shows the gun with these test pieces still projecting from
each end; they were cut off and bent, when cold, into
the form shown in A, while B shows the gun-block ready to be turned and
bored.
A group of these test pieces is reproduced to a scale of half
the actual size in Fig.68, Plate XXVII., and this engraving prepared
from a photograph - clearly shows how wonderfully these pieces bore
the enormous strain due to the cold bending of so large a mass, the
metal in each case bulging out laterally on the inside of the bend, and
contracting in width on the outside of it, thus supplying the material
forming the greater length of the outer surface. Notwithstanding this
interchange of parts, not a sign of tear or breaking is visible in any
one of their sharply-defined angles.
Mr. A. L. Holley's remarks on our steel guns, published in his book on
Ordnance in 1863, are subjoined, and form an independent testimony to
their value.
141. Bessemer Steel Guns. -- The Bessemer process of making steel
direct from the ore, or from pig-iron, promises to ameliorate the whole
subject of Ordnance and engineering construction in general, both as to
quality and cost. This product has not yet been used for guns to any
great extent, although Mr. Krupp, the leading steel-maker, has
introduced it. Captain Blakeley and Mr. Whitworth have also
experimented with it, and expressed their faith in its ultimate
adoption. Messrs John Brown & Co., Sheffield, have made over 100
gun-forgings, some of them weighing above 3 tons, from solid ingots of
this steel. During the present year, their production of Bessemer steel
will exceed 400 tons per week. With the two new converting vessels then
in operation, solid ingots of 20 tons weight can be fabricated. A
large establishment about to be started in London, with a 50-ton
hammer, and a capacity to pour 30-ton ingots, will afford the best
possible facilities for the development of this process.
As a point of special interest in connection with the paper I was going
to read at the Sheffield meeting of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, I detemined to take strict account of the time occupied in
making, at my steel works, an 18-pounder gun, and to put the finished
weapon on the table in front of the Presidential chair. By this means
the Superintendent of the Royal Gun Factory at Woolwich could not help
being placed in possession of all the facts and arguments I was going
to put forward in my paper, and which I intended should be illustrated
with plenty of actual specimens. I have reproduced here pages 144 and
145 from the published Proceedings for 1861 of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, in order to show what words Sir William Armstrong
actually heard, and what facts were brought
to his knowledge at that meeting, and also what mechanical proofs of
the marvellous toughness of Bessemer mild steel were placed on the
table immediately in front of him.
The special aim of the author during the first year of his labours,
which throughout the last six years has never been lost sight of, was
the production of a malleable metal peculiarly suitable for the
manufacture of ordnance. By means of the process that has been
described solid blocks of malleable cast steel may be made of any
required size from 1 to 20 or 30 tons weight, with a degree of rapidity
and cheapness previously unknown. The metal can also with the utmost
facility be made of any amount of carburation and tensile strength
that may be found most desirable: commencing at the top of the scale
with a quality of steel that is too hard to bore and too brittle to use
for ordnance, it can with ease and certainty be made to pass from that
degree of hardness by almost imperceptible gradations downwards
towards malleable iron, becoming at every stage of decarburation more
easy to work and more and more tough and pliable, until it becomes at
last pure decarbonised iron, possessing a copper-like degree of
toughness not found in any iron produced by puddling. Between these
extremes of temper the metal most suitable for ordnance must be found;
and all qualities are equally cheap and easy of production.
From the practice now acquired in forging cast steel ordnance at the
author's works in Sheffield it has been found that the most
satisfactory results are obtained with metal of the same soft
description as that employed for making piston rods. With this degree
of toughness the bursting of the gun becomes almost impossible, its
power of resisting a tensile strain being at least 15 tons per square
inch greater than that of the best English bar iron. Every gun before
leaving the works has a piece cut off the end, which is roughly forged
into a bar of 2 inches by 3 inches section, and bent cold under the
hammer in order to show the state of the metal after forging. Several
test bars cut from the ends of guns recently forged are exhibited.
The power of this metal to resist a sudden and powerful strain is well
illustrated by the piece of gun muzzle now shown, which is one of
several tubular pieces that were subjected to a sudden crushing force
at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, under the direction of Colonel Wilmot;
the pieces were laid on the anvil block in a perfectly cold state, and
were crushed flat by the falling of the steam hammer, but none of them
exhibited any signs of fracture when so tested. Probably the best proof
of the power of the metal to resist a sudden violent strain was
afforded by some experiments made at Liége by order of the Belgian
government, who had one of these guns bored for a 12 lbs. spherical shot
of 4 3/4 inches diameter, and made so thin as to weigh only 9 1/4 cwts.
This gun was fired with increasing charges of powder and an additional
shot after each three discharges, until it reached a maximum of 6 3/4
lbs. of powder and eight shots of 12 lbs. each or 96 lbs. of shot, the
shots being thus equal to about one tenth of the weight of the gun. It
stood this heavy charge twice and then gave way at about 40 inches from
the muzzle, probably owing to the jamming of the shots. The employment
of guns so excessively light and charges so extremely heavy would, of
course, never be attempted in practice.
Some idea of the facility of this mode of making cast steel ordnance is
afforded by the time occupied in the fabrication of the 18 pounder gun
now exhibited, which was made
in the author's presence for his experiments on gunnery. The melted pig
iron was tapped from the reverberatory furnace at 11.20 a.m., and
converted into cast steel in 30 minutes; the ingot was cast in an iron
mould 16 inches square by 4 feet long, and was forged while still hot
from the casting operation. By this mode of treating the ingots their
central parts are sufficiently soft to receive the full effect of the
hammer. At 7 p.m. the forging was completed and the gun ready for the
boring mill.
The erection of the necessary apparatus for the production of steel by
this process, on a scale capable of converting from crude iron enough
steel to make forty of such gun blocks per day, will not exceed a cost
of £5000, including the blast engine; hence the author cannot but feel
that his labours in this direction have been crowned with entire
success: the great rapidity of production, the cheapness of the
material, and its strength and durability, all adapt it for the
construction of every species of ordnance.
Sir William Armstrong had thus another opportunity of seeing and
trying, if he chose to do so, a quality of steel which he himself told
the meeting that he had never tried; a kind of steel that for
constructive purposes had attracted the serious attention of the most
eminent engineers in every country of Europe; a kind of steel invented
and perfected expressly for the manufacture of ordnance; a kind of
steel that was much sought after abroad for military purposes, and from
which I had, up to that period, made twenty-eight guns for foreign
governments; a kind of steel that could be made in masses of 5 to 10
tons in less than half an hour, at a cost of £10 per ton, if made from
pure Swedish charcoal pig-iron. These important facts were not new
facts -- they were known to thousands of people. But this was the one
opportunity that was left, after many others had failed, when by force
of circumstances, I had Sir William Armstrong before me face to face,
and also in the presence of a public audience; and I there made him
look at these things, and hear my statements, which were backed with
substantial proofs on the table before him, such as could not be denied
or set down as exaggerations. But my efforts were again entirely
fruitless.
In the early days of the Bessemer steel manufacture, many persons who
had no love for steel, and saw in it a most formidable rival to iron,
had with much perverted ingenuity raised a bogey to scare and alarm the
uninitiated. They asserted that although many splendid specimens of
steel were produced, the metal was very uncertain in its quality, and
reliance could not be placed on it, as it had the fault of failing
unexpectedly. Like all other trade prejudices, or mere creations of the
imagination, this only required looking at steadily in open day, and in
the light of well-ascertained commercial facts, to show how hollow and
without foundation it really was. In fact, this crusade against steel
was entirely unsuccessful in influencing engineers who took the trouble
to inquire into the real facts. It did not prevent the use of thousands
of steel railway tyres, which, by their great superiority, rapidly
displaced the Lowmoor welded tyres previously almost exclusively
relied on. It did not prevent hundreds of steam boilers being made of
Bessemer steel for private establishments, nor did it stand in the way
of our locomotive engine-boilers being made of this material, in place
of the high-class Yorkshire iron previously used for that purpose.
Those clever people who set up this bogey of "uncertainty" in the
quality of steel, simply for self-protection, dared not assert that
occasional bars of bad iron were unknown in commerce. The same persons
who so strenuously advocated the building up of heavy masses of
wrought-iron could not pretend that the welding of many parts to form a
whole was exempt from uncertainty and failure. It was even then a
well-known fact that the welding of large masses of wrought iron
involved more risk and uncertainty in its results than any other of the
processes used in the manufacture of iron.
The question of the uncertainty in quality of the Bessemer mild cast
steel simply resolved itself into a question of cost, because the
quality was easily ascertainable in the earliest stages of its
manufacture, and thus the loss of working up bad material into a
costly finished article could be most easily avoided. To show this
fact, I will take as an example the production of a Bessemer steel
gun-tube, suitable for a 40-pounder gun of 4.75 in. calibre. Such a
forging would simply be a plain solid steel cylinder, 8 in. in diameter
and 10 ft. long, weighing 15 cwt. and 20
lb., and, with a flat test piece formed on each end, it would weigh 15
1/2 cwt. A 10-ton converter would cast eleven ingots of 1 ft. square,
weighing l8 1/2 cwt. each, and if 3 cwt were cut off the top end of each
of these ingots to ensure absolute
soundness of the part used, we should then have the requisite weight in
each ingot to make the gun-tube, and 3 cwt. of scrap metal worth
something, but which
may be discarded in this case. Now, if this forging, when tested by
bending the flat bars formed at each end for analysis, should turn out
not to be of the precise standard quality for use as a gun-tube, let us
see what would be the loss. The highest quality of Swedish charcoal
pig-iron would be used, costing from £6 l0s. to £7 per ton (say £7),
and with a small quantity of ferro-manganese, the 10 tons of steel
ingots would not cost £10 per ton, and could be utilised for engine or
tender axles, steam engine shafts, piston rods, plates or other
articles. As the ingots were made of this pure Swedish iron, they could
be sold for more than than their prime cost, at a time when steel axles
and engine shafts, made from British iron smelted with coke, were sold
at £16 to £20 per ton. But suppose, for the sake of argument, and to
give no excuse for rejecting these figures, that 20 per cent. reduction
was necessary to ensure the ready sale of the ingots, there would then
be a loss of £20 on the 10 tons. Now, all experience showed that not
one out of every ten charges converted was made of the wrong quality,
and it is almost inconceivable that a converting-house could be so
grossly mismanaged as to make one charge out of every five of the wrong
quality. But if it had been so mismanaged, it would simply have
diminished the output of the converting house 20 per cent.; and at a
period when railway bars made from British coke-iron were selling at
£l2 per ton, such Swedish steel ingots would surely have realised £8
per ton, entailing a loss of £2 on one-fifth of the steel made, thus
bringing the cost per ton of ingots up from £10 to £10 l0s. per ton.
It must be borne in mind that this particular manufacture of Bessemer
steel had one most important element of certainty as to its composition
or quality not possessed by any other iron or steel known in commerce
at that period, viz., the contents of the converter when poured into
the casting ladle, and well stirred by the revolving agitator, would
cast ten separate ingots of a ton weight each that were absolutely
identical in quality, so that after testing one of them, the other nine
could be used with certainty. This absolute identity in quality was
unattainable by any other system: a fact which none of those persons
who watched with dismay the daily encroachment of steel on the domain
of iron were able to deny.
The 18-pounder gun exhibited on the occasion of Sir William Armstrong's
visit to Sheffield sufficed to show that in the short period of eight
hours a gun-bock of forged steel could be obtained from pig-iron. The
gun-ends bent cold, which were placed on the table to illustrate my
paper, bore testimony to the quality and toughness of the steel of
which this gun, and many others, had been made. Some of these I have
already dealt with, and I have selected for illustration, in Figs. 69
and 70, Plates XXVIII and XXIX, two more striking specimens from among
the number I displayed.
Month after month rolled on, and no application came from Woolwich for
any of the Bessemer steel, which Sir William Armstrong admitted he had
never tried for guns. Nevertheless, we continued making guns to go
abroad.
The managers of the International Exhibition of 1862, fully
appreciating the importance of this new steel process, allotted me a
very large space, measuring no less than 35 ft. by 35 ft., equal to
1225 square feet area, with a free passage 8 ft. wide all
round it. A photographic reproduction of my exhibit is given in Fig.
71, Plate XXX; it was taken from an imperfect print made in the dark
days near the close of the Exhibition.
It will be seen, however, that
on a pedestal in front of the central case is a rough forging of a
24-pounder gun with trunnions formed out of the solid; inside the case
is a finished 18-pounder gun, a large and massive gun-hoop, etc., etc.
There were also shown an embossed steel shield, a star formed of
bayonets, a group of revolvers, cavalry swords and sheaths, military
rifles, projectiles, a model breech-loader, etc. On the external counter
was placed a 4-inch diameter bright steel shaft, 35 ft. long, in one
piece, steel hydraulic press cylinders, railway axles and carriage and
engine tyres, a circular saw, 7 ft. in diameter, every size of steel
wire for ropes, steel bars and rods of all sizes, and, in fact, an
immense number of other interesting objects that would fill a long
catalogue.
The enumeration of these objects may seem commonplace enough at the
present day, but at that time they were undoubtedly marvellous
industrial results, and an immense excitement was caused by this
display of the new steel, which attracted engineers, ironmasters, and
steel manufacturers from every part of Europe and America. Indeed, I
exhibited beautiful specimens of steel made, under my patents, both
in France and in Sweden.
I cannot refrain from comparing the small effect which my exhibit made
upon the stolid inertness and indifference of the War Office, with the
results it produced on the active mind and business instincts of one of
the most important and most intelligent Lancashire engineers, an
employer of some 5000 workmen. I refer to the late John Platt, M.P. for
Oldham, where his large works were situated. This successful engineer
visited the Exhibition on the opening day, and at once grasped the
importance of my steel process from an engineering point of view; he
pointed out its value to some of the heads of departments in his own
works, who made the same high estimate. Mr. Platt, on the fourth or
fifth day after the opening of the Exhibition, had a long interview
with me, and said that he himself, and nine of his immediate friends
and connections, wished to join in the purchase of one-fourth share of
my patent. It was very natural that I should entertain an offer to
recoup me for my large expenditure, and at the same time to afford a
handsome profit, thus avoiding some of the risks to which all patent
property is subject. But I had so strong a faith in the great future of
my invention -- a faith based on proved facts -- that I felt bound to
decline his offer, as I desired myself and my friend and partner,
Robert Longsdon, to retain the absolute control of the patents, and
thus be able at any time to raise or lower my royalties as I thought
best. Mr. Platt, however, approached me again on the subject a few days
later, saying that he and his friends were prepared to waive all right
to control the patents so long as I retained one half, trusting that in
the interests of that half I should do what was best for myself, and
consequently what was best for them. This proposal quite met with my
approval, in principle; that is, I was willing to enter into a bond
with these gentlemen to hand over to them five shillings out of every
pound paid to me by way of royalty by my licensees, the patents, price
of royalties, etc., being governed by myself and my partner, Longsdon,
just as though no such bond were in existence.
It therefore became only a question what the purchase price should be.
To fix this, these ten gentlemen met us by appointment at the
Victoria Hotel, Westminster, about ten days after the opening of the
Exhibition. Mr. Longsdon left this delicate negotiation entirely to me,
and at the meeting I pointed out the peculiar difficulties we had met
to discuss. The thing to be purchased could neither be measured nor
weighed; there was no analogous case to use as a guide or precedent;
the patents might bring in a very large sum of money, or a quibble of
the law, or some other invention, might render them of little value.
Thus I had to propose a sum which might fairly be estimated as a very
profitable purchase for them, if all went well. At the same time I was
to realise a considerable present profit, while my future action was
wholly untrammelled, as my partner and I still retained three-fourths
of the whole property intact. Having thus briefly reviewed the
position, I said: "Gentlemen, we have thought this matter thoroughly
over, and I have come to a fixed resolution to accept a certain sum in
cash for this one-fourth part of the proceeds of my invention; or,
otherwise, I will keep the whole and run my course uninsured. I must
therefore beg you to give me a distinct " Yes" or "No" to my offer. I
cannot haggle, for no one can demonstrate it is worth so much more or
so much less. I have fixed on an easily divisible sum among ten
gentlemen, which has all the advantages of round numbers. I have fixed
on £50,000 as the purchase price." Mr. Platt, who occupied the chair,
said: "We have heard your definite proposal, and if you will be so good
as to go into the adjoining room for a few minutes, we will discuss
your proposition, and give you a reply."
I then left the meeting; after a lapse of not more than ten minutes I
was called back, when the chairman said they had talked the matter
over, and had unanimously agreed to accept my offer.
In the course of a few days, a formal and satisfactory document was
prepared by the joint industry of the solicitors on both sides, and Mr.
Longsdon and I were invited to dine with Mr. Platt and his friends at
the Queen's Hotel, Manchester. This was about three weeks after the
opening of the Exhibition. We had a very pleasant and friendly dinner;
we were all mutually pleased with our bargains, and in a bumper the
company drank to the success of the new steel process, and long life to
the inventor, a toast to which I had the pleasure of
responding. Then came the formal reading of the bond, and its
signature, after which there was still another interesting ceremony,
which was performed in a genuine Lancashire fashion, each gentleman
producing from the depth of his pocket a neat little roll of Bank of
England notes of the value of £5,000, which was handed to us in the
proportion of our respective shares, viz., £40,000 to myself and
£10,000 to my partner Longsdon. The meeting then broke up in a most
cordial manner, and the friendly feeling thus inaugurated was never
for one moment clouded by a single expression of dissent or
dissatisfaction in the whole ten years of our business intercourse,
during which time I had the great pleasure of handing over to my
friends their 5s. in the £, amounting on the whole to something over
£260,000. As a further testimonial of our mutual friendship and regard,
Mr. Platt presented to Lady Bessemer, in his name and those of our
Manchester friends, a portrait of myself painted by Lehmann, and
exhibited in the Royal Academy.
I have mentioned these facts because it is almost impossible to
conceive higher testimony to the value of my processes than this
purchase of a share of the invention with all its risks; a testimony
which was justified by the results obtained, while our War Office
officials did not venture to purchase even a few ingots of our steel
sufficient to make half a dozen 40-pounder gun-tubes.
At last there came a time when the British Government abandoned
welded-up iron gun-tubes, and they and Sir William Armstrong parted
company (on February 5th, 1863), the Government paying the Elswick
Ordnance Company £65,534 4s. as compensation for breaking the contract
with that Company, as well as paying the other sums which are given at
page 5 of the Report of the Select Committee on Ordnance, ordered by
the House of Commons to be printed, July 23rd, 1863. The following copy
taken from that Report accurately gives these amounts.
The whole supply of Armstrong guns and projectiles has been obtained
from the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich and the Elswick Ordnance Factory.
1st. The sum of 965,117L. 9s. 7d. has been paid to the Elswick Ordnance
Company for articles supplied.
2nd. After giving credit for the value of plant and stores received
from the Company, a sum of 65,534L. 4s. has been paid to the Elswick
Ordnance Company as compensation for terminating the contract.
3rd. The outstanding liabilities of the War Office to the Elswick
Ordnance Company, for articles ordered, amounted on the 7th May last to
the sum of 37,143L. 2s. l0d. The whole of these payments and
liabilities amounts to the sum of 1,067,794L. 16s. 5d.
4th. The sum of 1,471,753L. 1s. 3d. has been expended in the three
manufacturing departments at Woolwich on the Armstrong guns,
ammunition, and carriages, making altogether a grand total of
2,539,547L. l7s. 8d.
On May 4th, 1862, Sir William Armstrong was examined by the Select
Committee on Ordnance, on which occasion the Right Hon. William Monsell
occupied the chair; in reply to his question, No. 3163, Sir William
Armstrong gave a somewhat lengthy description of his system of making
guns of coiled iron tubes, etc. He also gave his reasons for not using
steel instead of iron, which he admitted was too soft for that purpose.
The reason which Sir William Armstrong gave to the Ordnance Committee
for not using the superior metal quite astounded me when I saw the
printed report of his evidence before that Committee. I read it over
and over again, each time with increasing astonishment; a feeling
which will, I doubt not, be shared by every person who has read the
preceding pages.
The three quotations herewith reproduced are part of Sir William
Armstrong's evidence, as printed in the Report of the Select Committee
of the House of Commons, 1863.
From the very first I saw, and I still feel, that steel is the proper
metal for the barrel of a gun, if it can be obtained, and my only
reason for not persevering in the use of steel was the difficulty of
getting it of suitable quality. There can be no question that wrought
iron is too soft, and that brass is still more objectionable than
wrought iron, and if we can only obtain, with certainty and uniformity,
steel of the proper quality, there can be no question as to the
expediency of using it.
5004. Then, in speaking in the answer to which I have referred you, of
"the gun with the barrel of steel," you did not intend, to rely on that
as the difference between the two guns? -- I merely stated it as the
fact. We could not get steel suitable for the barrels; the steel was
not to be had; I would have used it without hesitation if I could have
got it. I am quite sure that no patent Captain Blakeley held would have
been adequate to prevent my using steel.
5007. Then am I right in inferring, that your system of construction
"as it was then and is now," involved an internal lining of steel, with
twisted cylinders of wrought-iron tightly contracted? When the steel is
to be obtained. I do not think I can
possibly be more explicit than I have been already; I have stated that
if the steel can be obtained, it is unquestionably the best material,
and it is the proper mode of construction; but if steel cannot be
obtained, the alternative is to use coils for the barrels.
It was only natural that I should be astonished at such a declaration,
for I could not forget the numerous proofs of the fitness of Bessemer
mild steel, which I had given to Sir William Armstrong's immediate
predecessor, Colonel Wilmot, at Woolwich; nor could I forget the
display I had made of crushed gun-tubes, the malleable iron gun
produced, in one piece without weld or joint, and other examples of
steel, on the occasion of the reading of my Paper on the manufacture of
iron and steel, at the Institution of Civil Engineers; to say nothing
of the indisputable proofs of the suitability of Bessemer mild steel
for the manufacture of ordnance, brought before the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers at their meeting at Sheffield, on July 31st, 1861.
With regard to the reasons assigned by Sir William Armstrong, in his
evidence before the Ordnance Select Committee, for persisting in the
use of welded-iron gun-tubes, I must remain absolutely silent; such
admissions and declarations as he there made do not admit of
discussion, and hence I dismiss for ever this unsatisfactory episode in
the long struggle I had maintained to induce the British Government to
avail themselves of the immense advantages which my invention offered.
In closing this portion of my history, I have the satisfaction of
feeling that I have done my duty to my country, untainted by personal
and selfish motives; and in this hard struggle I have had the
satisfaction of seeing the survival of the fittest successfully
demonstrated by the universal acceptance of mild cast steel for the
construction of ordnance.
Go to next chapter