other experiments in the neighbourhood, here and there; they H. Vac., 1840. all failed; we never saw one succeed, or heard of one succeeding. I know the plaintiff's furnace, No. 2; it was set to work about February, 1837. A hot blast apparatus was put up; it was like that (pointing to a model). The furnace was eleven feet two inches across the boshes, the widest part, and forty-three feet high; it was what is called a cupola furnace. It was charged with stone coal directly it was done. There was a little coke put in to begin, and then all stone coal, and no other since; the blast lasted two years and four months, then it was blown out, and we put a new hearth in, and put it in blast again. It was out of blast four weeks. It has been in blast four or five weeks, and was in blast when I came from home. The temperature is about 600 degrees; it will melt lead; there is a hole in the pipe which is stopped by an iron plug, and the blast is tested by putting a piece of lead over the hole. Before March, 1837, the No. 2 furnace was burnt with bituminous coal. I have seen the iron produced from that furnace when common coal and cold blast were used; the stone coal iron is a great deal stronger; it makes very good bar iron, bolt iron, and cable iron. The furnace yields more iron from the mine put in. The quantity of fuel is less; it may be to the amount of one-sixth.

It would be in 1827.

On cross-examination-I am the moulder, and have had nothing to do with charging the furnaces. The person who superintended the attempts with stone coal was David Thomas; he is in America. I saw them throwing stone coal in at times in very small quantities. I saw stone coal used three or four times at Abercrave, about two miles distance; it was about thirteen or fourteen years ago. Mr. Ward was the manager; he is dead. The plaintiff tried a small quantity in 1827, about the same time; I cannot say within a month or two. It did not last long at Abercrave. I was there to look at it about three times, and each of these three times they were throwing in stone coal. I never saw so much as a barrowful used before the hot blast came among us; a shovelful I saw every charge. It was thrown, most of it, on the twire. I do not think it hurt the iron; it gobbed up the twire. [Sir N. Tindal, C. J.: I do not see the object of this cross-examination, because at the most it is only an attempt made in 1827, in which they did not exactly succeed. There is no doubt the thing is done. The defence is, it is not new.] The hot blast was put up by Allan Mc Kenzie. I thought he came from Mr. Neilson; he began with No. 2 furnace. It is one of the smallest size furnaces. It was set to work before Mc Kenzie left. A short time after it was set to work it was blown out. The two other furnaces, No. 1 and No. 3, are larger than this one. There was stone coal in all of them about three months after Mc Kenzie left. We have used stone coal in No. 3 for two years, not

dence.

Plaintiff's evi- alone, but with other coal. I know the iron is stronger by the using it. We cast with it, and knew whether it would hold pressure or not. I do not myself take any account of the yield. On re-examination-The men are paid by the ton of iron made. There is more iron made in No. 2 and No. 3. I never knew the stone coal used at all with the hot blast before plaintiff's patent. The moulder casts his own moulds. I am caster, and turn out the castings. That enables me to judge of the quality. The strongest iron I have ever seen is the stone coal iron. I never saw iron run better.

Reece Davis-I have been furnace manager to plaintiff for three years. The hot blast apparatus was erected before I got there. I went there the last day of January, 1837. The plaintiff succeeded in making iron from stone coal. The temperature of the blast is kept as near as we can to melting lead. There was coke in No. 2 when I was first there; we began soon after to put stone coal in. About the 7th or 8th of February, we got all stone coal on. That continued for two years and three months. The iron is stronger, and the quantity from the small furnace greater; we get from 30 to 32 tons a week on the average, and before we only got 22 or 23 tons. We burn less coal; from 30 to 32 cwt. of stone coal makes a ton of iron. [Sir N. Tindal, C. J.: All this examination goes to the usefulness-there is no issue on that. They do not say it is not useful; they only say other people knew it before.] [Sir F. Pollock In a question of prior use or not, the extent of the utility must frequently be a very important ingredient, because if it had been used by any body else, the extraordinary difference would instantly have struck the person so using it. It is utterly impossible that it would not have got into general knowledge and use.] The bituminous coal is the dearest in that part of the country, I think by a shilling or two a ton. No. 3 was begun to work about two years ago. No. 2 was the first which began with stone coal. The furnace was blown in with coke and cold blast, and as soon as the apparatus was ready we put stone coal in; the hot blast was then used. The iron is strongest when all stone coal is used. I was at the Neath Abbey Works twice in April or May, 1837. I saw the defendant, Joseph Price. I told him the plaintiff had sent me up to see how the furnaces were. I told him how we got on at Yniscedwin, and for them to go on in the same way; the furnaces would become in better order. He asked me some questions about our furnaces-what we did there. There was stone coal in use at that time at the Neath Abbey Works, and hot blast. He told me to thank my master for sending me up there; he said, we are all old hands here, we shall find it out; we shall find out the best way of doing it. He said, that at that time their furnaces were not making so much iron, not doing so much; but he said, they were old enough, they would find it out if they had a little

time. I was speaking to Mr. Hosgood, and I told him the best H. Vac., 1840. way we found of going on, and I had been on the top of the furnace and round the yard with him. I was in the service of the British Iron Company, at Abercrave, in 1826 and 1827, and for a long time before. They used the cold blast; I never saw the hot blast at all. Mr. Harper, before that, tried stone coal. He built a small furnace to try an experiment. The first furnace was three feet on the boshes, and fifteen feet high. He had been trying in that furnace, and he pulled the inside down and made it a foot larger, and built it nineteen or twenty feet high and four feet on the boshes. He succeeded in the smaller one, and that made him build the larger one. The larger one did not succeed. In the smaller one he first used coke, and then it came to stone coal. They tried the first time all coke, and mixed some stone coal with it, and it failed three or four times. I do not know how many times; and at last they had all stone coal. It succeeded in the smaller, but they only did that to try an experiment. After the larger furnace had been worked about a month, Mr. Harper sold the works to the British Iron Company. They kept it at work ten or twelve months. They sometimes blew the furnace with all coke; Mr. Northall then put some stone coal in. After the British Iron Company had it, the blast was never stone coal; not all stone coal. The twires were sometimes shut up, and we cut them out; that happens in every furnace.

David Mushet-I have been acquainted with the iron districts forty years. In 1826, I was managing director of the British Iron Company. I visited the works of the British Iron Company, at Abercrave, twice in 1826. They were endeavouring to use as large a quantity of stone coal as could be done with propriety. At one time they were using three-eighths of stone coal to five-eighths of bituminous coal, and at another time nearly equal quantities; various proportions had been endeavoured to be used before that. The iron was forge iron; inferior for casting purposes; the quantity was moderate; during the first four months of the blast they made 12 tons, and during the last four from 22 to 24 tons per week. I should consider, in these days, that to be a very small quantity. I thought the iron wretched. The average yield of furnaces in South Wales is nearly 50 tons a week. In my judgment, it did not pay for making; during the last four months, it came to 61. per ton, and during the previous four to 81. per ton. The company never realized 4/. per ton by it. I sold one boat load to the Neath Abbey Company, and Mr. Price (one of the defendants), on being pressed to take more, said it was so bad. they could not use it. The iron was sent to Staffordshire. The works were, by my advice and direction, abandoned. The company were under a sleeping rent of 400l. a year. With

dence.

Plaintiff's evi- more powerful machinery, a larger quantity of iron would have been made, and, so far as that went, this would have reduced the common charges on the cost of production, but it would not have altered the quality of the iron. The anthracite is of an untractable nature; I have heard that many attempts have been made during the last thirty years to make iron with stone coal. It was a great desideratum in the trade; since the plaintiff's discovery, two very extensive works have been erected on the usual scale of pig iron manufactories. I made experiments on the strength of the iron. According to Mr. Tredgold's experiments, the breaking weight of a bar made in the ordinary way is 173 lbs. I found the breaking weight of a similar bar, made in furnace No. 2, with all stone coal and hot blast, to be 209, and in furnace No. 3, with two-thirds stone coal, to be 199, and from No. 1, with one-third stone coal, to be 180 lbs. The iron, with one exception, followed the rule of being the stronger, according to the quantity of stone coal used. White iron is that species of iron which is deteriorated; into which fuel enters in a less proportion than any other. It is less fusible; brittle and inapplicable to any purpose unless mixed with other iron. I saw no white iron at the works at all; none of the furnaces were making white, they were all making excellent grey iron. There is an anthracite association for the purpose of promoting the adoption of stone coal. These specimens are superb iron. This would do uncommonly well for rails and chain cables (e).

Francis Northall-I was at Abercrave, from April 1826 to February 1827. There was one furnace there. The fuel used was stone coal and partly coke, but the greater quantity was coke; it was cold blast. I tried the stone coal from April to February, and Mr. Ward had tried it before: it failed altogether. If we had known as much as we do now, we could have mastered the business; but we did not know it; we wanted the hot blast, no other thing will do but that. The iron cost 67. a ton; the company were losing 21. a ton, if not more. Some of it was pretty good, some middling, and some ordinary iron. I have observed

(e) This witness was cross-examined at great length as to the coal basin of Wales, and the character of anthracite and of free burning coal, and as to the way in which the different species pass into each other, whether gradually and by transition through an intermediate species between stone and bituminous, to which the term anthracitious might be applied, or abruptly; whether in some cases the anthracite and bituminous did not alternate in very thin layers, so that a person working fairly down would take the two together, and obtain therefrom a good coke. Printed case, 35. But Mr. Brough, mineral surveyor for forty or fifty years, stated that he had never seen, and was not aware of, any instance where the strata of stone coal alternate with strata of bituminous coal, or

any coal of a bituminous character, either thin or thick lamina. Ibid. 49. Mr. Mushet further stated stone coal to be a well-known article of commerce, sold in large quantities for drying malt, and well distinguished from bituminous coal. That as to the term anthracitious, no one, except those who puzzled themselves, knew any thing about it; that very few distinguished anthra citious from anthracite; that it is called bastard culm in the Swansea market. Ibid. 42.

Mr. Mushet informs me, that his evidence on the alternation of the stone and bituminous coal had reference only to the first manifestations of the anthracite principle in the coal series in passing along the edge of the Welsh basin. See post 394, n. a.

the working of the plaintiff's furnaces; the hot blast answers H. Vac., 1840. every purpose to him. The quality of the iron is very good, extraordinary good; there is no such iron made in this kingdom as the anthracite coal iron made at Yniscedwin. That made at Abercrave was tender cold short iron. On cross-examination, he says-When we could get the blast through, the iron was middling at times; when there was one ton or two that was middling, there were ten tons which were bad (ƒ).

Mr. William Carpmael-Nearly seventy patents connected with the manufacture of iron have from time to time been granted. The first making any mention of the use of anthracite is Martin's (g). The mode proposed is ingenious, but it would fail as soon as the blast comes upon it. He speaks of the blast; the ordinary blast of that period was the cold blast; the cold blast blows anthracite black instead of aiding the combustion. The object of Philip Taylor's (h) patent was to use carburetted hydrogen gas, for the purpose of supplying to anthracite that in which it appeared to differ from other coal: it failed. A blast of air was to be used; the ordinary blast at that time was the cold blast. Botfield's invention is to use, with or without the ordinary blowing apparatus, heated air (i). It is not applied to stone coal. His invention cannot be used without blowing hot air into the furnace, if the ordinary blowing apparatus be used in conjunction with the other apparatus (k). I never heard of

Several other witnesses were called, but it will be sufficient to advert generally to the nature of their evidence. Thomas Strick spoke to the pig iron made by the plaintiff being better than other pig iron, and to the great change that had taken place in the value of property in consequence of the discovery.

William Brough, mineral surveyor and civil engineer, for between forty and fifty years, was well acquainted with the Welsh coal basin; it is about eight miles in breadth and seventy in length. There is a marked difference between the anthracite, or stone, and the bituminous coal. Had never seen any places where the stone coal and bituminous coal alternate in strata. Pwlfaron, the defendants' colliery, is perfectly stone coal. Tennant's Canal, which is a branch of the Neath Canal, near the defendants' works, communicates with the stone coal district. I saw lead melted by the blast at the defendants' works.

Mr. Crane's discovery has brought many speculators into the country; it is new and useful. Had seen anthracite tried with the cold blast, and it failed. The value of estates has been greatly increased. One which only yielded 30l. a year for the surface, now yields 1001. in addition, and will probably yield from 300l. to 400l. shortly.

The anthracite lies many fathoms under the bituminous; and in Caermarthen and Pembrokeshire there is no bituminous at all, because there is no ground to hold the veins; they have been denuded, or never existed. The anthracite is many (say 200) fathoms under the free burning coal; they are never intermixed: free burning coal does not coke.

John Arthur-I had the Pwlfaron Colliery; it is stone coal. I sold it to the defendants in October, 1837. It was after Mr. Crane's patent. I had for some time before offered it for sale. The value of stone coal is increased.

John Crowe Richardson, a chain cable manufacturer-I received some iron manufactured from stone coal; the specimen produced is part of it; it was strained in the usual manner by the hydraulic press, and bore 19 tons: the iron of the same dimensions which I used before would only bear 16 tons, and the iron was much better than any which I had before used or seen used in the trade.

John Buckland was recalled to identify the specimens spoken to by Richardson, and to prove that they were made of all stone coal.

Mr. David Rosser, a master smith-Never saw iron so good as the anthracite iron.

John Taylor, a bricklayer, was examined at great length as to the progress of the application of the hot blast, with the view of showing that the hot blast used by the plaintiff was not that discovered by Neilson. Mr. Campbel was examined to the same points.

Mr. Hazeldine, engineer at the iron works near Wednesbury, Staffordshire, spoke to the use of the hot blast in their works since 1835.

(g) Ante 376, n., bearing date June 23, 1804. (h) Ante 377, n., specification dated February 7, 1826.

(i) See specification, ante 274.

(k) This witness spoke to the difference between the hot air blast of the plaintiff and of Neilson, and as to Botfield's and De Vaux's inventions. Printed case, 68-76.