a few months it occurred to Mr. Heath that,
instead of making his carburet first and
separately, as good results would arise from
merely putting the ingredients (coal-tar and
oxide of manganese) into the same crucible
with the fused steel; so that the carburet
might be made, and then make the cast steel
in the same pot. For, the carburet is formed
at a temperature below that at which the
steel was to be melted. This calculation
proved to be just. Mr. Heath then
communicated the fact to his agent and friend,
by placing in his hands, instead of carburet of
manganese simply the elements of that
substance to be used in the working of the patent
process.

The attempts to introduce the new
discovery among the Sheffield manufacturers,
were for a time intermitted on the part of
Mr. Heath, and all intercourse between him
and his friend among the cutlers had
temporarily ceased. But, upon a luckless day, he
was told that his exclusive rights had been
invaded. His agent had established steel
works, and was engaged in making steel
according to the patent process, on his own
account. From that time until the present,
cast steel has been made constantly at
Sheffield by dozens of manufacturers, according to
the plan suggested by Heath's patent. But
all claim to remuneration set up by the
patentee has been utterly denied.

In the year 1843, Mr. Heath brought an
action against his agent for infringement of
his patent rights. The cause has since that
date never ceased to furnish a delightful
illustration of the usefulness of British law. It
has been, and is being, and for ever will be
dragged in a circle round a series of courts;
through the ranks of a series of counsellors;
under the noses of a series of judges. Heath's
agent is an abstraction, standing now for
about eighty Sheffield men who are all equally
determined to put off the evil day when they
may have to pay arrears of royalty, and
perhaps to pay also the aggregate amount of
extra gains obtained by the employment of
the patent process. If the cause could ever
be decided for the plaintiff in a final way,
and if this order were made, Sheffield would
have to pay between one and two millions
of money. Mr. Heath saw that this was
too much to expect, and was ready to
compound with the infringers for a few
hundreds of thousands. The modest royalty
of a pound a ton upon the manufacture
—a fraction of a farthing upon each pound
weight of steel—would produce for a time
a steady income of ten thousand pounds
a year. With this prize flickering before
his eyes, Mr. Heath plunged into the
bottomless abyss of law. Those of the Sheffield
manufacturers, on the other hand, who are
most interested in the matter, maintain, if we
are rightly informed, a Defence Fund, that
never has been allowed to sink below a
balance of some fifteen or sixteen thousand
pounds. With this they have kept (and
still keep) the cause perpetually going:
have moved (and still move) the arguments
from court to court. When chance has
brought them a decision in their favour,
Sheffield church bells have been set ringing,
and the victors have enjoyed the
gratulations that were printed in the Sheffield
newspapers.

The point in litigation is this:—Mr.
Heath claims, in the specification of his
patent, "the use of carburet of manganese
in any process whereby iron is converted
into cast-steel." He at first made his
carburet in a pot by itself, and put it, ready
made, into the crucible in which the steel is
melted. Afterwards, as we have said, he
advised that coal-tar and oxide of manganese
should be put into the crucible together with
the steel, and that the carburet should be
made when and where it was wanted. This
hint the Sheffield people took; and the
question carried by them through the law-courts
is, Whether Mr. Heath was not bound, as a
patentee, to make his carburet of manganese
outside their crucibles; and whether the
modification he suggested afterwards might not
be adopted by them without legal (though no
doubt there might be real) infringement of
his rights?

So pretty a cause is of course—at eleven
years old—only now in its infancy. Dr. Ure,
writing in 1844, expressed his opinion on the
matter somewhat prematurely when, after
mentioning the date of Mr. Heath's patent,
the fifth of April 1839, he goes on to remark
that "strange and melancholy to say he has
never derived anything from his acknowledged
improvement but vexation and loss, in
consequence of a numerous body of Sheffield
steel manufacturers having banded together
to pirate his patent, and to baffle him in our
complex law-courts. I hope, however, that
eventually justice will have its own, and the
ridiculously unfounded pretences of the pirates
to the prior use of carburet of manganese,
will be set finally at rest. It is supposed,
that fifty persons at least are engaged in this
pilfering conspiracy." That was Dr. Ure's
opinion of this great law-nut nine years ago:
it is not yet cracked. At present it stands at
a rule venire de novo—to try it all over again;
but even that amount of progress is checked
by a notice of appeal to the House of Lords;
of which the most final thing that can be had
is the delightful privilege of beginning again
at the beginning.

How did it all begin? The round game
of the law commenced in the year 1843 with
the action we have mentioned brought by
Mr. Heath against his agent, which was
tried in Trinity Term, before Lord Abinger.
Plaintiff was non-suited; moved for a new
trial on the ground of misdirection; could
not get it; brought a fresh action which
was commenced, January 1844, in the Court
of Exchequer. The issues raised in the