The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-07 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Sin, —I feel sure, from your well-known liberality
and justice, that you will allow me to correct an
inaccuracy respecting my bread machine, which
appeared in your impression of Thursday last.
The trial of my machine took place last Wednes-
day, in the presence of about GO or 70 of the leading
scientific men and physicians of the day, and all,
with the exception of the writer in your journal,
pronounced my machine a complete success.
The paragraph in your paper expresses the
writer's surprise and disappointment " that the
only real attempt at labour-saving it by means of a
vertical mixer, combined with a seini-rotary duster
or dredger, copied from, or precisely similar to
thatdescribed by Lee and Robinson, in their patent
of 1849." Now, sir, in this sentence there are two
errors, which no scientific man could have possibly
made. In the first place my mixer is not a "ver-
tical" but a horizontal one; and, in the second
place, my duster is not semi-rotary but completely.
rotary. Upon these two palpable errors your cor-
respondent's paragraph is based, whilst his suppo-
sition that anything in my machine is a plagiarism
on Lee and Robinson's is equally fallacious.
In Lee and Robinson's patent tke cylinder in
which the dough is mixed stands vertical, and
around its internal surface has a series of knives at-
tached. My trough lies horizontal, and its interior
surface is perfectly smooth, the mixer working
round and lifting the dough pe.rfectly every revo-
lution. In Lee and Robinson's patent the shaft
runs through the centre of the cylinder, and was
vertical. In nay machine there is no shaft run-
ning through the centre, and the mixer works
horizontal. Lee and Robinson's machine would
cost hundreds of pounds, and could only be
worked by steam power, where mine would only
cost tens, and is worked by hand. Theirs has been
before the public for nine years, and not one is now
in use, whilst my patent is scarcely three months
old, and the machine is in successful operation,
and making bread daily. In fact, the one is a
failure, the other a success ; and I am indebted to
the simplicity of my machine for that result.
I leave the bakers to decide upon the merits of
the two machines. Mine is an open bakery. I
have entirely discarded the old and objectionable
practice of mixing bread, and my machines are in
daily successful operation. I am able with my
machine to set the sponges, break them, knead
the dough, and to do this cleaner, quicker, better,
and make more bread, and a batter loaf, than by
the old process. I can do all this by a machine,
capable of mixing from one to fourteen bushels,
and costing only 351.
This the gentlemen who attended the meeting
fully acknowledged ; and Drs. Spurgin and
Seyers spoke of the great benefit it would confer
upon journeymen bakers, easing them from that
kind of labour which had been so often pub-
licly alluded to, and upon which especial legisla-
tion has for their benefit. Those two
gentlemen, as well as Mr. Pepper, the
analytical chemist, spoke also of the great benefit
the public would derive from cleanly made unadul-
terated bread. They expressed their surprise that
success had not been previously attained, and their
gratification at the completeness of the process ex-
hibited to them.

I am, Sir, yours, &c.,„
E. STEVENS.
5,6, and 7, Cambridge-road, N.E.

THE ATLANTIC TELEGRAPII AND GREAT

EASTERN.