Under these circumstances, it appeared to Koenig that only two alternatives remained for him to adopt. One was to commence an expensive, and it might be a protracted, suit in Chancery, in defence of his patent rights, with possibly his partner, Bensley, against him; and the other, to abandon his invention in England without further struggle, and settle abroad. He chose the latter alternative, and left England finally in August, 1817. Mr. Richard Taylor, the other partner in the patent, was an honourable man; but he could not control the proceedings of Bensley. In a memoir published by him in the 'Philosophical Magazine,' "On the Invention and First Introduction of Mr. Koenig's Printing Machine," in which he honestly attributes to him the sole merit of the invention, he says, "Mr. Koenig left England, suddenly, in disgust at the treacherous conduct of Bensley, always shabby and overreaching, and whom he found to be laying a scheme for defrauding his partners in the patents of all the advantages to arise from them. Bensley, however, while he destroyed the prospects of his partners, outwitted himself, and grasping at all, lost all, becoming bankrupt in fortune as well as in character."[6] Koenig was badly used throughout. His merits as an inventor were denied. On the 3rd of January, 1818, after he had left England, Bensley published a letter in the Literary Gazette, in which he speaks of the printing machine as his own, without mentioning a word of Koenig. The 'British Encyclopaedia,' in describing the inventors of the printing machine, omitted the name of Koenig altogether. The 'Mechanics Magazine,' for September, 1847, attributed the invention to the Proprietors of The Times, though Mr. Walter himself had said that his share in the event had been "only the application of the discovery;" and the late Mr. Bennet Woodcroft, usually a fair man, in his introductory chapter to 'Patents for Inventions in Printing,' attributes the merit to William Nicholson's patent (No. 1748), which, he said, "produced an entire revolution in the mechanism of the art." In other publications, the claims of Bacon and Donkin were put forward, while those of the real inventor were ignored. The memoir of Koenig by Mr. Richard Taylor, in the 'Philosophical Magazine,' was honest and satisfactory; and should have set the question at rest.