limited, and they can be easily recollected. But when the number of facts accumulates to an extraordinary extent, none but those blessed with an exceedingly good memory can gain practical information. We want, then, some grand principles which shall enable us to recollect facts. Neither chemistry nor any other branch of science ought to be the direct guide to the agriculturist. It should never put itself in the position of telling a practical man what he has to do; but it ought to explain the experience of farmers and facilitate the understanding of practical matters to the rising generation; for there would be no progress whatever possible if each generation had always to learn again the same practical matters, a knowledge of which their forefathers had gained. They require to have some grand principle, to lay hold at once of those numerous practical facts, and then they are in a position to extend previous experience. Hence, I believe, at the present time especially, science is eminently calculated to be of great utility to the rising generation. The most successful farmers in all ages have always been men in advance of their times. Our most excellent farmers of the present time have been distinguished in their manhood for something for which they were ridiculed at one period of their life. When they had to contend against popular prejudices, chemistry as a science was altogether unknown. In all probability if chemical science had been applied to agriculture as it has since been, they would have been "meddling" with it, as the phrase goes; but they "meddled" with some new plough or some new implement for which they were ridiculed, and at first it would seem properly, because they failed in their attempts: but they were men of character, perseverance, and intelligence; they did not abandon a new process because it was ridiculed, they did not cast aside a new instrument because it did not at once work well; they put their shoulders to the work, applied their intelligence, brought out the new implement, or, by making use of their previous experience, introduced a new process, which was gradually accepted, since it was found to answer in a great many instances, and the circumstances under which it would be useful to the farmer were clearly recognised. Chemical science in its relation to agriculture had to pass through all the different stages which a new-born babe or child has to pass through during the first years of existence. We have seen the joy with which the new light of chemistry in its relation to agriculture, as it has been called, has been greeted. Those who have welcomed it with the greatest joy have, it cannot be denied, too much petted, so to say, those scientific men who applied themselves to the investigation of chemical subjects in relation to agriculture: and it has very soon appeared that, like petted children, many of the professors of chemical science over-estimated their own powers, and instead of explaining the experience of practical men, they set themselves up as guides to the farmers; in short, they over-estimated the powers of the new science, and, in consequence, stumbled. It cannot be surprising that practical men should have laughed, at various times, at the extravagant expectations which were held out by scientific men themselves. It was very soon found out that, as yet, chemical science had nothing but promises to offer. It was then that chemistry had to pass through many troubles; it received a rough handling; and it is surprising that amidst the petting on the one hand, and the rough handling on the other, it did not die a natural death. But it is fortunate that, at all times, there are intelligent and liberal-minded men who, though they may regret the extravagances of the young, yet recognise the talent that may be but a spark, but which requires only to be directed in the proper channel to become mighty means for practical and social good. It reflects great credit

In

on that immortal man Mr. Pusey to have foreseen, with all his practical tact and clear intelligence, the important advantages which chemistry is capable of securing at one time or the other, and who was fortunate enough to secure the services of my predecessor in office. The services rendered by Professor Way to this Society, and to agricultural society at large, are too well known to require comment from me on this occasion. His works will be read and appreciated by successive generations; they have a permanent] value, and belong to the choicest contributions of your Journal. alluding to your Journal, my Lord, excuse my making one remark, which may, perhaps, appear out of place. I was surprised the other day to hear that the Journal was in danger of losing its standing as the first leading agricultural publication of the day; that the former volumes were much more practical than those issued in later years. I was surprised to hear these remarks, because I have heard remarks in the opposite direction from many agriculturists with whom I have conversed. There will always be differences of opinion; but it is worthy of remark that the most talented, rising young farmers generally speak very favourably of the contributions to the later volumes of the Royal Agricultural Society's Journal; whilst observations of an opposite tendency are chiefly made by men who were of full age, if I may use the expression, when chemistry, as a science, was altogether unknown. Be this as it may, it is clear that a different mode of thought and expression pervades the productions emanating from the younger agricultural writers, which proves, I think, that the rising intelligent farmer is no longer satisfied with having simple direction in practical matters-is not simply satisfied with being told "You must do this or that," unless he is told at the same time the reason for this recommendation. And I believe that it is equally true that frequently no satisfactory explanation can be given of practical farming matters without using scientific language, however simple it may be. And, lastly, I would observe, with respect to this subject, that many of the most valuable contributions will remain a dead letter to those who have not studied the rudiments of science. In short, a knowledge of the rudiments of science, more especially of chemistry, is necessary to all who would successfully compete with the future rising generation; and if they neglect the opportunities which are now afforded to them in acquiring chemical knowledge, and a general knowledge of the principles of science, they must be content to forego the enjoyments and benefits which are peculiar to a highly-civilised country like England, and must be content to try their hands in clearing an habitable spot in the back-woods of Canada or North America, or to live, or rather vegetate, in one of our colonies. Agricultural chemistry in its application to farming is altogether a new science; and hitherto it has been, like every new knowledge, too vague and too general in its doctrines as well as in its researches. What is required at the present time is experiments made for a special purpose researches carried on in the field as well as in the laboratory. We have need of the joint labours of practical men and men of science. There are multitudes of subjects which can only be properly investigated if the man of science heartily joins with the practical man, working cheerfully together each in his own department. Nearer approach between agriculture and science, in short, is what is required at the present time. A general knowledge of the principles of farming, however useful to the practical farmer, never will help him to grow a large crop of turnips: he must have special training in practical matters in order to be a successful farmer. So it is with chemical knowledge. Men may have excellent general chemical knowledge, but if they have not special chemical knowledge in rela

I

tion to farming, their labours will be of little direct utility to the agriculturist. We understand in England better than in any other country the division of labour, and this circumstance is highly favourable to the development of agricultural chemistry, for greater opportunities are offered than in any other country to men trained in scientific matters to apply their scientific knowledge to special purposes. might take up any subject to illustrate the intimate connection of scientific labours with practical matters; but I believe there is none better calculated to show more the direct bearing of chemistry upon agriculture than the cultivation of root crops. In cultivating root crops the farmer is directly thrown in contact with chemistry, for few farmers at the present time can produce sufficient natural manure to satisfy their expectations of growing large crops of roots, and hence they are compelled to employ artificial manures. From the first period when the seed is put in the ground, or the soil itself is cultivated, to the very last moment when the roots are consumed on the farm, the farmer meets with many matters in which a knowledge of chemistry is extremely useful to him. Take, for instance, the mechanical cultivation of the soil. He is at once shown the reason why it is of the utmost importance to work the land properly, to subdivide it, to cultivate it deep. By this mechanical means he liberates mineral food for the use of root crops, which are specially benefited by readily available mineral food; for, like all quick-growing plants, roots require their food to be prepared before-hand. Hence, if on stiff lands you neglect the mechanical preparation of the soil, you have not a sufficient amount of available food to satisfy the immediate wants of the growing root crop. Then again, in putting the seed into the ground, the intelligent agricu turist is reminded of various purely chemical matters; and the question occurs to him, "Can I hasten the germination of my seed by the application of certain salts, or by soaking it in certain dilute acids ? or can I use any other chemical preparation to make the seed germinate, and bring up the young plant more rapidly ?" But in no time in the cultivation of root crops is a knowledge of chemistry of greater utility than when the farmer has to decide what manuring substances he ought to apply in order to obtain a good crop of mangolds, swedes, or turnips. Perhaps he is told he ought to use super-phosphate, or guano, or a mixture of the two, or a special turnip manure : how is he to decide what super-phosphate he is to select, if he does not understand the character of the ingredients that enter into the composition of super-phosphates or guano ? and how can he understand the chemical composition of superphosphates if he does not understand chemical terms? If he look at an analysis like that before me, he may glance over it; but if he does not understand what the meaning of the term "soluble phosphate," for instance, is, he runs the risk of selecting an inefficient manure, which he buys simply because an analysis has been offered him. It never enters his mind that a man who has to sell a very inferior article would have it analyzed, and to issue the analysis with all the impurities which the manure contains; hence, he is satisfied with simply seeing the analysis. It is, therefore, of great utility to understand the chemical terms for the substances that enter into the composition of those manures which are most frequently used for agricultural purposes. But, in the first place, it is of great importance to be able to select those manures which are best adapted to the cultivation of roots. Let us take, for example, the cultivation of swedes. We hear constant discussions as to whether guano is better than super-phosphate, or whether a mixture of guano and super-phosphate should be used; and these discussions are never brought to a successful issue, simply because we require

to ascertain, first, whether ammoniacal matters can be dispensed with in the cultivation of root crops, or not, and what the conditions are under which we can dispense with ammonis, a very expensive manuring constituent. The question of the superiority of guano or super-phosphate mainly hinges upon this: "Can I dispense with the expensive ammonia, and yet grow a good crop of roots ?" Now, I have no hesitation in saying that there are many instances in which roots may be grown with great advantage without the direct application of ammoniacal manures; and that in all these instances a great deal of the most useful constituent of guano is, comparatively speaking, lost, and that guano is therefore to a great extent misapplied. Now, before I allude to some experiments which I made some years ago, and which I hope the Society will enable me to carry on for years to come (for it is only by a succession of experiments that truth is gradually established), I would simply mention the practical experience of many farmers who have found that a mixture of super-phosphate and guano has answered much better than guano alone; and likewise the fact that inferior guanos, rich in phosphates, but, comparatively speaking, poor in ammonia, have answered better, practically, than the best Peruvian guano. I might also appeal to the experience of many farmers who apply nothing else in the cultivation of their roots but super-phosphates prepared from bone-ash alone. Moreover, it is the tendency of the present time to produce super-phosphates comparatively poor in nitrogen. It is not likely that an intelligent class of men like the artificial manure makers would shorten the supply of ammonia in artificial manures if they did not find that it answered their par pose. If they could satisfy their customers without going to the expense of using much ammonia in the composition of artificial manure, they were evidently the gainers. I would not, however, have you to understand that I think that ammonis can be dispensed with even in the cultivation of root crops. I know that it cannot be. There are many soils on which the very cheapest manure that you can possibly use is guano. There are many soils in which ammoniacal matters are beneficial to the root crops; but the instances are far more numerous in which phosphates are more beneficial. With a view of throwing some light on the action of ammonia on root crops, more especially on turnips, I some years ago instituted some experiments which were purposely made on extremely poor land-very thin and exhausted land. They were not made with a view of ascertaining how large a crop of turnips I could obtain by the application of certain mixed manures, but more especially for the purpose of ascertaining whether on our soils and the soils in our neigbbourhood we could dispense with the use of ammonia er not, and what manuring constituents were likely to be of the greatest benefit to the root crops. I used for this pur pose several simple salts-like sulphate of ammonia, sulphate of potash, sulphate of soda, sulphate of lime-besides phos phate in a soluble and most available condition, alone, and mixed with ammonia. That the soil on which the experiment was carried on was extremely poor is shown by the result embodied in the diagram to which I direct your attention. The natural produce of the land in one part was about 3 tons, and in another part 2 tons 11 cwts. 19 lbs. . That is the difference between the middle of the field and the outside; it is too small to be taken into account. And allow me to observe that I think that all differences in prac tical experiments amounting to no more than half a ton ought to be dismissed altogether as accounted for by natural variations in the soil, or by accident. You should not dwell upon these minute differences, and draw nice distine tions as to the action of different manuring matters. And

permit me to throw out a hint for all who take an interest in practical experiments, and that is, to test the natural capabilities of the soil by making two experiments with nothing. You will observe that in these experiments sulphate of ammonia had no effect upon the root crop at all; if anything it diminished the produce. I was not a little surprised in obtaining this result, expecting as I did that the ammonia would force on the crop. We are in the habit of connecting the rapid starting of the crop with the presence of ammonia in the soil on the manure: we call ammonia a forcing element, but certainly in relation to the young swede it cannot be so called; it does not force on the seed, but rather retards the germination. In all these experiments I find that the least you do artificially by using various salts or guano, or even super-phosphates, the more rapidly the seed germinates; and hence it follows likewise that it is desirable not to put the seed in direct contact with the artificial manure, and, if possible, to apply farm-yard manure in the autumn; at least, this should be done in heavy land; the manure then has time to diffuse itself throughout the soil, and you do not get those injurious effects which are produced when you put the seed into a part of the soil which is too highly manured, which it necessarily will be if the manure has not had time to diffuse itself throughout it. And even with the application of artificial manures I cannot help thinking that in many instances it would be more useful to apply them with the broad-cast distributor than drilling immediately with the seed. At least I have heard many excellent practical farmers expressing themselves to this effect. I merely throw this out as a matter of report made to me, and not as advocating either the one or the other method of applying artificial manure. Guano more especially retards germination of turnip seeds, and I have no doubt in my own mind that it is the large amount of ammonia in guano that produces this undesirable effect; but I have not found in my experiments that super-phosphates hasten the germination of the seed. When the young plant is up, then readily available food in the soil is of the greatest utility, and the turnip grows rapidly. Hence there is some truth in the observation that super-phosphate pushes on the turnip crop, bringing it out of the reach of the turnip-fly; but it does not facilitate the rapid germination of the seed: it has rather a contrary effect. It has been questioned by high authority whether the effect of super-phosphate on root crops might not be due as much to the sulphuric acid as to the phosphoric acid; but you have here a direct experiment which proves better than any theoretical reasons the erroneousness of this view. With super-phosphate alone, made from purely mineral phosphate, the natural produce of the land, amounting to three tons on the average has been nearly trebled. In all experiments, in short, where phosphate has been used, the crop has very much increased; whereas when gypsum has been applied, no benefit has resulted from the application. I may add that last year I made another series of experiments in which the same result has been brought out:

With nothing the produce was 6 tons 11 cwt. 2 qrs.

With gypsum

Whereas super-phosphate without

ammonia produced ...

6

13

3

10 17 0

In all these experiments neither sulphuric acid applied in the shape of gypsum nor ammonia has done any good. In an experiment made on another part of the farm last year, I again found that ammonia was of no utility. Thus sulphate of ammonia applied to a field which naturally yielded 6 tons 11 cwt., produced 5 tons 6 cwt. 21lbs.-to some extent diminishing the produce. It is certain that in these cases ammoniacal

manures, like guano or compound turnip manures, are to a great extent misapplied, because the farmer loses the immediate effect of the most expensive constituent of the manure, But I am acquainted with other experiments in which guano is of very great utility, and produces a better effect than purely mineral phosphatic manures. It remains to be seen what the exact circumstances are, under which we can dispense with ammoniacal manures, and also under what circumstances we can dispense with phosphatic manures for the cultivation of root crops: for I think that there are instances in which even superphosphate is misapplied-in which superphosphate and phosphatic manures as applied to root crops are of little practical utility. I should be extremely gratified if any instances of practical failures with superphosphate were reported to me, and portions of soil reserved for further examination, if such should be found necessary. The question whether we can dispense with the artificial supply of phosphates is a very important one-next in importance to the one upon which I have just now dwelt-which awaits its practical solution, and will no doubt find it when we continue to institute experiments with a distinct object in view, without reference to any immediate result made with the view of explaining existing practices it is only then that we can arrive at legitimate conclusions. Experiments are frequently made very much in the manner in which a student in chemistry begins his researches in the laboratory. He tries certain bottles, and puts one fluid with the other to see the result, and arrives at no practical conclusion, because, in nine cases out of ten, he obtains, by mixing four or five bottles together, a black dirty-looking liquid: so, by jumbling together all sorts of manuring matters, and trying to obtain from them any really useful practical results, you do not obtain any from which legitimate conclusions can be drawn. Thus, for instance, we frequently hear of comparisons between guano and superphosphate; but we are not told what description of guano or of superphosphate is taken. You will see, by the diagram before me, that the composition of superphosphate varies greatly. One, for instance, contains only 5 per cent, of soluble phosphate, and 1 per cent. of insoluble; while in another we have 23 per cent. of soluble, and 5 per cent. of insoluble. Now, if you make an experiment with super-phosphate and guano, and you find the guano greatly beats the super-phosphate, you are not entitled to say that phosphatic manures are of no utility in your particular case-that a mixture of ammonia and phosphate is much more valuable on your farm than phosphate alone; for if you will look at the composition of guano, you will find that in reality you apply a much larger quantity of phosphate than you apply even in a fair average sample of super-phosphate This diagram, moreover, does not give the amount of phosphoric acid which exists in alkaline salts, and which, in good Peruvian guano, is equal to from 6 to 8 per cent. of soluble phosphate; so that, in reality, guano is super-phosphate plus ammonia. I have no hesitation in saying, that in guano, very frequently, more phosphates are incorporated with the land, than with a great many samples of super-phosphate as they are found in the market for a super-phosphate is considered of good average quality if it contains from 25 to 30 per cent. of phosphates, of which about one-half is rendered soluble; but in guano there is in reality quite as much, if not more, phosphate present. Then, again, experiments are frequently made on land which is in a very highly cultivated state, which is so full of manure that no amount of additional artificial fertilizers can produce any effect. I have before me an accoun t of some experiments which were published some time ago, in all of which about the same quantity of roots was produced. There is a remark, however, which throws some light upon

were

the experiments :-"The only objection to the field as a trialfield for manure was its high condition. It was feared that the lots might be too much alike, and this anticipation has proved correct. In the experiments as much as 7 cwt. of Peruvian guano and 14 cwt. of super-phosphate employed, and in all instances about the same quantity of produce was obtained." Then, very naïvely, the experimenter, in remarking upon these results, says, "It is to be regretted that one or two lots were not left without any manure whatever, although we have little doubt that such lots would have yielded next to nothing." Well, if they yielded next to nothing, the land could not be in a highly cultivated state. It is evident, I think, that the land was in a state super-saturated with manure, and experiments made on such land are not calculated to throw much light on the

efficacy of manuring constituents. I have alluded specially to the question of the efficacy of phosphates and ammonia, in illustrating the direct utility of a knowledge of chemistry to farmers, and I might also have illustrated the same thing by alluding to the various forms in which manuring substances ought to be applied to the land in order to produce the maximum effect. Thus, for instance, I might have alluded to the question, In what state phosphate ought to be used in agriculture? It is plain that for a quick-growing crop, like the turnip crop, food ought to be present in a readily-soluble condition; but, at the same time, I think we cannot lay down a general rule that, under all circumstances, phosphates, which we apply in the shape of artificial manures, should be always perfectly soluble. I make this remark, not because I think it is a question with which the theoretical man has much to do, but it is a question which can be decided in a purely practical manner. Supposing the farmer finds that his land is of such a porous character that bone-dust when used in a finely-divided state becomes sufficiently available to yield him a good crop of turnips, then he would be wrong to go to the expense of buying super-phosphate. What we can use in a raw, unprepared state must evidently be cheaper than what has undergone the manufacturing process. There are some soils in which the most economical way of using phosphatic manures is simply by bonedust, to ferment it with the farm-yard manure, and, when the heap is set up in the field, to put the bone-dust between the layers, as it is carted. By this mode of fermentation the phosphates become sufficiently soluble in the soil to answer all the practical purposes for which the manure is used. There is no ne. cessity of using phosphates in any other shape in very light sandy soils. But, under other circumstances, if the farmer, for instance, has to deal with heavy land in which the decomposition of phosphates proceeds very slowly, it is of the utmost importance to use phosphate of lime in a soluble form. What I would advise is the purchase of a super-phosphate, in which the farmer gets just what he cannot readily make himself, i. e. soluble phosphate of lime. If he wants insoluble phosphate, let him use it in the shape of bone-dust. Then he may be sure in what form he gets it, and does not run the risk of getting an insoluble phosphate in the shape of coprolite powder, in which condition it is of no utility whatever. But, in most instances, the advantages of applying phosphates in a soluble condition have been clearly established. The very term "super-phosphate" shows the practical use to which chemistry is applied at the present time. There are, indeed, in the common daily experience of the farmer, terms used at the present time which would greatly astonish our ancestors. Chemistry will more and more become the common property of the agricultural community, and the more carefully the principles of this new science are studied by the rising generation, the greater will be the practical advantages that will flow from the possession of such knowledge.

On the motion of Lord FEVERSHAM, seconded by Mr. WREN HOSKYNS, the thanks of the meeting were voted to Dr. Voelcker for the able lecture he had then delivered.

SPECIAL COUNCIL (after the lecture): Lord Berners, President, in the chair.

On the motion of Mr. BRANDRETH GIBBS, seconded by the Hon. A. LESLIE MELVILLE, the Council decided that memorials and other documents received from Oxford in reference to the Country Meeting of next year should be taken into consideration on the 5th of May next, when memorials and other documents would also be taken into consideration from Coventry, Reading, and Warwick.

Adjourned to May 5.

A MONTHLY COUNCIL was held on Wednesday, the 5th of May. Present: Lord Berners, President, in the Chair; Earl of Powis, Lord Camoys, Lord Feversham, Lord Walsingham, Hon. A. Leslie Melville, Hon. Col· A. Nelson Hood, Hon. William George Cavendish, M.P.; Sir John Villiers Shelley, Bart., M.P.; Sir Philip Egerton, Bart., M.P.; Sir Charles Morgan, Bart.; Sir John V. B. Johnstone, Bart., M.P.; Sir Archibald Macdonald, Bart.; Sir Edward Kerrison, Bart., M.P.; Mr. Dyke Acland, Mr. Raymond Barker, Mr. Barnett, Mr. Hodgson Barrow, M.P., Mr. Bramston, M.P., Mr. Barthropp, Mr. Brandreth, Mr. Caldwell, Colonel Challoner, Mr. Druce, Mr. Foley, M.P., Mr. Brandreth Gibbs, Mr. Hamond, Mr. Fisher Hobbs, Mr. Holland, M.P., Mr. Wren Hoskyns, Mr. James Howard, Mr. Hudson (of Castleacre), Mr. Humberston (Mayor of Chester), Mr. Huskinson, Mr. Jonas, Mr. Kinder, Mr. Langston, M.P., Mr. Lawes, Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Miles, M.P., Mr. Milward, Mr. Pain, Mr. Shuttleworth, Mr. Slaney, M.P., Mr. Thompson, Mr. Torr, Mr. Turner (of Boston), Professor Voelcker, Mr. Burch Western, and Mr. Jonas Webb.

His Grace the Duke of Marlborough, of Blenheim
Park, Oxfordshire, was elected a Governor of the Society.
The following new Members were elected :-
Bradburne, John Hanbury, Pipe-place, Lichfield, Staffs.
Brogden, Jchn, Priory-gate, Sale, Cheshire.
Cawton, William, Somersall Hall, Chesterfield, Derbyshire.
Clay, Charles, Walton Grange, Wakefield, Yorkshire.
Corbet, Dryden, Sundorne Castle, Shrewsbury
Crane, Edward, Foston, Montford, Shrewsbury.
Forshaw, Thomas, Latus Hall, Goosnargh, Lancashire.
Garne, Robert, Northleach, Gloucestershire
Gaskell, Henry Lomax, Kiddington Hall, Woodstock.
Hill, L. Broadbent, Back Hall, Chester.
Holland, Charles, Keele, Newcastle, Staffordshire.
Howard, Robert, Broughton Hall, Wrexham.
Howell, John, Ewen, Cirencester.

Laing, Samuel, Hordle Manor, Lymington, Hampshire
Logan, John, Maindree House, Newport, Monmouthshire.
Matthews, Henry, Montford, Shrewsbury.
Mein, William, Home Farm, Blenheim, Oxfordshire
Millard, James, Rugeley, Staffordshire.
Perry, Samuel, Shipley, Bridgenorth, Shropshire.
Sisson, Robert James, Talardy, St. Asaph.
Sugden, David, Huddersfield, Yorkshire.
Thomas, James, Lidlington, Ampthill, Bedfordshire
Woods, Edmund Freeman, Stowmarket, Suffolk.
Woods, James, Stowmarket, Suffolk.