and subsequent Correspondence relating tkereto. 297 



Water 21-66 



Sulphate of iron (green vitriol) 15'77 



Oxide of iron and alumina o'75 



Alkaline salts, chiefly sulphate of soda, and common salt .. 31'85 



Sulphate of hme (gypsum) 23"92 



Insoluble matter (sand) 3"05 



100-00 

 Nitrogen, -20, equal to ammonia, -24. 



This " Economical Manure " contained no phosphoric acid 

 whatever, and mere traces of ammonia ; and, as shown by the 

 preceding analytical results, it consists of a mixture of green 

 vitriol, g-ypsum, salt-cake, and other substances of no intrinsic 

 value as manure. 



Mr. Parkin wrote as follows : — "The sample of so-called tillage 

 I sent you was taken out of a 1-ton lot purchased by a friend 

 of mine, Mr. G. Webster, of Whitwell, who had heard such 

 wonderful accounts of it, that he was Avishful for me to try it as 

 well, but I did not like the look of it. He tried it both upon 

 grass and turnips, and neither he nor I could see the slightest 

 result, so I requested him to let me have a sample to forward to 

 you for my own satisfaction. Mr. Webster refused to pay for 

 it until he had seen the results ; and they are now putting him 

 into the county court for the money." 



In reply to further inquiries the Committee have received 

 copies of letters written by the solicitors on both sides, as well 

 as a copy of the case and opinion of counsel on behalf of 

 Mr. Webster, the purchaser. It appears that Mr. Webster's 

 solicitors wrote to the vendor's solicitors stating that they had 

 been instructed to defend the action which Mr. Coveney had 

 brought against their client, and added, " At the same time we 

 beg to apprise you that our client has caused the stuff sold to 

 him as tillage to be analysed by Dr. Voelcker, who reports that 

 it is not worth anything as a manure, and is injurious rather 

 than beneficial to vegetation." In reply, Mr. Coveney's solicitors, 

 stated — 



" Our client does not sell his manure subject to the approval of the analysis- 

 and report of Dr. Voelcker or any other professional chemist, but on the truth 

 of his prospecti;s, a copy of which we beg to enclose you, and we are in a 

 position to assure you that our client is quite able to prove the entire truth of 

 everything contained in that prospectus, which was settled by one of our 

 ablest lawyers (now on the Bench). It has been known and acknowledged 

 from the first that the opinions of professional analytical chemists have been 

 opposed to our client's manure, but the existence of so many reports in its- 

 favour, from actual use and practical experience, cannot be gainsaid or got 

 rid of, and as regards the publication of the analysis which you threaten, that 

 has already been done, and if your client will refer to the Royal Society's- 

 ' Journal ' of 1870, published about July of that year, Dr. Yoelcker's opinion 



