PROFESSOR JOHNSTON’S LECTURE. 
57 5 
the public mind at any given period, yet the spirited character of 
the agricultural journals marked rather the progress of the people 
than the progress of the science. 
When about eight years ago he first began to study, with a view 
of writing on this subject, his mind was especially arrested by three 
several circumstances. First, by the want of correctly ascertained 
facts in experimental agriculture. The benefits of this or that mode 
of procedure, the effects of this or that circumstance upon the soil 
or the crop, he found described in books in a loose and general 
manner. In the second place, he was struck with the theoretical 
writings — the crude and hasty premises — some of them scarcely 
deserving the name of guesses at truth. It was one thing to write 
for a desire and another for the advancement of truth. It was 
one thing to propound brilliant conjectures, and another to note 
down the results of hasty thoughts, and, after cautious considera- 
tion, to bring those opinions before the public. Speculative and 
fanciful theories, highly poetical, and often indicative of high talent, 
formed the centre key to agricultural science. He would add, 
from his own experience, that the constant demand to excitement 
which widely prevailed amongst agriculturists operated upon those 
scientific men who were engaged in their behalf in a manner which 
was unfavourable in a high degree. Be cautious, and, having 
exercised this caution, wait patiently for its results, which were 
sure to follow. 
He had often been struck with the wide deficiency which every- 
where presented itself in matters connected with the rural economy 
of the soil, the plant, and the animal. The same would be true of 
the chemical history of animal and vegetable life, for knowledge 
appeared everywhere more necessary to secure practical progress. 
Besides those three, he had met with numerous acknowledged 
facts in practical agriculture, for which no explanation, in accord- 
ance with existing knowledge, had been, or could be, offered. 
Such was, then, the state of knowledge on this subject. It was 
naturally, therefore, suggested to the friend of agricultural progress 
that the separation of objects to be investigated would be the 
means by which this deficiency, as regards facts, would be gra- 
dually supplied, and this theoretical redundancy lopped off. It 
was first suggested, therefore, that accurate experiments should be 
undertaken, and also that measures, adapted to varied circum- 
stances, should be resorted to for the instruction of the public, for 
explaining the kind of experiments to be made, how they were to 
be set about, and how they might be expected to succeed. 
It would at once occur to his audience that great advantages 
were likely to result from such a process of experiments, by no 
means limited to the purposes for which they were immediately 
