106 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
r August 2, 1838. 
still, I affirm a larger per-centage of successes are attained through 
care bestowed on minute particulars than otherwise. 
In reference to the lime question, as answered by Mr. Dunkin in the 
quotation he gives from a scientific authority—instead of a note based 
on his practical experience, as I expected, and which to be consistent he 
should have at least coupled with the scientific part—I have the temerity 
to criticise both from a practical and scientific point of view. The 
transfer of the subject of debate from old kitchen gardens to grass lands 
by your correspondent puts some slight complications on the case, but 
not material enough to hinder its discussion; but keeping to kitchen 
garden soils and their treatment, I will endeavour to show where in my 
estimation the dual use of lime is to a certain extent anomalous. Take, 
for example, a piece of ground that has perhaps for centuries been used 
for raising garden produce, and has of course been subjected to heavy 
dressings of farmyard manure ; this causes a breakdown of “ proper 
proportions ” in the constitution of the soil, more humus being present 
than silica, consequently the soil presents a close inert mass of black 
matter, difficult alike for the passage of air, water, or heat, and conse¬ 
quently healthy root action. To correct this unhealthy state lime is a 
powerful agent, and judicious trenching another. Lime, in its chemical 
and also mechanical action, as set forth by Parks, I quite agree that 
the explanation why it is so admirably fitted for that purpose is a 
very lucid one, its action when first applied being purely chemical; 
afterwards, when its power in that direction is exhausted, it forms a 
valuable mechanical agent in contributing to the porosity of the soil. 
Now, taking the case of sandy soils, and the benefit likely to accrue 
from the application of lime, I must admit that my experience is so 
limited that 1 have not yet observed any sandy soils “ that have received 
heavy dressings of farmyard manure for years, till by their very rich¬ 
ness they become distasteful to many crops.” Again, take the effect of 
an application of lime on a thorough sandy soil : does the dressing pro¬ 
duce as profitable results in causing the soil to be more retentive, as it 
does on heavy land in making them less retentive ? I venture to say, 
■emphatically, No 1 Because the scientific study of the action of lime 
reveals to us that it would have some slight effect in causing more 
moisture to be retained on its reversion into chalk, I do not consider it 
wise to put too much stress on its usefulness in that direction when 
there are other more powerful agents that will accomplish this object 
more effectually, such as humus, comprising all kinds of organic remains 
that naturally have power of retaining moisture, salt, nitrate of soda, 
sulphate of ammonia, and other chemical compounds that have an 
affinity for water. These in my opinion would be far preferable to lime 
on a sandy soil where the object was to promote its fertility. 
As to my evasion of some of the arguments as mentioned by Mr. 
Dunkin, I think they are more imaginary than real ; still, to satisfy his 
desire for an argument or explanation against his statement “ that while 
certain elements are absorbed by the soil and only given up again in 
small quantities, while others remain freely moveable, and a residue not 
quickly taken up by the plant would be wasted,” I will supply him with 
one in an extract taken from a previous article of his, where he says, 
“ I do not believe that any one kind of manure, whether artificial or 
otherwise, contains all the constituents necessary for supplying the right 
kind of food for plants generally,” and further on, in a direct question 
he says, “As to the possibility of producing a perfect plant food, I 
consider it may be accomplished in exceptional cases, but would be too 
expensive a system to become general for all classes of plants.” Now 
the explanation of absorption and loss lies between these two statements. 
If the food administered does not contain the right proportions, those 
elements in excess, if volatile, will be lost, and the plant have to go short 
of those not present. The question is then one of cost, as to whether it 
will be more expensive to try to manufacture a perfect plant food, or let 
the chance application suffice, and not trouble as to any residue that 
would be wasted. I think Mr. Dunkin will agree with me that the 
former course would be the best, and I was glad to see he has so far 
admitted the possibility of a perfect mode of applying plant food that 
would obviate this difficulty. As the settlement of the change of food 
theory rests on the question, I think I may be pardoned for pointing to 
a quotation from your correspondent, “ j. M.,” page 274. He says, 
“ Keally good artificial manures, such as are advertised, contain the very 
essence of plant life,” and again, on page 384, another correspondent, 
41 B.” says, “ If we consider the matter I think it possible to procure a 
perfect plant food,” so that unless Mr. Dunkin obtains more independent 
support for his views, and does not produce more convincing arguments, 
I shall consider that he l*is failed to establish his case. 
In conclusion, I beg to inform Mr. Dunkin that I have endeavoured 
to keep in mind throughout the foregoing his advice to me expressed in 
the motto, “ Be just before you are generous,” and have, as far as 
possible, kept the justice of my expressions foremost, and if he should 
unfortunately fail to obtain the verdict, I will do my best to exercise 
the latter part of this excellent advice on his behalf.—M. Coombe, 
The Gardens, Ashton Court, Bristol. 
CORDON GOOSEBERRIES. 
On paying a visit last Thursday evening to Mr. E Durrant, a 
well-known amateur in our village, I was surprised to see the 
splendid crop of Gooseberries he had growing on the cordon system. 
Never having seen this system carried out before with Gooseberries, 
I asked if they would count the fruit on one of the trees, when 
they found 2G4 Gooseberries on a tree 3 feet G inches high. I was 
informed that the trees w'ere from three to eight years of age, and 
had been pruned on the spur system, the shoots kept well pinched- 
in during the summer. They have never failed in having a good 
crop each year. T have forwarded nine fruits taken from the tree. 
The advantages I see to be gained in growing trees like this are 
that the fruit can easily be gathered, is kept cleaner, easily pro¬ 
tected from the birds in spring, and afford an almost certain crop. 
—A. J. Brown, Lindfield, Sussex. 
[The fruits sent were very fine examples, and we have fre¬ 
quently seen similarly good results both with Gooseberries and 
Currants. One successful exhibitor in Perthshire grows all his 
best fruits in this way.] 
STEAM AS A SUPPORTER OF COMBUSTION— 
WATER GAS. 
The enclosed clipping is from the Yorkshire Post, and contains an 
article on “ The Manufacture of Water Gas,” which, to a certain extent, 
verifies the ideas I advanced on “ Steam as a Supporter of Combustion ” 
when discussing the advantages of water in ash-pits with Mr. Bardney 
and others. Perhaps you will be able to find space for its insertion in 
the Journal, as the facts therein contained will tend to convince those 
in doubt of the economy obtained by the aid of steam or water vapour 
passing through the furnace fire.—J. Riddell, Buncomhe Park, 
Under the direction of Mr. Samson Fox, C.E.,the managing director* 
Mr. Lawrence Wildy, the engineer to the Leeds Forge Company, has 
recently erected at the company’s works at Armley plant for the 
manufacture of gas from water, and at the present time the product is 
being used there for illuminating as well as for metallurgical purposes. 
In this country the making of water gas has not previously been 
undertaken on a commercial scale, but in many cities and towns on the 
Continent, railway stations, churches, hotels, works, and other buildings, 
as well as the public streets, are lighted by means of water gas, which 
is also used at one place for the purpose of driving the waterworks 
engine. There can be very little doubt that its successful installation 
and application at the Leeds Forge will lead to its extensive use in 
England. Water gas is produced by the decomposition of steam in 
passing through a mass of incandescent fuel, the resultant gas being 
hydrogen and carbonic oxide in about equal proportions. Ordinary 
coal gas contains about 50 per cent, of hydrogen, from 40 to 41 per cent, 
of marsh gas, and a small per-centage of other heavy hydro-carbon 
gases. Water gas, on the other hand, is made up of about 50 per cent, 
of hydrogen and carbonic oxide, and is entirely free from marsh gas and 
the heavy hydro-carbons. Water gas is consequently a non-illuminant in 
itself, but for lighting purposes it may be carbureted or used in con¬ 
junction with a Fahnejelm comb. This comb, which is fixed immediately 
over the gas-burner, is made of magnesia, with a small per-centage of 
bonding material, which is pressed when in a plastic state into the form 
of fine rods about the thickness of the lead of a pencil. It is claimed 
for water gas that it could be put to the same purposes as coal gas, and 
with greater advantage. First, as to its use in the foundry and the 
forge. The temperature of the water gas flame is something over 5000° 
Fah., and is 50 per cent, greater than that of the Siemens or producer 
gas usually employed for metallurgical purposes. Consequently for 
welding or melting purposes, and where a particular flame is required, 
water gas is the most suitable heating medium. It is pointed out that 
the chief reason why water gas produces so intense a flame is that the 
amount of air required to burn it is only one-half the quantity necessary 
for burning coal gas, while the area of the flame is not more than one- 
sixth that of the latter, In this way we get a greater concentration of 
heat, a less area of flame for radiation, and a very much smaller per¬ 
centage of diluent nitrogen, which under any circumstances has to be 
heated up to the same temperature as the furnace or bath of metal. 
The production of water gas, while, as before stated, not absolutely 
new, has never previously been carried out upon the same principle as 
that adopted at the Leeds Forge. Hitherto the water gas has been to 
a large extent diluted with generator gas and other products. At the 
Leeds Forge the water gas is collected separately and the producer gas 
is used for heating furnaces or boilers and in the annealing apparatus. 
In working the Siemens-Martin furnace the advantage of using water 
gas is said to be enormous. When the ordinary producer gas is employed 
the furnace will yield about twelve charges per week of six days. By 
mixing water gas with the generator gas the charges may be more than 
double, as many as thirty charges per week having been got out of a 
single furnace. In other processes of iron manufacture, such as steel 
melting, puddling, reheating, and welding, the application of water gas 
has been shown to have many advantages. The product has also been 
successfully employed in glass making. The plant in use at the Leeds 
Forge consists of two generators, a scrubber, and gas holder, with 
Root’s blower and a steam boiler. The fuel used is common coke and 
coal ; in fact the cheapest that can be procured. The product per ton 
of fuel is about 175,000 cubic feet of gas, of which from 30,000 feet to 
35,000 feet is water gas, and the remainder high quality generator gas* 
The cost, including interest, depreciation, and supervision, is about 4Jd. 
per thousand cubic feet of water gas, and about §d. per thousand of 
generator gas. When used for illuminating purposes the water gas is 
deprived of the small proportion it'contains of bisulphide of carbon, 
which is regarded as the great bugbear of coal gas producers. It is this 
material which when burnt produces sulphuric acid, so disastrous to 
