THE CULTIVATOR. 
Nov. 
332 
successful investigation a high degree of development 
of both the sciences on which they depend. Now, che¬ 
mistry is still far from having attained all that develop¬ 
ment of which it is capable, as the time during which 
it has been cultivated has not been sufficiently long to 
admit of much progress, except in special departments. 
Few of those who are not themselves chemists, are 
aware that the facts and doctrines of modern chemistry 
have been determined during little more than the last 
sixty years; and that, with few exceptions, all the la¬ 
borious investigations of the older chemists, and, with¬ 
out exception, all their general doctrines, were then 
swept away, to be replaced by the science as it now 
exists; while organic chemistry, with which agricul¬ 
ture is more intimately connected, has been successfully 
prosecuted for not more than half that period. 
To expect any rapid advances, in the practical appli¬ 
cations of agriculture, of chemistry in its present state, 
is manifestly unreasonable. The progress must neces¬ 
sarily be slow, in some instances almost imperceptible; 
and much must be done which at first sight the practi¬ 
cal agriculturist may be inclined to consider altogether 
foreign to his object. Extended researches will fre¬ 
quently be requisite which do not directly lead to prac¬ 
tical results—that is to say, which are not immediately 
convertible into an equivalent of current coin, but which 
are the foundation of such results, and form the starting 
point of perhaps a very different series of experiments, 
having an immediate bearing upon practice. It is of 
great importance that this should be distinctly under¬ 
stood and borne in mind, for it is by no means uncom¬ 
mon to suppose that nothing more is necessary than at 
once to convert scientific facts to practical purposes; 
while, so far from this being the case, the agricultural 
chemist has a two-fold duty to perform—he must both 
determine the scientific facts of agriculture, and elimi¬ 
nate from them the practical conclusions to which they 
lead. It may, perhaps, be said that the establishment 
of these facts falls within the province of the pure che¬ 
mist. But if this principle were to be acted upon, the 
progress of chemical agriculture would be slow indeed; 
for the investigations of the pure chemist lead him now, 
and are likely for a very long period to lead him, in di¬ 
rections very remote from those most likely to afford 
the materials which the agricultural chemist requires to 
work upon. The latter would, therefore, require to sit 
idly waiting till the former supplied him with facts, 
which his own exertions would have enabled him to as¬ 
certain. Nay, the agricultural chemist may even do a 
better service to agriculture, by pursuing the investiga¬ 
tion of those apparently theoretical subjects, than by 
directing himself to those which seem to have the most 
immediate practical bearings. 
There is another point on which there has been a 
good deal of misunderstanding between the chemist and 
the agriculturist, which is intimately connected with 
the erroneous estimate of the extent and perfection 
of chemistry. It is not uncommonly supposed that the 
chemist is in the condition at once to solve, by the in¬ 
vestigations of the laboratory, all such questions in 
practical agriculture as may happen to be submitted to 
him—that he can determine when nothing else can, 
why certain methods of cultivation are successful, oth¬ 
ers unsuccessful. It is just possible that he may in 
some instances be able to do this, but far more frequent¬ 
ly his researches enable him not to state positively what 
is or what is not the ease, but rather to draw a proba¬ 
ble conclusion—to form, in fact, a hypothesis, which is 
not in itself a truth, but which must be further tested 
by experiment in the field, whereby it may be either 
confirmed or entirely refuted. Now, very unfortunate¬ 
ly this hypothesis is often taken for a positive state- 
and when it turns out to be erroneous, it is im- 
mcftfately held up as an instance of the fallacy qf sci¬ 
ence by those who, not being themselves acquainted 
with the method of investigation by experiment, are 
unaware that all scientific facts are developed in such a 
manner. No one ever thinks of going fortuitously to 
work, when he proposes to determine a scientific fact. 
He first weighs all facts of a similar character, or hav¬ 
ing a bearing on the subject which he desires to eluci¬ 
date, and then founds upon these a hyyothesis, the truth 
or fallacy of which is to be tested by experiment. Now, 
without any explanation, it has frequently happened 
that such hypotheses have been handed over to the 
practical man, whose field experiments having refuted 
them, he has forthwith abandoned the science which 
seemed to him to give erroneous results, not knowing 
that these results were only in progress of being arrived 
at by those very experiments which he was engaged in 
performing. The very same process has been employed 
in the application of science to every other art; but the 
difference between them and agriculture is, that, with 
the former, the hypothesis is formed and the experiments 
executed by the same person; in agriculture, the hypo¬ 
thesis must in many instances be handed over for expe¬ 
rimental elucidation to the practical man. The many 
failures which are made in other arts remain unknown 
to all but those by whom they have been made, while 
in agriculture they become known to all and sundry; 
and by them it is not understood that, though these re¬ 
sults are negative, they still serve to bring us all nearer 
to the truth. 
And this leads me to observe, that the true manner in 
which chemical agriculture is to be advanced, is not 
merely by the exertions of the chemist, or the labors of 
the laboratory alone. It must be by the simultaneous 
efforts of science and of practice, each endeavoring to 
develop, with care, steadiness and accuracy, the facts 
which fall within its province. Nor must each pursue 
its own course irrespective of the other. They must go 
hand in hand, and, taking advantage of each other’s 
experience, and avoiding all sort of antagonism, they 
must endeavor to co-operate for the elucidation of truth. 
The chemist and the practical man are, in fact, in the 
position to give each other most important assistance. 
The one may point out the conclusions to which his sci¬ 
ence, so far as it has gone, enables him to come; while 
the other may test these conclusions by experiment, or 
may be able, from his experience, at once to refute or 
confirm them. But it will not do to imagine that there 
is here, either a triumph or a defeat. Such a spirit can¬ 
not be anything but, injurious. It is rather to be looked 
upon as a fortunate state of matters, which, admitting 
of the examination of our own conclusions from two dif¬ 
ferent points of view, directs us with the greater cer¬ 
tainty in the path of truth. 
For the development of agricultural chemistry in 
this manner, the Highland and Agricultural Society ap¬ 
pears to me to possess peculiar advantages. It has 
within its own body a large number of members, who 
are both able and willing to assist in furthering its 
views in this direction by experiments in the field; and 
I am glad to say that some are actually already com¬ 
menced, the results of which I hope, at no very distant 
period, to communicate to the Society. 
As it may be interesting to the members of the So¬ 
ciety to learn the nature of these investigations, I shall 
state very shortly, the method in which we propose to 
pursue the work of the laboratory. Our plan is, as far 
as possible, independently of the ordinary analyses ©f 
manures and the like, to carry on two different classes 
of researches. 1st, Extended investigations on sub¬ 
jects of interest and importance, and the completion of 
which must necessarily occupy a considerable period; 
2d, shorter investigations of subjects of a more circum¬ 
scribed character, which do not occupy so long a period, 
and 3d, subjects which, from their eonsiating of isolated 
