April  21,  1901. 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AXD  COTTAGE  GARDENER, 
345 
Another  of  the.se  critics  says  there  is  nothing;  in  the  Dalnieny 
work  hnt  a  little  ground  lime.  In  answer  to  that,  I  hold  a 
letter  in  my  hand  from  Edinburgh  University,  which  says:  “I 
think  it  is  mo.st  unfair  to  teach  things  you  know  very  well  no 
examiner  who  will  test  the  work  has  ever  heard  of.”  To  the 
chagrin  of  my  censor,  I  was, shortly  thereafter  appointed  to  the 
examinership  in  my  subject  in  Edinburgh  University — that  was 
on  the  Ihth  January,  1903.  On  the  23rd  of  the  same  month  I 
attended  a  meeting  of  my  co-lecturers  in  the  Incorporated  Edin¬ 
burgh  School  of  Agriculture.  They  were  the  late  Pi  incipal  Wil¬ 
liams  (of  the  New  Veterinary  College,  lOdinhurgh),  Profes.sor  W. 
Owen  Williams,  Dr.  James  Hunter,  Dr.  lU  Stewart  Macdougall, 
Mr.  J.  Falconer  King,  and  Mr.  A.  T.  Niven,  C.A.  Profes.sor 
Wallace  was  chairman.  I  hold  in  my  hand  an  official  extract 
from  the  minutes  of  that  meeting,  which  says,  (u/cr  alia  :  — 
“  Attention  was  drawn  to  a  paragraph  in  the  E voting  Dis- 
]>ntch  newspaper  of  January  19  referring  to  the  appointment  of 
Mr.  John  Hunter  as  University  Examiner;  and  specially  to  a 
statement  therein  made  that,  as  lecturer  on  chemistry,  he  is 
advocating  doctrines  diametiically  opposed  to  those  currently 
taught  by  the  principal  teachers  of  chemistry.” 
The  question  put  necessarily  implied  .something  more  than 
a  little  ground  lime.”  However,  it  was  not  answered,  nor 
was  it  answered  at  a  subsequent  meeting,  when  I  asked 
whether  I  was  to  be  held  responsible  also  for  articles  which  had 
I'ecentiy  appeared  there  relating  to  a  milking  machine — “  an 
uii invented  inventiniC’ — which  had  already  been  boomed  not- 
witnstanding,  and  in  which  Profes.sor  Wallace  appeared  to  have 
a  great  intere.st. 
While  single-handed,  I  fought  this  large  and  mightily 
.important  body  to  a  standstill.  It  is  perfectly  evident  they 
had  something  more  than  ground  lime  in  their  gizzards. 
In  addition  to  that,  let  me  infoiun  you  that  this  new  science 
was  published — laconically,  no  doubt — and  it  wilt  be  found  in 
articles  contributed  by  me  to  Chambers’  last  edition  of  their 
“  Encyclopaedia  ”  on  “Soils”  and  “  Manui-es,”  and  I  venture 
to  say  there  is  in  these  articles  a  circle  embracing  the  science 
so  well,  that  there  seems  to  me  little  probability  of  getting  out¬ 
side  it  for  many  years  to  come. 
One  of  our  critics  regards  as  absurd  the  statement  that  there 
is  no  instance  of  contradiction  in  any  of  our  experiments  at  Dal- 
meny,  and  he  endeavoured  to  pose  as  an  experimentalist  of  long 
standing  and  experience;  hut,  gentlemen,  his  experiments  have 
been  entirely  of  the  mud-scratching  type  where  contradiction 
could  not  fail  to  be  ever  present.  Dalmeny  never  dreamt  of 
iudi.scriminately  trying  this  or  that,  for  the  experiments  were 
started  purely  and  solely  to  test  the  truths  of  the  new  soil 
science.  It  li  as  come  through  the  trial  triumphantly  ;  it  has 
been  proved  a  success  in  actual  practice,  and  I  feel  confident 
that  no  sane  man  who  visits  Dalmeny  and  sees  the  crops  which 
ai-e  there  raised,  will  for  one  moment  dare  to  even  suggest  there 
is  anything  in  our  treatment  of  soils  that  is  not  worthy  of 
emulation. 
It  is  perfectly  evident  from  the  foregoing  extracts  that  there 
was  something  moi'e  in  our  work  than  a  little  ground  lime.  But 
even  the  introduction  of  ground  lime,  and  its  rational  u.se  in 
agriculture,  is  denied  me.  We  have  Professor  Middleton  writing 
in  the  “  N.B.  Agriculturist,”  saying  the  introduction  and  u.se 
was  fir.st  sugge.sted  by  Dr.  Somerville  in  1893,  and  was  the  out¬ 
come  of  experiments  he  had  made  with  slag.  M’hy  Pi'ofessor 
IMiddleton  should  have  dipped  in  his  oar,  unless  in  the  hope  that 
I  would  ignore  his  writings  as  I  had  the  ravings  of  others,  I 
know  not  :  but  it  must  be  evident  to  all,  that  if  I  was  censured 
in  -lanuary  of  1893  hecau.se  of  having  for  several  previous 
sessions  been  teaching  tho.se  things — now  claimed  for  others — as 
the  outcome  of  my  expei-iments  of  years,  I  was  undoubtedly 
before  Somerville.  The  fact  is,  those  men  knew  my  views,  for  I 
had  been  expressing  them  freeiy,  and  I  was  di.screditing  slag 
except  as  a  supplier  of  caustic  lime,  mainly  while  they  were,  and 
are  still,  advocating  the  use  of  that  material — slag. 
Ill  the  interests  of  agriculturists  let  us  look  for  one  moment 
at  the  humiliating  position  those  men  occupy.  Thev  suggest 
oi'  say  they  were  led  to  u.se  ground  lime  because  of  that  being 
sugge.sted  to  them  by  the  composition  of  slag.  Well,  if  that 
were  true,  and  slag,  which  contains  from  20  to  25  per  cent,  of 
caustic  lime,  costs  about  £2  5s.  per  ton,  which  is  equal  to  £9  to 
£11  5s.  per  ton  for  ground  lime,  a  commodity  which  can  be 
bought  any  day  for  about  20s.  per  ton,  why  did  the.se  men,  who 
have  for  years  been,  and  are  still,  being  paid  to  enlighten  and 
to  help  the  le.ss  educated  mass  of  farmers,  continue  to  advocate 
the  buviiig  of  material  at  from  nine  to  eleven  times  its  value? 
Ground  lime  never  was  used  commercially  iu  agriculture  until 
it  was  employed  at  Dalmeny.  and  at  that  time  there  was  only 
one  work  in  Britain  capable  of  producing  the  material,  and  Dal- 
meuv  had  been  using  it  for  years  before  a  single  ounce  nassed 
into  the  hands  of  any  other  agricidturist  or  experimentalist. 
The  question  has  been  asked.  Why  shoidd  I  presume  to 
ci'iticise  others  engaged  in  experimental  work?  Mv  answer  is, 
Because  I  have  been  engaged  in  agricultural  chemistry  for  over 
thirty  years.  I  did  most  of  the  work  (nine-tenths)  of  the 
I’anners’  Analytical  Associations  of  Scotland,  and  I  hold  more 
agricultural  appointments  than  any  other  chemist  I  know  of, 
and  because  most  of  the  men  who  are  teaching  and  experiment¬ 
ing  in  Scotland,  England,  and  Ireland  have  been  my  pupils. 
Another  critic  states  that  the  use  of  ground  lime  is  nearly 
as  old  as  the  hills,  but  on  inve.stigation  we  find  that  this 
ignoramus  regards  “gas  lime”  as  being  lime.  He  persists  not 
only  in  maintaining  that  they  are  both  practically  the  same, 
except  that  the  high  smelling  gas  lime  is  fully  better,  but  he 
also  tells  us  that  when  on  his  estate  a  heap  of  gas  lime  is  laid 
down,  his  cattle  go  and  re.st  on  it  or  in  it,  that  some  other  of  his 
stock  scutter  among  it,  his  hens  won’t  leave  it,  they  eat  it, 
and  their  eggs  taste  of  it,  and  he  likes  the  taste! 
Another  similar  critic  is  a  newspaper  editor,  who  for  years 
pe.stered  me  directly  and  indirectly  for  copy.  He  did  get  some, 
and  appeared  then  quite  well  plea.sed  with  himself ;  but  he  has 
not  succeeded  so  well  of  late,  and  his  miserable  attack  can  only 
have  one  intention — more  copy.  Another  gentleman  demands 
Apple,  Cox’s  Orange  Pippin. 
that  Lord  Ro.sebery  .should  publish  his  balance-sheet  before  he, 
the  critic,  can  accept  any  of  the  teachings  of  Dalmeny.  Others 
blame  us  for  not  publishing  our  results.  In  answer  to  that,  I 
have  to  say  that  Dalmeny  has  been  at  all  times  open  to  all  who 
cared  to  come  and  see.  Scores  of  agricultural  associations  have 
visited  the  estate,  and  have  been  unstintedly  supplied  with 
pabulum  for  mind  and  body.  Notices  of  tho.se  meetings  have 
invariably  been  given  in  all  the  leading  general  papers,  as  weil 
ns  by  the  best  of  the  agricultural  paper.s  of  Scotland  and 
England.  If  a  hook  has  not  been  published,  my  explanation  is, 
we  have  not  had  time,  for  we — iMr.  Drysdale  and  myself  -  are 
busy  people.  We  have  much  to  attend  to.  We  are  not  in  the 
pay  of  any  college  oi‘  hoard  that  is  entitled  to  call  upon  us  for 
any  service  of  the  kind.  Our  work,  which  has  been  great  and 
taxing,  has  been  done  purely  and  solely  for  the  love  of  know¬ 
ledge  and  truth  without  one  farthing  of  pecuniary  benefit,  and 
to  have,  under  those  circumstances,  to  experience  at  this  late 
hour  the  miserably  inaccurate  criticisms  of  men  who  ought  to 
know  better,  is  worthy  of  that  supreme  contempt  with  which 
we  have  hitherto  treated  it. 
In  conclusion,  gentlemen,  I  don’t  shirk  discussion.  I  court 
it,  and  if  I  can  give  the  agriculturi.sts  of  Renfrewshire  any  infor¬ 
mation  or  suggestions,  I  am  ready  now  to  do  whatever  is  in  my 
power,  and  it  will  afford  me  much  pleasure. 
