The first ascent of this became the subject of a heated and increasingly acrimonious exchange between William Smithard and Ernest A. Baker, played out through an exchange of letters in the Climbers' Club Journal. [1][2][3][4][5] The editor was not impressed:
THE Editor has received a large number of letters with reference to the High Tor Gully, Matlock.
To publish these in full would take up too much space in the Journal, and would probably lead at the present time to no satisfactory or final conclusion as to the desirability or safety of the gully as a climb.
With one sentence, however, he thoroughly agrees. “It seems to me a pity that the noble sport of rock climbing should be sullied by an acrimonious controversy on such points as those raised. The High Tor stands for anyone desirous of so doing to inspect it, and the questions in dispute are surely very easy of solution.”
As regards the actual criticisms of Mr. Baker’s letter, there is no doubt, as the writers of several letters claim, that he has changed his opinions as to the desirability of the climb, a course which he is perfectly justified in taking.
On September 19th, 1902, Mr. Baker wrote in a newspaper article, 'Twice I have made attempts to climb the great fissure . . . We scrambled down slopes of clay and scree for nearly a hundred feet . . . the stones that we shifted in our movements crashing all the while into the black gulf beneath us, whose depth we could not ascertain . . . Our efforts to enter the gully at the foot were likewise a failure, but not so decisive as to take away all hopes of doing it.'
In 1902, therefore, Mr. Baker undoubtedly considered this a desirable climb, though, in the opinion of most rock climbers, the loose stones which he mentions would be considered in too unstable equilibrium for enjoyment. It may be said that these were purposely dislodged for the safety of the party, but the expression 'all the while' seems to point to a certain precarious character of foot and hand-hold not to be entirely altered by the process of sweeping, which is often necessary on the early attempts of a climb, successful or otherwise.
In Mr. Baker's letter in No. 25, he says—'I am not going to say that the High Tor Gully is not a legitimate climb, although I know it to be an extremely dangerous one . . . what is illegitimate for me to attempt may be a safe climb for a better man.'
It is perfectly clear that Mr. Baker does not mean that a dangerous climb can be legitimate under any circumstances, but that he considers it dangerous, and therefore illegitimate for himself. As, however, this has not been clearly understood by the writer of one of the letters, the first sentence only being quoted, it may be well to suggest that the use of the expression 'dangerous,' meaning the presence of difficulties which greater skill could avoid, is strongly to be deprecated.
The loose use of the term has perhaps contributed more to the loss of valuable lives than any other.
Climbs A and B are both described as dangerous; A has objective dangers, such as insecurity of hold on certain passages where the leader cannot, however great his skill, avoid reliance on untrustworthy hand and foot-holds, where there is no opportunity for the use of the body to obtain a friction hold, and where a second climber backing him up on the rope can be of no help.
Such passages are extremely rare on mountains composed of hard rock. They occur more frequently on formations such as chalk, slate, sandstone, or mountain limestone, to take a few instances, and yet any of these may be perfectly safe under certain conditions, as, except at least in the case of chalk cliffs, which, in the writer's opinion, have no good qualities, the firmness of the rock differs enormously in localities which are only separated by a short interval.
It is therefore unfair to condemn mountain limestone, qua mountain limestone, though a word of caution should rightly be given to those who have not a thorough knowledge of it.
With this proviso, there seems no reason at present, judging from the evidence, to brand the High Tor Gully as dangerous, though probably so high a degree of skill is required as to render it unjustifiable for any except experienced climbers.
The second class of climb B is far more difficult than A, but 'not dangerous' is the sense of the word laid down.
A climber without sufficient knowledge of the particular rock climbs, B, and considers it relatively easy, he then naturally doubts the epithet 'dangerous' applied to A, and a disaster possibly follows.
With regard to the alleged 'abominations,' the Editor can hardly do better than quote from one other letter. 'Mr. Baker (whose charming book on our county we have lately so much enjoyed) speaks in an unfortunate moment of 'putrefaction' in connection with the High Tor. Surely what he meant to say was 'petrifaction.' Of our Matlock petrifactions all Derbyshire men are proud. Of anything else we know nothing.'
Other evidence points to the view that the abominations referred to are now at any rate either non-existent or not conspicuous.
The Editor will not undertake to publish any further letters on the High Tor Gully, unless they seem likely to promote the interests of the Club, but he will be very glad to receive statements as to the character of limestone climbing, with the view of collecting evidence on the comparative merits and demerits of different rock formations, and obtaining suggestions which may help climbers to test their security, or the opposite, for themselves. [6]