310 Af/ricultural Chemistry. 



For my part T have, personally, not the slightest interest in 

 the questions connected with the controversy with Mr. Lawes. 

 With chemists and men of science, to whose judgment alone I 

 attach any value, I have nothing to gain if my views prevail • 

 and I have nothing to lose if the views of Mr. Lawes should be 

 adopted by agriculturists. For among men of science and 

 chemists the opinions which I defend are recognised as repre- 

 senting natural laws, and such men are quite indifferent to the 

 result of a discussion which does not affect the subjects of their 

 researches, and has, therefore, no interest for them. 



If I enter the lists in defence of the truth of those natural 

 laws, which some have done me the unmerited honour to call my 

 theory, it is solely for the sake of a great cause. 



The question is not, here, whether aldehyde be or be not the 

 hydrated oxide of an organic oxide ; whether mellone contain 

 12 or 13 equivalents of nitrogen in one atom ; but it concerns 

 matters far more important, and which deeply affect the happi- 

 ness, the prosperity, and the material progress of the nations. 



The true theory of agriculture, founded on natural laws, must 

 enable the agriculturist, who keeps it constantly and steadily in 

 view, to produce on his fields a larger quantity of corn and cattle,^ 

 permanently and Avithout exhausting the soil, and this by the 

 most economical means. 



A false theory cannot enable the agriculturist to attain this 

 object, because it leads him into devious paths, and consequently 

 diverts his attention from that wliich is truly essential. 



I feel deeply indebted to the Editors for the opportunity 

 given me of expressing my opinions on these questions, which 

 I was not able hitfierto to do in this Journal. I have treated 

 my theories in chemical science like children, whom we send 

 into the world, and let them try their chance in the school 

 of life, without taking any farther trouble about them. The 

 French chemists inflicted mortal wounds, as they thought, ori 

 my theory of Organic Radicals, and banished it without mercy ,^ 

 but I never raised a finger in its defence. The same fate 

 attended my theories of the elements of food, of the formation 

 of fat, of putrefaction, fermentation, and decay ; of the formation 

 of prussiate of potash, of the respiratory process ; yet I never' 

 thought of saying a single word in their defence, because I 

 acknowledge the right of every one to have his own opinions 

 concerning such natural phenomena. If these theories were 



fact, is now then fully admitted. And as it was impossible, not only in the face of 

 our own particular experiments, but of now generally recorded experience, ta avoid 

 their admission in some form, how is it that Iferon Liebig brings this result into 

 consistency with the theory which supposes the increase to be proportional to the 

 soluble minerals present in the soil ? " 



