Agricultural Chemistry. 
413 
by one whose opinion, if founded on fair and careful criticism, 
should have so much weight as that of Baron Lie big. Hence 
it was that, in 1851, we published in this Journal, in a Paper 
entitled ' Agricultural Chemistry, especially in relation to the 
Mineral Theory of Baron Liebig,' an answer to his strictures above 
referred to. 
It is in reply to our Paper, just mentioned, that Baron Liebig, 
in the spring of the present year, published a short treatise en- 
titled ' Principles of Agricultural Chemistry, tvith special refer- 
ence to the late Researches made in England,^ which has been 
circulated very freely in Germany, France, England, and America, 
Nearly the whole of this treatise is devoted to a critical examina- 
tion, in some form or other, of the experiments made at Rothamsted 
— of the opinions to which, by these and other facts, we have 
been led — and of our representations of the author's views, as 
distinguished either from the expression which he claims him- 
self to have given to them in his former works, or from that 
which he would at present assign to them. He accuses us at 
once of not having read, of misunderstanding, and of misstating 
his views. He asserts that we have disproved that which we 
intended to prove ; that we have proved that which we intended 
to disprove : and, in fact, that our results in all points conjirm 
the truth of his doctrines, as announced in his works. 
These are certainly rather serious charges. But not only 
have they been made under the incitement of controversy, by 
Baron Liebig himself, but they have been deliberately endorsed, 
in a Preface, by Professor Gregory, the English editor of Baron 
Liebig's work, in a manner so inconsistent with the obvious 
facts and justice of the case, that one can hardly be otherwise 
than amused at the zealous partisanship Avhich could alone 
account for his extraordinary assurances. But this is not all. Pe- 
riodicals, unconnected either with chemistry or agriculture, have, 
upon the credit of the high authorities referred to, taken for 
granted the truth of their statements ; and thus they have been 
echoed, unexamined, through the general press. It is only due, 
therefore, both to ourselves, and to the large body of intelligent 
agriculturists who have from time to time expressed their confi- 
dence in the conclusions emanating from Rothamsted, and who 
have in so marked a manner acknowledged their sense of the 
value of the experiments upon which they are founded, that 
we should fully vindicate, not only the opinions themselves, 
but our integrity and honour in dealing with those of others, 
which have thus been called in question in such high quarters. 
We cannot but regret on many grounds, that it should have 
become necessary to treat of our important subject much more 
in the controversial form than we had at first designed. It 
VOL. XVI. 2 E 
