414 
Agricultural Chemistry. 
will, however, be our endeavour to turn the course which 
has thus been forced upon us to as good account as possible, by 
making the execution of this part of our task the occasion of 
bringing before our readers a review of the published views, not 
only of Baron Liebig and ourselves, but of distinguished 
authorities both in this country and abroad, who have pro- 
nounced on the points involved. 
1 he plan we propose is as follows : — 
1st. To show, by copious quotation, both from Baron Liebig's 
previous writings and our own, what really have been the published 
opinions and doctrines of the former, and how far our own state- 
ments of those opinions and doctrines are justified by his own 
words. 
2nd. To show how his views have been understood and inter- 
preted by other writers than ourselves, not only in this country, 
but in Germany, France, and America. 
3rd. To examine Baron Liebig's statements and criticisms of 
our experimental evidence and conclusions regarding the growth 
of ivlieat and turnips ; and to adduce further evidence and argu- 
ments in support of the conclusions which we really have main- 
tained on the points involved. 
4th. To illustrate, by condensed summaries of an immense 
mass of experimental results, some prominent points of interest, 
connected with the action of vianures on the different crops of ro- 
tation, and with the chemical circumstances involved in falloic, 
and a rotation of crops. 
And lastly, throughout our observations we shall take occasion 
to point out the material admissions which are to be discovered 
in the newly published opinions of Baron Liebig ; which show, 
that, notwithstanding there are still points of difference between 
us, we have now at least the sanction of his almost unequalled 
sagacity for the judgment which we have pronounced on certain 
points, as distinguished from the opinions formerly so promi- 
nently advocated by him. 
Firstly, then, as to the consistency of our statements of Baron 
Liebig's doctrines, Avith his own statements of those doctrines. 
One of his chief complaints against us on this head, is in re- 
ference to a sentence occurring in one of our Papers ; we 
quote it below. But we must here call attention to the in- 
accurate manner in which Baron Liebig makes his quotations ; 
not only in the case immediately under consideration, but in many 
others, some of which we shall have occasion to point out. A 
similar want of accuracy is observable in his quotations both 
from Professor Wolff and Mr. Way, in the course of this same 
controversy. The portion which we give in brackets, thus [ ] 
