Agricultural Chemistry. 
501 
by Mr. Lawcs and Dr. Gilbert. The practical inference drawn 
from these papers Avas, that in the ordinary condition of culti- 
vated land, the nitrofjen, and not the minerals, would generally be 
found deficient, and tJiat the first step toicards improvement must 
therefore he to emploi/ a hicjhhj nitrogenous manure, especially 
where the growth of corn was the principal object. Hence it 
appears that the point in dispute, which has sometimes been 
represented as a mere nominal difference, is in fact fundamental, 
as it would, when carried out in practice, cause an improving 
farmer to lay out his money in the purchase of manures of totally 
different characters and effects, accordingly as he adopted the 
views of one or other of the opposing statements. 
The facts and arguments contained in the accounts of Mr. 
Lawes's experiments were considered so conclusive by practical 
agriculturists, that for some years past his recommendations have 
been very generally acted upon, and such excellent results ob- 
tained as to produce a deep conviction of the soundness of the 
views on which they were founded. In fact, the scientific creed 
of the British farmer of the present day might almost be said to 
begin and end with the two axioms — that nitrogen is the principal 
desideratum in a manure for corn, and pliosphorus in one for 
turnips. 
These opinions are directly attacked by Baron Liebig in his 
' Letters,' where, speaking of Mr. Lawes, he says, that " It 
requires all the courage derived from a loant of intimate ac- 
quaintance with the subject to assert that certainly ammonia is 
peculiarly fitted for grain, and phosphoi'us for turnips," &c. ; 
and in his last publication relating to this controversy (March, 
1855), he states that Mr. Lawes has " disproved what he intended 
to prove,^' has -proved ichat he intended to disprove," '^d that 
he (Baron Liebig) regards Mr. Lawes's experiments " as the 
most incontestable proofs in favour of that very doctrine wliich they 
were originally intended to disprove." After such attacks from 
such a man, could it be doubted that Mr. Lawes was impera- 
tively called upon to delend in this Journal the views which 
he had first propounded there, and which had since so exten- 
sively modified the practice of British agriculture ? 
The controversial character of the article in question has now 
been sufficiently accounted for. With regard to its practical 
merits, it will be found that a highly valuable addition to our 
stock of agricultural facts has been made by the publication of 
the numerous additional experiments brought forward by Mr. 
Lawes to support his former views. Table IV. especially, show- 
ing the average result of numerous experiments on the charac- 
teristic action of various manures on different crops, is of first- 
