That the phenomena of vegetation are dependent on certain chemical changes occurring in the plant, by which the various elements of its food are elaborated and converted into vegetable matter, was very early recognised by chemists; and long before the correct principles of that science were established, Van Helmont maintained that plants derived their nourishment from water, while Sir Kenelm Digby, Hook, Bradley, and others, attributed an equally exclusive influence to air, and enlarged on the practical importance of the conclusions to be deduced from their views. These opinions, which were little better than hypotheses, and founded on very imperfect chemical data, are mentioned by Jethro Tull, the father of modern agriculture, only to deny their accuracy; and he contended that the plants absorb and digest the finer particles of the earth, and attributed the success of the particular system of husbandry he advocated to the comminution of the soil, by which a larger number of its particles are rendered sufficiently small to permit their ready absorption by the roots. Popular opinion at that time was in favour of the mechanical rather than the chemical explanation of agricultural facts, and Tull's work had the effect of confirming this opinion, and turning attention away from the application of chemistry to agriculture. Indeed, no good results could have followed its study at that time, for chemistry, especially in those departments bearing more immediately on agriculture, was much too imperfect, and it was only towards the close of the last century, when Lavoisier established its true principles, that it became possible to pursue it with any prospect of success.

Very soon after Lavoisier's system was made known, Lord Dundonald published his "Treatise on the Intimate Connexion between Chemistry and Agriculture," in which the important bearings of the recent chemical discoveries on the practice of agriculture were brought prominently under the notice of the farmer, and almost at the same time De Saussure commenced those remarkable researches, which extended over a long series of years, and laid the foundation of almost all our accurate knowledge of the chemistry of vegetation. Saussure traced with singular care and accuracy the whole phenomena of the life of plants, and indicated the mode in which the facts he established might be taken advantage of in improving the cultivation of the soil. But neither his researches, nor Lord Dundonald's more direct appeal to the farmer, excited the attention they deserved, or produced any immediate effect on the progress of agriculture. It was not till the year 1812 that the interest of practical men was fairly awakened by a course of lectures given by Sir Humphrey Davy, at the instance of Sir John Sinclair, who was at that time president of the Board of Agriculture. In these lectures, written with all the clearness and precision which characterised their author's style, the results of De Saussure's experiments were for the first time presented to the farmer in a form in which they could be easily understood by him, the conclusions to which they led were distinctly indicated, and a number of useful practical suggestions made, many of which have been adopted into every-day practice, and become so thoroughly incorporated with it, that their scientific origin has been altogether forgotten. A lively interest was excited by the publication of Davy's work, but it soon died out, and the subject lay in almost complete abeyance for a considerable number of years. Nor could any other result be well expected, for at that time agriculture was not ripe for chemistry, nor chemistry ripe for agriculture. The necessities of a rapidly increasing population had not yet begun to compel the farmer to use every means adapted to increase the amount of production to its utmost limit; and though the fundamental principles of chemistry had been established, its details, especially in that department which treats of the constituents of plants and animals, were very imperfectly known. It is not surprising, therefore, that matters should have remained almost unchanged for the comparatively long period of nearly thirty years. Indeed, with the exception of the investigation of soils by SchÜbler, and some other inquiries of minor importance, and which, in this country at least, excited no attention on the part of the agriculturist, nothing was done until the year 1840, when Liebig published his treatise on Chemistry, in its application to Agriculture and Physiology.

Saussure's researches formed the main groundwork of Liebig's treatise, as they had before done for Davy's; but the progress of science had supplied many new facts which confirmed the opinions of the older chemists in most respects, and enabled Liebig to generalise with greater confidence, and illustrate more fully the principles upon which chemistry ought to be applied to agriculture. Few works have ever produced a more profound impression. Written in a clear and forcible style, dealing with scientific truths in a bold and original manner, and producing a strong impression, as well by its earnestness as by the importance of its conclusions, it was received by the agricultural public with the full conviction that the application of its principles was to be immediately followed by the production of immensely increased crops, and by a rapid advance in every branch of practical agriculture. The disappointment of these extravagant expectations, which chemists themselves foresaw, and for which they vainly attempted to prepare the agriculturist, was followed by an equally rapid reaction; and those who had embraced Liebig's views, and lauded them as the commencement of a new era, but who had absurdly expected an instantaneous effect, changed their opinion, and contemned, as strongly as they had before supported, the application of chemistry to agriculture.

That this effect should have been produced is not unnatural; for practical men, having at that time little or no knowledge of chemistry, were necessarily unable to estimate its true position in relation to agriculture, and forgetting that this department of science was still in its early youth, and burthened with all the faults and errors of youth, they treated it as if it were already perfect in all its parts. Neither could they distinguish between the fully demonstrated scientific truths, and the uncertain, though probable conclusions deduced from them; and when the latter, as occasionally happened, proved to be at variance with practice, it is not surprising: that this should have produced a feeling of distrust on the part of persons incapable, from an imperfect, and still oftener from no knowledge of science, of drawing the line of demarcation, which Liebig frequently omitted to do, between the positive fact and the hypothetical inference, which, however probable, is, after all, merely a suggestion requiring to be substantiated by experiment. This omission, which the scientific reader can supply for himself, becomes a source of serious misapprehension in a work addressed to persons unacquainted with science, who adopt indiscriminately both the facts and the hypotheses of the author. And this is no doubt the cause of the vary different estimation in which the work of the Giessen Professor was held by scientific and practical men.

Liebig's treatise was followed, in the year 1844, by the publication of Boussingault's Economic Rurale, a work winch excited at the time infinitely less interest than Liebig's, although it is really quite as important a contribution to scientific agriculture. It is distinguished by entering more fully into the special details of the application of chemistry to agriculture, and contains the results of the author's numerous searches both in the laboratory and the field. Boussingault possesses the qualification, at present somewhat rare, of combining a thorough knowledge of practical agriculture with extended scientific attainments; and his investigations, which have been made with direct reference to practice, and their results tested in the field, are the largest and most valuable contribution to the exact data of scientific agriculture which has yet been made public.

The year 1844 was also distinguished by the foundation of the Agricultural Chemistry Association of Scotland, an event of no small importance in the history of scientific agriculture. That association was instituted through the exertions of a small number of practical farmers, for the purpose of pursuing investigations in agricultural chemistry, and affording to its members assistance in all matters connected with the cultivation of the soil, and has formed the model of similar establishments in London, Dublin, and Belfast, as well as in Germany; and it is peculiarly creditable to the intelligence and energy of the practical farmers of Scotland, that with them commenced a movement, which has already found imitators in so many quarters, and conferred such great benefits on agriculture. Within the last ten or twelve years, and mainly owing to the establishment of agricultural laboratories, great progress has been made in accumulating facts on which to found an accurate knowledge of the principles of agricultural chemistry, and the number of chemists who have devoted themselves to this subject has considerably increased, though still greatly less than its exigencies require.

Notwithstanding all that has recently been done, it must not be forgotten that we have scarcely advanced beyond the threshold, and that it is only by numerous and frequently repeated experiments that it is possible to arrive at satisfactory results. Agricultural inquiries are liable to peculiar fallacies due to the perturbing influence of climate, season, and many other causes, the individual effects of which can only be eliminated with difficulty, and much error has been introduced, by hastily generalising from single experiments, in place of awaiting the results of repeated trials. Hence it is that the progress of scientific agriculture must necessarily be slow and gradual, and is not likely to be marked by any great or startling discoveries. Now that the relations of science to practice are better understood, the extravagant expectations at one time entertained have been abandoned, and, as a necessary consequence, the interest in agricultural chemistry has again increased, and the conviction daily gains ground that no one who wishes to farm with success, can afford to be without some knowledge of the scientific principles of his art.