It was by Boussingault[2] and in France that the connection between nitrification and soil fertility was first recognised. The news came to England, but it was not accepted, although Way, one of the most brilliant agricultural chemists of his time, showed that nitrates were formed in soils to which nitrogenous fertilisers were added, and that they were comparable in their fertiliser effects with ammonium salts.[12] “The French chemists,” he wrote in 1856, “are going further, several of them now advocating the view that it is in the form of nitric acid that plants make use of compounds of nitrogen. With this view I do not at present coincide, and it is sufficient here to admit that nitric acid in the form of nitrates has at least a very high value as manure.” Indeed, Kuhlmann went so far as to argue that the nitrates found in the soil were there reduced to ammonia before assimilation by plants could take place. The water-culture work of the plant physiologists of the ’sixties finally showed the correctness of the French view. Even when the importance of nitrification was realised its mechanism was not understood: some thought it was chemical, some physical. Again the explanation came from France. Pasteur in 1862 had expressed the view that nitrification would probably be a biological action, since purely chemical oxidation of organic matter was of very limited occurrence. “Pénétrés de ces idées,” as Schloesing tells us, he and Müntz in a memorable investigation cleared up the whole problem, and in 1877 opened the way to a most fruitful field of research.[10] The formal description is given in his papers in the “Comptes Rendus,” but a more lively account is given in his lectures before the _École d’application des Manufacteurs de l’état_, which, though not printed, were collected and issued in script by his distinguished son, and a copy of this work is among the treasures of the Rothamsted Library. He had been asked to study the purification of sewage, and he and Müntz showed that it was bound up with nitrification. The process was slow in starting, then it proceeded rapidly. Why, they asked, was the delay? There should be none if the process were physical or chemical, and the fact that it occurred strongly suggested biological action. The process was stopped by chloroform vapour, but could be restarted after the removal of the vapour by the addition of a little fresh soil.