In 1856 Lieber resigned the professorship in South Carolina College, and was immediately elected to a similar professorship in Columbia College, New York, and to the chair of political science in the law school of the same institution. He continued in the discharge of the duties of these positions until his death, which occurred October 2, 1872. During the great war for the preservation of the Union from 1861 to 1865, Lieber rendered services of great value to the Government of his adopted country, and was frequently consulted by the secretary of war. He was one of the first to point out by his pen the madness of secession, and was ever active in supporting the Government and upholding the Union. He prepared, upon the requisition of the president, the Code of War for the Government of the Armies of the United States in the Field, which was adopted and promulgated by the Government in General Orders No. 100 of the war department. This code has been characterized by many European publicists as a masterpiece, and it suggested to Bluntschli his codification of the law of nations, as may be seen in the preface to his Droit International Codifié. During this period also Lieber wrote his Guerilla Parties with Reference to the Laws and Usages of War, a valuable contribution to the law of war. At the time of his death he was by appointment of the Government of the United States the umpire of the commission for the adjudication of Mexican claims. The political writings of Francis Lieber are held in great estimation by all publicists. Sir Edward S.

Creasy, in hi» Γirst Platform of International Law, alluding to his death, has justly said of him, “America and the civilized world in general have lately had to deplore in his death the loss of one whom the French jurist M. Laboulayehas truly styled ‘une des figures les plus originales parmi les jurisconsultes de notre temps.’”

Besides the works already mentioned, Lieber published at various times many smaller works and pamphlets on different subjects, all of which attracted public attention, such as The Origin and De-velopme ' , of the First Constituents of Civilization, Great Events Described by Great Historians, Essays on Property and Labour, The Laws of Property, Penal Laics and the Penitentiary System, Prison Discipline, The Relation between Education and Crime, The Pardoning Power, The Character of the Gentleman, International Copyright, Laura Bri l/mans Vocal Sounds, On Anglican and Gallican Liberty, The Post Office and Postal Reforms, Independence of the Judiciary, Nationalism, Rise of the Constitution (an unfinished work), and many minor tracts and publications. These works are all written with as much ease and purity of idiom as if English had been his native tongue, a fact not more remarkable than that he, a German, should have become the great American teacher of the philosophy of Anglican political science. (Μ. R. T. )

The amount and the importance of the laboratory work done by Liebig in Giessen were very great Without considering here the work done by his students under his direction, of which no doubt a very large part was conceived by him, and in the execution of which he constantly contributed his assistance and advice, we shall look only at what appears under his own name. During the twenty-six years he spent at Giessen as ordinary professor, he contributed to scientific journals more than two hundred papers, about twenty of which were records of joint work, chiefly with Wöhler. During the same time he published his works on organic analysis, organic chemistry, chemistry applied to physiology and agriculture, his Chemical Letters, and many smaller treatises. From 1832 he was joint editor of the Annalen der Pharmacie, from 1837 of the Handwörterbuch der reinen und angewandten Chemie, and from 1847 to 1856 of the Jαhresbeι∙icht der Chemie. These statements give some idea of the amount of his work; of its importance and of its effect on the history of science we shall speak later.

In 1845 he was raised to the hereditary rank of baron under the title of Freiherr von Liebig. In 1852 he accepted the invitation of the Bavarian Government to the ordinary professorship of chemistry in the university of Munich. This office he held till his death in 1873.

In private life Liebig was hospitable, courteous, and kindly. Honoured by all the great scientific societies of the world, and regarded by almost every one as the great authority in chemistry, he assumed no airs of superiority, and lived the simple and quiet life of a German professor. Liebig’s influence on the history of chemistry may be considered under five heads :—(1) the effect of the opening of the Giessen laboratory, and of Liebig’s constant efforts to induce other universities to follow this example; (2) the improvements introduced by him in methods of investigation and in apparatus; (3) the discovery of new facts; (4) the development of theory; and (5) the application of chemistry to physiology, agriculture, and the arts.

We have already spoken of the first. Under the second head by far the most important change introduced by Liebig was his method of organic analysis. Organic substances were analysed, and analysed with accuracy, before 1830, but such analyses could then be carried out only by highly skilled chemists, and involved great labour and the use of cumbrous apparatus. Liebig’s method of organic analysis, which was published in all its details in 1831, and which (with important but secondary improvements) is that still used, made it easy for any advanced student to make a fairly accurate and very useful analysis of an organic substance. Analysis is to the chemist what astronomical methods for determining longitudes and latitudes are to the geographical explorer. Without it many interesting and useful discoveries may be made, but it is only when complete and accurate analyses are made of all the new substances produced in the course of a research that the research becomes fully available to other explorers. If Liebig had contributed nothing to organic chemistry but his method of analysis, he would still have been in a perfectly true sense the founder of modern organic chemistry. Many other improvements of apparatus are due to him; we need only mention the simple form of condenser called by his name, and constantly used by every chemist, and the easy and accurate method for determining the quantity of urea in a solution, which was the first step towards introducing precise chemical methods into practical medicine. This is also the proper place to refer to his analyses of the natural alkaloids» and his discovery of the method of determining their equivalents by the analysis of their chloroplatinates. In the third place we have to consider the new facts discovered by Liebig. The very great addition to our knowledge of organic chemistry made by Liebig naturally throws into the shade his contributions to inorganic chemistry, but we ought to remember his numerous analyses of mineral waters and his contributions to the difficult question of the accurate separation of cobalt and nickel. It is, however, in organic chemistry that Liebig’s great discoveries were made. These discoveries are so intimately connected with his chemical theories that we may most conveniently consider them along with the fourth head, his contributions to the development of chemical theory.

The notion of compound radicals is to be found in chemistry as far back at least as the time of Lavoisier. Lavoisier says, “Some experiments of my own and some made by Μ. Hassenfratz have convinced me that in general nearly all the vegetable acids, such as tartaric, oxalic, citric, malic, acetic, pyrotartaric, pyromucic acids, have for their radical hydrogen and carbon, but united so as to form a single base, that all these acids differ from one another by the difference in proportion of these two substances and the degrees of oxidation.” Berzelius adopted this view and expressed it thus,— “We find the difference between organic and inorganic bodies to be that, while in inorganic nature all the oxidized substances have a simple radical, all the organic substances have compound radicals. Just as ammonia is an alkali with a compound radical, but possessing nevertheless the greatest analogies with the mineral alkalies which have simple radicals, so we find the greatest analogy between the mineral and the organic acids, so that the relations of potash and soda to acetic, oxalic, citric acids are the same as their relations to sulphuric, nitric, phosphoric acids.” These views were published by Berzelius in 1817. In 1815 Gay-Lussac had discovered cyanogen, and shown that this compound of carbon and nitrogen is the radical of prussic acid and its salts, in the same sense as chlorine is the radical of hydrochloric acid and the chlorides. Ampere had indicated a theory of the constitution of the ammonia salts, which Berzelius worked out in detail, according to which those salts contain a compound radical, ammonium, playing in them the part of potassium in the potash salts. Finally, Davy suggested in 1815 that the hydrated acids which correspond in function to hydrochloric acid should be regarded as the true acids, and proposed to represent them as compounds of hydrogen with a radical.

Such were the knowledge and the theoretical position of chemists on this question when Liebig became professor; the dates to which we have referred correspond to the time when as a schoolboy he was devouring the contents of chemical journals at Darmstadt, and no doubt he then became acquainted at first hand with the discoveries and speculations of Ampere, Davy, Gay-Lussac, and Berzelius.

We have seen that his first investigation referred to the fulminates. He continued his researches upon the compounds of cyanogen and the substances connected with them formed frequent subjects of his researches during his whole life. In this region of organic chemistry he made many important discoveries, of which the limits of this article do not allow a detailed account; we can only mention melone, mellam, ammeline, ammelide, and melanine, as substances discovered and investigated by him. In the course of these investigations he discovered the precise nature of the chemical changes which occur in the manufacture of bromide of potash. In 1831 he examined the action of chlorine upon alcohol, among other substances discovered chloral, and commenced the series of investigations into the derivatives of alcohol and ether to which we shall refer immediately. In 1832 Wohler and Liebig published the results of their joint research on the oil of bitter almonds and its derivatives. This research may be said to stand at the head of modern organic chemistry. For elegance of method and for clearness of insight it is unrivalled, and will always remain a model of what such an investigation should be. They showed in the clearest manner that the compound C 7 H 8 O (here and elsewhere in this article we use the symbols now in common use, instead of those employed by the authors), to which they gave the name of benzoyl, is the constant part, or radical, of a great series of compounds. The importance of this investigation was generally recognized. Berzelius hailed it as the advent of real daylight on the subject of organic chemistry, and even suggested the names proin or orthrin (from πρωί and Hpθpos) for the newly discovered radical.

We now come to the long controversy as to the constitution of alcohol and ether, which engaged so much of Liebig’s time and energy. Gay-Lussac had shown in 1815 that alcohol and ether might, as far as their composition is concerned, be represented as compounds of olefiant gas and water, and further that, if we represent the quantities by volume of gas or vapour, ether contains one volume of olefiant gas and half a volume of water vapour, while alcohol contains equal volumes of the two. In 1828 Dumas and Boullay published an elaborate memoir on the preparations and properties of the ethers, in which they further developed the ideas suggested by Gay-Lussac. They regarded olefiant gas as the radical of all the etherial compounds, as ammonia is of the ammoniacal salts, and formulated them thus :— [table]

We have given only a sample of their tables, leaving out among others some substances in reference to the composition of which they had fallen into error, error which Liebig detected and used as an argument, valid enough then no doubt, but of little interest now.

In 1833 Liebig proposed a quite different theory, one which stands to Dumas and Boullay’s in the same relation which the ammonium theory holds to the ammonia theory of the constitution of the ammoniacal salts. Just as Ampère and Berzelius regarded salammoniac, not as NH 3 ,HC1, but as NH 4 ,C1, so Liebig proposed for muriatic ether the formula C 2 H 5 ,C1 instead of C 2 H 4 ,HC1, The really cogent argument which he brought forward, the argument which we can now best appreciate, is that, while alcohol contains combined water, ether does not. According to Dumas and Boullay alcohol and ether are both hydrates, but in Liebig’s view ether is (C 2 H 6 ) 2 O and alcohol (C 2 H 5 ) 2 O,H 2 O. If we wish to understand this argument we must recollect that to the chemists of that time oxidized hydrogen was water, and Liebig’s arguments are as sound now as they were then, for the most recent views represent alcohol as C 2 H 5 —0—H, and this contains oxidized hydrogen, or, as we may say, half a molecule of water, and Liebig’s tests do not distinguish preformed water, but hydrogen and oxygen combined as they are in water. Much debate and investigation followed, in the course of which the relations of all the substances derived from alcohol were thoroughly and practically studied in a fuller and more careful manner than would have been possible had there not been a theoretical point to defend and to attack. The enormous number of facts discovered by Liebig put him in" a very favourable position as the advocate of his theory. Chemists could not do without a knowledge of these facts, and they could only get this knowledge through Liebig’s papers, in which the facts were expressed in the language of his theory.

In 1835 Régnault began a series of most important researches into the compounds derived from olefiant gas. He showed that many of these substances might be classified and their relations explained by the assumption of a radical C 2 H 3 , to which he gave the name of aldehydene. Liebig saw that according to his view of the meaning of the word radical, as “the unchanging constituent in a series of compounds,” the same radical may be assumed in alcohol and in acetic acid, and in 1839, in a note published in the Annalen, he puts the matter in a very clear light. He says, “Ether and ammonia have in their compounds a certain resemblance which was·

first indicated by Dumas and Boullay, and the view of the constitution of the ammonia salts which is generally held in France was the reason why ether was considered the first hydrate of olefiant gas, alcohol as the second hydrate, &c.; in Germany and other countries the water necessary for the constitution of the salts of ammonia with oxygen acids was considered as an integral part of the base; it was assumed that this water forms with the ammonia oxide of ammonium (NHA 2 O, and this view in a certain sense smoothed the way for another, according to which the existence of organic oxides, capable of neutralizing acids, appeared very probable, as a necessary complement to the organic acids which chemists had long been inclined to regard as oxides of organic radicals. Ether was in these countries regarded as an organic oxide, and this difference of view excited a ten years’ strife, as an immediate result of which· we may regard the discovery of a great number of compounds which enriched science with innumerable important observations. No region of organic chemistry has been so thoroughly and so completely studied as the compounds connected with ether; and now, when the existence of organic oxides is no longer denied, the support of the opposite opinion has come to an end, although it cannot be said that the question itself has been experimentally decided. If we compare in the light of our present knowledge the ammonia compounds with the ether compounds, we at once see that the opposing views were fundamentally the same in the two cases. The disputes took place because we were not at one as to the interpretation of the phenomena. The etherand ammonia compounds assume in fact the same form if amidogen is regarded as the unchangeable radical of the ammonia compounds, and acetyl [Regnault’s aldehydene] as the starting point of the ether compounds. The two sets of compounds differ only in so far as we must ascribe to acetyl the power of forming acids, a power which amidogen does not possess?’

He then gives a table containing in two columns the ammonia and the ether compounds, in which C 2 H 3 corresponds to NH 2 , C 2 II 4 to NH 3 , and C 2 H 5 to NH 4 , and adds, “These formulae require no explanation; they have been developed in order to show the extraordinary resemblance of the ammonia and the ether compounds, and to show why it was that many chemists regarded olefiant gas as the first member of the series of ether compounds. Both of the formerly antagonistic theories have, as may be easily seen, from this point of view the same foundation, and all further questions as to the truth of the one or other view is thus of course set at rest.”

It was during the course of the controversy which then closed that Liebig had discovered aldehyde, chloral, and, simultaneously with Soubeiran, chloroform, besides numerous other substances of less general interest, and developed the theory now generally received of the formation of ether by the action of sulphuric acid on alcohol.

In the very short sketch given above of the discussion as to the constitution of ether, we mentioned that Liebig’s ethyl theory was to some extent borrowed from Berzelius. Berzelius had suggested that ether was the oxide of a radical (Liebig’s ethyl), but he was at first inclined to regard alcohol, not as the hydrate oxide of the same radical, but rather as the oxide of another one, which with our symbols would be written C 2 H β ∙ But there was a deeper difference than...

Until 1866 Liechtenstein formed part of the German confederation, but from that date it has been constitutionally independent, although for the sake of convenience the postal system, customs, and currency are under the general Austrian administration, from which the principality receives annually some £1600 as its share in the customs dues. According to the charter of the 26th September 1862, Liechtenstein is a constitutional monarchy, the sovereign prince sharing the legislative power with a diet of fifteen members (elected sexennially), of whom three are nominated by the prince, and twelve elected by popular suffrage. The chief control of the principality is carried on at V ienna by a court chancellory, which also serves as the judicial court of appeal of first instance, the ultimate court of appeal being at Innsbruck. The immediate direction of the principality in administrative and judicial matters is at Vaduz. The inhabitants are free from military service and direct taxation. The annual revenue amounts to about £6000. Although the sovereignty of the prince is so small, his estates in Austria and elsewhere render him one of the wealthiest landed proprietors in Germany, his income from them amounting to nearly £140,000 sterling. The house of Liechtenstein, one of the oldest in Central Europe, was elevated to the princely dignity in the early part of the 17th century. Anthony Florian in 1713 obtained a vote and seat in the imperial diet, and after the union, in 1719, of the lordships of Vaduz and Schellenberg into one principality under the name of Liechtenstein, his privileges were, in 1723, confirmed to his successors. See Jacob von Falke, Geschichte des fürstlichen Hauses Liechtenstein, 2 vols. (Vienna, 1868-77).

Liegnitz is first mentioned in an historical document io the year 1004. In 1164 it became the seat of the dukes of Liegnitz, who greatly improved and enlarged it, especially in 1170 and 1175. The dukes were members of the illustrious Piast family, which gave so many kings to Poland. At Wahlstatt, near Liegnitz, the tide of Mongolian invasion was stemmed, in 1241, in a hard-fought battle between the Tartars and the Christian chivalry under the duke of Silesia. The victory, indeed, remained with the invaders, but the obstinate resistance deterred them from any further attack on Germany. During the Thiιty Years’ War Liegnitz was taken by the Swedes, but was soon recaptured by the Imperialists. The Saxon army also defeated the imperial troops near Liegnitz in 1634. On the death of the last duke of Liegnitz in 1675, the duchy came into the possession of Austria, which retained it until the Prussian conquest of Silesia in 1740-45. In 1760 Frederick the Great gained a decisive victory near Liegnitz over the Austrians under Laudon, and in 1813 the list of important battles in this neighbourhood was completed by Bliicher’s defeat of the French at the battle of the Katzbach. During the present century Liegnitz has been uniformly prosperous, and its population has increased fivefold since 1800.

See Schuchard, Die Stadt Liegnitz (Berlin, 1868); Sammter and Kraffert, Chronik von Liegnitz (Liegnitz, 1861-73).

Liège is the centre of a great mining district rich in coal, lead, zinc, and iron; the coal-mines extend under the city and the river. In 1879 358,100 tons of coal were raised in the province, 22,156 persons being employed in the pits. The iron, lead, and zinc foundries in the town ami neighbourhood work up large quantities of ore in addition to the. local supply. Steel, copper, and tin wares, steam-engines and general machinery, woollen goods, excellent saws and files, nails, needles, mirrors, clocks, leather, paper, and oil are among the products of the versatile industry of the place. Liège firearms have long enjoyed a wide reputation. They give employment to about 30,000 workmen, who for the most part work in their own houses, though in 1878 a large factory was erected in the American style for making all parts of the weapon by machinery. In 1878 183,806 single-barrelled guns, 113,121 double-barrelled guns, 403,649 revolvers, 19,395 saddle pistols, and about 85,000 army weapons, ke., were passed by Liège through the Government testing office. The trade of Liege is favoured by the fact that the town is an important junction on the Rhenish Belgian Railway, commands more than one navigable river, and has long been one of the leading cattle-markets in the country. The population was 115,956 in 1874.

About 720 the bishops of Tongres, after oscillating between Tongres and Maestricht, settled at Liège, though they did not take the title bishop of Liège for more than two centuries. Their church of St Lambert received large territorial endowments, and in the 14th century they became princes of the empire. For centuries the straggle was maintained between episcopal tyranny and civic independence; and ducal and imperial armies were called in to crush the insurrections. In this way Charles the Bold of Burgundy made himself master of the city in 1467, and again with much bloodshed and barbarity in 1468. Bishop Ferdinand in 1650 and Bishop Maximilian in 1684 were each imposed on the citizens by force of arms, and kept them down by means of a strong citadel and foreign soldiers. In 1691 Liège was bombarded for five days by Marshal de Bouffiers; in 1702 Marlborough took the citadel by storm from a French garrison; and in 1792 the town was the scene of a great defeat of the Austrians by the French.

See Henaux, Hist, du pays de Liège; Polain, Hist, de Γ ancien pays de Liège, and Liège pittoresque·, Pol a i η and lιaikern. Coutumes du pays de Liège; Baron de Gc-rlache, Hist, de Liège (2d ed., 1859); Bccdelibvre, Biographie Liégeoise.