Mr. URBAN, Moy, Ireland, Aug. 21. nication leading to the improvement of our Agricultural Practice, together with former indulgence, give me reason to hope that my reply to a Letter in your last June Magazine from Mr. Salisbury, p.542, will also find a place. I have often transmitted to the President of the Board of Agriculture, and to other respectable members, Fiorin strings or stolones, both for propagation and experiment. The worthy Baronet has (it appears) very properly given some of these to Mr. Salisbury, whose discriminating powers as a Botanist I am little disposed to question. I hope, however, that the President has not confined his distributions to the Botanic School, but has also given a share to the Naturalist, that not only the characteristic differences by which classes, orders, and genera, are distinguished, may be discussed, but that the habits, properties, and probable uses, of the vegetable in question, may be carefully investigated. Whether Mr. Salisbury shall, upon patient examination, pronounce Fiorin to be the same with, or different from the Agrostis Stolonifera, is of small importance; but I lament that any decision on the subject of this valuable discovery should have been put into prejudiced hands; as it is plain, from Mr. Salisbury's letter, that he has already made up his mind, not only on the species, but upon the merit of this Grass. When Mr. Salisbury had the high honour conferred upon him, of being consulted by the Board of Agriculture, upon a question in his own department, it might be expected he would have taken some pains to inform himself on the subject; that he would have made himself acquainted with the treatises written upon this Grass, laid before him in so complimentary a manner. Mr. Salisbury, it seems, thought otherwise; and sneeringly tells us it would not be of much consequence to read all the celebrated accounts said to have issued from Dr. Richardson's pen, on the subject of this Grass." What? not even the memoir upon this Grass, honoured by the same Board of Agriculture with a medal, GENT. MAG. January, 1811. and published in their Trausactions? -Mr. Salisbury chose to look for information where he was certain he would not meet contradiction; he consults the practical farmers, who, with himself, had always pronounced the Agrostis Stolonifera to be SquITCH GRASS. It is amusing to see these gentlemen bandying backwards and forwards their anathemas against this unfortunate Grass. Mr. Salisbury tells us, "the Farmer, from habits of growth, will pronounce both Fiorin and Agrostis Stolonifera to be noxious weeds." 66 Again, he feels himself obliged to step forward to prevent any one from encouraging that vile weed." The intelligent Farmers, whose opinions of this famous Grass Mr. Salisbury asked, replied, “D-n it al together, 'tis nothing but Squitch." An answer which Mr. Salisbury pronounces, though coarse, to be very applicable." 66 From the above quotations, it ap pears that Mr. Salisbury is deficient. in that necessary qualification for impartial decision, freedom from previ ous prejudice; he is not indeed the only person who has laboured to deprive the world of the benefits to be derived from the cultivation of the Agrostis Stolonifera, by far the most valuable of the grassy tribe. In a letter to my friend Mr. Greenough, printed by Phillips, I have measured swords with other gentlemen who had declared war, ad internecionem, against this grass, even before it was suspected to have merit, and before it was known to have a protector. Fortunately, Mr. Salisbury in his hostility lays open new matter, and relieves me from the irksome necessity of treading over the same ground. Having so decidedly pronounced Agrostis Stolonifera to be SQUITCH, he lays down some positions relative to Squitch, which astonish me, as coming from a gentleman who boasts that he had studied the British Gramina for twenty years in an eminent school; these positions I should by no means have noticed, had they not been radically and essentially connected with the natural history of the Agrostis Stolonifera. The Botanical School is much disposed to arrange its vegetables in classes classes and genera; but Mr. Salisbury is the first that I have met with, who has formed Quilch Grass into a genus, with its subordinate species, seven of which are known to him. On the formation of a genus, a Disferentia essentialis is required to mark the difference between the members of this and other genera; bere Mr. Salisbury is not deficient, he gives us the characteristic marks, the Differentia essentialis, by which the Squitch genus is distinguished; he tells us "the plants of both the Fiorin and the Agrostis Stolonifera began to creep on the ground, and to root at every joint, as the Couch Grass does, which is the property of at least seven different species of this genus." This definition certainly includes the Agrostis Stolonifera, for which it was intended, but not any one variety of Squitch with which I am acquainted. The TRITICUM REPENS, the greatest nuisance of all Squitches, runs its mischievous roots horizontally, not on, but some inches under the surface; and from this root, at intervals, sends up its harsh erect stalks, not one of - which ever creeps, or touches the ground. The AVENA ELATIOR, called by the farmers Knobb Squitch, very injurious to standing corn, raises its coarse gigantic stem vertically, aud never creeps or roots. The AGROSTIS ALBA, White Squitch, less troublesome, but always erect, never creeps, its roots work under ground, and are so strong and sharp, that, as Dr. Withering tells us, they will penetrate a potatoe. AGROSTISSTRICTA, much cultivated in America; this grass has decidedly a Squitch root, from which it sends up a solitary erect stem with its panicle at the end. AGROSTIS NIGRA, black Squitch, little differing from the Stolonifera, involved with it in the common obloquy, from which I hope to relieve the whole Genus. Mr. Salisbury's definition is, no doubt, good and descriptive; but, unhappily, it belongs to a genus very different from that to which he applies it, and by this error (were be able to establish it) would deprive the world of the most valuable food for their cattle, with which Nature has favoured them. Had Mr. Salisbury, in the course of his twenty years study of the British Gramina under a celebrated master, paid proper attention to the physiology of Botany, and the classifications of Nature; he would have discovered that she had drawn a marked line of discrimination between two descriptions of her Grasses, the Culmiferous," and the Stoloniferous; a distinction which will be found decisive in the present question. The Culmiferous tribe of Grasses, at their stated periods (mostly early in Summer) send up in vast numbers their erect Culmi, each bearing its seed panicle; these Culmi have hitherto chiefly composed the hay crops, for the portion of Root Leaf caught by the scythe is small in quantity, and of inferior quality. The Stoloniferous tribe also send up their Culmi and panicles at their respective periods; but kind Nature has been pleased to endow the grasses of this genus with another production, whence they derive their name, and incalculable value. Not far from the period at which their panicles appear, the grasses of this genus begin to project shoots (like the runners of strawberries) called by Naturalists Stolones; these, if supported, rise erect; but they generally creep along the surface, emitting small fibres from their joints, which catching the ground, take root, and form new plants. These Stolones, in uninterrupted vegetation, continue increasing their length until Christmas, and, I have reason to know, much later. Hence it is plain, that when the ground shall be clothed with a crop of Stoloniferous grass, the proprietor must make option, whether he will avail himself of the Culmi, and mow them at the period of their perfection, as he has been used to do, with other grasses, or whether he will wait for the Stolones, until, in the course of their steady vegetation, they shall amount to a quantity sufficient to compensate for the loss of the Culmi. Here then is a new field open to the Agriculturalist, whose prospect of deriving advantage from it rests on the comparative amount of the crops of Culmi and Stolones, on the comparative quality of their produce, and on the facility of saving Stoloniferous crops crops, at a much later period than Culmiferous have been usually mow ed. I have dwelt upon these topics at great length in different Essays, and have proved that my crops, composed exclusively of Stolones, in 1808, amounted to six tons, and to seven tons four hundred to the English acre; and that in 1809, an irrigated crop amounted to eight tons one quarter. I have also proved that Hay made of Stolones is far superior to common Hay made of Culmi, and decidedly preferred by all cattle, as it ought to be, its juices being more saccharine, and more abounding in mucilage. I have proved also, that crops of Stolones can be saved with great facility at periods when it would be vain to attempt saving common Hay. And I have established, that Fiorin Stolones afford (what has been considered as a grand desideratum) good winter green food; that we have only to leave a portion of our meadow standing; and that, from November to May, we shall daily mow an abundant and luxuriant winter green food, imparting to our milk and butter a flavour unequalled by that acquired from any summer grass. Such are the benefits of which Mr. Salisbury has determined to deprive the world, by persisting in his precipitate decision, that all Stoloniferous grasses are Squitch, "all injurious to the soil," and all "totally unfit for meadow." I believe I am the first that attempted to save crops composed exclusively of the Stolones of this genus of grass; and am aware, that a claim to the credit of a new discovery is not agreeable to those, who, from their line, ought to have made it themselves; we find them, like peevish old TIBERIUS, rogilans Reperisse prorsus quod divus Augustus non providerit ? You discover what escaped our sagacity? Will Mr. Salisbury, after having (as he tells us) studied the British Gramina for twenty years, like to hear that some of the most common and most obtrusive of these Gramina, those particularly reprobated by himself, are discovered to contain properties of inestimable value? That by these the Agriculturalist is to be enriched by these the wastes of his country to be reclaimed? My quotations from Mr. Salisbury's letter must convince the impartial reader, that he is likely to prove a prejudiced judge, where the Agrostis Stolonifera is in question; nor have I any doubt, but that he will also consider me too sanguine on the subject of a discovery to which I annex so much importance. My accounts of the enormous quantity, and superior quality, of a species of Hay never heard of before, will, I know, be suspected of exaggeration: the late season too in which I make it up, is not likely to add to my credit. I shall, therefore, (with your permission) in another letter epitomize some of the proofs scattered through my different Essays, by which these extraordinary positions are fully established; and, little alarmed by the incredulity of Mr. Salisbury, and many others, shall shew that the hardy and even contradictory habits of Fiorin Grass lead to consequences of far greater importance than any I have yet stated, and that this overlooked and calumniated grass may, at trifling expence, be made an instrument in the improvement of our Islands to an extent scarcely credible, I shall shew that their wastes and wilds, of the most opposite descriptions, may easily be reclaimed and made highly profitable by the aid of this accommodating vegetable, which thrives equally on the mountain and in the valley, in ICELAND and in IN DOSTAN. The powers too of this aquatic in sustaining drought have been fully tried this parching season; as I can now exhibit, between TYRONE and ANTRIM, seventeen acres of Fiorin meadow; and Mr. Ryan of BENBURB four, mostly in dry ground, and all of a luxuriance unequalled by the best meadows of our couutry in the most favourable seasons. Nor has this unexpected property in an aquatic grass (as it has been supposed) escaped notice in ENGLAND whence I have letters from several Correspondents, some of them of the highest rank, mentioning with astonishment the luxuriance of the biorin I had sent them, in despight of the severest drought remembered. W. RICHARDSON, D. D. TITHES NO HARDSHIP, Mr. URBAN, Dec. 26. T is owing perhaps to dulness of apprehension, that I either do not understand Agricola, p. 434 of your last volume, or cannot discover the 66 very serious evil," of which he complains. In one case, as he states it, he receives 601. rent, and pays 67. Property Tax. In the other, his rent is 817. and the property tax, 87. 2s. Where then is the hardship? To my apprehension, he reaps a material advantage, where he seems to think he sustains an injury. The Tithe-owner and Agricola have a joint interest in the same estate. The interest of the former is estimated by Agricola at one-third of the aunual value of the laud, or 307. and his own interestat the other two-thirds, or 607. But, if the Tithe-owner is so moderate in his demands, that he is contented to receive 97. instead of 301. Agricola avails himself of that circumstance, by adding the difference, name ly, 211. to the rent; and so he receives 817. when his real interest, by his own statement, was worth only 601. and the only deduction is, that he pays a proportional increase (namely two guineas more) of Property Tax. In this case who is the sufferer? Surely not Agricola, who receives annually twenty guineas (abating only two guiness for Property Tax) on account of property not his own. The real sufferer, if there is any suffering in the case, is either the occupier of the Jand, or the Tithe-owner, who is entitled to 30. instead of which he receives 97. only. As to the origin of Tithes in this kingdom, the undoubted fact is, that at a period of time far more remote than any land-owner of the present day can trace back his property, the then lords of the soil endowed the church with the tithes of their estates, amounting, as Agricola supposes, to one-third of the value of the whole. The other two-thirds, by bequest, by purchase, and other modes of transfer, have changed hands, perhaps a hundred times; each successive proprie tor (whether by purchase, or otherwise) being invested with the right or title to these two-thirds, and to these only. The other moiety, in many instances, continues to this day the property of the respective parish churches, to which the donation was originally made; but about one half of this property, or half the tithes in the kingdom, it is supposed, have passed into the hands either of bodies corporate, or of Laymen; and whenever the Laity are proprietors of Ti.hes, as I have heard intelligent Laymen themselves observe, they generally make at least a fifth or a sixth more of them, than the Clergy do so that as far as Tithes are concerned, it is always an advantage to the occupier of land, when they are, as they were originally intended to be, in the hands of the Clergy. C. R. Yours, &c. A the January 12. WRITER in your Magazine for November last, p. 434, under signature of Agricola, (whom I suspect to be an Irishman, from the terms "Tithe-proctor," and "Biddings" for Tithes, which he uses) begs leave to hint a very serious evil attending (the taking of) Tithes in kind, "which affects," he says, "landed property in general, and ...... the Property Tax" upon them, and which "has escaped," he thinks, "general observation.” Now, Mr. Urban, I will take leave to offer him a hint or two in answer, which may be worth his observation, before he takes up his pen again upon the same subject. If I may begin with his P. S. I confess myself to be one of "the Clergy, who look upon Tithes," for the support of the Priesthood," as (originally) a sacred appointment;" because it may be proved from Scripture. But, in this country, the right to the tenth part of the produce of the land, whether in Ecclesiastical Corporations, sole or aggregate, or in Lay impropriators, stands upon the same foot, viz. the Law of the Land, as the right to any other property whatever. It is, therefore, talking nonsense (to use no harsher expression) to say, that the Legislature “permits the exaction of Tithes in kind," Many a "sensible man," man,' indeed, 'has proposed a commutation (Law) for Tithes;" but the difficulty perpetually recurs, of providing a lasting equivalent for an evervarying value. I am equally free to confess, that I am one of the Clergy, also, who would readily accept such an equivalent (indeed, i have always taken a composition.) Yet, until such an equivalent be devised, I am, also, free to declare it to be my opinion, that the true reedy for the first branch of Agricola's evil would be, a law to enforce the taking of Tithes in kind, throughout the kingdom. The Clergy would, many of them, be the persons to complain of such a law; because it would make them half-farmers, in spite of themselves. With respect to the computed value of Tithes, for composition, compared with the rental of the land, a MASTER upon the subject observes: " that any sum not exceeding one-third of the rent (bona fide rent) may be considered as a reasonable payment, in lieu of all Tithes arising on a farm; for this reason, viz. that unless the Occupier can make the produce of his farm return nearer four rents than three, such farm cannot be worth his holding." Take an example, Mr. Urban, from Agricola himself. Suppose the rent of a farm to be 907. four rents will be 360!. one-tenth of which produce, for the Tithe, will be 361. but one-third of the rental is only 307. It remains for me, now, to point out the fallacy of Agricola's statement of the other branch of the evil that he hints, and I will do it from the same example. The Property Tax, which the landlord, in this case, will have to pay, is 97. because he actually receives 901. a-year for the farm; ; although he would, no doubt, get more rent (and so would all landfords for theirs), if his lands could be let Tithe-free, or even Tithe-kind-free, if I may use the term; and all tenants would soon find out this, to their cost. Now, the tenant, in the case supposed, will have eighteen pence in the pound on 907. to pay for the occupation of the farm, and six pence in the pound on 307. only, for the occupation of the Tithes, if he should give as much, by composition, for them. Where, in the name of candour, I would ask, is the particular evil of all this? If "our legislators" have no other in controvertible facts, and serious evils, to go upon, i suspect that they will not feel any new excitement to "rouse them to the immediate consideration of the subject of Tithes.” I CLERICUS SURRIENSIS. Mr. URBAN, Leicester, Oct. 5. AM extremely glad that several important subjects nearly connected with the Ecclesiastical Establishment of the Country, have become the topics of public discussion in your Miscellany, as the communications of your Correspondents may do considerable good; and, by reason of the extensive circulation of your Publication, be rendered eminently serviceable to the projects of those Noblemeu and Members of the Legislature, whose sentiments upon these important points are in unison with those of your able contributors. "A Country Rector" (p. 11 of your last volume) called the attention of your readers to these momentous considerations; and I rejoice that his letter was not suffered to lie dormant. I rejoice that the hints which he threw out were not disregarded, and I think that he deserves the thanks of the public in general, and of your readers in particular, for his conduct. The reform which this Rev. Gentleman has proposed to be made in our Ecclesiastical Government would, if practicable, be an excellent one; but I very much doubt whether it could be carried into effect in all its parts, without making too great an innovation upon the present system. I am not one of those who think that, because a certain system or plan has been in use for time immemorial, it should not be changed for a better, provided such an one could be devised; but I am afraid lest, by disturbing the old fabric, we should bring more of it down than we intend, and that, if we begin to make a great repair, we shall be obliged to prosecute it much farther than we at first intended. The first and fourth propositious of your Correspondent would, in my humble opinion, be very difficult to carry into execution, and could not be rendered of any essential use, without a considerable alteration in our Statute Laws; these propositions are extremely good, provided their sug gestions |