It may be observed, that planting trees in hedge-rows is not only prejudicial to fences, but of great detriment to corn-crops cultiYated in fields surrounded by these hedge-rows, especially if the fields are of a small si.:e ; a practice which improperly prevails in many Eriglish comities. If shelter is wanted for a field, the best way of procuring it is to form belts, or strips of planting, from filly to sixty feet wide ; for timber trees thrive much better than when planted in rows, or in nail ow strips. All cold or moorish soils are greatly benefited by being enclosed in tl.is way ; though it may be remarked that small enclosures ought to be avoided, be cause they occasion a great waste of ground without af fording benefit in other respects proportional to the heavy expense entailed upon tile proprietor or tenant, for supporting such a Lumber of unnecessary fences.
Haying already' described, in as circumstantial a man ner as the limits of this article allowed, the present state of British husbandry, we shall now point out the ClYstru:..4.ions which impede its progress to fcneher per ruction. In South Britain, these obstructions arc mime • rolls; all tending to stop the improvement of the soil, and to lessen the value of landed property. Beside the want or leases, and the general nature of covenants, which govern the tenantry, the influence of poor-rates, tythes, and other public burdens, is hostile to agricultu ral improy einem. In addition to these, the extent of land held upon common-lield tenure, together with that legally kept in a state of waste, and comparatively in an unproductive condition, all render the husbandry of South Britain much inferior to what might be expected tinder the circumstances of soil, climate, and markets. ra ith which the country is fityoured.
In a preceding part of this article, we made some ob servations upon the pernicious consequences arising to husbandry from the want of leases, and showed, that the general tendency of restrictive covenants was inimical to improvement, and even adverse to the interest of those who imposed them. Referrilig to what was then stated, we shall now say a few welds upon the inexpe diency and inutility of keeping land in a commonable state, and the pernicious consequences which flow from burdening it with tythes and poor-ratcs, according to the present system. In our opinion, both these burdens loight be arranged in such a way as not to stop improve ment in the slightest manner; and, perhaps, it would not be a difficult affair to place the whole land of the kingdom in a state or severalty, were the legislature disposed to take up the business in a decisive manner, or to view it as one which maul ially affected the gene ral welfare.
In the first place, so long as the tenth of produce is exacted from the farmer, it is unreasonable to expect that agriculture will be much improved ; because 10 per cei:r., upon the general run of improvements, is, of itself,
a great profit, after the ordinary expenses are defrayed. No person, therefore, will step out of the beaten path. so long as the profits of improvement arc to be drawn by another, who is not at any part of the expense, who runs none of the risk, and who experiences none of the trouble attending the improvement, except what neces sarily accompanies the receipt of an increased quantity of produce. The writer of this article has thought a good deal capon this subject, and viewed it in all the va rious lights in which it can present itself to the public eve. Ins sentlments are not hostile to the owners of tythes, whether laymen or clergymen, and he would he the last man in the country who V, ould advise, that pri vate property should be sacrificed without a suitable re compense, even though a great public good were thus to be accomplished. Under these impressions, the fol lowing plan for commuting tythe into a share of actual lent is humbly offered to public consideration, which, if carried into execution, may completely remove the evil attending the tvthe system, without injuring, the rights of those who are at present entitled to draw the tenth of the produce. Without insisting upon the subject, it shall be concisely stated, without argument, leaving it to stand or fall upon its own merits.
Tythe, though apparently an equal tax, is, in reality, more unequal than any tax yet devised. On poor soils. the tenth of the crop, though nominally exigible, upon the same ratio, is more severely felt by the possessor than when paid from good soils. To those who have studied the subject, an explanation may be superfluous: hut to others, who are not so versant in political erono my, it cannot be improper to elucidate an opinion which, at first sight, may have a paradoxical appearance.
All poor soils, like land, in its natural state, require considerable outlays before they can be rendered com paratively fertile and productive. There is not much hazarded in maintaining, that live quarters per acre will be gained at less expense upon rich learns and clays, than three quarters per acre from thin clay and moorish soils. These inferior soils require more manure, more labour, as much if not more, seed than soils of the first description, consequently the disposable balance, from which tythe must be paid, is out of all bounds diminished. In the one case, tythe will amount to about 17 per cent. on the disposable produce ; whereas, in the other, it will be found not less than 32 per cent. a difference which few people ever trouble themselves to calculate. Wish ing to make ourselves perfectly understood, a few figures in illustration of the argument are subjoined.