life, and brings it home to the hearts of his fellow men, is more a benefactor of his race, than he who defends the rights of his country, or fights its battles. This being the case, Mr. DowNING and THE HORTICULTURIST, are inseparably connected with the refinement and prosperity of our country; for as are the homes of a people so are their lives. It is true that when the political and ecclesiastical history of this century is written, the name of DOWNING may not appear, but in that unwritten history of social progress, in the councils of the fireside, which often stamp the character of the man upon the child-in the record of the posthumous judgment of future years we shall find that he was the champion of

"a truth,

Which woke to perish never."

A beautiful home, as an antidote to the restless roving tendency of the times,—the love of nature instead of the ambition of display-the culture of the mind and the soil, instead of the perilous haste to be rich-these are the principles which distinguish Mr. DOWNING and THE HORTICULTURIST.

The Horticulturist has done more than to inculcate the principles of taste and teach the pleasures of rural life. It has been a scientific and practical work, and by exciting a generous rivalry among gardeners and amateur cultivators, has raised the standard of Horticulture and increased the number engaged in its pursuit. To be assured of this, one need only refer to the reports of Horticultural exhibitions in the early volumes, and contrast them with those of the present year. The competitors, the varieties of fruits, flowers and vegetables grown, and the products, have increased four-fold—and we are only new beginners. One needs a prophetic vision to say what the future of Horticulture in this country is destined to be. Favored, as we are, by soil and climate, we may certainly anticipate brilliant results.

As we have before intimated, THE HORTICULTURIST will have our best wishes in the future, as it has had our best efforts in the past. We shall rejoice in its success as arguing well for the stability of society, and affording a well grounded hope for the permanence of our institutions. We shall watch its progress as a sure evidence of the spread of general refinement, and a proof that the germ of a healthy, social American character, which has so auspicously put forth its shoots, is springing up into fresh life and beauty, and promising a maturity rich in good things. We have full confidence that those who are, hereafter, to have this journal in charge will sustain in a good degree its high reputation and deserve well of its former patrons.

With sincere thanks to all those who have sustained the Horticulturist by their contributions and subscriptions, we commit it to other's hands and other's watchfulness, trusting that it will long be sustained to accomplish its mission and spread beauty and happiness over our land and in our homes.

OF WHAT USE IS RURAL TASTE?

BY B. MUNN, NEW-YORK.

Strange, but not less true, are the inconsistencies of human nature! While most of us are ready to admit the limited extent of our knowledge, how different is our practice from our theory. In the face of this free admission on our part, are we daily arguing, aye, and acting too, upon immatured thoughts, drawing conclusions from false premises, and regulating our conduct upon them, as though our hasty opinions were the unerring decisions of minds possessed of infallible wisdom.

We have been led into this train of thought from the circumstance, that it is not unfrequent still to hear the question asked, "of what use is rural taste." It will be found that the inquiry proceeds either from those who have not devoted, perhaps, an hour to the consideration of the subject, or whose position in life has not afforded them opportunity for the observation, much less the appreciation of the amenities of country life, and the attractions of rural beauty—now it might well be supposed that the advantage, or "use" of rural taste is so apparent, as a means to an important end, that this truth would occur to the mind as quickly as thought presents the question to it. Experience tells us this is not the case, and therefore, we propose to discuss it.

Let us, however, before we proceed to answer the question, thoroughly understand what we are about to discuss; and ask the previous question, what do we mean by "rural taste?" For few things conduce more to the elucidation of an argument, than a distinct apprehension of the subject at starting.

By "rural taste," then, we mean that perception of the combination of beauty with utility, in adapting the wilds of nature to the wants of civilized life, which is agreeable to our feelings. So that each natural feature when brought into the foreground of our observation, may be so presented to us, that whilst it is made subservient to our purpose, it at the same time is introduced under a pleasing aspect.

Let us now proceed to our principle inquiry, "of what use is rural taste?”

It is not too much to advance, if we assert that rural taste is itself a necessary adjunct to civilization, the advantages of which the purest utilitarian will admit and advocate. For the practice of rural taste is only the application to rural economy to the very same principles which in city life we regard as too completely matters of course to admit of question. From what source have originated the palace residences of our city merchants, with their gorgeous furniture, their tapestried carpets and their embroideried hangings, but from the indulgence of that taste in domestic affairs, which when directed to rural economy expends its energies in drawing out the beauties of nature for our admiration-while we apply her productions to our use, instead of (as in the former case) availing ourselves of the discoveries of art. Yet, however much we may hear the prudence of particular individuals, called in question, for lavish expenditure upon their town residences, we seldom hear the propriety or the utility of the elegancies of life which they possess, called in question; unless it be by some cynic whose jaundiced eye and ill regulated mind, has been distorted by the suggestions of avarice, or by some pharisaical enthusiast, who seeks to find a merit in refusing the enjoyment of those results of the skill of his fellow men, which the conventionalities of social life have provided for his use.

Let it ever be borne in mind, that the lavish expenditure of the man whose diligent labor has given him the means of surrounding himself with a large portion of the luxuries of life, is the stepping stone to riches for those of his fellow countrymen whose handiwork his liberality purchases. The ascetic miser may by niggardliness increase his ability for

accumulating in the eyes of his associates; but, it is the man who receives with one hand, to spend prudently with the other, that in every social community, is the advancer of the wealth of his country. Because he, it is, that in so doing, provides the market for the labor of industry, and the money to pay the well earned wages of the gifted artisan.

But do these principles apply to the question before us? Undoubtedly they do, for if it be conceded that these conveniencies of life are proper, and tend to the increase of national prosperity when applied to city life, they will be found equally true when directed to country life and rural taste. Because in the latter case as in the former, it is impossible to put them in practice without some expenditure, be it greater or less, which again affords the means of livelihood or of increased comforts to those engaged in the production of its refinements.

There are other considerations of equal and even of greater weight, which evince as distinctly the "use" of rural taste. Diligence and activity of body and mind are no less beneficial to us, in the persuit of our innocent amusements, than they are instrumental to our prosperity in business occupations; and whether we turn our thoughts to the private gentleman, or to the merchant retired from busy life-to the farmer, or to the artizan in his cottage, we shall not be disappointed in our expectation, if we calculate upon finding that each one, who employs his leisure hours, be they many or few, in the embellishment of his country home, adds thereby daily accessions to his stock of health, while he at the same time imparts renewed elasticity to his mental energies by their healthy exercise in his favorite pursuits. And we are sure it will be granted that to add increased health to body and mind is to make good "use" of our time, whatever be its employment.

Another and a great "use," (the importance of which it is scarcely possible to overestimate,) in the cultivation of rural taste, is to be found in the powerful influence which experience bears testimony to its exercising, over the social intercourse of a neighborhood. We could, in support of this view, instance numerous parts of our country which, happily, are ever present proofs of its truth. The kindly relations, the good offices, and the interest in each other's rural enjoyments, which the practice and extension of rural taste in any neighborhood, never fails to draw forth, are ample proofs, that if it be commendable "to love one another;" to contribute to the comforts of our neighbors; and to associate our rising generation with a state of things around them that is calculated to call forth their study of the adaptation of nature to the social wants of man: if these objects are commendable, then rural taste has its "use."

use

Moreover, if we have failed to convince by our arguments, we have only to appeal to the unerring evidence of the history of the world, to find a proof that there is a in rural taste. For that, be it what it may, which experience shows to have been a constant requirement of every succeeding generation of man, must, by us in our generation, be admitted to be a want of the human race. And that which supplies a want which has proved so constant as to be universal in its extent, must be admitted to have its appropriate use. From the garden of Eden to the gardens of Solomon, who "planted himself vineyards, and made gardens and orchards, and planted trees in them of all kinds of fruits, and pools of water therewith, to water the wood that bringeth forth trees;" and again, from the hanging gardens of Babylon to those of the Athenians, (who Meason observes preferred a residence in the country, and in villa gardening borrowed from Asia Minor,") the evidence of history, both sacred and profane, bears one continued stream of testimony to the love for and pursuit of rural taste. The direction of it, has varied with time and place, but its influence upon man has been as continuous as the return of the B. MUNN.

seasons.

DR. HULL'S PAPER ON STRAWBERRIES AND THEIR NUTRITION.

BY SAMUEL W. JOHNSON.

The agricultural and horticultural publications of the present day, are teeming with the applications of science to the processes of husbandry and gardening. This is a fact of happy significance, and indicates how deeply the true means of advancement have taken hold, in the intelligent mind of the community.

Ordinary experience is the most usual, and an invaluable means of attaining excellence in the art of vegetable production.

Extraordinary experience or experiment, is a necessary adjunct to the former.

It is easy to make experiments and to multiply observations. It is just as easy to speculate upon them but to make complete and exhaustive observations, and to plan and conduct strictly pertinent experiments, is quite another thing; as is likewise the arrival at TRUTH, which, to even the most patient and profound, often is liable to be confounded with speciousness.

Dr. HULL has made experiments, and written a lengthy article on the "nutrition of strawberries." I propose to inquire dispassionately-what are the merits of his investigations?

The article opens with a quotation from Prof. EMMONS’“ Agriculture of New-York," as follows: "The soil must possess all the inorganic substances, as well as organic, which are essential to the perfection of vegetables; if any one is wanting it must be supplied.” It will be necessary to remark somewhat upon this statement of Prof. EMMONS. It is in a sense true, and is true as Prof. EMMONS intended it to be understood, yet standing alone, it is capable of gross misconstruction.

The soil must contain all the inorganic substances that are essential to the growth of the plant, or the plant will refuse to mature. It must also contain all the organic elements of the plant in order to a profitable growth, but to grow the lemon, it must not necessarily contain citric acid, because citric acid is essential to the perfection of the lemon; nor need it contain morphine to produce the poppy, although morphine is essential to the perfection of the poppy plant.

In addition to all the inorganic substances of the plant, the soil must contain a quantity of decayed vegetable matter, in order to make it profitably fertile.

Such I deem a true expression of the sense of Prof. EMMONS' proposition.

Dr. HULL remarks substantially, that although this rule is apparently true, and conforms to common sense; yet in its ultimates it admits of exception.

He states the ground of exception as occurring with reference to tannic acid, and alludes to other data bearing on the point, which disclose "evidence of the caprice of plants in imbibing nutrition at proportional variance with their analysis."

He says, further: "These discrepancies from the general rule, and the desire to awaken inquiry and experiment to the highest degree, in order to mature the finest fruit, have rendered me a little presumptuous, perhaps, in suggesting another rule of specific nutrition:

"That some fruits-whatever the organic or inorganic analysis of the plant or of the fruit may disclose and seem to require-possess one or more special constituents, each one of which is demanded as an increased, correspondent, and specific nutrition that bears no proportion to that of the exact analysis."

As I understand the above, it implies that certain plants flourish best when supplied with one or more ingredients in quantity greater than indicated by their composition. This is undoubtedly true in some instances. From the experiments of Prof. WAY, it appears probable that ammonia is a means of supplying silica to plants, and therefore may be required in much larger quantity for the growth of highly silicious plants than would be indicated by the nitrogen found in the mature plant. But our present object is to examine Dr. HULL's proofs for his presumed rule. His first statements refer to the inorganic ingredients of the strawberry. Three analyses are quoted, one of the fruit, and two of the plant.

His brief observation, on these analyses, which I need not quote, is sufficiently true— that in "the two analyses of the plant, the analysts coincide in the proportion of the potash: the discrepancy as to the other constituents is striking. In the analysis of the fruit by Richardson, the predominance of soda will excite some surprise, although the potash holds a second and very important position. At the same time the united analyses of plant and fruit exhibit as the proportion of potash, 59.72, and that of soda only 36.28." I may add that the analyses show in round numbers from 9 to 20 per cent. of phosphoric acid, and 12.26 per cent. of lime.

Affirmative of the general rule," an experiment is adduced as follows: Last year, "a large bed was prepared and divided into three equal portions; one containing potash neutralized by muck; another ashes, treated in the same manner; and last phosphate of lime, (bone dust.) Lines of the same plants, extended across the three soils. Boston Pine," and 14 other varieties, "displayed a sturdy growth throughout this entire triple tract; at the same time they exhibited a positive preference for the potash over the ashes; for the ashes over the bone-dust. The section of the triple tract, charged with potash, manifests an advantage this season much more conspicuous, the plants and fruit having gained at least one-fourth over their associates."

In the preceding experiment, certain varieties furnish different results, which Dr. HULL considers "exceptions to the general rule." "Black Prince and Burr's New Pine became almost worthless in the same potash tract; while runners of 1850, transferred from these same plants to the natural soil of my ground, well enriched with ordinary stable manure and street sweepings, have this year produced specimens of fruit nearly, if not quite equal to their best reputation. Buist's Prize also failed under potash nutrition, and devloped the richest foliage and finest fruit in the department of phosphate of lime (bone dust.) Hovey's Seedling failed in a tract of phosphate of lime, yet rejoiced with its luxuriant foliage and fruit in a tract of soil, supplied with lime as its main element."

Reference is next made to a recipe for keeping old strawberry beds in bearing, from the Friend's Review. The application, attended with remarkable results, was as follows: "Of nitre, of potash, of glauber's salt, and sal soda, each one pound; of nitrate of ammonia, one-quarter of a pound-dissolved in thirty gallons of water. One-third was applied at a time," to a bed 30 feet by 40. Three applications being made at intervals of a week. Frequent waterings of soft water, were also used in dry weather.

Various statements are next noticed, from Prof. JOHNSTON's lectures, with regard to the efficacy of potash and soda.

Dr. HULL concludes from these data, that "the results confirm in the main, the general rule for specific uniform nutrition. Potash, the major element of the analysis, holds the highest representation in the production of plant and fruit; ashes, (potash and lime-the latter, also, an important substance in the analysis) present the next claim, and phosphate of lime (holding a questionable or minor place in the analysis) produces the least satis