FARMERS' REGISTER— THE LAW OF ENCLOSURES. 



28S 



sential to profitable iarniing. It is to be hoped, 

 however, tliatno farmer, who has the op])ortunity 

 of reading an agricuhural papei', is co remiss in 

 relation to that vvhich is so conducive to his best 

 interests. 



BIATTIIEW BUELLj JR. 



Newport, Mmj 31s/, 1834. 



PETITION FOR A CJIAIVGE OF THE LAAV OF EN- 

 CLOSURES. 



[We recommend the subject of the following peti- 

 tion to all wiio have not already considered it maturely 

 — and to those who are satisfied of the unjust and op- 

 pressive operation of the law of enclosures, that they 

 will forthwith proceed to act, for the removal of the 

 grievance. Let similar petitions (either in this or any 

 other form that may he preferred,) he prepared and 

 properly pjresented to the consideration of the agricul- 

 tural community, and there can be but s;nall ground 

 for fear as to the result.] 



To the Editor of the Farmers' Register. 



Essex, Aug. 9t!i, 1834. 



I now send you an article which I hope will be 

 in time for your next paper. It is a petition about 

 to be circulated in this county, and I hope in many 

 others, for changing the law relative to enclosures. 

 No "internal improvement," — always excepting 

 that in regard to the general education of the peo- 

 ple, which is (irst and above all others in import- 

 ance — is so much wanted; nor any, I believe, to 

 the great utility of w^iich, if once carried into ef- 

 fect, converts would more rapidly be made. The 

 people in the counties bordering on, and compre- 

 hending our mountains, may not yet, perhaps, 

 liave so generally lelt the evils of this law, as to 

 wish lor its repeal; and if that be the case it might 

 be sufi'ercd, in regard to them, to remain as it is: 

 although I greatly mistake the condition of that 

 part of our State between the head of navigation 

 and the north vv-estern limit of our highly improved 

 valley country, if the people Would not be nearlv, 

 or quite as much benefited as ourselves by the 

 change. I wordd be among the last men in Vu- 

 ginia to advocate any alteration of dubious policy, 

 fn a general law; or that did not, in i'act, promise 

 most manifestly to benefit a very large majority of 

 our fellow citizens. But in this case there seems 

 to me not a shadow of doubt on any point involved 

 in the proposal, it being one which requires only 

 to be made, to gain numerous sujjporters. That 

 it may meet not only your approbation, but that of 

 all your subscribers, is the earnest wish of 

 Yours, with much esteem, 



JA3IES M. GARNETT. 

 TO THE LEGISLATURE OF VIRGINIA. 



The Petition of sundry citizens of Essex, re- 

 Bpectfully showeth — 



That having become thoroughly convinced of 

 the daily increasing necessity for some change in 

 our laws relative to enclosures, we have at last de- 

 termined to apply to you, as our only hope, for 

 some remedy of the existing evil. That this de- 

 termination may not appear to have been made 

 either hastily, or from considerations merely selfish, 

 your Petitioners beg leave to state the chief rea- 



sons which have induced them to adopt their pre- 

 sent course. 



In the first place, the law of which we complain 

 is a palpable violation of all other laws relative to 

 property, which princij)le is, to compel every one 

 "so to use his own, as not to injure that which be- 

 longs to another.^'' But the law of enclosures ac- 

 tually /^ermfis us to injure others by means of our 

 stock, unless they make a fence of a certain height 

 to guard against those very injuries Vv'hich justice 

 demands that the perpetrators should be prohibited 

 from committing under any circumstances. In- 

 stead of compelling stock-owners themselves to 

 restrain their stock from depredating upon other 

 people's lands, which the above cited principle 

 clearly enjoins, the land owners are forced to pro- 

 tect both it and its products, at an enormous ex- 

 pense of extra fencing — or, to suffer without the 

 smallest compensation, all the losses they may in- 

 cur fi'om the want of this extra fencing. 



In the second place, we comjilain of this law, 

 as the very unnecessary cause of^ more quarrels — 

 more ill-will — and more lasting animosities between 

 individuals and often whole families, than any 

 other law in our whole code: indeed, we believe 

 it may be truly said, of more than all the others 

 put together. 



Lastly, it imposes upon eveiy land owner and 

 cultivator a far heavier tax than all his other taxes 

 united; and what makes the matter much worse 

 is, that not a cent of it goes into the public trea- 

 sury; but is utterly wasted and lost, inasmuch as 

 it consists in the extra labor which each has to 

 bestow on his own enclosures to protect their jjro- 

 ducts from other people's .stock. This legal op- 

 pression is greatly aggravated by the fact, that the 

 small land ov.'ner — the small cultivator — in other 

 words, the ]-;oor farmer, suffers much more in pro- 

 portion to liis property than the rich one; for hav- 

 ing to fence it in, and daily to watch it, so as to 

 guard against every other pers?in's stock, and be- 

 ing in general, not so well provided, as richer land 

 owners, with a proportionate quantity of labor, 

 more of his precious time must generally be spent 

 in making such enclosures as this most unjust and 

 oppressive law ])rescribes, to say nothing of the 

 time lost in repairing and supervising the whole. 

 We may venture to say that this time, upon an 

 average, amounts to two months in every year, 

 and that it certainly could be abridged one month 

 or more, thereby saving at least one-tweltth, or 

 more, of the Avhole labor bestowed tliroughout the 

 State, in the single business of fencing, if the law 

 on this subject were exactly the reverse of what 

 it is. Compel each person so to take care of his 

 own stock as to prevent their injuring his neigh- 

 bors' property, and not a cultivator of land in our 

 whole conmiunity, wliether he be proprietor or 

 mere tenant, but would be thoroughly cominced 

 in less than a year, of the immense advantages 

 of the change.' Indeed, we know no reflecting 

 persons any where, with whom we have conversed 

 on this subject, vvdio do not admit the truth of the 

 foregoing arguments. 



Your Petitioners beg leave further to represent, 

 that the circumstances of the country when this 

 law was passed, having entirely changed, the law 

 itself cannot now be justified, if it ever could be, 

 even on the score of policy. We have no longer 

 (at least in the tide-water part of our State) ex - 

 tensive tracts of uncultivated, unenclosed lands 



