402 



FARMERS' REGISTER— ON THE PETITION ON ENCLOSURES. 



ON TMK I'KTITION FOR, A CHANGE OF THE LAW 

 OF ENCLOSURKS. 



If llie question of the good or bad policy of our 

 present law of enclosures was considered fairly, either 

 as a matter of right and justice — of public interest — or 

 of private interest to riineteen-twentieths of all the in- 

 dividual cultivators of the soil of Eastern Virginia — 

 there would be no doubt of the condemnation of the 

 law, on either, or all of these scores, by any intelli- 

 gent tribunal, having in consideration the circum- 

 stances and well-being of all. But, unfortunately, al- 

 most every question aifecting public and general inte- 

 i-ests, is discussed upon false or improper grounds; and" 

 it is easy to foresee what will be the grounds assumed 

 to oppose this beneficial change. It will be said by 

 tliosc v>-ho, for their own aggrandizement or profit, are 

 ever attempting to delude the poor and ignorant by 

 professing to be their exclusive friends and defenders, 

 that this change is for the benefit of the rich, and can- 

 not be made but by sacrificing the rights and interests 

 of the poor. But the slightest consideration will show 

 that the benefit to be derived by land occupiers (other 

 circumstances being alike) v/ill be the greater in pro- 

 portion to the small extent of their possessions — as 

 every one knows that the smaller the fields are, the 

 greater extent of fencing is required to enclose them, 

 in proportion to their size. Hundreds, perhaps thou- 

 sands of small tracts of land in Lower Virginia, are 

 left untiiled, waste, and unproductive, because the 

 whole rent or net product, would not pay for the ex- 

 pense of fencing — whether witii our perishable "old 

 field pine" timber, or wdth more durable and more cost- 

 ly materials. Of course, such land yielding nothing 

 to the owners, is worth nothing for them to hold: but 

 may be sold for a low price to some adjoining large 

 landholder, who can afford to bring the land into part 

 of a much larger enclosure. If he had not this advan- 

 tao-e, he could not afford to give any thing for the land, 

 for the same reason that the first owner could obtain 

 nothing by its cultivation: but his owning a large body 

 of land enables him to buy of his poor neighbor at $2 

 per acre, what will be to the purchaser worth perhaps 

 $-i or more, and which to the seller was worth nothing. 

 Such eifects of our fence law are numerous and noto- 

 rious. Indeed, if wealthy men and large landholders 

 wished to buy up the small tracts of their neighbors' 

 at the lowest price — and if they were so short-sighted 

 as to expect to prosper by the general loss and distress 

 of the community — they ought to sustain the present 

 law of enclosures, as the sure means for reaching their 

 object. 



But perhaps it is still a poorer class for whose inte- 

 rests the "friends of the poor" will uphold the present 

 law — those who own no land, and who by the present 

 law enjoy the privilege of keeping stock on the unen- 

 closed lands of others. Those who will venture to use 

 this argument ought not to be ashamed to demand that 

 no laws should protect our corn and meat houses, lest 

 the poor should suffer for want of food. But should it 

 be required to oppose this miserable petty larceny 

 ground of argument, (it deserves no better name,) it 

 would be better to buy up this existing privilege, at 

 double its full value. The privilege of grazing the un- 



enclosed lands of other persons in Eastern Virginia, is 

 worth scarcely any thing to the few who use it, and 

 costs at least an hundred times as much to those who 

 suffer tlie grievance. . All the stock raised by grazing 

 at largo, and the profits of every kind, just and unjust, 

 derived from the existence of the law of enclosures, 

 would not i^ay one-tenth part of its cost to the commu- 

 nity. The change asked for, which is simply that 

 each man shall secure his own stock, would serve to 

 add one-fourth to the average net profits of cultivation 

 throughout Lower Virginia. If the greater compara- 

 tive extent of forest, and other land unfit for tillage, 

 west of the Blue Ridge, makes a change there inex- 

 pedie.it, there is no reason why the existing law should 

 not remain in operation there, as long as those circum- 

 stances may continue. It is unnecessaiy here to re- 

 peat the arguments for the change of this law, which 

 have already been presented in several articles, to our 

 readers. We have aimed to confine our remarks to 

 those points, which, as being of minor importance, 

 have been passed over, or but sliglitly touched by 

 others. 



The foregoing remarks were written for the 5th No. 

 and were at first intended to accompany the petition 

 for a change of the law of enclosures: but were kept 

 back as not required, and because it was useless to an- 

 ticip.ate objections which had not then been made. No 

 considerable objections were to be expected, so long as 

 the discussion was confined to men of intelligence, and 

 to all those who 7-ead, and are thereby entitled to judge 

 for themselves. The objections that might proceed 

 from such persons (for none have yet appeared in 

 print,) would be founded on reason and justice, and 

 would be such as they w'ho uttered them would have 

 no cause to be ashamed of. There wall always be 

 some strong objections to a thorough change of any 

 lo!ig established and widely operating tpolicy — and the 

 advocates for this, cannot claim the existence of the 

 fence law to be a case of unmixed evil. Objections of 

 this kind, whenever they may be presented, should be 

 met witli respect, and opposed as proceeding from 

 friends who have in view the same general object, the 

 preservation and promotion of the interests of agricul- 

 ture. But since our publication of the petition to the 

 legislature on this subject, the cause has been trans- 

 ferred to a very different tribunal — to court yards and 

 places for waiTant trials, where fifth rate demagogues, 

 who read nothing that serves to increase their glim- 

 mering lights, can influence the opinions of those who 

 do not read any thing. Judging from the verbal re- 

 ports that have reached our secluded dwelling place, 

 the pitiful ground of argument, which was anticipated 

 above, is mainly relied on by these self-constituted 

 and noisy guardians of the interests of the people. 

 They take precisely the position that we expected before 

 they had even heard of the question. The ground of 

 objection and the manner of its being urged, are simi- 

 lar to all other attempts to array t'.ie poor against the 

 rich, which have at all times proceeded from those 

 men, who were striving to build up their own dirty 

 interests, by deluding and defrauding both poor and 

 rich. There are few men, capable of exerting the 

 smallest political influence, who are so foolish as to 

 believe that even the poor can be benefited by mea- 



