514 



THE FARMERS' REGISTER. 



Under this eyslcm and these circumstances, 

 farmers who make suitable enclosed pastures lor 

 their own live stock, (as every one ought lo do for 

 his own interest,) are burdened with the expense 

 of two kinds of (fencing, lor two diffijrent ohjecis. 

 His own interest requires ihat he slioald muke an 

 enclosure to keep hit; own cattle iji, and the lavv 

 compels him to lence his cultivated lands, to keep 

 tlie cattle oC other people out. 



It is ialpo3^5ible lo estimate with any approach 

 to accuracy the heavy loss cauet^d to the larm- 

 ers ol eastern Virginia, by this unjust policy. But 

 if each person will calculat'3 the amount of his 

 own individual lo.^s, it will be sufficiently evident 

 that the whole annual amount is enormous. 



It is admitted that the evil of this policy is not 

 so rated by all who bear even its heaviest burdens. 

 There are mariy, who because they have never 

 known any difitstent state of things, can scarcely 

 conceive the ;idvaniage of making every man re- 

 etrain his own cattle within his own bounds. 

 Therelbro, eyen i^f the legislature were impressed 

 with the ufiiiiions here advocated, it woufii be im- 

 proper to niiike any general or sudden chnnge in 

 our system. JMosi of the benefits of a change 

 might be secured, and the objections avoided, by 

 partial changes of the law of enclosures, (or such 

 particular districts as would accept the offer by the 

 voices of three-fjurlhs of their proprietors, and 

 they owning not less iliinthree-lburths of the land 

 within the Boundaries of each district. If such a 

 privilege was accepted by the owners of a district 

 of five miles square, for example, they would still 

 be bound toaiamtain at their joint expense a gene- 

 ral enclosure in obedience to the general lavv, and 

 to t'Xclude tlie cattle of all persons residing with- 

 out their limits. But the expense of such gene- 

 ral enclosing tence would be very inconsiderable, 

 and would be diujinished to each individual in pro- 

 portion lo its greater extent. Such apian would 

 secure to every considerable tract of country either 

 kind of policy that its inhabitants were decidedly 

 in (avor of— and would be free from every reason- 

 able objection. If the people of any one neighbor- 

 hood were permitted to adopt the change pro- 

 posed, under projier restrictions, all the risk and 

 loss of the trial vvoidd be confined to them, and if 

 it succeeded, the whole community would partici- 

 pate in the benefit. 



If our legal policy in this respect w"s altogether 

 changed, there are many larmers who would still 

 refuse to profit by the boon ; and, from their fond- 

 ness for close grazing their fields by as many cat- 

 tle as can be iiept alive through the year, would 

 keep up their present amount of ftjncing, though 

 their fields would be no longer liable to the depre- 

 dations of any cattle but their own. But most 

 persons would soon learn the benefit of pursuing a 

 different course. Hiach farmer having to main- 

 tain his own cattle, would keep a smaller number, 

 and confine them generally to a permanent pasnire 

 well enclosed : and by being necessarily reduced to 

 one-lbnrth of their present numbers, and treated as 

 well as the change of system would permit, the 

 live stock would yield more products of every 

 kind than at present. The lands kept (or tillage, 

 thrice as extensive as the enclosed pastures, if too 

 poor to be grazed, might be safely left without a 

 ience, until their improvement in after time may 

 make enclosures necessary for the owner's inte- 

 rest. There can be no doubt, if permitted lo get 



rid of the burden of making and repairing three 

 fourths of our costly and perishable fences, that 

 the change would be almost necessarily followed 

 by greatly improved products from both live stock 

 and tillage, as w-^ll as increased feriility to the 

 whole country exempted from the Ubual impo- 

 verishing and unprofitable grazing of poor fielda 

 by poor cattle. 



It is utterly impossible to approach an estimate 

 of the aimual cost and dead loss to agriculture 

 caused by the construction and repairs of the pro- 

 portion of fences which are totally useless to the 

 owners' interests, and required by nothing but the 

 penalties ol the law of enclosures. If such an 

 estimate couid be correctly made, the amount ex- 

 hibited would di5f)l ly a degree of voluntary sacri- 

 fice of wealth by the agricultural interest, without 

 even any projoortjonal giin to other interests, 

 which would astonish both the imposers and suf- 

 ferers of the burden. But, without pretending to 

 any thing like accurate valuation, it can scarcely 

 be doubted that in the eastern part of Virginia, 

 the coot of useless fences to each farmer, on the 

 general average, ia fully twice as much as the 

 amount of all the- taxes he pays directly to the 

 treH.?ury of the commonwealth. 



Bjl if the change of the law of enclosures, to 

 the extent requited by justice and by the interests 

 of agriculture, be hopeless — even to be introduced 

 slo.vly and gr, (dually aad cautiously as proposed 

 above, and only when, and to such extent as de- 

 manded by the mijoriiy of proprietors and for the 

 greater siiare of itie land of each particular dis- 

 irii:t— -still ihere is a partial but important allevia- 

 tion of the burden oi the present law, which 

 might be permitted at once, and with scarcely any 

 serioi!s inconvenience lo any interest or individual, 

 even among those now unjustly favored by the law. 

 This improvement would be made in merely re- 

 straining hogs from ranging at large ; or to deprive 

 that kind of stock alone of the protection (or free- 

 dom of trespassing) afforded by the general lavv. 

 Il that change only were made, it would lessen 

 the whole cost ol ft?ncing by one halK A good 

 "po»t and rail" fence, of three rails in height, on 

 a ditch or bank, would be an abundant protection 

 against cattle ; and if thai kind of fence would 

 serve, the best and most durable fencing timber 

 could be used, and such fences would be cheaper 

 than the worst now made. But the legal requisi- 

 tion now existing lor excluding hogs, (and even 

 those of' the smallest size,) :brbiJs such improve- 

 ment and economy in fencing, and makes neces- 

 sary the close-laid rails, and 12 or 13 to each 

 pannel, of the ordinary perishable worm fences.* 



* An enterprising and intelligent New Jersey man, 

 when on a first visit to Virf^inia, was induced by the 

 very low price to buy a large farm in one of the lower 

 countips, which he has since cultivated judiciously and 

 profitnfjly. He was not acquainted with, and had not 

 thought of the provisions of the fence law of this 

 state, until he found himself subjected to the burden. 

 He afterwards declared that he would cheerfully pay 

 as much more as the actual purchase money of his es- 

 tate, if by so doing he could obtain for it the partial be- 

 nefit of the New Jersey fence law, which differs from 

 ours only in forbidding hogs to run at large. His esti- 

 mate of what he lost by the difference was probably not 



