1835.] 



FARMERS' REGISTER. 



49 



with the subject a palpable preference of tillage to 

 pasturage. 



But there is another circumstance which goes 

 most forcibly to strengthen this conclusion. Wher- 

 ever lands are cheap, and agricultural pro- 

 ducts high, the people are disposed from principles 

 of obvious economy to apply their labor almost 

 exclusively to tillage. The enormous sums which 

 the planters once received for their tobacco crops 

 did for a time justify the neglect of every other 

 subject of husbandry. It was indeed ripping up 

 the goose for the golden eggs, but it was with a 

 success the reverse of that which happened to the 

 man in the table. We may mourn as much as 

 we please over our impoverished inheritance, but 

 had our ancestors been so prudent as to have 

 saved even a tithe of what they made by this 

 land destroying system, we should have little 

 cause to shed tears over their steril fields. In con- 

 nection with this subject, we will advert to a capi- 

 tal mistake into which they very generally Fell. 

 The majority of people in every country either 

 live up to their incomes, or beyond them. But 

 the Virginia planter who consumed annually the 

 proceeds of his crop had the misfortune to mis- 

 take a part of his capital for his legitimate income. 

 But to such however, there were innumerable ex- 

 ceptions. Wherever the planter was actuated by 

 prudent foresight, orlove of money, his descendants 

 have had no occasion to complain of barren fields 

 or empty coffers. Indeed the wealthiest planters 

 have invariably been those who have sacrificed 

 every thing for tobacco, and left ruin and desola- 

 tion in their rear. 



It is true that the author speaks of the prefer- 

 ence of grazing to tillage as a legal one. But he 

 leaves us altogether in the dark whether he con- 

 siders it as the joint voice of the people expressed 

 through their representatives — or whether like the 

 "Mesta" of Spain it has been the result of a spirit 

 of monopoly and arbitrary legislation. The exam- 

 ples however with which he has thought proper 

 to illustrate the subject, leave us to infer that he 

 looks upon the law of enclosures in the light of 

 the arbitrary edicts of a Spanish monarch. 



In Great Britain and Spain as well as in all 

 other European countries, the people are found di- 

 vided into a great many powerful interests. And 

 according as one or the other of these interests ac- 

 quire the ascendancy in the national councils, the 

 opposite one must suffer the effects of a selfish 

 policy. But in Virginia we know no such distinc- 

 tions. We combine in one character that of far- 

 mer, grazier, planter and manufacturer. And 

 how the legislature could separate the grazing in- 

 terest from the planting, we are unable to discover. 

 The members of the Virginia legislature are cho- 

 sen almost entirely by the agricultural interest. It 

 is not reasonable to suppose that a body so con- 

 stituted would have persisted in a system of local 

 policy which daily experience proved to be inade- 

 quate to the object proposed. 



Nor can the law of enclosures be regarded as 

 an attempt on the part of the legislature to direct 

 a portion of the labor of the state into a channel 

 which would obviate the necessity of importing 

 live stock — because this law had its origin at ape- 

 riod many years anterior to the establishment of 

 the western states, to whom we now look for sup- 

 plies of this article of consumption. 



Vol. Ill — 7 



FENCE3I0RE. 



REMARKS. 



It is not the usage of this journal to bring forward 

 in appended comments, editorial opinions, in opposi- 

 tion to any of different character maintained by cor- 

 respondents — and though a more frequent resort to 

 such comments has been more than once called for, it 

 is still deemed most proper to leave every contributor 

 free to speak, and every reader to judge for himself, of 

 the various opinions and questionable points discussed. 

 Whenever we have expressed objections to particular 

 opinions, we hope that there appeared good cause for 

 the exception, and that there was nothing in the re- 

 marks either disrespectful, or annoying to the particu- 

 lar correspondent. The adoption of a different course 

 (although sanctioned by very general usage) gives an 

 advantage to an editor, in controversy, to which he 

 has no just claim: and still greater is this advantage 

 made, when (as is also very common) a correspondent's 

 argument is answered, or opposed, in preliminary edi- 

 torial remarks. 



Under the guidance of these general views, we 

 should have submitted to the public the foregoing 

 communication, without any accompaniment of our op- 

 posite opinions, and should have been the more inclined 

 to pay that silent respect in this case, not only be- 

 cause the author well deserves respect, but also, be- 

 cause it is the first argument offered here in support of 

 his side of the question, and therefore he is especially 

 entitled to a clear field and "fair play." But as the 

 writer has directed his strictures particularly to an ed- 

 itorial article, proper respect for him requires that we 

 should depart from our usual course. Still it is not in- 

 tended to discuss the general question. 



There would be but little difference between our 

 opinions as to the propriety of preserving the general 

 principle of the law of enclosures in every such region 

 as our correspondent describes, and which agrees very 

 nearly with the general condition of Virginia in early 

 times. No opponent of the law has objected to its 

 early operation, nor to its continuance for any length 

 of time that the same general state of things may 

 continue in existence. The admission of the former 

 good policy of the law was distinctly stated in one of 

 the earliest arguments on this subject in Vol. I. p. 396, 

 signed "Suum Cuique," and such we presume are the 

 views of all. This removes all ground of controver- 

 sy as to any region just emerging from the forest state; 

 and therefore no farther observations on this head are 

 needed. 



But even for the cleared and impoverished portions 

 of Virginia, (embracing, with some exceptions, most 

 of the middle and low country,) our correspondent 

 thinks the change of principle in the law would be 

 improper, and that even if made, more fencing would 

 be required by good stock husbandry than is now 

 maintained. This part of the question we are in no 

 manner required to discuss — and therefore shall pass 

 it by, except to notice one or two mistakes, or omis- 

 sions, which serve as part of the grounds from which 

 our correspondent's conclusions arc deduced. 



It is readily admitted that a very high state of cul- 

 ture combined with grazing, and on very rich lands, 



