1S35.] 



FARMERS' REGISTER. 



457 



domestic uses. Even with this difference in the 

 circumstances of the two cases, this system we 

 recommend as best for Virginia,is adopted, on ac- 

 count of its greater cheapness, by some of the very 

 best northern farmers. Th s system must com- 

 bine judicious grazing, in which stock become, in 

 part, their own caterers. What becomes of the 

 hundreds of bushels of small grain unavoidably 

 left upon the. harvest fields? Of the aftermath of 

 the meadows. 2 Of grazing Jots at those periods 

 when they cannot be mowed, and when they re- 

 ceive little or no injury from the hoof? Yet these 

 are some few of the advantages (o be wilfully re- 

 linquished for a system of management yet. un- 

 tried, and every way more expensive and labo- 

 rious than the one. proposed. "Fenceless" tells 

 us that he fed Ins ox in an old barn from the 1st of 

 December until the March following — but. does 

 not inform us what becomes of him after this pe- 

 riod. We conclude, however, in the absence of 

 better proof, thai he was introduced to the salting 

 tub. The experiment of the cows is remarkable 

 for the same omission — and we are left equally in 

 the dark whether he made beef of them, or turn- 

 ed them to grass. The inference is fair, however, 

 that, he adopted the latter alternative. The third 

 experiment of the ten shoats is changed to the 

 summer months, for reasons sufficiently explained 

 by the clover hay and the morceau of corn. These 

 experiments would be very stubborn indeed, but for 

 the omissions of a few very important, months. 

 "Hiatus maxima deflendus." Now we ourselves 

 once made an experiment of this sort upon sever- 

 al dozen shoats, commenced very honestly the 

 last of October, and continued until we were 

 threatened with fanvne. They were then turned 

 out with the solemn injunction to root or die. We 

 should have been obli ;ed to "Fence less" if he 

 had extended his experiments to his entire stock 

 for one whole year, and had then presented us 

 with the results — the state of the corn crib, &c. 

 These, he must admit arc indispensable consid- 

 erations in settling a matter of so much impor- 

 tance to the interests of agriculture, it is indeed 

 to be lamented, that those who oppose the policy 

 of the law of enclosures, have, failed to point out 

 exactly the method of management they propose 

 to substitute in its stead. The injustice of the 

 law is constantly deprecated: yet the planter or 

 farmer is left at a loss to know what is to become 

 of his stoclc. It is true we are favored with an 

 occasional experiment or so — but even when fairly 

 carried out for the whole year, they are unsatisfac- 

 tory and inconclusive, because confined to too 

 small a portion of the stock necessary for domestic 

 uses. 



As we have been particularly referred lo a writer 

 who signs himself "Suum Caique," as proper au- 

 thority on this subject, we will take the liberty of 

 adverting, lor a moment, to the plan he proposes 

 to substitute in the place of the system imposed 

 upon us by the law of enclosures. 



"Each farmer having to maintain his own cattle 

 would keep a smaller number, and confine them 

 generally to a permanent pasture, well enclosed: 

 and being necessarily reduced to one-fourth of 

 their prese nt numbers, and treated as well as the 

 change of the system would permit, the live-stock 

 would yield more products of every kind (except 

 hides perhaps) than at present. The lands kept 

 for tillage, thrice as extensive as the enclosed pas 



Vol. 111-58 



lures, if too poor to be grazed might be safely left 

 without, a fence, until their improvement in alter 

 time may make enclosures necessary for the own- 

 ers 1 interest.' 1 (Farm. Reg. Vol. I. p. 398.) Ad- 

 mitting that the fourth part, of a farmer's stock 

 would yield more products than the whole, under 

 existing circumstances, (which by the by we 

 don't believe) yet he is still left without the as- 

 surance that these diminished numbers will afford 

 a competent supply. It is unquestionably the true 

 policy of the people of Virginia to relieve them- 

 selves from the heavy tax they are compelled to 

 pay annually for western meat. No plan of reform 

 is worthy of a moment's consideration which does 

 not profess to meet the whole, difficulty. When 

 the defect is radical it must be encountered with a 

 remedy which goes to the very root of the disease. 

 The proposed plan of reform, if not avowedly par- 

 tial, leaves the subject in doubt and uncertainty, 

 even if we are sure of the anticipated results. 

 But so far from gaining any thing by the plan of 

 "Sawn Cuique" we are firmly persuaded we 

 should be losers by it. Let us see. One-third of 

 the arable land of the country is enclosed for stand- 

 ing pasture — the remainder is appropriated to til- 

 lage. It would be difficult to state the exact 

 amount of stock necessary for the use of any par- 

 ticular estate. Cut we can venture to affirm, that 

 the live-stock necessary for the consumption of 

 Virginia estates generally, would leave the portion 

 devoted to standing pasture in a situation as desti- 

 tute of vegetation, as the ordinary unenclosed 

 commons of the country. If this be the case then, 

 the farmer is left in a worse situation than before. 

 He is deprived of one-third of his arable lands, for 

 an advantage which the naked commons afford 

 him, even it they are as destitute of vegetation as 

 the summit of the Alps. His stock must be grain 

 fed in both cases; but the proposed scheme de- 

 prives him of one-third of his means for feedrhg 

 them. The farmers and planters of Virginia are 

 sensible of this difficulty, and lor this reason are 

 but little disposed to favor the repeal of the law of 

 enclosures. It is true they are saved the expense 

 of fencing in two-thirds of their arable lands; 

 but, on the other hand, they know that they must 

 lose the profits of one-third of their estates, upon 

 the standing pasture system. The choice of the 

 two evils is too obvious to admit of a moment's 

 deliberation. We will add, moreover, that so far 

 from increasing the products of live-stock by di- 

 minishing their number, as "Suum Caique 1 '' af- 

 firms, the proposed scheme, by diminishing the 

 means of subsistence, would necessarily reduce 

 their numbers, without improving their value. 

 For instance, if an estate of 300 acres arable land 

 will support 39 hogs in a certain condition, one of 

 200 acres will keep only 20 in the same condition. 

 Here then we have a scheme if carried into 

 practice, would deprive the people of Virginia 

 of three-fourths of their stock and one-third of 

 their arable lands, and leave them in a situation 

 infinitely worse than before. 



With regard to the effect of the law of enclo- 

 sures upon the small farmers, the editor remarks, 

 "The law is perpetually operating to starve out, 

 deprive of their little freeholds, and to banish from 

 Virginia, the valuable class of small farmers, 

 whom it is averred, the system protects." That 

 the law of enclosures imposes a great deal of un- 

 ilc labor, under existing circumstances, we 



