458 



FARMERS' REGISTER. 



[No. 8 



never denied, and it doubtless accelerates the tide 

 of emigration, constantly carrying off so large a 

 portion of this class of our citizens. Bat the true 

 moving source of the evil, if an evil it be, exists 

 in the peculiar circumstances of the country, and 

 the same result would have happened though 

 protracted perhaps to a later period, independent 

 of any influence from the operation of the law of 

 enclosures. This cause is to be found in the cir- 

 cumstance, that wherever land is cheap and labor 

 dear, individual interest dictates the adoption ol 

 that hard and destructive system of cultivation 

 which so very generally prevails in all new coun- 

 tries, particularly where the products of agricul- 

 ture have borne enormous premiums. The first 

 victims of this self-imposed, but. land destroying 

 system, are the proprietors of ordinary lands. As 

 you advance in the grade of fertility, the tide of 

 emigration is slower — but the cause is still opera- 

 ting until you arrive at soils whose recuperative 

 energies defy the mostpernicious agricultural prac- 

 tices. Another assisting cause is to be found in 

 the law of desc°nts. This law is constantly re- 

 ducing estates to a size which forbids a fair remu- 

 neration for agricultural employment. This effect 

 is most sensibly felt in tracts of inferior fertility; 

 because soils of this description offer no induce- 

 ment for re-uniting these scattered and valueless 

 fragments. For this reason, the great proportion 

 of small farmers are found upon worn and exhaust- 

 ed lands. 13 ut wherever lands present a fair pros- 

 pect for remunerating labor, we find estates as- 

 suming a size in spite of these adverse circum- 

 stances, which fully justify schemes of profitable 

 husbandry. We refer, lor instance, to our allu- 

 vion lands and to those belts of extraordinary fer- 

 tile highland to be found in every part of the state. 

 These remarks are not made, to justify the policy 

 of the law of enclosures, but to show that our ag- 

 ricultural evils are mainly attributable to far other 

 causes than the one specified. The law itself is 

 a mere accessary, the necessary result of our pe- 

 culiar circumstances — and its repeal would have 

 the effect of hastening the very catastrophe 

 which is so much deprecated by its adversaries. 

 Under the influence of these considerations, we 

 cannot consent to the adoption of any legal mea- 

 sure which will add to the evils of a system which 

 is already dragging its disciples to a point, when 

 it must be finally abandoned. 



It is farther objected to the law, that it has a 

 tendency to "amalgamate the small freeholds, and 

 bring them under one fence and one owner." 



Whatever his correspondent may think on the 

 eubject, the editor will certainly agree with me, 

 that the circumstance complained of, is any thing 

 but an evil. As far as the small farmer is con- 

 cerned, he is a gainer by it; for he is exchanging 

 unprofitable for profitable labor. As far as agri- 

 culture is concerned, the larger the tract, in possession 

 ofa single individual in a poor and exhausted coun- 

 try, the better. The whole will then have a fairer 

 chance of feeling the beneficial effects of a milder 

 husbandry. Thus have the evils of our agricul- 

 tural system a tendency to correct themselves, 

 without the intervention of legal assistance, and 

 to bring about those very advantages, which in 

 England have been prod uced by a singular but very 

 fortunate combination of circumstances. 



PESCEMORE. 



[Though the foregoing argument is addressed prin- 

 cipally to the editor, we shall not trouble our readers 

 with a reply — which indeed, if attempted, would ne- 

 cessarily be drawn from the same materials that have 

 been already used in various parts of this journal. We 

 shah be content with remarking on a single passage 

 of the last paragraph, which shows, on the part of the 

 writer, a misapprehension of our views. 



Our correspondent is greatly mistaken in supposing 

 that we agree with him in considering an amalgama- 

 tion of small farms, forced in the manner stated, as 

 "any thing but an evil." Both large and small farms 

 have peculiar and important advantages, as well as dis- 

 advantages, and it is essential to the improvement and 

 profit of agriculture, and to the interest of the people, 

 that there should be farms of both classes — and of 

 every size, except such as are either too large or too 

 small to yield, under suitable and proper management, 

 fair profits. But the great evil is, the frequent change 

 of landmarks — the converting large farms to small, 

 and small to large — the very thing which our corres- 

 pondent welcomes as a boon bestowed by the operation 

 of the law of enclosures. "Fencemore" had just sta- 

 ted, (and very correctly,) that the tide of emigration 

 from Virginia is swelled by the law of descents, which 

 "is constantly reducing estates to a size which forbids 

 a fair remuneration for agrciuliural employment." 

 Then comes the alleged benefit of the law of enclo- 

 sures, which by making it impossible for the owners 

 to fence and till their little freeholds, compels them to 

 be sold, to be united in some newly formed and newly 

 arranged large farm. Both the changes are necessa- 

 rily attended with prodigious losses, to the land owners 

 and to the public — and the losses are such as can never 

 be repaired. The small shares of a farm, divided 

 among the heirs of the former owner, are necessarily 

 in most cases of much less value than when united. 

 The purchaser who unites various such shares of se- 

 veral ancient properties, certainly places them in a 

 better situation for profitable culture — but even this 

 object cannot be reached except by additional and 

 great waste of labor and of capital, which would have 

 been unnecessary but for the change of owners and of 

 landmarks. The life of one farmer is spent in fixing 

 an estate in the best form for one property — as a single 

 well managed farm. He dies, and all the loss is sus- 

 tained by his heirs and the country at large, which ne- 

 cessarily attends the cutting up of this large and well 

 arranged farm into four or five pieces, neither of which 

 is worth holding separately. One child is impover- 

 ished by having all the houses, and of course very lit- 

 tle land — all the others are houseless. One or more 

 have nothing but forest — others not a tree for fencing. 

 They may possibly spend another generation in strug- 

 gling under these evils, and in undoing all their father's 

 arrangements. But soon or late, (with that aid of the 

 law of enclosures which "Fencemore" considers in this 

 respect so beneficial,) these reduced properties are, one 

 after another, drawn into the adjacent large farms, and 

 again all the arrangements of the last owners are use- 

 less, and are lost to them in the price, to the purcha- 

 ser, and to the commonwealth. To continually do and 

 then undo, is the operation of our governmental land po- 

 licy — and whatever may be its benefits, they arc pur- 



