1836.] 



FARMERS' REGISTER. 



667 



er's children, as a measure of state, but only as it 

 nfTects the interests of agriculture. If the estab- 

 lishment of this policy was necessary to secure 

 our li-eeilom and political riirhts, then was that ob- 

 ject wisely purciia^ed by almost "any sacrifice of 

 pecuniary interest. But [ conless that I view this 

 •dread of the ascendancy of the "landed aristocra- 

 cy," as allojrelhcr untbunded — as the tear of a 

 shadow, of which the substantial cause had never 

 reached this country, and which was then almost 

 expiring even in England. We have now leit 

 but lew specimens of the nearly extinct ''land- 

 ed aristocracy" of Virginia, which serve to show 

 how powerless men may be, although possessed of 

 5 or 10,000 acres of land. Tliese gentlemen, on the 

 average, are neither more nor less estimable than 

 their poorer neighbors of equal intelliirence : yet 

 so completely -are they dislranchised by their 

 Avealth, that I doubt whether any one of them 

 could exert as much electioneering influence as 

 some constable of the same county, or could suc- 

 cessfully compete for public office with any re- 

 spectable deputy sheriff. 



If government did not interfere with the accu- 

 mulation and tHstribution of land, and array our 

 prejudices and feelings in support of its policy, the 

 ma'ter might safely be left to be decided by men's 

 sense of self-interest. But government itselfj has 

 has been the great disturber of our landmarks — 

 and in Virginia, the means that are acting to pro- 

 duce this efl(3ct, and all the incalculable conse- 

 quent losses, is the total repeal of the statute of en- 

 tails, and the substituted legal [)olic)'' of equal 

 distribution of land among the heirs of intestates. 



The [)roprietor of every farm, whatever may be 

 its size, throughout his whole occupancy is di- 

 recting his labor and improvements to render his 

 land convenient and profitable according to irs 

 then boundaries and extent. He considers that 

 a certain portion of it should be arable, and per- 

 haps he is for 40 years gradually clearing wo6d- 

 land to attain that object — and this arable land will 

 most probably be in one compact body, and on one 

 side of the farm, because such is usually the most 

 convenient plan. Another portion of suitable size 

 is left in wood, to supply fuel, and timber for fen- 

 cing. The dwelling house is suited to the degree 

 ol wealth and the wants of the family of the far- 

 mer — and his farm-houses, to the amount of his 

 crops and live stock. All these arrangements we 

 will suppose completed, when the ownerdies intes- 

 tate, and the law divides his well arranged farm 

 among five or six children. The comnassioners 

 appointed to make the division, may use the ut- 

 most care to guard the interests of all the heirs, 

 and yet, (if there are minors among them,) they 

 will scarcely avoid a loss of property equal to one- 

 fourth of all the land. All the buildings being 

 contiguous, they will seldom fail to fall within a 

 sinirle share : and though buildings in such cases 

 are never valued at half their worth, (on account 

 of their new owner's situation,) still even at that 

 low estimate, that share receives so much in 

 Imildings, that it must have but little in land. 

 The new owner will possess houses numerous and 

 extensive enough fgr a farm of 600 acres, while 

 his whole possession amounts to 40, without tim- 

 ber or fuel, and which cannot rent for enough to 

 keep his houses in repair. Of course they go to 

 decay, and the greater part of their value is an en- 

 tire loss to the owner, and to the country. 



The next share, or perhaps two of them, may 

 include part arable and part woodland. The 

 owner of such a share may be deemed Ibrlunate, 

 as it may be kept and cultivated as a fiirm, though 

 under great disadvantage, as soon as the owner 

 shall have erected suitable huildings, and made 

 new fences. 'I his expense, however, is another 

 total loss or diminution of the value of the proper- 

 ty, caused solely by the previous division. 



Another share may probably be altogether of 

 cleared land, without any materials for fencing or 

 fuel — and the remaining ones altogether of wood- 

 land, which the owners' whole lives would not en- 

 able them to clear, and put into order as distinct 

 farms. Neither of these shares would be worth 

 even half their former value to the new owners. 



Divisions producing losses of" this kind are of 

 ever}- day occurrence, though under every variety 

 of circumstances. Fewer lieirs, or a different situ- 

 ation of" the farm, may diminish the loss — more 

 heirs, or a widow's dower right, may greatly in- 

 crease it. But it is scarcely possible for any culti- 

 vated farm, (not of too great extent before,) to be 

 divided into even as i^cw as two shares, merely 

 because it has two owners, wiihout a considerable 

 and permanent loss being incurred — and a public 

 as well as a private sacrifice of property made. 



But, it may be objected, that these heirs may 

 sell their shares of land, and thus avoid the losses 

 that would follow the retaining the property. It 

 is true that they may sell, and the necessity of the 

 case often compels a sale of the separate shares — 

 but at what a sacrifice! If any of the heirs are 

 minors, or if the widow lives and holds her dower 

 right, no agreement can possibly be made for a 

 general sale of the whole farm, which is the only 

 way in which its former value can be preserved. 

 In most cases, the sales are necessarily made sep- 

 arately, and for no greater sum than each share 

 is worth to the particular heir, holding ii alone. 

 Nor can it be worth much more 'o the buyer, who 

 is usually some neighboring farmer, whose other 

 land only enables him to draw some income from 

 a possession which was almost worthless to the 

 unfortunate heir. He who is adding to his pos- 

 sessions by purchasing from time to time the inher- 

 itances of others, is also subject to great inconve- 

 nience- and loss, in thus making a large farm by a 

 patchwork of smaller pieces. To suit his new 

 purchases to his own general plan, he has to clear 

 woodland in one place, and let arable go waste in 

 another — to pull down, or leave to rot, a building 

 in one remote corner, while he is obliged to erect 

 others in more convenient situations. \\\ in such 

 cases the purchaser really gained all the value 

 which the seller lost in his land, the public wealth 

 would not be a whit diminished : but in truth, the 

 difference in value, caused by dividing a farnij is 

 totally lost to both buyer and seller — to the indivi- 

 duals concerned, and to the nation at large. The 

 purchaser may afierwards so improve his newly 

 acquired land as to make it worth more than be- 

 fijre it was taken from the original farm : but if so, 

 this new value will be entirely the fruit of his 

 own industry and capital, and does not restore the 

 former loss by division, which is gone forever. 



Huch divisions of farms must be expected to 

 take place almost as often as the death of their 

 owners occur; and each division probably causes 

 an average irretrievable loss of value of 20 per 

 cent, on each farm. The more that farms are re- 



