668 



F A R r\I E R S ' REGISTER. 



[No. 9 



duced in size by this policy, the more heavy these 

 losses must become — lor large liirms can be divi- 

 ded at a much less sacrifice of value 'ban small 

 ones. It" we count the averajie loss li'oni such di- 

 visions at one fil'sh ol" the value of the land, and 

 suppose the average interval of 100 years belbre it 

 will be necessaril}^ repealed, (and this is moderate 

 enough.) it amounts to the utter destruction ef 

 one fifth of the value ot all our lands once in 100 

 years : aye — a destruction as complete and eifectu- 

 al as if one fifth of Kastern Virginia was swallow- 

 ed by an earthquake. Is not this enormous, con- 

 tinual, and increasing drain from our private and 

 public wealth, a cause sufficient of itself for the 

 inanili?st decline of our country ? 



Eesides the loss of capital which has been 

 caused by our patchwork policy — (this regular s^'g- 

 tem ol cutting up tarms, and then uniting the ill- 

 assorted fragiiients into o her farms, only to be cut 

 up also in their turn — ) there have been other con- 

 sequences, not less deplorable. 



The first is, that almost no im])rovement of the 

 soil has been made, nor can half as much be ex- 

 pected in future, as would take place under other 

 circumstances. Every farmer is either the owner 

 of an ill-cut slice of some former farm, or he has 

 made a large farm by patching together the de- 

 tached fragments of several others : and in either 

 case his main impovement. lor a large portion of 

 his liie, must necessarily consist in laboriously un- 

 doing the imtirov'ements which were as laborious- 

 ly made by his predecessors. 



Secondly — every costly mansion, and even most 

 good farm houses, become nearly useless after the 

 death of the first owner; and consequently we are 

 contriving to lower the scale of usefulness, as well 

 as of cost, of all buildings in the country. Arab 

 tenls are inded belter suited to our patchwork 

 land polic}', than subs'anlial houses of brick or 

 stone. Neither can we, with any expectation of 

 profit, resort to the use of live hedges, or other du- 

 rable andcostl}' fences, as they would soon be ren- 

 dered useless by the death of the owner, and by 

 the consequent new divitling lines rendering new 

 sites lor fences necessary. 



Thirdly — there have been very Cew farmers' 

 sons well educated, since this impoverishing sys- 

 tem has been in full operation — and the political 

 influence and dignity of Virginia have sunk with 

 the intellectual cultivation of the class thai, former- 

 ly upheld both. 



It is true that when the shares of land that 

 would be made by a division are so small and 

 worthless that it is impossible for a;iy one to draw 

 a support from their cultivation, the law jsermits a 

 general sale, provided that all the parties, and the 

 next friends of nfinors, will concur in certain legal 

 formalities, which seem to have been contrived lor 

 the benefit of lawyers, full as much as for that of 

 the heirs. The trouble and cost of this proceed- 

 ing amount to no small tax, and such cases scarce- 

 ly deserve mentioning as very partial exeejjtions 

 to the patchwork system. 



The law forbidding entails and destrojdng the 

 former right of primogeniture, certain!)- does not 

 compel equal divisions of land; as every mim may, 

 by his will, keep his liirm together, by giving it to 

 one only his children. But the law forbids his 

 continuing a like disposition of his land through 

 future successions, which alone would effect a f)er- 

 manent benefit ; and there is no inducement what- 



ever for a father to make such distinction between 

 children equally dear to him. The law has 

 stamped with reprobation all such unequal be- 

 ([uesis, though they are not absolutely forbidden : 

 and under present circumstances, a liither will best 

 satisly his children's expectations bydividing his 

 fiirm among them, though at a sacrifice of one-, 

 fifth of its value. It would be both unjust and 

 inexcusable, now, for a fiuher to give all his land 

 to one child, while to others were left legacies of 

 much less value. But if the settled law of the 

 land had so fixed the succession, there would have 

 been no unjustice comnntted, nor complained of. 

 The succession to property, iu any manner what- 

 ever, is the creature of social institutions — and it 

 ought to be so directed as will be most beneficial to 

 both private and national interests. The popular 

 arguments urged against the justice of entails, 

 might be as correctly applied to prove the injus- 

 tice of the rights to private property' altogether, 

 and of every institution of society, vvhich enables 

 one man to possess lands and moveable goods, 

 while his equally meritorious neighbor is destitute 

 of both. Yet every one wdio is above the grade 

 of a grog-shop orator knows that ihs iit^litutiun 

 of the right of property is of inestimable benefit 

 even to the most destitute class of every coun- 

 try. 



The extension of the entail syslem in Europe 

 has been a great public evil — anil has served to 

 obstruct the national welfare, as much as our to- 

 tally opposite polic;/ promises for ourselves. The 

 permanency of landed possessions, and the facili- 

 ty of dividing and alienating them, are both to be 

 commended so far as each course may produce 

 public benefit — and either should be opposed when 

 likely to cause injury to the commonwealth. An 

 entail system that could serve to prevent l)oth such 

 accumulations and divisions of land as were man- 

 ifestly unprofitable and injurious, and which would 

 not prevent such divisions and alienations of entire 

 farms, as the public interest might require, would 

 prove of the greatest benefit to agriculture. Such 

 a system would secure the object that I have en- 

 deavored to advocate, the permanency of the 

 boundaries and existing value of larms, both great 

 and small. The permanency of the succession in 

 a particular fiimily, is comparatively an unimpor- 

 tant consideration ; and only worth the stateman's 

 attention so fiir, as the expectation o! that conlin- 

 ed succession may prompt to greater individual ex- 

 ertion, and consequently, produce the greater ul- 

 timate benefit to the nation. 



The statesman is wretchedly short-sighted who 

 does not aim to direct the institutions of his coun- 

 try so as to receive support and strength from the 

 folly and vices, as well of fi-om the wisdom and 

 virtues of mankind. Wisdom will thus derive 

 support ibr the general welliire, from some of 

 man's basest propensities — while ignorance will 

 use his noblest qualities for the purpose of doing 

 harm. Every individual is more or less infiuenced 

 by avarice, or by a taste for prodigality ; and both 

 these evil dispositions may be exercised for the 

 public good, under the entail syslem. Is the 

 landholder a nigu'ardly miser? So much llie 

 more will he value the permanent nature of his 

 entailed land — and judging his posterity by liim- 

 self; he will not suppose it possible that (hey will 

 ever lose possession ot the property. His mo«t 

 secure hoard will be the surface of his fiirm : his 



J 



