FARMERS' REGISTER— ENCLOSURES. 



397 



The injustice of this reversed rule would be 

 readily admitted by any one who considered the 

 question abstracted from the circumstances from 

 which our policy sprang, or who was not in some 

 degree blinded by being accustomed and reconciled 

 to the practical operation of this policy. But I am 

 no advocate for aiming at theoretical perfection in 

 government, or consulting arithmetic and geome- 

 try, rather than the actual condition of men, to 

 make rules for their direction. I freely admit that 

 at a former time, circumstances in Virginia re- 

 quired the general adoption of this policy — and 

 that it is still expedient over a large portion of her 

 territory. But in another large portion of the state, 

 from change of circumstances, this policy has be- 

 come as injurious in its practical operation, as it is 

 unjust in theory. 



VVhen our country was newly settled, the ex- 

 tent of cultivated land was very small, compared 

 to the forests and wasteland, much of which, even 

 in that state, was valuable for pasturage ; and it was 

 by far cheaper to fence the few and small spots of 

 arable, than their extensive woodland pastures, or 

 range for stock, and the range was much too valua- 

 ble to be abandoned. It was beneficial to every 

 landholder that such should be the general plan of 

 enclosures, although the open land thereby became 

 one large common pasture, for the use of him who 

 owned but little, or none of it, as much as for 

 those who owned the largest shares. According to 

 these views our legal policy with respect to enclo- 

 sures was fixed — and from it all derived at first 

 some benefit, though certainly the benefits were 

 very unequally divided. The law, stated general- 

 ly, requires that each owner of a field shall surround 

 it with a good fence, of a certain height, or shall 

 have no remedy against the intrusion of his neigh- 

 bors' live stock. 



But now, the state of things in much the greater 

 part of Eastern Virginia is altogether changed. 

 All the fertile land lias long been cleared and made 

 arable, and much more of^ such as is extremely 

 poor, is also under tillage. In districts where the 

 soil is, or has been, of good quality, very little tim- 

 ber for fencing remains, and, consequently, the ex- 

 pense of fencing is increased greatly more than in 

 proportion to the increased extent of enclosures. 

 The remaining woodland is poor, and so worthless 

 for pasturage or range for stock of any kind, that 

 many of its owners make no use of their un- 

 enclosed woodland for that purpose. But this aban- 

 doning the use of their woodland (which in fact is 

 not worth using by any one,) does not relieve the 

 owner of the expense of fencing his arable land — 

 and this is required merely that other persons may 

 not be deprived of the use of his woodland for 

 range, which he does not consider worth using as 

 such. 



The great extent of fencing required bears es- 

 pecially hard on the tidewater region. There, on 

 and near good lands, the original growth of dura- 

 ble pine and good oak has all been destroyed — and 

 a choice has been already, or soon will be present- 

 ed to every farmer, either to purchase suitable 

 fencing timber at a distance, or to use the old field 

 pines which form the second growth of his worn 

 fields, and which are not more remarkable for their 

 rapid growth, than for their rapidity in rotting, 

 when used for fencing timber. There are no du- 

 rable materials for dead fences, and the frequent di- 

 visions of lands, as well as the laws permitting 



stock of every kind to range at large, forbid, or 

 discourage the attempt to make live hedges. — 

 There are many farms which have five miles of 

 perishable fences to keep in repair, that do not 

 yield $500 of clear profit ; and many other tracts 

 are thrown out of cultivation, and yield nothing to 

 their owners, (who in most cases are the especial 

 favorites of our laws — widows or orphans) — be- 

 cause the expense of lawful fencing would exceed 

 the whole rent. 



Under this system and these circumstances, far- 

 mers wlio make suitable enclosed pastures for their 

 own live stock, (as every one ought to do for his 

 own interest,) are burdened with the expense of 

 two kinds of fencing, for two different objects. 

 His own interest requires that he should make 

 an enclosure to keep his own cattle in, and the 

 law compels him to fence his cultivated lands, to 

 keep the cattle of other people out. 



It is impossible to estimate with any approach 

 to accuracy the enormous loss caused to the far- 

 mers of Eastern Virginia, by this unjust policy. 

 But if each person will calculate the amount of his 

 own individual loss, it will be sufficiently evi- 

 dent that the whole annual amount is enormous. 



It is admitted that the evil of this policy is not 

 so felt by all who bear even its heaviest burdens. 

 There are many, who because they have never 

 known any different state of things, can scarcely 

 conceive the advantage of making every man re- 

 strain his own cattle within his own bounds. 

 Therefore, even if the legislature was impressed 

 with the opinions I have advocated, it would be im- 

 proper to make any general or sudden change in 

 our system. Most of the benefits of a change 

 might be secured, and the objections avoided, by 

 partial changes of this law of enclosures, for such 

 particular districts as would accept the offer by the 

 voices of three fourths of their proprietors, and 

 they owning not less than three fourths of the land 

 within the boundaries of each district. If such a 

 privilege was accepted by the owners of a district 

 of five miles square, for example, they would still 

 be bound to maintain at their joint expense a gene- 

 ral enclosure in obedience to the general law, and 

 to exclude the cattle of all persons residing with-^ 

 out their limits. But the expense of such gene- 

 ral enclosing fence would be very inconsiderable, 

 and would be diminished to each individual in pro- 

 portion to its greater extent. Such a plan would 

 secure to every considerabletract of country either 

 kind of policy that its inhabitants were decidedly 

 in favor of — and would be free from every reasoij^ 

 able objection. If the people of any one neighbor- 

 hood were permitted to adopt the change proposed, 

 under proper restrictions, all the risk and loss of 

 the trial would be confined to them, and if it suc- 

 ceeded, the whole community would participate in 

 the benefit. 



If our legal policy in this respect was altogether 

 changed, there are many farmers who would still 

 refuse to profit by the boon : and from their fond- 

 ness for close grazing their fields by as many cat- 

 tle as can be kept alive through the year, would 

 keep up their present amount of fencing, though 

 their fields would be no longer liable to the depre- 

 dations of any cattle but their own. But most 

 persons would soon learn the benefit of pursuing a 

 different course. Each farmer having to mam- 

 tain his own cattle, would keep a smaller number, 

 and confine them generally to -a permanent pastui-e 



