Science and Practice in Farm Cultivation

by James Buckman

1. Fences should not be kept up to a greater extent than is required.
2. A tenant-at-will should not be expected to plant or take charge of fences.
3. Evils of bad fences.

1. The curtailment and removal of fences is, as already shown, a matter of great moment, not only as providing more available land for cultivation, but as exposing a greater surface even of the cultivated portions of fields to the influence of light and air. But on any estate where this has been deemed advisable, we have usually seen that as the work has been, as it were, divided amongst the tenants, it has either been done without judgment, or, if performed well, yet by men of different views, as having different requirements, so that it has resulted in a patchy and anything rather than an uniform improvement.

We would advise that the landlord or his agent take charge of this matter, with a view to that uniform improvement which would affect the whole estate. In this case it would be to the interest of the proprietor to make the run of the fences as straight as possible, to plant quicks, to mend gaps, and properly to fence them with rails. Were this the case, we should hardly see gaps filled up with dead materials, only to widen them as time advances by killing more of the living wood, or, what is even worse, left as roadways to tempt the trespasser. In fine, as the estate would be improved by having perfect fences, and therefore would fetch a better rent, it would appear to be the landlord’s duty to see it attended to, and not to expect to charge a tenant for bad fences, and to insist upon his constantly mending them into the bargain, or it will naturally follow that they will seldom be up to a high standard of perfection.

2. A tenant-at-will, or even a leaseholder, should not be expected to plant new fences, or to cultivate those already planted, when it involves expenses from which he cannot reap the benefit. In the first place, it is not only the planting, but weeding and pruning—not merely slashing—that is required, all involving time, expense, and judgment, which no man would be justified in expending upon a precarious holding.

But take the case of a leaseholder for seven years. In our own parish, on the light oolite sands, is a quick-set hedge, which has been badly planted—now entering upon the fourth year since—upon the top of a thin mound of sandy soil, from four to five feet high. The quicks are not so good as when they were planted; it can never make a good hedge. Briars and brambles, and various shrubs common to oolite soils, will smother out the quicks, and altogether it will result in failure. Here the landlord should not expect his tenant to weed, and it is not worth his while to even find “rough timber” for forming a defence of such a hedge from the cattle, nor will it pay the tenant to employ a carpenter to work it. In this case the landlord should level the soil and re-plant the hedge—not on a mound of sand, but in the well-dug surface soil—efficiently fence it, and see to its annual weeding. In this way, instead of his having to find rough timber for fences for all time, one set of rails should be enough, and so he would ultimately save money for time by a present judicious expenditure; and, besides, as he would give his tenant more available land for his acreage, and this better secured, so that trespassers are kept from without and his cattle prevented straying from within, the holding would certainly be more valuable.

3. With bad fences the land is not at command. There has to be superintendence and mending whenever a field is wanted to be used. We recollect a farmer who, having bought some pigs, on being asked by his man where he was to put ’em, replied, “Oh, put ’em in the garden, for if you don’t they’ll very soon get there.”

Here was a case of bad fences about the homestead, and we may be sure everywhere else too. And here we would controvert the assertion that is too often made, that “the farmer who is a careful gardener will be a bad farmer.” We have ever seen that attention to neatness and order, at home and in the fields, will mark the good farmer, though it may not always assure us of the prosperous one. The truth is, that neatness is sometimes expensive; and as it does not always yield any greater reward than gratification to the tenant, it should at all times be encouraged by the landlord with every possible assistance, as he can never be a loser thereby, but must be the gainer.

The truth is, that there is nothing about estates or farms which so much requires remodelling as the system of fences. They want lessening, as the land is cut up into far too many awkward little pieces. They want straightening and paralleling, if we may so express it. They should, too, be kept within due compass, both as to breadth and height, so that altogether, as to material, mode of planting, position, and general supervision, the hedge-row really is in want of that kind of treatment which only a far-seeing, comprehensive overseer can direct, and which, were we to come into the possession of a large estate, would be the first process for its amelioration and improvement that we should attend to.

In fact, it may be said that this subject is daily receiving a greater share of attention, and that for a reason at first little suspected; but the truth is, steam is asserting its power on the farm as on the road, and as the engine marches into our fields, fences will be levelled before his mightiness—all sorts of crooked corners and queer-shaped angles will be removed, and the whole will assume a more regular outline.

There are moral evils connected with bad fences which we think have hardly been duly considered. We have hinted at their encouragement of trespassers and fostering of idle habits.