[24]Including one-third added for angular sinuosities.
[24]Including one-third added for angular sinuosities.
The above calculations do not include the strips which are so often found alongside fences, covered by brambles, blackthorns, and other rubbish. Now we have seen what is the quantity of land occupied by fences, it will be our province to ascertain to what extent they may be reduced in size, and yet remain as useful to the agriculturist.
The following table will exhibit the saving per hundred acres, by reducing the width of fences:—
The average quantity of the above saving is 12⁄5for every 100 acres.If this saving were effected, which is quite practicable, it would increase the cultivated land in England and Wales 490,000 acres, and would be similar in its effect to the addition of a new county, nearly equal in extent to Nottinghamshire, and somewhat larger than Berkshire.”—Morton’s Cyclopædia of Agriculture, p. 859.
The average quantity of the above saving is 12⁄5for every 100 acres.
If this saving were effected, which is quite practicable, it would increase the cultivated land in England and Wales 490,000 acres, and would be similar in its effect to the addition of a new county, nearly equal in extent to Nottinghamshire, and somewhat larger than Berkshire.”—Morton’s Cyclopædia of Agriculture, p. 859.
The above is the evidence of a highly practical gentleman as regards the loss by bad, wide, and straggling fences; and if we add to this the additional loss and injury which the land sustains by the growth of hedge-row timber, we shall find that we have even a greater account to settle. Now, if we inquire into the nature of these evils, we shall find that they result from shade, drip, and exhaustion by roots.
There are those who speak in favour of hedge-row timber as affording shade for cattle; but we should remember that when this is so, the cattle, by being thus gathered to one spot, only aid in manuring those portions of the field where the grass is always more rank than nutritious, and this to the robbery of other portions of the field. For ourselves, we would rather have our fields exposed to the influence of sun and air, and, if required, have some contrivances for shade which could be moved about the fields at pleasure. The shade of trees keeps off those refreshing showers so important to vegetation, but in much wet the trees send down a drip which is sometimes found to be so injurious as to prevent any good growth beneath them, and then as the leaves fall off they often poison the soil for some distance, while the roots impoverish the land in every direction.
We have just visited a field, in the southern hedgeof which are growing some beech trees; these not only keep off the southern sun, but their drip and fallen leaves render fully one-eighth of the field nearly useless.
Again, do we not everywhere find twice the number of hedges that are required; and, to add to the mischief, these filled with trees? In many places we see elms not more than three yards apart. Here the shade would be intolerable, but the farmer is allowed to lop them until they look not unlike the stuck-up tails of French poodle dogs—a process which certainly diminishes the evils they entail upon the farmer, but renders the timber comparatively useless.
But, say the advocates of tall hedges and hedge-row timber, “How beautiful they make the country look! Your plan would leave it all bare and desolate; no song of birds to cheer the wayfarer,” &c. But stop, good people; we love trees, but we do not care so much for straight lines of stuck-upbesoms. Let the landlord grow his woods and his groves, and plant his parks. Let him put trees in parts which will grow nothing better, and in belts to keep off malignant winds; and even here (the best places for them), let him be content with their pleasure and profit as a rent for the ground they occupy, and not, as some do, insist upon the tenant yearly planting trees in positions which must injure so much land which he is still to pay rent for. This is about as tyrannical as to make a schoolboy carry a birch, and ask for its application.
Map of fieldsFig.1.Field with its old divisions, now removed, as marked by the dotted lines.
Fig.1.Field with its old divisions, now removed, as marked by the dotted lines.
As regards the loss of land by the division into smaller fields, we cannot do better than copy the former outlines of an arable field on our own farm. This, which is now one field of over fifty acres, wasformerly in fifteen fenced fields, each with a ragged hedge—of anything but quicks—planted upon raised mounds. Now, the gain in the removal of fences, indicated by the dotted lines (seefig. 1), may be explained by the following calculations:—
From these data, then, we may conclude that if available land equal in extent to a county may be gained by keeping fences within bounds, this may be more than doubled by grubbing up, not merely useless, but mischievous fences, and discountenancing the growth of hedge-row timber.
Now, although we reside in the county of the Dorsetshire poet, we are not of those who would curtail the privileges of the poor by closing up all footpaths, or by too rigidly curtailing the road space; but as long as the farmer has to pay rent for the ground needlessly occupied by badly-constructed hedge-rows, we think it due to him, and even to the poor themselves, that land now so occupied should in future be made food-producing; and with these sentiments we would conclude this chapter by quoting the following
DORSETSHIRE DITTY.(From Poems by William Barnes.)
“They do zay that a travellin chapHave a-put in the newspeäper nowThat the bit o’ green ground on the knapShould be all a-took in vor the plough.He do fancy ’tis easy to showThat we can be but stunpolls at best,Vor to leäve a green spot where a flower can growOr a foot-weary walker mid rest.’Tis hedge-grubbèn, Thomas, an’ ledge-grubbènNever a done,While a sov’rèn mwore’s to be won.
“They do zay that a travellin chapHave a-put in the newspeäper nowThat the bit o’ green ground on the knapShould be all a-took in vor the plough.He do fancy ’tis easy to showThat we can be but stunpolls at best,Vor to leäve a green spot where a flower can growOr a foot-weary walker mid rest.’Tis hedge-grubbèn, Thomas, an’ ledge-grubbènNever a done,While a sov’rèn mwore’s to be won.
“The road, he do zay, is so wideAs ’tis wanted vor travellers’ wheels;As if all that did travel did ride,An’ did never get galls on their heels.He would leäve sich a thin strip o’ groun’That if a man’s veet in his shoesWer a-burnèn an’ zore, why he coulden zit downBut the wheels would run over his tooes.Vor ’tis meäke money, Thomas, an’ teäke money,What’s zwold an’ boughtIs all that is worthy o’ thought.
“The road, he do zay, is so wideAs ’tis wanted vor travellers’ wheels;As if all that did travel did ride,An’ did never get galls on their heels.He would leäve sich a thin strip o’ groun’That if a man’s veet in his shoesWer a-burnèn an’ zore, why he coulden zit downBut the wheels would run over his tooes.Vor ’tis meäke money, Thomas, an’ teäke money,What’s zwold an’ boughtIs all that is worthy o’ thought.
****
“The children will soon have noo pleäceVor to play in, an’ if they do grow,They will have a thin musheroom feäce,Wi’ their bodies so sumple as dough.But a man is a meäde ov a childAn’ his limbs do grow worksome by play,An’ if the young child’s little body’s a-spweil’d,Why, the man’s wull the zooner decay.But wealth is wo’th now mwore than health is wo’th;Let it all gooIf ’t ’ull bring but a sov’rèn or two.”
“The children will soon have noo pleäceVor to play in, an’ if they do grow,They will have a thin musheroom feäce,Wi’ their bodies so sumple as dough.But a man is a meäde ov a childAn’ his limbs do grow worksome by play,An’ if the young child’s little body’s a-spweil’d,Why, the man’s wull the zooner decay.But wealth is wo’th now mwore than health is wo’th;Let it all gooIf ’t ’ull bring but a sov’rèn or two.”
One of the great objections urged to more hedge-row fences than are necessary, is that of harbouringVermin; it therefore becomes necessary to inquire into the history of those creatures designated by a name everywhere held in reproach.
The meaning of the term vermin has not been very accurately defined. Johnson considers “any noxious animal” to belong to vermin; whilst Bailey, anxious to be more specific, defines vermin to be “any kind of hurtful creature or insect, as rats, mice, lice, fleas, bugs, &c.;” but whatever lexicographers may say upon the subject, there can be no doubt that, in country language, what are known as noxious animals are distinguished from noxious insects, the first being in most counties known as “Varment,” to which belong rats, mice, stoats, &c., to which the keeper would add kites, hawks, owls, magpies, and other birds; the second term being limited to those parasitic creatures by which both man and some inferior animals may be attacked.
The farmer’s notion of vermin, as applied to the hedge-row, differs from these, as it includes all beasts, birds, reptiles, insects, &c., which directly injure the hedge, together with such as choose the hedge-row or the bank on which it might be grown as a breeding-place, from which they migrate to farmcrops, and so become injurious, not to the hedge alone, but to the farm in general.
Some notion of these may be inferred from the following list:—
1. The rabbit is one of the greatest pests to the bank on which hedges are too often grown, and therefore is injurious to the growing hedge, to say nothing of the mischief which these creatures do to the crops. The other day we visited a field in which a hedge-bank had been undermined with no less than fifty holes in the distance of five-and-twenty yards; these ramified in every direction, not only through the raised mound, but into the fields on either side of the hedge, and out of which rabbits were dug from a depth of as much as four feet. Here the ridiculous nature of the mound was the primary cause of the mischief, and hence we here offeran illustration of the general facts which met our view:—
Mound and ditchDiagram of a Mound and Ditch in Oolite Sands.ft.in.a.A rabbit hole.1. and 5. Grass and weeds which cannot be ploughed502. Mound for fence803. Bottom of ditch304. Field side of ditch606. Arable field—Total220
Diagram of a Mound and Ditch in Oolite Sands.
Here it will be seen that not only has nearly twenty feet of land been taken up with the fence, but the plan upon which it is made of itself suggests a rabbit-warren, and especially when we say that the soil is of a loose sandy nature, and the ditch has never yet been a conduit for running water, and is therefore perfectly unnecessary.
2. The hedge-hog is here only mentioned in the hope of dispelling a popular prejudice with regard to him. He is ruthlessly destroyed as vermin, on the supposition that the hedge screens a traitor who is ever ready to suck eggs or to take a meal from the cow’s udder. Now, as regards the first charge, one would have thought that, from the pertinacity displayed by those who bring it in destroying birds’ eggs and birds of every kind, they would havelittle care upon this head. His sucking of cows has never been witnessed by any competent observer, and with such the idea was never entertained, nor can it be supposed that a cow would suffer the approach of a creature so thoroughly armed with spines as the hedge-hog. In the words of Yarrell we may conclude that “this is about as well-founded an accusation as that of Pliny, exaggerated as it is by Sperling, who assures us that it ascends trees, knocks off the apples and pears, and, throwing itself down upon them that they may stick to its spines, trots off with the prize! Ælian gives us the same story, substituting figs for apples, and omitting the climbing power of the animal.”
3. This section contains creatures for which few of us entertain any affection; at the same time, it may perhaps be true that some of the greatest of farm pests, in the shapes of rats and mice, have greatly increased since the destruction of the polecat, stoat, and other of our smaller carnivorous quadrupeds.
As regards mice in general, one source of alarm connected with their former occupancy of the hedge-row has nearly vanished from among us. We allude to the supposed injury they were thought to inflict on any creature over which they might creep.
At one time, if a cow or sheep offered any symptom of paralysis or injury, more particularly of the hind-quarters, the creature was said to be “mouse-crope,” for which were several popular remedies, which were used by way of direct applications, such as a liberal application of rods of wytch-hazel, drawing twigs of mountain-ash or rowan-tree over the affected parts; but the more general plan of action was to operateupon the offending creature upon the same principle as pertains to the present day in the case of a bite by a dog—namely, that the bitten subject is not safe from the direst calamities so long as the author of the mischief is alive; and acting upon this, there are few persons in rural districts who would not demand the death of a dog by whom they may have been bitten, and this not as a measure of precaution, to prevent the like occurrence happening again, but as the first thing to be done to ensure a safe cure. So with a “mouse-crope” subject: action was at once taken against the mouse, but this through the agency of the “shrew-ash,” which potent remedy is thus described by Gilbert White, in his charming “Natural History of Selborne:”—
Now, a shrew-ash is an ash whose twigs or branches, when gently applied to the limbs of cattle, will immediately relieve the pains which a beast suffers from the running of a shrew-mouse over the part affected; for it is supposed that a shrew-mouse is of so baneful and deleterious a nature, that wherever it creeps over a beast, be it horse, cow, or sheep, the suffering animal is afflicted with cruel anguish, and threatened with the loss of the use of the limb. Against this accident, to which they were continually liable, our provident forefathers always kept a shrew-ash at hand, which, when properly medicated, would maintain its virtue for ever. A shrew-ash was made thus:—Into the body of the tree a deep hole was bored with an augur, and a poor devoted shrew-mouse was thrust in alive, and plugged in, no doubt, with several quaint incantations, long since forgotten.
Now, a shrew-ash is an ash whose twigs or branches, when gently applied to the limbs of cattle, will immediately relieve the pains which a beast suffers from the running of a shrew-mouse over the part affected; for it is supposed that a shrew-mouse is of so baneful and deleterious a nature, that wherever it creeps over a beast, be it horse, cow, or sheep, the suffering animal is afflicted with cruel anguish, and threatened with the loss of the use of the limb. Against this accident, to which they were continually liable, our provident forefathers always kept a shrew-ash at hand, which, when properly medicated, would maintain its virtue for ever. A shrew-ash was made thus:—Into the body of the tree a deep hole was bored with an augur, and a poor devoted shrew-mouse was thrust in alive, and plugged in, no doubt, with several quaint incantations, long since forgotten.
That the shrew-mouse was generally held in the greatest dread, there is no doubt; but, we find in Dorsetshire, where this notion still prevails, that the idea of mischief is not confined to the shrew, but is believed of any mouse. We had a steer in one of ourfeeding-pits, which, as he did not gain flesh, was said to be “moss-crop,” the western vernacular for mouse-crope. Still, field mice, without regard to species, are supposed to be the most baneful in this way; at the same time, we may trace an evidence of the former generally prevailing belief in the injurious tendencies of even our common mouse, in the fact that when you have so far convinced a lady friend, who may have a “horror of a mouse,” of their harmless nature, you are sure to be met with the unanswerable remark, which gains point from the manner of its utterance, “But suppose a mouse should creep over me?” We may now entirely discard every notion of the evils of mouse-crope cattle as an argument against the hedge-row as a harbour for rats and mice; still, these are vermin in the true sense of the word, and which hedge-rows, unless kept trim and clean at bottom, are sure to encourage.
4. Snakes in hedge-rows are very common, and especially on banks facing the south; of these, the common ringed snake and the slow-worm are often met with. They excite great terror in most people; but still they may be said not merely to be quite harmless, but absolutely useful, as they live upon insects and small fry in general, and so, in reality, they ought not to be classed as vermin, but take their place amongst their most decided enemies.
5. The land mollusks, to which belong the snail and the slug, are sheltered in hedges by thousands; and highly destructive they are, and more especially in small overshadowed enclosures. The quantity of vegetation which these consume is enormous, and we are sorry to think that they are on the increase—a fact which we deem to be due to the indiscriminate slaughter of small birds, more especially the blackbird, thrush, and lark, which are their most determined enemies. As farmers, we might well afford them a dessert of small fruit for the good they do in destroying slugs and snails.
6. Hedge-row shrubs are liable to be injured by many insects, more especially the caterpillars of different kinds of moths and butterflies, which sometimes eat away all their leaves, and so greatly retard the growth of the hedge. Upon this subject we quote from “Our Woodlands, Heaths, and Hedges,” for the purpose of introducing to our readers a small book by W. S. Coleman, which should be in the hands of all country readers:—
The foliage of the hawthorn, remarkable for its elegance, is the chosen food of a great number of interesting insects, principally the caterpillars of variouslepidoptera.Several species of these are of a gregarious nature, living together in extensive colonies under a thick net-work of silk, which serves them for a common protection while feeding on the foliage enclosed with themselves in a silken tent.Among these social net-weavers are the caterpillars of a fine insect, the black-veined white butterfly (Pieris cratægi), a rarity in some districts, but in certain localities, and at certain periods, abounding to such an extent as entirely to strip the hawthorn hedges of their foliage. Similar depredations are committed by the gaily-coloured progeny of the common lackey moth, and of the gold-tailed and brown-tailed moths; but the most formidable devastators, though the tiniest individually, are the little ermine moths (Yponomenta), small silvery-grey creatures, minutely spotted with black. The curious twig-like caterpillars of the brimstone moth (a pretty canary-coloured creature, with brown markings), and of several other geometers, are common upon hawthorn.
The foliage of the hawthorn, remarkable for its elegance, is the chosen food of a great number of interesting insects, principally the caterpillars of variouslepidoptera.
Several species of these are of a gregarious nature, living together in extensive colonies under a thick net-work of silk, which serves them for a common protection while feeding on the foliage enclosed with themselves in a silken tent.
Among these social net-weavers are the caterpillars of a fine insect, the black-veined white butterfly (Pieris cratægi), a rarity in some districts, but in certain localities, and at certain periods, abounding to such an extent as entirely to strip the hawthorn hedges of their foliage. Similar depredations are committed by the gaily-coloured progeny of the common lackey moth, and of the gold-tailed and brown-tailed moths; but the most formidable devastators, though the tiniest individually, are the little ermine moths (Yponomenta), small silvery-grey creatures, minutely spotted with black. The curious twig-like caterpillars of the brimstone moth (a pretty canary-coloured creature, with brown markings), and of several other geometers, are common upon hawthorn.
Last summer (1864), the hawthorn trees and hedges about the parks and squares of London were entirelydefoliated by caterpillars, which progressed from tree to tree in squads of numberless individuals, only seeking a new site of action when the former one had been despoiled of every vestige of leaf and bud.
But it is not only the hawthorn which becomes attacked by insects: all other hedge-row trees and shrubs have their peculiar enemies, to describe which would take more space than we have to spare, and we therefore conclude the chapter with a few remarks upon the weeds of dirty hedge-rows. These harbour various insects, which migrate to our crops, and do an immense amount of injury. For instance, such plants as Jack by the Hedge (Erysimum alliaria), treacle mustard (Sisymbrium officinale), wild mustards, and other forms ofCruciferæ, in hedge-rows, afford a winter nidus for the turnip flea beetles (Haltica concinnaandH. nemorum),[25]from which they take their flight to the more delicate turnip and swede crops as soon as these come up.
[25]SeeHow to Grow Good Roots,pp. 43and44of the present work.
[25]SeeHow to Grow Good Roots,pp. 43and44of the present work.
Birds need only here be mentioned incidentally, as there is still a conflict of opinions as to the use of the bird family to the farmer; and those species which mostly build in and frequent our hedges are perhaps those upon which evil suspicions are most universally held. Amongst these are the hedge-sparrow, finch, linnet, and others—and that these are mischievous at times, we are not prepared to deny; but we should be sorry if the curtailment of hedges, for which we are advocates, should result in the destruction of our small birds, as we conclude most of the species to be at times eminently useful.
We shall, in the first place, treat the subject of management in reference to fences composed of hawthorn. In the newly-planted hedge we shall find that the better the soil in which it is planted, the quicker and stronger the young quicks will grow. If, then, the soil be not good, or if it be thin, it will be worth while to prepare it as well as circumstances will permit. This may be done by deep digging, by bringing good soil from a distance, or some aid may be given by means of any kind of manure. It should ever be borne in mind that to start with luxuriant growth is all-important, as neglect in this matter at first can only be partially remedied afterwards.
Good quicks, selected and removed with care, carefully planted in well-prepared ground, not elevated several feet on a dry sand-bank, or carelessly grouted in a gutter of clay, will soon send out vigorous shoots. These should be well weeded and dug at least for three or four years, during which time an occasional trimming of a wild shoot here and there with the knife will rightly direct a more even growth.
In weeding, the first advent of briars and brambles should be looked to; so all seedling ash, elder, maple, and defenceless trees in general, should betaken outby the roots, not cut off, as this only makes a thicket of a twig.
After three or four years, if the growth be sufficiently strong, the young hedge may be trimmed to a desired shape with the shears or the hook; but if weak and straggling, we would strongly recommend that the whole be boldly cut off within a few inches of the base, the ground to be well dug and even manured about the roots, and the protecting railings to be put in order, and a new growth be waited for, which, generally speaking, will not be long—for by this means we believe that a good fence will be sooner arrived at than by allowing weak wood to go on growing still weaker.
Hawthorn fences are sometimes allowed to get several feet high before being brought into reasonable dimensions, in which case they get smooth, unarmed, and unbranched stems at the base. This state of things is too often attempted to be cured by cutting out a quantity of the wood and laying the rest, by partially dividing them near the ground—a plan which is called “plashing.” This we think highly objectionable: it would be far better to cut off the whole to within a few inches of the ground, and so trim the shoots as they grow again.
The truth is, that plashing gets out of order, the layered sticks get out of place, and the whole is aided by stakes of dead wood, which soon decay, or, if not, are almost certain to be removed by the constant country claimants to dead sticks in general.
We prefer that no dead materials should be put to a living fence; for if there are gaps, it will be best to dig the ground well and put in some youngquicks, fencing with posts and rails, to guard the plants as well as impound the cattle. Mending gaps with thorns only aggravates the evil, as the living part of the fence is so interfered with by the dead matter that it grows but imperfectly, and the dead materials soon rot away, leaving a greater gap to be re-mended.
We have seen gaps tried to be repaired by old quicks, but this seldom succeeds—for if they grow, they are never bushy enough to be repellant; but they often die altogether, and at best with old plants, young quicks will repair the mischief in less time.
Seeing the difficulty there is sometimes in getting quicks to grow well in hedge gaps, it is not uncommon to fill up with various kinds of hedge-row plants, such as hazel, whitebeam, spindle-tree, dogwood, maple, &c.; but the objection to these is, that they are often not repellant in any way, and they help to make weaker places broader than they found them, and, indeed, ultimately get possession of the greater part of the hedge-row. There is, then, nothing better to mend a whitethorn hedge than quicks, and they will grow if attended to for the first two or three years; but why they usually fail is, that if planted in gaps they are usually closely hemmed in by old thorns, or allowed to become smothered by weeds.
With respect to very old hedges, made up of all sorts of materials, we prefer cutting them down about three feet from the ground, leaving all the stubs to branch out, than to attempt to layer as shrubs, and then the whitethorn succeeds even less with plashing. Where, however, we have rough, but, after all, not repellant fences, we should like to seethem re-planted, by which they could mostly be curtailed, and at the same time opportunity may be taken to get rid of some of them altogether, or to make them in a more convenient direction.
We are now in possession of a hedge composed of everything but hawthorn, and somewhere about twelve feet high. It is without gaps, but still pregnable at any point, by reason of the want of armature in the shrubs of which it is composed. Still, as it stands on the top of a bank five feet high, the mound and hedge together is not so bad a fence as its materials might warrant.
We here give a list of the plants of which this fence is composed, in order to the more clear explanation of what is to follow:—
Now, here is a tall hedge on the north side of our field, and so capable of affording no slight amount of shelter to stock; but how much southern sun does it keep off our neighbour’s field! And yet we have just succeeded to a lease which contains a clausecompelling this hedge to be annually trimmed—a process which has not been performed for many years, but which we shall hereafter show should be done, especially where hedges have been properly cared for, for the due keeping of the fence itself; but further, we feel convinced that a proprietor should be able to call upon the owner of a neighbouring estate to keep his portion of the fences within such bounds as may not be injurious.
In the case before us, what is best to be done? Custom says, “Lay it; plash it.” Still, the materials are not suitable for this process. “Cut it down and it will shoot up again,” says the hedger, who would be ready to do the work for the wood; but mark, that in order to get as much as possible, it would be cut close to the ground. Our plan will be to cut it at about a yard from the top of the mound, and afterwards to watch the young shoots, so as carefully to trim them, in order to induce them to throw out laterals, and thus make, at least, a thick growth, though of unpromising materials.
With regard to trimming by the piece: if it be really a well-grown quick-set hedge, the keeping it to a certain standard may be easily accomplished; but if it be a weakly growth of all kinds of shrubs, the labourer slashes as close to the ground as he can with the hook, in order to “have something to cut against”—a process which only makes the hedges weaker the oftener it is performed.
From what has been already advanced, it will be seen that the matter of fences is most important in connection with the arrangements between landlord and tenant.
The landlord for the most part gets the same rent for the land occupied by fences as for the whole of the field, such land being calculated with the acreage; and, further, with the tenant-at-will he insists upon their being kept in order—that is, if he cares for or knows anything about order—at the expense of the tenant. In leases there are usually inserted covenants obliging annual trimming of fences and scouring of ditches; but, generally speaking, the tenant does just as much as he likes, and the landlord knows but little about it. At the same time, annual trimming of hedges would often be mischievous; and again, as some hedges would be well to be let grow tall, on account of the shelter they might afford, there will be so many circumstances to be considered in coming to a right conclusion about what should be done to fences, that it is no wonder that covenants are only insisted upon in a very partial manner, and the careless farmer, instead of repairing hedges in a permanent manner, is content to mend gaps—or “shards,” as they are called in the midland counties—only whenhe wants to keep his beasts in any particular meadow or field.
We shall shortly discuss these views under the following heads:—
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. 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. Infine, 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 cannevermake 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 thesystem 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.
In our own parish are gaps leading from one field and from one farm to another. This encourages idle vagabonds to go anywhere—everywhere—on pretence of shooting small birds, many of which are often of more value than themselves; and if there is no gap already, how easy to push through twigs of cornel, ash, guelder rose, &c. &c.
Such hedges, again, are mended with dead thornsand stakes and rails of wood, which soon decay and become a prey to all the old women and idle children in the parish, the latter of whom hasten the period when they may claim them by climbing through and over them, and so prematurely despoil what they soon take home as of right.
In conclusion, then, we hazard the assertion that well-grown and well-kept fences are a boon to all. They benefit the landlord, by enabling him to give well-secured acres in exchange for his rent. Like good “buildings,” fences benefit the farmer by affording him protection for his property. They benefit the poor, by removing a great source of lawless habits, and that commencement of petty larceny which too often leads to a complete negation of conscience.
They benefit all, inasmuch as Order, which “is Heaven’s first law,” is Man’s best friend.