Page:Economic History of Virginia Vol 1.djvu/341

 sand acres, and miles of expensive fencing would have been necessary to raise a sufficient protection on every side. Land unenclosed became a common, upon which it was not a trespass for any person in the neighborhood to permit his cattle to run. If the owner desired to prevent such incursions, it was in his power to erect a line of fence, and as long as he failed to do so, it was argued that he had no right to complain of a damage which his own live stock was liable at any time to inflict upon the unprotected crops of his neighbors.

In 1639, however, the fence law was modified in its application to swine, probably in compliance with the objections urged against it some years before. Hogs had now grown to be very numerous, and it was anticipated that they would break into the grain fields, the barrier raised against their encroachments being only too frail in many instances. It was decided, in consequence of this fact, to require that the owners of swine should confine them securely in pens at night, and provide keepers for them during the day; those persons who failed to observe these directions were to be held responsible for the damage inflicted by their hogs upon the property of their neighbor. The provisions of the Act of 1632, as well as of the Act of 1636, were still in force with respect to the depredations of other animals. In 1642, only two years later, swine were again placed upon the old footing in their relation to the law as to enclosures.

The fence law of the seventeenth century could only have been passed in a country where the soil was valued very cheaply, and where live stock were not carefully provided for. As the population of the Colony expanded, and the number of plantations increased, the original