from certain taxes, and which, up to April 6, 1810, could only be owned'
by the Nobility (not taking here the Church as landowner into consideration),
were but to a very small extent affected by them. It was-
other private tax-lands and also Crown farms that this ..legislation, collected
in the Building Law of the Code of 1734, especially concerned. As-
long ago, however, as 1789, by a decree of Gustavus III, issued on February
21 of that year, it was declared that “ all tax-paying landowners.
(Sw. skatteman), have the same rights over their farms, both the infield
and outfield land, which have been fixed by legal surveys and boundaries,
with woods and fields and fishing, shooting and trapping appertaining
thereto, as unalterably and with as free right o f disposal as the Nobility
over their fee-farms”, and herewith a great part of the agricultural legislation,
which till then had been in force with regard to that. land, ceased
to be applicable to it.
The ordinance regulating the manner in which a village shall be established
is very ancient; it may be said still to remain in force, as far as it can be
applicable. The site for the village was first to be. settled; greater shares in the
village entitled to larger building plots; and the plots should be arranged east
and west, north and south. In distributing the village land it was not the position
of the plots that decided matters, but everyone had to get a share in the
better land as well as in the worse. Plots had to be provided with farmhouses
and barns and some other buildings that were enumerated as necessary, but, .in
other respects, everyone was allowed to build more and larger houses if he iso
needed. Roads and ditches for drainage were to be taken from undistributed
land; and if any one wished to fence round his private land, within the limits
of the village, he was at liberty ta do so, provided only that others did hot.
suffer damage from it. Where one village met another, the obligation of fencing
was, else, to be shared between them. The land which a peasant thus occupied,,
he was to carefully till and manure; he should clear and keep the meadows1 in
condition, and he should bring other land under cultivation, as far as he could
do so without harm to forests or pasture-land -— all under penalty of fines for
neglecting these duties. Forests and pasture-lands were, in general, common'to
all the villagers, who might use them as much as they needed for grazing, firewood,
or timber, turf, or other things, but not for purposes of sale, nor for use
outside the limits of the village.
Amongst other details contained in the Building Law, which have now
for the most part lost their importance, we must not, however, omit to speak
of the enactments about burning woodland (Sw..svedjande), which are interesting,
not only from a juridical point of view, but also from that of cultural history.
In the extensive tracts of country where the inhabitants were still few and the
supply of forest-land ample, the peasants were wont, without regard to the future,
to “singe”, or burn, the woodland, that is, to allow fire to pass over a tract -of
forest, so as to be able afterwards to sow rye in the ashes for two or three
years in succession. As, however, such a burning of woodland rendered the
tract of forest for a very long time unproductive, both with regard to the regrowth
of the timber and partly also as regarded pasturage,' it was decreed that,
for such burning of woodland, permission must be asked both of the co-proprietors
in the village and of certain public authorities.
As it \Yas sought, in this and other ways, to fix by law the duties of thepeasant,
it was necessary, too, to arrange for some control to ensure the observance
of the ordinances. This was to be obtained by inspection, a charge to be=
exercised by a police officer and two jurats (namndeman). On Crown farms, an
inspection should be held every third year; on tax-land (see above), “when neglect,
or faulty building thereon was noticed”, (till February 21, 1789). Everything
should then be investigated; the buildings, within and without, fences and
ditches, homefarm and forests — and what was then found wanting should be-
m a d e ;.good, and, possibly, even a fine be paid for it.
The agricultural legislation which has been enacted since 1734, and which
ought to be considered in connection with this subject, is scanty enough. It is,
in fact, contained almost entirely in the Royal Decrees of December 21, 1857,
concerning the duty of fencing property,-and-of June 20, 1879, concerning draining
etfijj In the decree concerning fencing, the principle was laid down that everyone
is bound to see that -his cattle do' no. damage. The principle in regard to thé
duty of fencing also requires that, when fencing is to be done between the.
lands of two neighbours, the two shall share the expense, etc. equally. Only
those, however, have a right, with inconsiderable exceptions, to insist on their
neighbours’ participation in fencing, whose forests or outfield land adjoin infield
land, or whose land adjoins land of similar character. The fence which is thus
put up shall be kept in the condition in which it is first constructed, and shall,
in general, be kept in the condition required by law, from May 15 till frost
has ; entered into the; soil,.,
Conditions with regard to draining and the possibilities of reclaiming boggy
land, have received a more modern form of expression by the ordinance of 1879.
In the ; Code of-T 7 3 4 it was merely prescribed that the villagers should, each
according to his share in the village, keep his ditches in order; and that each
one should,- if necessary for his field, dig 40 fathoms of ditches or clear out
80 î fathoms of old ditches. It was also prescribed that, if the ditches of one.
village met those of another, each village should dig through its own ground^
and that, if anyone in digging ditches through his ground or meadow-land camo
to the meadow-land, pasture-land, or other outfield land of an other village, th e
said village might not prevent the outflow of the water. I f a ditch happened
to be necessary to furnish an outlet, and if the neighbours could not agree as.
to who should keep this ditch in order,. the judge was to decide the question
according to what seemed best or necessary. In the ordinance of 1879, a new
principle was introduced, vizi, that if any one for the cultivation and drainage
of his land wishes to carry a ditch to a depth of 4 feet, he is not to be hindered
from doing so by the owners of land lying lower down. On the contrary, the.
owners of land which is benefited by this drainage shall, in proportion to th e
benefit derived, share in the cost of the draining, including compensation for
the ground which is used in digging the ditch, for trespass, etc. It is also-
prescribed that a ditch shall not he prevented from running out into a neighbour’s
already existing ditch, but that the cost of the possible alteration of the-
latter, necessitated by the new influx, and that of keeping the ditch in order,
shall be met in the samev way as prescribed for the construction of a new
ditch.
Much the same principles and prescriptions hold good in the question of
lowering the level of a lake or of tapping a lake; but public consent, given,
through the Governor of the Lan, is required in this case. Anyone, however,
who, in such a matter of draining a piece of water, is not himself a petitioner-
and does not concur, in the petition, can be exempted from sharing in the cost
of the undertaking if, within a year after its execution, he renounces before-
the Governor the benefit accruing therefrom. The expense incurred on account,
of his land shall he met by cutting off from his share of the improved land as.
much as corresponds to the value of the improvement to him, and adding it to
that of the sharers in the enterprise.