14; 



THE FARMER'S MAGAZINE. 



ought most carefully to be avoided ; but by laying ground 

 in 7| feet lands the horses could be confined entirely to the 

 furrows, also the land dried faster. 



Mr. W. Bennett (Cambridge), after some experience ia 

 draiuiug various descriptions of laud, had arrived at conclu- 

 sions similar to those of Mr. Nesbit. He was also pleased 

 with the observations of Mr. Mechi, on account of the frankness 

 with which they were spoken, and readily acknowledged the 

 services which that gentleman had rendered to the cause of 

 agriculture by his experiments ia farming, and by directing 

 attention to masters which were of interest and importance 

 to the agricultural community (Hear, hear). He thought, 

 however, that his fiiend was certainly wrong in putting 

 gravel at the bottom of his drains and tiles at the top 

 (laughter). Upon the whole, he (Mr. Bennett) was of 

 opiuiou that tbey were likely to come to a safe conclusion to- 

 night; and thi^t was, that upon strong clays it was useless 

 to go tremendous depths, involving au expenditure that 

 could never be repaid the farmer ; and that drains 

 varying from five to seven yards apart, with a mode- 

 rate depth, so as secure them from damage, say from 

 two-Hiid-a-half to three feet, were most desirable upon 

 retentive soils. He ha J farmed some of the strongest land 

 in Eut.land for a considerable portion of his life, and these 

 observations were the result of his experience. For his ow 

 part, he thought the club was much indebted to the profes- 

 sional drainers who had expressed their opinions to-night. 

 Although he could not go the " whole hog" with Mr. Denton, 

 yet the views of that gentleman well deserved consideration ; 

 and he could not doubt that the discussion would prove of 

 great service to the agricultural classes generally. 



Mr. Trkthewy (of Silsoe, Beds) said the subject had 

 takeu exactly the turn that he expected it would take. Al- 

 though Mr. Nesbit gave notice that he would treat on the 

 mechanical and chemical principles connected with the soil, 

 the discussion very quietly diverged into practice — a result 

 which might have been anticipated in the case of a meeting of 

 practical agriculturists. One great point which had occupied 

 their attention was the depth of drains. He did not himself 

 advocate either deep draining or shallow draining as a system, 

 but from what he had beard that evening, he supposed he 

 might infer that the shallow drainers were those who went 

 three feet deep and less, and the deep drainers those who 

 went further below the surface. Now, his idea of draining 

 was not only to get rid of the water, but alto to act upon the 

 surface and the substance of the soil as much as possible. ( Hear, 

 hear.) lu draming for corn lands and for grass lands there 

 were different objects to be kept in view. Iir the case of grass 

 lauds they wanted to keep up a continuous verdure; but that 

 was not the case as regarded arable lands, and he maintained 

 that the latter required to be more drained than the former. 

 It was well known that the roots of wheat would descend to a 

 very great depth. He had never witnessed it himself, but he 

 had been told on good authority that the roots could some- 

 tiifies be traced four feet below the surface. (A voice : " More 

 than that.") H the roots of the soil did really descend so 

 low, it should be made a great object in drainage to prepare 

 the soil for the sustenance of the wheat plant. He did not 

 fully subscribe to the doctrine that depth did not at all depend 

 on distance. He held that it did depend on distance to a cer- 

 tain extent ; conceiving that if they went twelve yards apart 

 they must generally drain deeper than if they went only four 

 yards apart. Some remarks had been made about Elkington's 

 system ; such things looked very pretty in theory, but he 

 must declare that in his experience he had never been able to 

 hit upon the right mark. He remembered one instance in 

 particular in which he could not do that. There was a bog at 

 the bottom of a sandhill. On one side of the road was a v»ild 

 sandhdl : immediately below it was a bog. He thought that if 

 he cut a very deep drain at the junction of the sandhill and 

 the bog, he should thereby cure the bog; but he did not. He 

 was obliged to go through the bog, in the direction of the 

 hill, and then he did cure it. He did not know whether 

 or not the geological strata in hia district were similar to 

 the strata of districts iu which Elkington's system was 

 said to have answered ; but this he did not know, that 

 he had tried that system three or four times, and was 

 determined that he would never try it again. (Hear, hear.) 

 S*allow-holes bad been referred tc. He held that in many 

 instances it was impossible to do without them. No one could 

 suppose that swallow-holes were applicable to clay lands ; but 



there were certain descriptions of soil — for example, there 

 was a case near the Tetbury road, iu the vicinity of Cirences- 

 ter — where by adopting that mode of proceeding you get rid of 

 au immense quantity of water at a very small expense; where» 

 as the obtaining an outfall in the usual manner would involve a 

 large expenditure. 



Mr. Wood (of Ockley, Sussex) said he had the misfortune 

 to farm that description of soil which Mr. Nesbit regarded as 

 a bona fide clay, and he had expended a good deal of money in 

 draining land which required quite 50 pet cent, of sand to 

 bring it into a fit state to make a brick. What Mr. Nesbit 

 had pointed out with respect to hilly land corresponded with 

 his own experience. If iu putting a drain across the slope 

 you were to place it under a stratum of clay, you would catch 

 none ot the water ; whereas if you were to place it above, 

 you would catch all. The great ditticulty was to find the exact 

 position ; and, therefore, by going down the slope and cuttiug 

 across, or through the strata, you generally would let off the 

 water iu the most effectual manner. The discussion had turned 

 naturally more upon the practice thau upou the mechanical 

 and chemical principles of draiuiug. As regarded distance, 

 he certainly thought that in the description of soil of which 

 he had spoken, the deeper drains would carry wider than 

 shallow ouea. He had found that in cases which, owing to a 

 hollow peihaps in the ground, he had not been able to go so 

 deep as iu other places, the ground had not been made so dry. 

 He had draii ed at distances of one rod apart, and that was as 

 close as he felt justified in going, with the prospect of wheat 

 at 4O3. per qr. 



A Member : What is your depth ? 



Mr. Wood continued: When he commenced eight or tea 

 years ago, a depth of two feet was advocated by one party, 

 aud a depth of four feet by another. Being of a prudent turn 

 of mind, he thought he would adopt the middle course, and 

 accordingly he adopted three feet (laughter). In cases iu which 

 he had to cross a flat, he had been prevented from going more 

 thau two feet or even eighteen inches deep to preserve a fall, 

 and in such cases he had always doubled the number of drains. 



Mr. Mechi : You have not drained four feet. 



Mr. Wood said he had done a little, but it was on grass 

 lauds. He had learned from Mr. Nesbit and others, that 

 there are some heueficial results to be secured through the 

 passage of raiu through the soil, and he was very much opposed 

 to carrying it away by means of surface furrows. Besides, 

 having had doubts about the best depths for his drains, he 

 had entertained doubts about the proper distances between 

 them. He did not find his land too well drained with the 

 drains at a rod apart, that is 16 j feet. He found the soil wettest 

 farthest from tlie drains, aud he also found that the wheat 

 above the drains and nearest to them looked the best. If his 

 drains were placed eighth feet apart the change would, he be- 

 lieved, be very beneficial to him. As regarded depth, if he could 

 go four feet at the same expense as three feet he should preler 

 that depth. 



Mr. W. SiiAw (of CotoD. Northampton) said, viewing the 

 question as a money question, be had no hesitation in saying 

 that three drains at four feet were more beneficial than four 

 drains at three feet. He wished to state that emphatically, 

 as his decided opinion in regard to depth. 



Mr. John Parkinson (of Knapthorpe, Notts) said he had 

 found, from experience with regard to drainage, that practice was 

 far more valuable thau theory. He did not refer now to his own 

 practice; what he alluded to was draining done thirty years 

 ago by his predecessor. That drainage was under two feet six 

 inches deep. It was done at the time when tiles were first 

 introduced into Nottinghamshire. The person who put them 

 on was very much laughed at, at the time, for burying hia 

 money ; but he persevered, and his neighbours first became 

 convinced that he was right iu the year 1829, when he and hia 

 brother were the only persons iu the district who had not a rotten 

 sheep. The land was a strong red clay ; the drains were put in 

 undei- the old furrows, tenacious as they were, about eighteen 

 or twenty inches deep, and the lands having been gradually 

 levelled from the high ridges, the depth of the drains was 

 now about two feet six inches. That land was as well drained 

 as any land could be, even though it were drained four feet 

 deep. To ilkutrate this he might refer to an article, with 

 which they were no doubt all familiar, which had appeared in 

 the pages of the Royal Agricultural Society's Journal, and 

 which was written by Mr. Milward. That gentleman stated 

 that he had drained a twelve-acre field, two feet, twoanda-half 



