THE FARMER'S MAGAZINE. 



65 



Messrs. Tuxford, Boston, for portable steam thrashing 

 machines. 



Messrs. E. and J. Humphrey, Pershore, steam thrashing 

 machines. 



Small Silver Medals. 



Messrs. Lloyd, London, for hand-mills. 



Messrs. Smith and Ashby, Stamford, winnowing ma- 

 chines and chaff-cutters. 



Messrs. Smith and Sons, Peasenhall, drilling machines. 



Large Bronze Medals. 

 Messrs. Burgess and Key, London, reaping machines. 

 Messrs. Hunt, Earl Colne, chaff-cutters, cleansing- 

 mills, and sowing machines. 

 Mr. Lyndon, Birmingham, draining tools. 

 Mr. Wright, Stamford, harrows. 



Place of Edition and Expedition in the Chancery 

 of the Royal Imperial Agricultural Society at 

 Vienna. Herrngasse No. 30.— May 23, 1357. 



THE DRAINAGE CONTROVERSY. 



There is this difference between the manufacturing 

 and the agricultural community, that when any im- 

 proved process in manufacture is brought forward, 

 there is the utmost eagrerness to test its merits by ex- 

 periment, and to adopt it if found advisable. In agri- 

 culture, on the other hand, if any improved process is 

 suggested, it is pretty sure to meet with some opposition. 

 There may be good reasons why there should be this 

 difference. We do not enter on that question : we 

 are merely stating facts. 



We might cite many cases of the opposition which im- 

 provements in agriculture have experienced that are 

 now deemed the very perfection of agricultural practice. 

 Of late there has been a great deal of controversy on the 

 subject of land-draining, which appears to plain men to 

 have been quite superfluous. We do not merely allude 

 to the Keythorpe controversy : and we will go a few 

 years back in the history of land-draining. We need 

 only go back to the time of Smith, of Deanston. He 

 introduced an innovation on the prevalent practice of 

 drains at irregular intervals, designed to tap springs — 

 a process which succeeded admirably in the cases to 

 which it was applicable, but failed even in the hands of 

 its author in many cases to which it was inapplicable ; 

 and he had not the general knowledge necessary to 

 enable him to adapt his practice to varying con- 

 ditions. William Smith, however, some account 

 of whose life lately appeared in these columns, 

 drained extensively, and from his knowledge of 

 the varying conditions of soil, subsoil, and sub- 

 strata, he drained successfully where Elkington failed. 

 How his method differed from that of Elkington we 

 know not. An old foreman of his says it consisted in 

 cutting through a retentive bed to a porous one below. 

 An admirable way, no doubt, when the necessary con- 

 ditions are present. Smith knew too well to apply the 

 plan when they are not present, which it is quite clear 

 his foreman did not. The next change was the rise of 

 the Deanston system, which was extensively adopted in 

 Scotland, and not without considerable opposition in 

 England. There was much cavilling at it as not original, 

 because it was a combination of practices which had ex- 

 isted separately in different districts ; parallel drains at 

 regular intervals, for instance, in Suffolk and Essex ; 

 drain-tiles in another district, and subsoiling in 

 a third. Smith, however, combined them, and may 

 be considered the discoverer. ' His system was ulti- 

 mately adopted and was generally practised, till an 



improvement arose from another quarter in the system 

 of Parkes. The capital improvement in that system is 

 the substitution of the cylindrical pipes for the horse- 

 shoe tiles, and the increasing of the depth of drains. Its 

 weak point was the assumption that depth will, in all 

 cases, compensate for distance — a position which, we 

 believe, i^ now abandoned by iis most strenuous ad- 

 herents. Violent was the controversy which raged 

 between the adherents of Parkes and Smith. In the 

 midst of this controversy a geologist discovers that 

 between the soil and subsoil there are furrows, in which, 

 if the subsoil is retentive, the water must collect ; and 

 he suggests, as a peace-maker, that perhaps the con- 

 tradictory statements on both sides may be reconciled 

 by observing whether the drains ci'oss or run parallel 

 with these furrows. A few years afterwards he re- 

 peats the suggestion more confidently, from having 

 learned that the farmers in a certain district have cut 

 across one set o! these furrows, and have found by so 

 doing they can drain a much larger area with fewer 

 drains than when they are laid parallel with the fur- 

 rows. The position is controverted. A nobleman who 

 is present accidentally says that he has been cutting 

 across these furrows on his own estate, and has thereby 

 drained his land effectually and cheaply. The ge- 

 ologist visits the estate. He is satisfied that the land 

 is efficiently drained. Accounts are shown him, which 

 prove that this has been effected with one-half to 

 two-thirds of the drains usually required to drain 

 an equal area on similar soils. He obtains permis- 

 sion to publish an account of the drainage of the 

 estate, and he calls this method of draining the 

 Keythorpe system, from the name of the estate where 

 it was practised. Numbers are liberally allowed by 

 the noble proprietor to inspect the estate, and are 

 satisfied with the "drainage. Others pronounce judg- 

 ment on it before they have seen it ; and when they do 

 see it, declare their previous conclusions to be confirmed. 

 Then a fresh controversy arises respecting the exis- 

 tence of the furrows. After a time, their existence is 

 admitted : new doubts are expressed whether they are 

 general, and whether, if general, they are available 

 in practice. Numerous observers bear testimony to 

 their existence ; methods are pointed out, by which 

 they have been and may be determined, and determined 

 cheaply. Now, surely, in a question of this kind, 

 there is no necessity for controversy : the question 

 admits of experiment : why not have recourse to it ? 



