THE FARMER'S MAGAZINE. 



173 



the removal of canal ^sluices and mill wheels from our 

 rivers ia all cases where they interfere with perfect 

 drainage ; and the lowering of both to a depth that will 

 effect a similar result : each of which is surrounded by 

 many questions, both political and engineering, deserving 

 of mature deliberation. 



Before proceeding to examine the above two propo- 

 sitions as separate questions, it may be well to ob- 

 serve one notorious fact — that originally, or at onetime, 

 only one of them could have been enunciated as a 

 sound practical question of river drainage. In other 

 words, it is only because our forefathers adopted the 

 beaver-system of engineering, in the raising of mill- 

 dams and canals to the highest possible level so as not 

 to divert the river from its course, that we have now to 

 propose lowering mill-wheels and canal sluices. For 

 example, were there no such obstructions in our rivers 

 as mill-dams and canals, the original or natural state 

 of things before the country was inhabited, or rather, 

 we may be permitted to say, before millers and canal 

 companies took possession of our rivers, who, in mo- 

 dern times of thorough drainage, artificial manuring, 

 and steam-culture, would ever entertain the proposition 

 of erecting mill-dams and canals as they now exist ? 

 Before we find a parallel case to this, we must go to the 

 Far West, where colonial enterprize has not yet set 

 its foot, but where black men and beavers ply their re- 

 spective avocations. Millers and tail-back-water- 

 squires may put on long wry faces at such comparisons ; 

 but it is only when their tenure of existing things is 

 examined irom this political point of view, that its 

 fundamental integrity can be seen in its true light, 

 for it is only when the superstructure rests on a solid 

 foundation that its stability can be considered permanent. 

 Were no such obstructions in existence, Parliament 

 could not pass a statute which would enforce their con- 

 struction at the present day. 



The conclusion of the primary political question is 

 thus a very plain and self-evident one that — if canals, 

 mills, bridges and other river works had been properly 

 constructed originally, the country would not have been 

 called upon as it now is, to interfere with vested and 

 other rights. But because such works were originally 

 imperfectly planned and executed is no valid reason 

 why the misdoings of the past should be experienced as 

 a barrier to the well-being of the present, but the con- 

 trary ; the best and most cogent of all political reasons 

 for Parliament ordering mill-dams, canals, bridges, &c., 

 &c., either to be lowered or removed, so as to allow 

 river drainage to be effectively carried out the one way 

 or the other, for the annual, flooding of our great 

 valleys, cannot, under any circumstances, be longer 

 tolerated. 



The practical question thus comes home to every mil- 

 ler's, canal company's, and any other party's door, who 

 has an interest in improperly executed mill-dams, canals, 

 bridges, and other river works. Lower your works to a 

 level compatible with proper river drainage, or move. 

 Or the question may stand thus : Lower your works or 

 remove them, and leave rivers, as you got them in their 

 original or natural state, free from artificial obstruction. 



So far as canal companies are concerned, we fear they 

 cannot invest the necessary capital to lower their levels 

 inland, and compete with railroads. In many cases 

 rivers may be deepened towards their confluence with 

 the ocean. The inland navigation of our coasting craft 

 may thereby be greatly extended, as they can compete 

 with railroads. In effecting improvements of this kind, 

 capital may be profitably and safely invested ; but be- 

 yond this the general question of lowering inland canal 

 levels appears to be a very problematical one. To all 

 general rules there are exceptions, it is said ; and it is 

 for canal companies themselves to say whether they can 

 plead the exception or not. It is sometimes not a very 

 expensive undertaking to raise canal levels, but to lower 

 them some ten feet is a very different proposition when 

 practically considered on the spot ; for in the vast ma- 

 jority of cases we presume it means not only a sweeping 

 removal of all obstruction to river drainage, but after- 

 wards the commencement of the undertaking ab initio. 



Millers and tail-back-%vater-squires would, we appre- 

 hend, find t'ae lowering of mill-wheels and mill-dams an 

 equally expensive process. In the vast majority of cases 

 that have come under our investigation the better and 

 more advisable plan is for parties to erect a steam- 

 engine before they commence to lower their water- 

 wheels ; for by doing so they would not only require 

 less fresh capital, but they v/ould also be enabled to re- 

 tain the business, which, ten to one, would be lost during 

 the lowering of the mill-dam and water-wheel. It is 

 the business that makes the water-power worth any- 

 thing, and therefore parties — especially those ivhose title 

 deeds are at their banker's — had better think of this in 

 time. In many of those cases the corn had first to be 

 carted from the town to the mill, and when made into 

 flour had to be brought back again to town for sale ; 

 thus involving a double expense of cartage, which would 

 be saved were it ground by steam-mills in town. Add 

 to this a certain amount of damage which both wheat 

 and flour must of necessity sustain, and we have another 

 tangible argument in favour of a timely removal of anti- 

 quated mill-dams and water-wheels from our rivers. 

 These are facts that must be practically disposed of — 

 facts which must satisfy every unbiassed mind that, with 

 such odds in its favour, steam in all such cases must 

 eventually triumph over its rival, water-power. 



With regard to bridges, acute angles, or bends of 

 rivers, &c., much more harm is experienced from im- 

 perfect works of this kind than appears to be generally 

 credited. Until a sweeping clearance is here eflfected, 

 and a proper water-way secured, it is hopeless to think 

 of a satisfactory system of river-drainage ; for it is to 

 obstructions of this kind that a large amount of flooding 

 is nov/ due. At acute bends and bridges, flood-water 

 has to be raised many feet — what may be termed extra- 

 altitude, in order to acquire a sufficient velocity, to pass 

 such obstructions. The question is a very simple one 

 to those who have paid any attention practically to this 

 branch of hydraulics. Cases have come under our own 

 investigation, where this extra-altitude exceeded ten feet, 

 and where, had the river been deepened and widened at 

 that place, so as to give it a sufficient capacity of water- 



q2 



