Heclamation of Land from the Sea. 663 



enemy, tlie sea, wliose opposition never tired. Wlien sucli a work 

 was contemplated there were several considerations whicli ought not 

 to be lost sight of. 



First, the question of area — whether it was worth while to make an 

 expensive bank to reclaim a certain number of acres ? Then the value 

 of the land to be worked for agricultural pm-poses. In Ms own ex- 

 perience, on the coast of Essex portions of land had been reclaimed at 

 considerable cost, but a long time elapsed before it could be utilised 

 by the agriculturist. In these instances the land was rough in itself, 

 and seemed to retain the salt of the sea so long that it required long 

 exposure to air and rain to disperse the salt before it was fit for cattle 

 to graze upon. On the other hand, in other cases the land had been 

 brought into cultivation almost as soon as the sea had been shut out ; 

 he remembered a peculiar example on the banks of one of the large 

 rivers in Ireland, where the tenants of the landowners ran up small 

 walls, and shut out the sea ; by this means the mud was enclosed, and 

 the next year the farmers were able to raise a crop of wheat. In this 

 particular instance he attributed the success to the fact that the river 

 runs over a large bed of limestone, and brings down a deposit which 

 neutralised the effect of the salt. The soil, too, was very rich, and 

 under these circumstances perhaps it was natural that the crops would 

 take almost immediate effect. Instances similar to this he believed 

 had occm-red in Norfolk. 



The nature of the soil which the rivers brought down into the bays 

 that were to be reclaimed was a third, and highly imj)ortant conside- 

 ration. Limestone always neutralised the salt, but there were mate- 

 rials often brought down of a totally different character. 



Much skill was required in determining the kinds of banks to be 

 used for different places ; scarcely two cases admitting of precisely the 

 same treatment ; the surrounding circinnstances being of the most 

 varying description. Hence anything like classification was impossible. 

 Generally speaking, embankments might be treated under three heads. 

 One was an embankment of earth against the sea with large slopes, 

 and perhaps flat fore-shores, where the waves did not break with great 

 force, in which case the work might safely be done by sodding, and 

 other similar contrivances. This method was as inexjjensive as it 

 possibly could be. The second method was banking against the deep 

 water of the sea. This work required to be stoned ^dth considerable 

 batters on the one side and of considerable strength on the to}?, the 

 width being generally sufficient to bear the blow of heavy waves, even, 

 at a considerable elevation above them. The back slopes of these 

 banks were of pretty much the same kind, because a foreshore was 

 really the portion that received the blow of the sea, and was therefore 

 more likely to be injured. It was here the engineer foimd the 

 greatest trouble in resisting the opposing force. The third kind of 

 embankment was the stone walling, or the upright wall, which was of 

 all the most difficult of construction. There was a difference of opinion 

 amongst engineers as to the precise form these walls should take. He 

 was just now superintending the construction of a sea-wall nearly a 

 mile long in the Isle of Wight on behalf of the Government. It was 



2x2 



