EFFECTS OF SULPHUR UPON IRON FENCING. 165 



XVI. On the Deleterious effects of Sulphur upon Iron Fencing. 

 By Thomas Wilkie, Forester, Invergarry, Fort- Augustus. 



The beauty of the policy, as well as the scenery of the landscape, 

 is much increased by tbe style of fences adopted. Till within the 

 last twenty years it was customary to erect stone walls or dykes 

 of various kinds with common stob and rail fences, or hedges 

 where suitable. These are now being superseded by iron and 

 wire fencing, of which many thousand miles are erected all over 

 the country. In some parts double-pronged standards have been 

 extensively used ; in others, self-fixing vases are adopted, but the 

 kind most largely used hitherto has been batted into stones. 

 Straining pillars or posts are batted 4 inches, and the common 

 standards generally 3 inches deep. Sulphur has been adopted more 

 lai'gely for batting than any other substance. Several years ago I 

 instituted inquiries as to the suitableness of sulphur for batting, as 

 I believe it contains an acid ; and as all acids are corrosive, I sus- 

 pected that sulphur would corrode the iron. Only one practical 

 forester corroborated my opinion. I examined several fences 

 which were erected with sulphur, and stood only for six years. I 

 found that the iron was being reduced neai'ly one-sixteenth, having 

 adhered to the sulphur. I scraped this off, and found the sulphur 

 as good as when run into the stone. I wrote to various quarters, 

 and having spoken about it to some gentlemen, who made inquiries, 

 it was found that some doubted the suitableness of sulphur. One 

 said although the sulphur caused corrosion to a certain extent, it 

 soon became expended, forming what engineers term a " rust joint," 

 which is reckoned the best of all joints. I also learned that a 

 fence erected with the use of sulphur, having standards, etc., of a 

 common size, 1^ inches by y^-ths had been corroded through. 

 Having mentioned this fact, the answer given was, possibly the 

 iron was not good, the sulphur not rightly managed, or bad stones 

 were used. It was, however, erected by practical fencers. If the 

 acid became expended, how was the fence corroded as described 1 

 Either the acid was present in the sulphur-, or if expended, it 

 caused corrosion to commence, and to operate on the iron sub- 

 sequent to its being expended. A respectable fence contractor, 

 whom I asked if he believed sidphur to be deleterious to iron, 

 said, "Of course it is; and many practical fencers know the fact." 



