THE FARMERS' REGISTER. 



319 



ihe main drains that the water would neither 

 stand in the drains, nor run of]' so quick as to in- 

 jure the bottom of the drain. In lour cases out 

 of five, the cross system is the best, and as Innd 

 is generally ploughed up and down hill, every 

 drain runs across the furrows, which always an- 

 swers a better purpose than in the lurrows. In 

 ehort, I should never have high crowned ridges 

 'where the land was properly drained. 



Now, sir, (or broken stones instead of hollow 

 drains. I have seen drains taken up which had 

 been filled thus, perhaps one hundred years ago, 

 and were running tolerably well ; I have seen 

 others taken up, which, from the state of the land, 

 had perhaps been run up one hundred years ago. 

 I should, therefore, say that in some kinds of 

 land, or in some situations they may and do an- 

 swer; but in every situation 1 should save the 

 trouble of breaking them for strong or clay land ; 

 and when I could get stone suitable, I prefer flat 

 stones set on edge to the firm land, and one edge 

 of the corners set to the opposite side and reared 

 to the other, in an inclined position, and forminij 

 a triangular drain. At top of the corner, 1 should 

 put hedge dressing, stubble, croppint^s of trees, 

 or under wood or gravel,^nall stones or cinders, 

 between and the surface soil. I should not put 

 any clay in again. If the stones were rough 

 I should adopt the same plan, but cut the drains 

 a little wider. If I used tile I should prefer them 

 made flat instead of arched, and form triangular 

 drains in the same way as with flat stones.' In a 

 great number of our coal districts in this county, 

 a broken stone drain would not remain open two 

 years. There is a mineral substance in the soil, 

 (oxide of iron, I believe,) with which the water 

 is so impregnated as to choke the drains, if made 

 of broken stones. 



Mr. Smith says, that by the up-hill system, or 

 his system, or what I call the old system raised 

 from tfie dead, a less length of drains is required 

 to drain an acre of land effectually, than by the 

 cross system ; and of course, if sunk no deeper, 

 must cost less per acre. I think I can prove from 

 his table of distances and expense, that as the 

 lawyers say, he has not made out his case. 



The distance he recommends for stiff clay sub- 

 soils is from 10 to 15 feet ; for sandy clay sub- 

 soils, from 15 to 20 feet; and so on up to 40 feet, 

 as the bottom is more open and porous. 



Now, except Mr. Smith can drain land per- 

 fectly dry, wi'h drains at greater distances than 

 these, there can be no benefit whatever in his 

 system ; but, on the contrary, a loss. By taking 

 the drains across the incline of the land, four 

 acres out of five, or more, of clay land in this 

 county, would be made, perfectly dry with drains, 

 at 15 to 20 feet distance. Very little land would 

 require them so near as 12 feet. But, suppose 

 by taking them across the incline, the land re- 

 quired the drains at the same distance as if di- 

 rected up the hill, what advantage is there in 

 point of expense? To prove which is the best 

 system on the same land, the drains must be at 

 equal distances in both systems, and in this case 

 the length per acre will be the same in both 

 cases; consequently, the expense would be the 

 same, for both systems require leading drains. 

 One system requires them up-hill, and the other 

 along the bottom of the hill or field. 



It does not appear from reading Mr. Smith's 



work, that he has had any experience in draining 

 on the cross system ; of course, what he says 

 against it arises merely from his ideas, or from 

 seeing liraininir on ihnt sys'em b^jitlv executed. 

 Most of the of)jeclioii6 he raises aguinsi it, may 

 be raised with equal truth against his own. 

 Others are no objections at all, as they arise from 

 the ignorance or carelessness of the drainer, not 

 of the system, and the same ignorance or care- 

 lessness, would do the same mischief in any 

 system of drainijig. 



At page 6 and 7, Mr. Smith gives the names 

 of a number of respectable ajxriculturists, who 

 have " astonished the natives," with the supe- 

 rior crops they have got after draining upon the 

 Deanston system. Now I feel quite convinced 

 that draining was the primary cause of those su- 

 perior crops; but I will venture to say also, that 

 the benefit arose more from the number of the 

 drains than the direction of them — the " fre- 

 quent" system, not the Deanston system. I 

 have -proved the great benefit of the frequent 

 system 30 years ago ; I am acquainted with two 

 farms drained on this system ; one of them was 

 drained ten years belbre I was born, and the other 

 about ten years alter. The drainage of these 

 (arms is as perfect now as at the first. The -n- 

 clination of the land on one is very considerable, 

 and in a part of the other. 



I am acquainted with a considerable portion of 

 Ayrshire, and I will venture to say that more than 

 three-fourths of it would be drained as eflectually 

 at from one-eighth to one-sixth less expense by 

 the cross system, than by the Deanston system. 



A gentleman vvho resides at no great distance 

 from Manchester, drained a quantity of clay land 

 about ten years ago. The drains were put in a 

 right direction for the land, which had not much 

 inclination, but they were laid at too great a dis- 

 tance from each other. They were also very 

 expensive ones, as they cost quite as much as 

 would have nflade three times the number, which 

 would have been about the proper distince. The 

 manager was a young Scotchman ; and, like 

 most of his countrymen who come here young, 

 thought he knew more of agriculture than all the 

 farmers in Lancashire put together; of course, 

 he would not be taught. Alter a number of 

 yeare, the proprietor of the land seeing the drain- 

 ing was imperfect, and taking in some La Belle 

 jlssemblee of agriculture, and seeing there the 

 newest fashion of draining just come down, not 

 from Paris, but from Perthshire, he commenced 

 two years ago, draining the land over again upon 

 the newest fiishion ; namely, up hill, every fur- 

 row, and with broken sione. In March 1840, I 

 was in that neighborhood, and seeing the men 

 at work, I went to see their operations. The 

 ridges were 10 feet wide, of course the drains 10 

 feet asunder. The men were breaking stones 

 which were beautifully adapted for triangular 

 drains. Now, the subsoil in this field was a very 

 good one for draining, and drains at 21 feet dis- 

 tance would have made excellent work, and 

 would have cost little more than one-third the 

 expense. Some parts of the same estate, to make 

 gook work, would require them at 12 leet dis- 

 tance ; but all were served alike. In the above 

 field 1 showed the workmen that the old drains, 

 across of the incline, drained full 21 (eet. I found 

 ihey were not very anxious to point this out to 



