121 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[Ar 



logical fornuition of this country; I have also heen in communi- 

 cation with many of the first agriculturists, who have heen drain- 

 ing for years soils of every description, hoth deep and shallow. 

 On my own farm (of ahout 200 acres) I have tried various ex- 

 ]ierimcnts. In one field I took equal quantities of land to test 

 the dee]) against the shallow jjlan; the soil, a strong hrick earth. 

 On j)art 1 sunk the drains 4 to 5 feet deeji, and i>laced them at 

 intervals of 40 feet; u]ion the other portion tlie drains were 

 21 feet ajiart, and only 2 feet dee)). This depth of 2 feet is less than 

 I should have adopted for the regular drainage of the field, hut I 

 wished to try extremes against each other. On the deep drains 1 

 returned the clay, as the advocates for the deep system state that 

 all water enters from helow. These operations were effected last 

 year and during the past winter. The water has heen constantly 

 standing betv/een the deep drains, as it is at this time, 29th April; 

 whilst the shallow-drained ))ortion has been in a comparatively 

 dry and healthy state. To this experiment, indeed, I can attach 

 no great importance, as it has been made only lately, and the 

 results may in some measure be different in another year; yet 

 ni)on other ]iortions of my land I liave drains not exceeding 

 .SO inches, which have acted perfectly for years. In another field 

 I put some deep drains, and returned the clay on the tiles, and 

 found in the s]iring, when 1 wanted to roll the wheat with 

 Crosskill's dod-cruslier, that on that portion of the field the land 

 was not nearly so dry, and the soil stuck to the roller. I may 

 mention here that a railway cutting through my farm 18 feet 

 deep, drains no more land on each side of it than a drain 3 feet 

 deep. 



A neighbour of mine, the Rev. E. Tunson, of ^Voodlands, had 

 several deep drains put on his farm many years ago. These drains 

 continued open, but ceased to act, and the land above them be- 

 came so wet that it had to be re-drained. The same may be seen 

 on the estate of H. Ilolloway, Esq., at Marchwood; and also the 

 I'ark at Norris Castle, Isle of ^^'ight, where, though thousands 

 have been expended in deep di-ains for s]n-ings, the soil being re- 

 tentive, surface-draining is more wanted. This would not have 

 been the case had the soil been of a porous nature: it arose from 

 the fact that the water could not percolate through the clay-bed 

 to the required depth. I found numerous other deep drains quite 

 unobstructed, yet the land about them so wet that we did not. 

 knovv it had been drained; for instance, at TluuMihill, near South- 

 ampton. And 1 remember Lord Portman telling me of a similar 

 instance on an estate of his near BlaniU'ord. 



I wish to point to cases of tlie failure of deep drains, under 

 those circumstances in which I have expressed myself opposed to 

 their use, in many parts of England, and on various geological 

 formations; and 1 may as well, therefore, arrange them in some- 

 thing of geographical order. From Hampshire, tlien, we will 

 turn eastward and pass into Kent. We have heard much on the 

 deep-draining on the weald-day; — like most other clays it varies 

 greatly in its nature; in some places it is of a very tenacious 

 character on the surface, but as you dig into it. instead of becom- 

 ing stronger it becomes milder. In this case ymir drain may have 

 a freer fiow of water at 4 feet than at 2 or 3 ; because the water 

 having, by however slow a process, percolated through the super- 

 incumbent mass, does not meet with a more retentive bed of clay 

 at 2 or 3 feet, as on other soils; but in other parts of the weald 

 tjie arrangement will be found which is common with the days of 

 tlie Londcni Basin — the oolite and lias. The section of the ground 

 will then present soils in tlie following order: — 



Surface. 



Tlie ploughed soil. 



A soil pai'iakiiit; of tlie cliaiactcr of the superincumbent cultivated 

 earth and of the strong clay benealh, and which will admit of percolation. 



A bed of leiiac-ioiis clay, not full of wiitcr, but almost iiiipen iiiiis, being 

 llie cause of the wetness of ihe land, rain-water not j;oing into it. 



In this case the water will be found just above the tenacious 

 clay, and it is a great error in draining to go deeper into this 

 than to bury your tile or pijie with safety, unless this mass of 

 retentive clay is within a foot or two of the surface; then place 

 your drain 31) inches or 3 feet, filling that portion in the retentive 

 clay with some porous material, such as a grass sod or soil, for 

 the purpose of at any future time deepening your soil by subsoil 

 jdoughing, trenching, &c. In proof tiiat deep draining will not 

 in all cases answer upon the weald clay, I quote the following 

 letter: — 



Slaj/lehurs/, January 30, 1847. 



Df.ar Sir,— In reply to your favour of the arjih iini., I lit-y to say that 

 the laud iu my occuiiation is fur the most part very slilf, wet, and llal, 



consequently subjected frequently to serious injury from wet seasons, lo 

 obviate which 1 have been draining ahout 200 acres on Ihe farm upon 

 which I reside, besides small quantities of otiier farms, perhaps altiigether 

 rather more than 300 acres, nearly the whole of which has been dune oa 

 the clay soils of Ihe Weald of Kent. I commenced by going 2\ feet deep, 

 and found it answer my expectations fully. Subsequent to this an opinion 

 began lo be enlerlained that deeper drains would be much more bene- 

 ficial for our clays; many advocated it and adopted it, some of whicii is 

 said lo have been successful, although I must confess I have never mjself 

 been an eye-witness to a single case in which dpep draining has been suc- 

 cessful upon wet stiff clays. Although my employnient as a land agent 

 and vainer gives me tlic greates tpossible opportunity ftir observation, Ihe 

 geneial prevalence of the opinion induced me to go a litlle deeper than 

 before, and in one field of between and 7 acres, at Ihe earnest request 

 of my deep. draining friends, I put in the drains near 4 feet deep and 

 33 feet apart four years ago (this was in 1843): in consequence of Ihe 

 stiffness of the soil, being nearly all strong clay, it proved an entire failure; 

 and I have Ihis winter drained it a^'.ain about 30 inches deep, and am fully 

 persuaded that depth in land like mine is much the best, being wet from 

 the rain that falls upon it, and not subject lo springs. 1 have no doubt 

 the water would after a lime pass down lo the deeper drain ; but it would 

 do great injury before doing so. I should recommend deep drains upon 

 porous soils and land subject to springs, but on those soils on which there 

 are no springs, whicli are W'et from rain that falls on Ihem only, and are 

 not porous, it is next lo madness, in my opinion, to drain them deep — say 



4 or 5 feel, as some contend for. Yours, &c., William Bahnes. 

 W. B. Webster, Esq , 6cc., &c. 



Turning northward, we will pause at Norfolk to record the 

 o]iinion, upon the subject of draining deep upon strong clay, of 

 one of the best farmers in that county. C^harles Etheredge, Esq., 

 of Sturston, Harleston. He writes thus: — 



You know all round my heavy land here 1 have ditches from 3J lo 



5 feet deep, and sudi dilclies are general throughout Ihe same laiiu iu 

 Norfolk and Suffolk, on farms well cultivated, and Ihey are generally kept 

 clean with a free access for the water. Still we find it necessary \a h- n 

 our drains are parallel lo these diiches, to make them not exceeeiling 

 22^ feet apart from them. I do not mean to say that if drains 3J to 4 feet 

 deep were put 40 feel apart on these soils, ihe centre between Ihe Uvo 

 would not be improved by Ihem. I think it would, but certainly in a 

 Uiuch less degree than if they were 22 feet apart and 30 inches deep; and 

 there would be another great objection on clay interspersed with flint and 

 chalk boulders iu the digging. 1 find Ibal after 2J feet of soil has been 

 removed, the next 14 to 10 inches have cost Orf. lo 8d. per rod of ,5j yards. 

 It is not at all nncommon to see a clay-pit stand with water, within 2 feet 

 of the surface, within from 3 to G yards of a 4 feet ditcli : where 1 have 

 been draining 4 feet deep, the subsoil is interspersed with sand pockets, 

 and a much greater width between the drains may be allowed ; bul iheie 

 can be no rule. Finally, my great object iu draining is not only lo do 

 it effectually, but rapidly. You must in no instance be sati?fied lo have 

 your soil saturaled with water till your sluggish drains draw il off; it 

 must go off as quickly as it (alls, or your drainage will be neither effec- 

 tual nor permanent. Yours, &c., C. Etheredge. 



W. B. Webster, Esq., &c., &c. 



Mr. Nesbitt (the well-known agricultural chemist), in the dis- 

 cussion which took place at the London Farmer Club on the 

 9th of March, in tlie present year, in stating his opinion that u]ion 

 some soils deep-drainage was most effective, whilst upon others a 

 shallower drainage ought to be adopted, referred to Mr. Thomp- 

 son in this county (I think he said), as having tried deep draining 

 on his farm, and having been compelled, after a fair trial, to 

 abandon it, not finding it successful on that soil. To quote in- 

 stances of the success of an opposite system is no proof that deep 

 draining migiit not likewise produce advantages; yet where ex- 

 perience has proved the value of the one, it is hardly wise to 

 engage in large operations on an experimental plan that can 

 hardly produce fairer results, and may lie attended witli disap- 

 pointment and waste of expenditure. It has been by draining 

 at depths of 30 and 3() inches, and at distances of 18 to 24 feet, 

 that the farms of Mr. Harvey, Mr. (iidiioy, and many others on 

 the clay lands round Harleston, in the south-eastern part of this 

 county, ha\ e heen brought into their present admirable condition. 

 In Lincolnshire I have gone over thousands of acres of the fens; 

 and I found the fact testified to by most of the best farmers, that 

 if the water in the ditches or dikes is taken off to a level below 

 3 feet, the grass-land in dry summers is decidedly injured. The 

 f<illo\ving letter from a farmer of this county will show that deep 

 draining is not so novel a practice as some of its modern advocates 

 assert: — 



Sifanton^ near Folkingham, February 17, 1847. 



Sir — I will answer yuur postscript first. 3My opinion is deciiledly 

 agaiiisi deep draining on strong clay land. The parish where I reside is 

 composed of |iart field and part fen ; a great portion of ihe field land is 

 slroiig clay. Several years ago when we first conimeuted draining wiih 

 lilcs, Ihey were put in deep, 3 feet C inches, aud the lauds being wide 



