A. J. Jukes-Broivne — The Heathfield Boring. 17 



depth of the pit at the time was only 56^ feet, consequently the total 

 depth reached was only 456t|^ feet, not 526-^. There is therefore 

 a serious difference between the account furnished to me and that 

 given by Messrs. Legrand & Sutcliff, but Mr. Eeid does not mention 

 the fact, so that readers of the memoir might imagine that he did not 

 consider the discrepancy to be worthy of notice. 



In reply to inquiry, however, Mr. Reid has informed me that he 

 did not publish the account given him without trj-ing to ascertain tlie 

 facts on the spot ; that he went to Heathfield and saw the manager 

 of the potteries and the foreman who was in charge while the boring 

 was being made. As a result he came to the conclusion that someone 

 had confused the depth from the surface with the actual depth of the 

 boring, and that the latter was only 400 feet deep from the floor of 

 the pit, which was then only 56^ feet deep, but had subsequently 

 been deepened to 70 feet. 



On receipt of tliis information I felt it incumbent on me to make 

 further inquiry in order to satisfy myself that this conclusion of 

 Mr. Reid's was correct. Application to the Manager of Messrs. Candy 

 and Co. did not produce any satisfactory result ; it appears that the 

 record possessed by the firm gives the figures which were com- 

 municated to me, and the Manager can only state that he has not 

 been able to find any positive evidence to show that a mistake was 

 made in constructing the tabular section. 



On the other hand, Messrs. Legrand & Sutcliff, by whom the 

 boring was actually made, are able to give more definite information. 

 Asked if they could confirm the account printed in tlie memoir of the 

 Geological Survey and if payment was received for only 400 feet of 

 boring, their answer was in the affirmative to both questions. 

 Consequently I am now satisfied that the actual depth attained by 

 this boring was only 456J feet from the surface of the ground, that 

 the figures and particulars given me in 1908 were incorrect, and that 

 the account based thereon and published in my paper on the " Depth 

 and Succession of the Bovey Deposits " in 1909 is erroneous.^ 



It is desii-able that this conclusion should be put on record, because 

 if no explanation were made those who may hereafter take an interest 

 in the matter would be faced with two inconsistent accounts of the 

 boring, and might find it difficult to ascertain which was the correct 

 one. The case is only one more instance of the curious errors which 

 ci'eep into the records of borings. One can only wish that it was 

 obligatory on all those who have borings made to a depth of more 

 than 100 feet to notify the fact to the Geological Survey Office, so 

 that the results could be properly recorded at the time, and be 

 preserved where they would be accessible to all geologists and 

 engineers. Publishers are obliged by Act of Parliament to supply 

 copies of all books to the British Museum, and it is really of greater 

 public importance that the particulars of all such borings should be 

 communicated to the Geological Survey Office. 



^ Since the above was written the Manager of Messrs. Candy & Co. has 

 informed me that having looked up the charges for the boring he finds that 

 they were for only 400 feet. He admits, therefore, that a mistake must have 

 been made in compiling the account of the section preserved in their office. 

 DECADE VI. — VOL. I. — NO. I. 2 



