

Pec. 15, 185 5.] 



THE AGRICULTURAL GAZETTE. 



S29 



afdeep-draining, in which a desire to keep down the cost has led could find its way down, and so dense and dry in the subsoil, that f about 14 vears since this specimen of permanent shallow drainin" 

 ♦n an indiscreet widening of the distance, and the unsatisfactory no water could be gained from cutting into it. These clays have was done. This length of time accords with the period which £ 



an indiscreet widening of the distance, and the unsatisfactory 

 i«sult to which I have referred has proved that the increased 

 Spoth of drains will not compensate for increased distance, and 

 ♦hat soils which should be drained 24 feet apart, cannot be suffi- 

 ciently well drained at 40 feet upart, let the depth he what it 

 mar. put the effect has been no other than this,— the principle 

 of depth has remained unshaken. It has simply proved that 

 food draining is not to be done for as little money as bad. 



jimong the instances of this species of partial failure, I may 

 state that I have been obliged in several instances to introduce 

 intermediate drains when I have been over careful of expendi- 

 ture and have placed those first laid out 30 feet, where they 

 ought to have been 25 feet apart. 



ft is a common assertion, " that water cannot get down through 

 clays," but in no one instance has it been successfully shown that 

 water will disobey the laws of gravitation, or will fail to descend 

 through any clay soil, however absorbent and retentive, to an 

 approximate level with drains of reasonable depth (not less than 

 4feet), it" they be placed sufficiently near each other to counter- 

 act such absorbent and retentive properties, and to meet the 

 effect of atmospheric humidity in maintaining them in force. 



Frequently has it fallen to my lot to meet men retaining pre- 



dices in favour of shallow draining, on clays which they have 

 declared to be so stiff and retentive, that it was impossible water 





nevertheless been drained from 4 to 5 feet deep, and water has 

 flowed copiously from the outlets ; still the advocates of shallow 

 draining, when asked * 4 from whence comes the water?" reject 

 this simple proof of their error. 



The following extract of a letter will show that land carefully 

 drained 18 inches deep with tiles, becomes, in a few years, a^ wet 

 or even wetter than before. It is from Mr. Macvicar, of Bark- 

 with, in Lincolnshire. He wyt— * I have met with several cases 

 of shallow drainage which at first have been followed with bene- 

 ficial results, and have become after a time inoperative. Thus, 

 in the parish of Colsterworth, a field of strong retentive clay 

 land was drained in 1842, at a depth of 18 inches ; for a time the 

 land was apparently laid dry, but in succeeding years it showed 

 symptoms of returning wetuess. I saw the field last week; it is 

 sown with Wheat, and, though water-furrowed, the land is satu- 

 rated with water. I examined the outlets, which were running 

 very slowly, although I believe the drains are open." 



I have never yet heard a satisfactory reason for land returning 

 to a state of wetness after being dry. One thing, however, is 

 proved by Mr. Macvicar s case, and that is, that it is not 

 merely by the substitution of the durable pipe for the perishable 

 thorn that the surface of land can be rendered permanently 

 dry, as the shallow drainers say. It will be observed that it is 



TABLE ONE. 



Name of County. 



• • 



• ft 



• • i 



« • • 



# # 



- ■ * 



• * • 



• •• 



of... 



* i « 



• •• 



Cornwall 



Devonshire ... ) . - 

 Somersetshire |P art0X 

 Wales, part of 



Monmouth ^ 



Worcester 



Hereford 



Salop ... J 



Lancashire 



Yorkshire 



Northumberland }- parts of... 



Westmoreland... 



Cumberland 



Scotland, part of 



Outlying portions in the Midland district 



v parts 



... 



... 



• • t 



• . • 



• • . 



Total extent of 

 each County 

 included in 



district. 



Acres. 

 851,200 



1,657,200 



4,000,000 



1,315,040 



Extent of land 



cultivated 



and land capable 



of improvement. 



Proportion of 

 wet land. 



Amount of money 



applied for under 



the Public M^mey 



Drainage JLct. 



Amount ex- 

 pended under 

 the act. 



Acres. 



680,000 



1.215,000 

 2,997,000 



1/215,000 



1,035,000 



• • ' 



. . . 



IM 



is,ooo,ooo 



35,840 



565,000 



— 



Acres. 



255,000 



40/00 

 1,250,000 



750,000 



9,628,390 

 20,d00 



360,000 



63,702 



I 



1 



223,863 



17,04 I 



83,297 



5,000,000 

 10,000 



1,941,168 



1,165,683 



26.894,280 



16.820.890 



8.02/s.oon 



£2.22«,733 



£1.276.02 



TABLE TWO. 



Name of County. 



Total extent of 



each County 



included in 



Middle district. 



• • • 



• ■ ■ 



• * » 



Devon . . . ") 

 Somerset v-parts of... 



Dorset ... ) 



Gloucester... 



Monmouth 



Worcester j- parts of 



Salop, and I 



Wales . . . ) 



Lancashire ..A 



Yorkshire ... 



Northumberland > paits of... 



Westmoreland... I 



Cumberland ...J • 



Durham 



Scotland, parts of 



Lincolnshire \ 



Norfolk ... I 



Cambridge i 



Huntingdon J 



Bedford 



j^uckingham 



Oxford ( 



Berks... V-parts of 

 Wilts...) 



Warwick 



Northampton 



Rutland 



Leicester 



Nottingham 

 Derby 



Stafford 



Cheshire 



• • • 



• « • 



Acres. 



1,200,000 



Extent of land 



cultivated 



and land capable 



of improvement. 



Acres. 



1,170,000 



Proportion of 

 wet land. 



» • 



2,434,080 



5,920,120 



2,340,000 



Acres. 



650,000 



Amount of money 

 applied for under 



the Public Money 

 Drainage Act. 



£ 



Amount ex- 

 pended under 

 the act. 





1,350,000 



252,67S 



£ 





125,055 



5,387,000 



• • * 



• • * 



parts of 



• • « 



• • i 



*•• 



• • • 



) 



parts of 



■ • • 



• . . 



702,080 

 1,352,320 



1,321,040 



9 • ft 



* ft • 



» - - 



ft • ■ 



ft • • 



• ■ ■ 



lit 



• - • 



• - * 



- • . 



• • • 



ft ft I 



ft • ft 



■ • • 



• • ft 



• •• 



■ ft ft 



ft ■ • 



• ft ft 



• • • 



■ a ■ 



I • • 



• • 



» • ft 



ft I ft 



• • 



ft * • 



ft • • 



ft ■ « 



ft • • 



- - - 



■ • ft 



ft ft • 



Total, A 



4S8,640 



1,020,000 



574,080 

 650,240 

 95.360 

 500,000 

 535,680 

 657,920 

 757.760 

 673,2S0 



650,610 



1,200,000 



1,286,000 



3,000,000 



400,000 

 700,000 



800,000 



704,S31 



106,174 

 640,000 



4J 2,062 



64.101 

 314,01 



450,000 



965,000 



525,000 

 620,000 

 90,000 

 480.000 

 510.000 

 590,000 

 720,00D 



63<>/>00 



■ - 



• • • 



i • 



1S.8S2.600 



17.613 610 



250,000 



600,000 



350,000 

 375,000 

 40,000 

 250,000 

 300.000 

 300,000 

 550,000 

 500,000 



k 



158,133 



70,113 



20.525 



| 16,189 



27,208 



13,108 



100 





17,3S5 



12,155 



39,792 



16.952 



9,550 



3,261 



39,200 



28,930 



37,104 



23,234 



10.415.0* 



2.052,680 



1.130,080 



TABLE THREE. 



Name of County. 



Total extent of 



each County 



included in 



district. 



Extent culti- 

 vated and 

 capable of 



improvement. 



Proportion of 

 wet land. 



• • • 



• • • 



• • i 



parts of... 



• ■ • 



• • * 



• • • 



Dorset 

 Wilts 



Berks 



Hants 

 Oxford .... 



Backs and Beds, parts of ... 



Umbridge and Hunts, parts of 

 Hertford 



Middlesex 



lr rey ... 

 Sussex ... 



Kent 

 Essex 



Suffolk'." 



Jfonblk, part of 



£nco!n, part of 



*£kshire, part of ... 



"flying portions on the Western side ... 



• • • 



• • ■ 



■ • 



• * • 



• • ■ 



• • • 



» • • 



■ . • 



» • t 



■ • ■ 



• • • 



• • • 



Acres. 



2,203,S40 



*• • 





ft • • 



• • • 



■ • > 



• • • 



• • a 



ft • ft 



• • ft 



• • • 



ft ft ft 



ft ft ft 



ft ft • 



ft • - 



■ > . 



• • 



ft I • 



Total 



• • . 



280,000 

 546,560 

 403/200 

 180,480 

 485,760 

 938,240 



996,48 > 



981.120 

 960. 60* > 



1,2 -.36^ 



600,000 



45", ( 00 

 254,480 



10.575120 



Acres. 



2,130,000 



Acres. 



265,000 



519,000 

 375,000 



160,000 



450,000 



900,000 



940,000 



940,000 

 920 000 

 1,215,000 

 550,000 

 42\000 

 235,000 



600,000 



Amount of money 



applied for under 



the Public Monies 



Drainage Act. 



Amount ex- 

 pended under 

 the act. 



£ 



£ 



250,000 

 300,000 



1,300,000 



650.000 

 700,000 



600,000 

 50,000 



55,473 



,024.0* 



4.450.000 



IS/750 

 10,625 

 29,155 

 52,768 

 J3,020 



21,806 



8,990 

 18,260 



35,000 



21,31 



17,363 



3.176 

 13,155 

 22,21 

 8.293 

 6,782 

 5.405 

 6,853 



taooo 



273.816 



122.' 



TAI.LE FOUR. 



DISTRICTS. 



Western 



Total 



extent. 



Extent . Proportion 

 cultivated * 



of 



*Nle district., 

 ^tern district.. 



TofftT 



A i • res . 

 26,894.230 

 18,882,6* 

 10,575,12(1 



and 

 capable ©f 

 cultivation 



wet land. 





Acres. 

 V 120,390 j 

 17,613610 



lu f uJ4.000 



Acres. 



8 f (>25,000 



10,415,000 



4,450,000 



Amour t O 



money 



exoended 



under the 



Public 



Money 



Drainage Act 



£ 

 1,276,020 



1,130,080 

 122,683 



Amount of 



money 



expended 



under the 



Private 



Money 



Ma in age Act 



Amount of 

 monev 



■ 



expended by 

 Incorporated 



Company. 



Estimated extent 



of land drained 

 permanently by [j^^jh 



generally understood to be the time which elapses before bush- 

 draining would be renewed. 



As an advance upon the extremely shallow drainage of 18 inches- 

 and 24 inches depth, we find Mr* Denison, Mr. Mil ward, and 

 several other gentlemen of high repute, draining: from 2 feet 

 6 inches to 3 feet deep, and they still, I believe, express them- 

 selves satisfied with the result; but, as drains of the medium 

 depth of 2 feet 6 inches to 3 feet cannot fail to do some good (and*, 

 perhaps, a lasting one, so far as the discharge of water goes), the 

 tact that the result has been satisfactory to those who performed 

 the work does not prove that such medium depth is the best. On 

 the contrary, I hope, by referring to a few facts, to show that 

 drainage as shallow as 30 inches or 36 inches, fails to provide for 

 all the objects in view. 



Three important advantages attend deep drainage beyond the 

 primary object of discharging superfluous water. The first is— 

 the increased quantity of soil ameliorated and rendered service- 

 able to vegetation ; the second— its improved temperature ; and" 

 third— the removal of the pipes beyond the reach of deep culti- 

 vation, aud beyond the reach of annual vegetation, to stop the- 

 drains by the growth of roots within them. With regard to the 

 first advantage, it can hardly be necessary to say that the staple 

 of :r rated soil, into which the roots of plants can travel and seek 

 their food, cannot be too deep. Every inch of additional drainage 

 gives 100 tons of active soil per acre, rendered, by drains*:-, so 

 free and porous, as to gain fertility from the rain passing through 

 it. and from tin >lution of tl ingredients of the soil, and from 

 the manure which is brought down from the surface by the rain. 



Mr. Denton then passes on to discuss Mr. Trimmer's 

 plan of Keythorpe drainage. He says: 



Allowing for a difference in the mode of carrying this into 

 ex ;;i n, this method is based upon the same principle as Mi 

 Baker, of VVrlttie, has enunciated, viz., that if there be a porous 



oil only 2 <t d p, resting on an impervious subsoil, not hn 

 is gained by carry i£r the drains into the latter.— All practical 

 men — I mean practical men, qua drainage — will at once dispute 

 the assumption that there exists any clay subsoil at a depth of 

 2 feet below the surface which is impervious, and that, there- 

 fore any system founded on it is nothing more or less than an 

 indirect mode of shallow draining, aiming only at the discharge 

 of water, without seeking any of those collateral advantages 

 just referred to. Lord Berne rs, the owner of the Keythorpe 

 estate, having certain lands in hand, commenced hi* draining 

 operations by causing num« us holes to be dug. By observe 

 tion and experiment, which appears ultimately to have led tu a 

 definite practice, his lordship was enabled to arrange his drains 

 so far distant from these holes as just to suflice to draw the water 

 out of them. Mr. Trimmer explains the mode adopted to be a 



v stem of draining by pipe channels transverse to certain ridge* 

 and furrows found to exist between soil and subsoil. g 



Without venturing to deny the statement of so sound a geo- 

 logist as to the existence of these subterranean ridges and 

 furrows, and without presuming to deny that Lord lierners has 

 rendered his land dry for the time being, I am content to state 

 what appear to me insuperable objections to the general adop- 

 tion of the Keythorpe syBtem. The first is, that the depth of 

 the drainage must necessarily depend upon the depth of tho 

 furrows, whether they be 18 inches or 10 feet deep (if they are 

 found to exist of sufficient regularity to become applicable as 

 drains at all). We have the evidence >f what has been done at 

 Keythorpe, showing that they are sometimes found to lie only 

 18 inches deep, one-tenth of the drains being that depth. 



Lord WImrnclinVs plan of compromising between 

 the deep and shallow systems is thus referred to 



It is called the combined system of deep and shallow drainare 

 an<l has been described by his lordship, in the "Journal of the* 

 Royal Agricultural Society," in the following terms:— "I deter- 

 mined to combine with the fundamental 4 feet drains a system 

 of auxiliary ones of much less depth, which should do their 

 work above, and contribute their share to the wholesome dis- 

 charge, while the under current from their more subterranean 

 neighbours should be steadily performing their more difficult 

 duty. I ace mplished this by placing my 4 feet drains at a 

 distance of from 18 to 20 yards apart, and then leading others 

 into them, sunk only to about 2 feet beneath the surface (which 

 appeared upon consideration to be sufficiently below any con- 

 ceivable depth of cultivation), and laying these at a distance 





from ea«*h other of 8 yards. These latter are laid at an acute 



lgle with the main drams, and at their mouths are either gradu- 

 ally sloped downwards to the lower level, or have a few loose 

 stones placed in the same intervals between the two. sufficient to 

 ensure the perpendicular descent of the upper stream thro h 

 that space, which can never exceed, or, indeed, strictly equal the 

 additional 2 feet." 



In order to give rou the most authentic account of the results 

 of this system, I will read you the following extracts from a letter 

 I have just received from Mr. William Hunt, of Wortley :— 



u I am now able to give you my opinion of the weeesa of the 

 same system of draining upon the Carleton property, belonging 

 to Lord WharnciifTe. The combined system has succeeded most 

 admirablv there. The soil generally is a strong loam for al tt 

 one foot in depth, then a stiff clay subsoil, but I found on making 

 trial pits in several parts of each field, that at the depth of about 



i feet, and between that and 4 feet, the clay was a little more 

 poro , although below that depth it became quite stiff. J. there- 

 fore, set out the 4 feet drains according to his lordships usual 

 practice, by 20 yards apart, with the 2 feet drains slanting into 

 the 4 feet at 8 yards apart. 



" The tenants were at first much averse to the combined 

 system, but they are now highly in favour of it in preference to 

 the regular system at whatever depths, and they are now prepar- 

 ing to sow Turnips next seas, n, where such practice was never 

 thought of previously. The rapid manner in which the surface 

 has become dry after the heaviest falls of rain has quite summed 

 all parties who have witnessed the effects of the combined system 

 of draining at Carfetoo, I have no doubt but 4 ^f^ams placed 

 at regular di^ nces, would have drained the land Jbave nam. d 

 but the cost vetiM have been much higher, and what is of greaitr 

 importance than the expense?" 



Mr. Denton lastly gives some directions for deter- 

 mining the intervals between drains which he would 

 advise to be adopted : 



In determining the distance between drains, Mb "**""? 

 not only to have regard to the nature of the soil, but to tl * 

 mount of annual rain-fall and the frequency of rain. A practical 

 knowledge of the different clay ot the different fommtin.s 

 enables the draining engineer to determine pretty J«mmtelythe 

 d raining properties of each. To enable a landowner whose exp< - 



i 



Extent 

 still 



borrowed money 



and by private 



means. 



rt 



to be 

 drained. 



Estimated 

 amount 

 capital 

 required. 



£ 

 128,723 



£ 



350,000 







5fi.rv2.O0ai 4* ftfWOOn 92.R90.O00 62K9«7«: 



£128723 £3JW 



Acres. 

 300.000 

 415,* 

 150,000 



7.725.000 



10,00^,000 

 4.000,000 



£ 



35,000,000 

 50,000,000 

 22,000,000 



1 1H5.O0O 



21,72fcO00llC O0 



Land Drainage and Drainage System* pape 23. The P«*P£ 

 tions of sand and clay were pertained by wasWnj ***** 

 quantity in a flat-bottomed medical phial. The «*■"£ 

 below the clay and is visible through the glass The f^ ™ 

 of lime was ascertained by means of acid. If it effaces hn 

 exists and if the lump dissolves very rapidly, there win dc» 

 SSUSi proportion* of lime in the soil. The ^b; 1 ot 

 he soil to expand and contract ^ere ascertained by we, 

 and measuring a given quantity at «^erent nmes an<^ ixm r 



. . ,.«• j. i; »;,..,« «r irn»nni!d and dryness- 



their different conditions of wetness *nt [dryness in J*"»- 

 ..«. ■.. ~ Q K„,,m Kn v»a,i tn thp cbeimst. In*. necesM.y 



will be seen by a statement of the comparative cost of drain** 



difficulty recour- should be had to the ^ rnnprtiei; of c i BT 



'nation into the draining properties oi ciaj 



of a careful exami 



