56 



On Draining. 



480 yards, or almost exactly 69 roods of 7 yards each. But these 

 smaller drains can be executed, even with us, at 3J<f., instead of 

 the \s. dd. which we were obliged to calculate before ; and the 

 cost, therefore, of these 69 roods will be 11. Os. Id., almost to a 

 fraction, showing, when added to the previous sum of 21. ds. Id., 

 a total of SI. 3s. 2d. for the cutting and filling, per acre, upon 

 this combined plan. 



To this we have to add that of the pipes, which, taking them 

 at an average of 12 inches in length, is easily reckoned. The 

 deep drains have a total length, as above, of 242 yards, correspond- 

 ing to 726 such pipes, of IJ inch bore, which if charged at 15^. 

 per 1000 (I think a full price), would amount to 10s. 6d. as 

 nearly as may be. On the other hand, the inch-pipes laid in the 

 480 yards of shallow drains would be 1440; and these, at 12^. 

 per 1000, would cost about 17s., so that the whole outlay would 

 stand thus : — 



£. s. d. 



4-feet drains, cutting and filling . . .231 

 2-feet ditto 10 1 



3 3 2 



If-inch pipes . . . . . . . 0 10 6 



1-inch ditto 0 17 0 



Making a total of . . . £4 10 8 



But it must be recollected that this is in some respects an extreme 

 estimate. In the first place, I think it probable that the rates of 

 measure-work are now rather too high, even for us, as they cer- 

 tainly are for other districts. Next, the calculations are the rigor- 

 ous result for a full acre, without any allowances. Now there 

 can be no doubt that upon an average, taking into account the 

 portions of land safely left at the heads of the drains, and those 

 served by the main channels into which all pour, the real lengths 

 are always somewhat under these numbers. On the other hand, a 

 trifle would have to be added for the cost of pipe-laying and super- 

 intendence, and for the price of the few still larger pipes neces- 

 sarily used in the common outlets ; and we cannot be far wrong 

 in allowing these items to balance one another on each side, with 

 the exception of the rate of labour. On this hypothesis, then, 

 the expense per acre on this system amounts only to about 

 4Z. 10s. 6c?., even by the scale assumed under that head, which 

 I dare say you and many others will at once condemn, and which 

 we may admit could not sustain a scrutiny as a general criterion. 



But our argument will be just as good if we make our com- 

 parisons by the same scale. Let us, therefore, apply it to a few 

 varieties of the ordinary method. 



I know from my experience, from my observation, and from the 



