SCOURING LANDS OF CENTRAL SOMERSET. 
303 
vation, if not the sole cause, of the evil. Mr. Clarke, in his 
essay,* mentions two well-authenticated cases, and Mr. 
Poolef another, in which the complaint appeared to have 
been entirely removed by drainage. 
On the other hand, it is asserted that drainage not merely 
is generally ineffective in curing scouring land, but that in 
some cases it appears to aggravate the evil. In the absence 
of positive proofs, it may be reasonably doubted whether 
drainage really increases the scouring properties of land, but it 
cannot, I think, be denied that it does not always, nor perhaps 
in the majority of cases, cure the complaint. 
It certainly is a fact that in the lias formation the fields 
adjoining notorious scouring meadows are often perfectly 
sweet and sound ; and that no difference as regards drainage, 
herbage, supply of water, and general character, can be 
recognised, which might account for the sound condition of 
a field and the scouring properties of the adjoining one. 
Notwithstanding the great similarity of two such fields, I 
would observe an essential difference would perhaps be 
readily recognised if we could turn both completely over 
and carefully examine their subsoils. The scouring field 
would then be found to rest on a stiff, impervious, clay sub¬ 
soil, not very far removed from the surface : and in the 
second field the subsoil would, in all probability, be of a 
much more porous character, or be found at a greater depth 
than that usually penetrated by the roots of grasses. 
This difference in the character and position of the two 
subsoils necessarily must exercise a powerful influence on 
the agricultural capabilities of the two fields. Both may be 
equally well drained—both may bear to all appearance the 
same description of herbage—they may be identical in com¬ 
position, and yet the one field may be worth a great deal 
more than the other. This need not cause surprise, for 
drainage only makes the two fields so far equal as it removes 
the surface-water from both; there still remains an essential 
difference in the supposed case. In one field we have a deeper 
surface-soil resting on a more porous subsoil, and in the 
other a less deep soil, with a stiff, impervious subsoil. It is 
quite a mistake to think that drainage necessarily improves 
every soil in a high degree. It does so in the great majority 
of soils. But at the same time we cannot shut our eyes to 
the fact, that whilst drainage often improves one field greatly 
and another much less, instances are not wanting in which 
the benefits resulting from draining are scarcely appreciable. 
* ‘Journal of the Bath and West of England Society,’ vol. iii, p. 52. 
f Ibid., p. 60. 
