Lord Wharncliffe states his principles as follows, and calls his method the combined system of deep and shallow drainage :

"In order to secure the full effect of thorough drainage in clays, it is necessary that there should be not only well-laid conduits for the water which reaches them, but also subsidiary passages opened through the substance of the close subsoil, by means of atmospheric heat, and the contraction which ensues from it. The cracks and fissures which result from this action, are reckoned upon as a certain and essential part of the process.

"To give efficiency, therefore, to a system of deep drains beneath a stiff clay, these natural channels are required. To produce them, there must be a continued action of heat and evaporation. If we draw off effectually and constantly the bottom water from beneath the clay and from its substance, as far as it admits of percolation, and by some other means provide a vent for the upper water, which needs no more than this facility to run freely, there seems good reason to suppose that the object may be completely attained, and that we shall remove the moisture from both portions as effectually as its quantity and the substance will permit. Acting upon this view, then, after due consideration, I determined to combine with the fundamental four feet drains a system of auxiliary ones of much less depth, which should do their work above, and contribute their share to the wholesome discharge, while the under-current from their more subterranean neighbors should be steadily performing their more difficult duty.

"I accomplished this, by placing my four feet drains at a distance of from eighteen to twenty yards apart, and then leading others into them, sunk only to about two feet beneath the surface (which appeared, upon consideration, to be sufficiently below any conceivable depth of cultivation), and laying these at a distance from each other of eight yards. These latter are laid at an acute angle with the main drains, and at their mouths are either gradually sloped downward to the lower level, or have a few loose stones placed in the same intervals between the two, sufficient to insure the perpendicular descent of the upper stream through that space, which can never exceed, or, indeed, strictly equal, the two additional two feet."

Speaking of the Wharncliffe system, Gisborn remarks:

"Were I to adopt his lordship's system, I must abandon, 1st, the principle of depth; and 2d, the principle of direction; and if I abandoned those two principles, I had much better put this treatise into the fire than send it to Mr. Murray for publication."

Alderman Mechi, speaking of deep drainage, says:

"Ask nineteen farmers out of twenty, who hold strong clay land, and they will

I am led to these ob

tell you it is of no use placing deep four foot drains in such soils-the water can not get in; a horse's foot-hole (without an opening under it) will hold water like a basin; and so on. Well, five minutes after, you tell the same farmers you propose digging a cellar, well bricked, six or eight feet deep; what is their remark ? 'Oh! it's of no use your making an underground cellar in our soil, you can't keep the water OUT!' Was there ever such an illustration of prejudice as this? What is a drain pipe but a small cellar full of air? Then, again, common sense tells us, you cant keep a light fluid under a heavy one. You might as well try to keep a cork under water, as to try and keep air under water. Oh! but then our soil is n't porous.' If not, how can it hold water so readily? servations by the strong controversy I am having with some Essex folks, who protest that I am mad, or foolish, for placing 1-inch pipes, at four feet depth, in strong clays. It is in vain I refer to the numerous proofs of my soundness, brought forward by Mr. Parkes, engineer to the Royal Agricultural Society, and confirmed by Mr. Pusey. They still dispute it. It is in vain I tell them I can not keep the rainwater out of socketed pipes, twelve feet deep, that convey a spring to my farm-yard. Let us try and convince this large class of doubters; for it is of national importance. Four feet of good porous clay would afford a far better meal to some strong bean, or other tap roots, than the usual six inches; and a saving of 84 to $5 per acre, in drainage, is no trifle.

“The shallow, or non-drainers, assume that tenacious subsoils are impervious or non-absorbent. This is entirely an erroneous assumption. If the soils were impervious, how could they get wet?

"I assert, and pledge my agricultural reputation for the fact, that there are no earths or clays in this kingdom, be they ever so tenacious, that will not readily receive, filter and transmit rainwater to drains placed five or more feet deep.

"A neighbor of mine drained 20 inches deep in strong clay; the ground cracked widely; the contraction destroyed the tiles, and the rains washed the surface soil into the cracks and choked the drains. He has since abandoned shallow draining.

"When I first began draining, I allowed myself to be overruled by my obstinate man, Pearson, who insisted that, for top water, two feet was a sufficient depth in a veiny soil. I allowed him to try the experiment on two small fields; the result was, that nothing prospered; and I am redraining those fields at onehalf the cost, five and six feet deep, at intervals of 70 and 80 feet.

"I found iron-sand rocks, silt, strong clay, iron, etc., and an enormous quantity of water, all below the 2-feet drains. This accounted at once for the sudden check the crops always met with in May, when they wanted to send their roots down, but could not without, going into stagnant water."

Good results are always obtained from three feet drains, and there can be no doubt that the results would be more permanent with four feet drains. Where drains at three feet deep will accomplish all practical purposes for a period of twenty-five or thirty years, it will require very strong arguments indeed to induce the farmers to drain to the depth of four feet.

In this country, every farmer, as a general thing, owns the land he cultivates, and in a majority of instances has earned, with his own hands, every dollar that he paid for the farm and its improvements, In an improvement so permanent as underdraining proposes to be, the farmer "counts the cost" very closely and very frequently, before commencing it, and if he is fully satisfied that good results will attend his efforts, when draining at a depth of three feet, at an expense equal to three-fourths of the amount that draining four feet would cost, scarcely any argument would induce him to drain at a depth of the additional foot. And the farmer is fully justified in this course, in the Middle and Western States. Landed estates change hands very rapidly in this country. Suppose a farmer incurs a debt of $1,000, for any improvement over and above his immediate means. He can not mortgage his "crops in the ground," to secure this amount, because drought, hail, insects, or other adversities beyond his control may destroy them; he can not mortgage his sheep, dogs may kill them, nor his cattle, because there is a possibility that they may die of pleuro-pneumonia, trembles, murrain, or a dozen other diseases; so that no other resource is left than to mortgage the farm itself. Should the mortgage mature, and crops be short, or prices unremunerative, the creditor can foreclose and the farmer be sold by the sheriff, in one hundred days or less. This is no fancy sketch; Ohio farmers have so frequently witnessed the fate of neighboring farmers, in this respect, that they have become exceedingly cautious so far as involving themselves in indebtedness is concerned.

In England or Germany, where lands seldom pass out of the hands of the family, even if the proprietor is absolutely bankrupt, larger amounts can be hazarded in improvements, without incurring the risk of losing the farm. In those countries they may insist on draining at four feet as a minimum depth. For reasons already given, we believe the minimum will be determined by each man for himself, without regard to system or theory, on the following basis, viz.: to lay the tile at such a depth that neither the plow nor subsoil plow will interfere with it, and that it will be beyond the range of frost. We think that these two points, namely, beyond the range of the frost, and out of reach of the subsoil plow, will determine the depth of drains in more instances, in this country, than all the illustrations that English or German draining engineers can adduce from experience in favor of very deep draining.

It is not an uncommon phenomenon to find the earth, in cultivated fields, con

sisting of loamy soils, frozen to the depth of fourteen to sixteen inches. In a cemetery we once saw a loamy clay frozen to the depth of twenty-two inches. Underdrained soils always freeze considerably deeper than undrained ones. If, then, the soil in a field freezes to the depth of sixteen inches, it is safe to infer that if the field is well underdrained, the frost will find its way down fully two feet. We would not advise any one to underdrain at a depth less than thirty inches, and where the fall, and pecuniary means will warrant, we would insist that three feet should be considered the minimum, in all soils requiring underdraining.

The day is not far distant when subsoiling will be much more generally practiced. Improvements seldom terminate with the initiatory step, and the man who is sufficiently convinced of the importance of underdraining, and puts it in practice on his farm, will not hesitate to use the subsoil plow, and tile laid at a depth less than thirty inches, will not probably be beyond the reach of this plow.

The difference in cost between a three and a four feet drain is considerably more than one would at first suppose. A good English ditcher, in ordinary clay soil, will make eight rods of three feet drain per day, but will not make more than five rods of four feet in the same time-in fact, he seldom will make over four. To sink a three feet drain one foot lower, will cost nearly as much for the last foot as for the preceding three-for reasons that every practical man will at once understand. Drains for tile are narrowed from the top to the bottom-they are generally fourteen to eighteen inches wide at the top, and four inches only, or just wide enough to admit the tile, at the bottom. Now, although the last foot in a four feet drain contains no more earth to be removed than the last foot in a three feet drain, yet it is a foot lower, and must consequently be thrown a foot higher up, without taking into account the pile of earth already excavated on which or over which this last foot must be thrown.

When thorough drainage was first introduced into Scotland, it is said that ten thousand miles of drains were laid, at a depth of two feet, when it was discovered that this depth was not sufficient. In England large tracts were laid with tile at twelve to eighteen inches deep. Of course the experimenters were gratified with the success which crowned their efforts-the land was in a tillable condition early in the seasons, and the surplus waters removed. But now the opposite extreme is advocated, and Alderman Mechi has gone so far as to make some drains fourteen feet deep!

So far as draining the surface water, or the water falling in the shape of rain or snow is concerned, the Alderman says:

"After all that has been said and written on the subject, I have arrived at the following conclusions:

"1. That Mr. Parkes' statement is a convincing proof that one-inch pipes (without stones, straw or brushes) placed four feet deep, at intervals of thirty feet will effectually and permanently drain the heaviest soils of the utmost quantity of surface water that can possibly fall, at a cost of from £2 to £3 per acre.

That

in mixed soils, the one-inch pipes, four feet deep and fifty feet apart, will perfectly drain such soils, at a cost of about 45s. per acre.

"2. That although those drains do not, the first year after being made, act so effectually as stones with pipes on my plan, which carry off the water at once; still the immense difference in cost, and greater depth, render Mr. Parkes' plan by far most desirable.

"3. There can be no doubt that it is the depth of the drain which regulates the escape of the surface water in a given time; regard being had, as respects extreme distances, to the nature of the soil, and a due capacity of the pipe. The deeper the drain, even in the strongest soils, the quicker the water escapes. astounding but certain fact.

This is an

"4. That deep and distant drains, where a sufficient fall can be obtained, are by far the most profitable, by affording to the roots of plants a greater range for food.

“5. That had I to redrain my heavy land, I should do so, at least four feet deep, with inch-pipes at intervals of thirty feet, carrying each pipe with the fall of the land direct to an open ditch of ample capacity. I should thus economize several open ditches on my farm, which are at present a waste of ground. Each drain would thus be its own leader.

"I should place the pipes in the drains without stones, or other matter, merely covering them with the clay itself, leaving the drains open as long as possible, as practiced by Mr. Hammond. I should thus save £7 per acre on the cost of my draining, and have a greater depth of soil. The loss would be the difference between a perfect and imperfect drainage the first two years.

"In conclusion, I consider the balance of evidence, when stones and pipes are used, is in favor of the pipe being placed at the bottom."

CHAPTER IV.

DISTANCE BETWEEN DRAINS.

A rule formerly adopted in England, that "the distance between parallel drains may be increased proportionably with their depth; and that drains may be laid as many perches apart as they are feet deep"-is no longer regarded as being correct. There are so many different kinds of soil that no general rule can be given