Mr. Denton says that in several parts of England, advantage is taken of the natural drainage existing beneath wet clay soils, by concentrating the drains to holes, called "swallow-holes." He says this practice is open to the objection that those holes do not always absorb the water with sufficient rapidity, and so render the drainage for a time, inoperative.
These wells are liable, too, to be obstructed in their operation by their bottoms being puddled with the clay carried into them by the water, and so becoming impervious. This point would require occasional attention, and the removal of such deposits.
This principle of drainage was alluded to at the American Institute, February 14, 1859, by Professor Nash. He states, that there are large tracts of land having clay soil, with sand or gravel beneath the clay, which yet need drainage, and suggests that this may be effected by merely boring frequent holes, and filling them with pebbles, without ditches. In all such soils, if the mode suggested prove insufficient, large wells of proper depth, stoned up, or otherwise protected, might obviously serve as cheap and convenient outlets for a regular system of pipe or stone drains.
Mr. Bergen, at the same meeting, stated that such clayey soil, based on gravel, was the character of much of the land on Long Island; and we cannot doubt that on the prairies of the West, where the wells are frequently of great depth to obtain water for use, wells or swallow-holes to receive it, may often be found useful. Whenever the water-line is twenty or thirty feet below the surface, it is certain that it will require a large amount of water poured in at the surface of a well to keep it filled for any considerable length of time. The same principle that forces water into wells, that is, pressure from a higher source, will allow its passage out when admitted at the top.
We close this chapter with a letter from Mr. Denton. The extract referred to, has been here omitted, because we have already, in the chapter preceding this, given Mr. Denton's views, expressed more fully upon the same subject, with his own illustrations.
It should be stated that the letter was in reply to inquiries upon particular points, which, although disconnected, are all of interest, when touched upon by one whose opinions are so valuable.
"London, 52 Parliament Street, Westminster, S. W.
"My Dear Sir:—I have received your letter of the 17th August, and hasten to reply to it.
"I am gratified at the terms in which you speak of my roughly-written 'Essays on Land Drainage.' If you have not seen my published letter to Lord Berners, and my recent essay 'On the Advantages of a Daily Record of Rain-fall,' I should much like you to look over them, for my object in both has been to check the uniformity of treatment which too much prevails with those who are officially called upon to direct draining, and who still treat mixed soils and irregular surfaces pretty much in the same way as homogeneous clays and even surfaces, the only difference being, that the distance between the drains is increased. We have now, without doubt, arrived at that point in the practice of draining in this country, which necessitates a revision of all the principles and rules which have been called into force by the Drainage Acts, and the institution of the Drainage Commission, whose duty it is to administer those Acts, and to protect the interests of Reversioners.
"This protection is, in a great measure, performed by the intervention of 'Inspectors of Drainage,' whose subordinate duty it is to see that the improvements provisionally sanctioned are carried out according to certain implied, if not fixed, rules. This is done by measuring depth and distance, which tends to a parallel system (4 feet deep) in all soils, which was Smith of Deanston's notion, only his drains were shallower, i.e., from 2 to 3 feet deep.