Notes and Queries, Number 239, May 27, 1854: A Medium of Inter-communication for Literary Men, Artists, Antiquaries, Genealogists, etc.Various
History
Notes and Queries, Number 239, May 27, 1854: A Medium of Inter-communication for Literary Men, Artists, Antiquaries, Genealogists, etc.
Various
Questions and answers -- Periodicals
As practical answers to the inquiries of STYLITES on this subject, I have
to say, that common wells are preferable to artesian in all cases where
abundance of water is obtained at a depth not exceeding thirty feet. I need
not tell STYLITES that the common sucking-pump will not draw up water from
a depth exceeding thirty feet. The convenience of common wells is one
reason why artesian ones are not universally adopted; and a greater reason
is that artesian wells are very much more expensive to make than common
ones. When artesian wells are preferable to common ones is, when water
cannot be obtained at a depth beyond the reach of the force-pump. Two of my
friends have made artesian wells; one a mill-spinner at Dundee, at a time
when that town was very ill supplied with water. He sunk a well 150 feet in
depth and found no water. A bore was then made through trap rock for
upwards of 150 feet, and water was found in abundance on reaching the
underlying sandstone. The water ultimately reached near to the top of the
well. The other well was made by a bleacher in the neighbourhood of Lisburn
in Ireland. All the surface springs in his bleaching-grounds, which are
extensive, did not supply a sufficient quantity for his purposes. The
subsoil being boulder clay, he had to bore through it to about 300 feet
before the water was met with; when it rose as near the top of the bore as
to permit the use of a common pump being worked by power. The theory of the
action of artesian wells has been explained by MR. BUCKTON (Vol. ix., p.
283.), but I have no hesitation in telling STYLITES that he will find water
almost anywhere in this country by means of an artesian bore.
HENRY STEPHENS.
* * * * *
DOG-WHIPPERS.
(Vol. ix., p. 349.)
The following Notes may contain information for your correspondent C. F. W.
on the subject of dog-whippers.
Richard Dovey, of Farmcote in Shropshire, in the year 1659, charged certain
cottages with the payment of eight shillings to some poor man of the parish
of Claverley, who should undertake to awaken sleepers, and _whip dogs from
the church_ during divine service. Ten shillings and sixpence per annum is
now paid for the above service.
John Rudge by his will, dated in 1725, gave five shillings a quarter to a
poor man to go about the parish church of Trysull, in Staffordshire, during
sermon, to keep people awake, and _keep dogs out of the church_. This sum
is still paid for that purpose.
At Chislet, in Kent, is a piece of land called "Dog-whipper's Marsh," about
two acres, out of {500} which the tenants pay ten shillings a year to a
person for _keeping order in the church_ during divine service.
There is an acre of land in the parish of Peterchurch, Herefordshire,
appropriated to the use of a person for _keeping dogs out of the church_.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account