To Charles R. Bree 22 November 1853

My dear Bree

With respect to the very recent shells from the bed immediately on the Chalk at Stowmarket, I have constantly argued, for sometime back, that (if genuine) they must be posterior to the drift - & if so, the sands & gravels over them have most probably been rearranged materially derived from the drift. Another supposition might account for their position by the undermining of the drift to a little extent. [explanatory diagram of drift overlying chalk] Never having seen the locality on the section, it is impossible to say which may be the correct solution - but (as at Cambridge) so much drift is often distributed & rearranged that most probably it will be found it has been so here. If ever there sd be another opportunity of solving this puzzle I trust it should not be lost, & it would almost be worthwhile to have a hole dug near the spot to solve this.

With respect to the Chalk not having been completely pierced by Mr S. I do not offer any positive opinion - it is Mr Webb's conjecture not mine. I am much more inclined to suppose there is a fault between his bore &Mr Stevens's, of the character I sketched for him some time ago & repeated in my last letter to him. The incursion of sand & water he met with, when about the depth of Stevens's well, manifestly throws doubt (& very legitimately) upon the conclusions arrived at, respecting this, from mere heresay testimony. If we could see the very sand supposed to have been arrived at, we could, perhaps, judge more definitively - but [illeg.] there wd be [illeg.] absolute certainty of some of this having been derived (as at Coombs) from some incursion of such from above - the drift being such a jumble of clays & sands from so many strata.

Stevens finding flints so low down in the chalk is certainly an anomaly - for though they are sometimes found there, I believe never in this part of the chalk. When Webb sent me flints at the depth, & deeper, than Stevens's well, I said directly, this looks too much like the Upper Chalk, tho' it is not an absolute proof that it is so. All these facts together compel us to be cautious in our conclusions - & it will be of importance to ascertain whether there really is a fault between Stowmarket & Coombs, or whether (as sometimes happens) there is an interposed bed in the Chalk (from which Mr Stevens is supplied) where the water accumulates. Pray therefore don't suppose I am any further sceptical than as the facts of the case seem to require fresh observations to solve these difficulties. Your positive assertions & Mr Stevens's that the recent shell bed does really rest on the chalk are very satisfactory; &, if the shells you speak of can be found, I shall be very glad indeed to see them, & if the man will accept of a trifle for them, to possess them. It is a pity such evidence should be obliterated. People in general don't understand the value of a fact. When I was at one of our Railway Stations, lately, I asked the Station master to take down a foot or two of a board which had an appearance upon it I thought might be useful in helping me in a question of "molecular rearrangement" which has been before me for years. I offered to pay all expenses for the repair, & he said he would. A short time afterwards, asking if he had got the board, he told me the Inspector had been there & forbidden its removal - for it was evident the appearance was nothing but a nail! I knew very well that it (or rather they) resulted from the proximity of 3 nails - but this was the very reason I wanted the board, which was in an out of the way place, and easily have been taken down & easily repaired for about 1/-. So I have lost my illustrations, at least till the unknown Inspector shall have learnt to believe that those who are occupied in scientific researches are quite as good judges as himself of what may or may not be of use to them.

In your solution of the recent shell puzzle I see you say "may not the chalk have been worn away into a hollow upon which the old estuary deposited its shell beach & then was covered up by Drift?" If you mean rearranged materials from the drift, you will see I consider this the most likely case - but if you mean Drift properly speaking, I should think it unlikely, as I believe these shells will prove posterior to the Drift. I was to have been at Cambridge tomorrow, but Grouse recommends my remaining at home.

Kind regards to Mrs B+B

Ever yrs truly

J. S. Henslow