75 



Agriculture. 



The questions involving practical local knowledge, Nos. 4, 7, 8, 

 as well as Nos. I and 6, were very well done by one or other of 

 the candidates. The effects of drainage were well understood but 

 no one gave good practical directions for carrying it out. No 

 satifactory answer was sent in on irrigation and the answers on 

 rotation of crops were generally weak. L. L. Carrington's paper 

 was on the whole very good indeed and C. S. Lindo r s was good. 

 The rest were fair to fairly good. 



Chemistry of Agriculture. 



Only one candidate made the calculation in the second part of 

 question 2 correctly : the formulas were wrongly used in two 

 cases and in two the arithmetic was at fault. The answers to 3 on 

 Chlorine were rather weak. All candididates evidently knew the 

 answer to question 8 on the Physical and Chemical Analysis of 

 soils but no one expressed the answer quite clearly : no candidate 

 sent in a satisfactory attempt on question 4. 



Clearness and brevity of expression and arithmetical accuracy 

 appear to the examiner the chief points in which to aim at im- 

 provement. 



L. L. Carrington attempted eight questions and did well in all but 

 one. His paper was a very good one. C. S. Lindo answered 

 three questions very well and his paper as a whole was good. S. 

 Dailey's was good, P. L. Irving's very fair, and T. U. Dixon's 

 moderate to fair. 



Botany. 



In no case was question 1 well answered. C. S. Lindo spent 

 apparently half his time in answering question 2. His answer was 

 good but quite unnecessarily long. The process of sexual repro- 

 duction was exceedingly well described but only one candidate 

 clearly expressed the object of artificial fertilization. The botani- 

 cal description of a plant was generally well done and es- 

 pecially so by L. L. Carrington. The account of cassava 

 manufacture was sketchy. Question 6 was very well answered 

 by L. L. Carrington. If the candidates had avoided undue length 

 in some questions compelling undue brevity in others, I think they 

 would have secured a higher percentage of marks. 



Entomology. 



L. L. Carrington did a very good paper indeed and showed a 

 clear knowledge of the bearing of entomology on practical prob- 

 lems. None of the others knew what a contact poison was. With 

 this exception the paper was well done. 



Physics. 



This short paper was well done : only two candidates gave a 

 proof of the formula for a pulley showing its mechanical advan- 

 tage, only one candidate gave an experimental example of the 

 parallelogram of forces and only one candidate in the first 

 part of question 4 did more than state PascalFs law. 



General Remarks. 



I am of opinion that the answers afford evidence that all the 

 subjects have been well and carefully taught : and as one who is 



