58 



THE FARMER'S MAGAZINE. 



THE TRIALS OF THE STEAM-ENGINE. 



Suggestions sent by Implement-makers and 

 Judges, 



to the editor op the mark lane express. 



Sir, — I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter re- 

 spectiug " Certaio correspondence from the Royal Agricultural 

 Society, ou the subject of Steam-engines," which you are pub- 

 lishing, and think your offer to contributors moat liberal and 

 fair. I did not give any opinion in the matter of the society's 

 circular, but being very much dissatisfied with the trial of 

 implements at Salisbury, and hay machines in particular, I 

 took the opportunity of addressing the secretary ou it, and 

 beg to enclose a copy of my letter to him. I know not whether 

 it may have any result with the implement committee. I 

 leave it with you to do as you please, and should be glad to 

 have the name of your agent in Bury. 



I am. Sir, your obedient servant. 



W. Wyatts. 



Hardwick House, Bury St. Edmund's, Nov. 25th. 



TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ROYAL AGRICULTURAL 

 SOCIETY. 



Sir, — I have been favoured with your circular to the Boyal 

 Agricultural Society's implement exhibitors, together with a 

 minute of the society's council, " inviting the respective opin- 

 ions of its implement makers in reference to a revision of the 

 conditions affecting the construction of steam-engines and 

 other machinery to be exhibited for trial next year," the 

 mportance ot which has been brought to the attention of the 

 council by Messrs. Shuttleworth and Howard. 



I am not able to give any opinion on this subject, not well 

 knowing the existing conditions or their bearing. I hope, 

 however, if they are revised they will not become more ex- 

 clusive by it. But, Sir, I am anxious to sddress you and the 

 committee on a part oi the society's affairs, of not less im- 

 portance to a certain class of its exhibitors, and I hope I may 

 be allowed to do so on this occasion. 



I wish to draw attention to the defects of the rules and 

 management under which competitive trial of field implements 

 for prizes is conducted, and under which, I respectfully sub- 

 mit, that general improvement and " fair trial" contemplated 

 by the society is not attainable. 



To be brief in explanation, I refer to my own work. I en- 

 tered a hay machine for competitive trial at the meeting in 

 July last, under the impression that all field implements would 

 be severely tested as to their weight and resistance to draught. 

 I had found the best modern hay machines heavy in these 

 respects, and thought I could improve on them, simplifying at 

 the same time. My implement is original in all its parts and 

 adjustments, the work of years under private trial. I reduced 

 the working parts thirty-seven per cent, as compared with the 

 machine that took the first prize at Salisbury, and reduced 

 from forty to fifty per cent, iu weight as compared with that 

 machine, without giving up strength. The difference as to 

 the resistance I had no means of knowing. I made other im- 

 portant improvements, which practical men thought worth a 

 patent. If my work had any merit it went for nothing, from 

 a defective mode of trial. To my great disappointment there 

 was no test of the weight, or of the power required to draw 

 any implement whatever. There was nothing about it in the 

 rules or in practice. I consider this a very great defect, and 

 that those tests ought to be the ground-work of the trial in 

 all field implements. Practical farmers know it is of import- 

 ance whether any particular implement is seven or twelve 

 hundred weight. Whether it may be drawn by a pony or from 

 its weight or principles of construction, it may be too much 

 for a heavy horae, but they can draw no information on those 

 points from the society's prize trials. They are left to find it 

 out in their own fields. I wonder at this. The judges walk 

 in the dark with the rest. They draw no light from the rules, 

 which ought to guide them. The worse machine may do its 

 work as well as the best at such a trial. The only way to 



inventive improvement or excellence is shut up, and competi- 

 tive trial does more harm than good. 



Another great defect at the trial of hay machines and horse 

 rakes at Salisbury was, the insufficiency of ground for them. 

 I suppose this was the fault of management. I think this 

 also ought to be subject to some rule. The ground was only 

 enough for two implements, instead of ten or twelve. Marking 

 out a piece for each was not attempted, it was not practicable 

 on half an acre. Once or twice up and down the piece was all 

 that could be afforded, one machine throwing the grass in on 

 the ground to be gone over by the next, the horses often trot- 

 ting ra'her than walking, which would disqualify under proper 

 rules. I have been working these machines for thirty years, 

 and have brought seme experience to their use and construction, 

 and I assert respectfully that their merits and capabilities re- 

 spectively are not to be brought out iw this way, and that I 

 consider the trial of them at Salisbury unworthy the Royal 

 Agricultural Society, 



It is my wish to address this to the proper quarter, with a 

 desire only of fair play, and the general improvement, my 

 interest otherwise being little affected. I think I have pointed 

 out faults, and that they are most easy of cure. I hope, 

 therefore, you will think the subject worthy of being brought 

 before the committee, and hope also the decision on the ques- 

 tion to be soon before it on steam-engines, &c., may be made 

 known to the society's exhibitors. 



I am, Sir, &c., &c. 



To James Hudson, Esq. W. W. 



October, 1857. 



I received for answer that the above would be laid before 

 the committee, which was to meet on the 3rd of this mouth. 



TO THE EDITOR OF THE MARK LANE EXPRESS. 



Sir, — In common with other exhibitors, we were requested 

 by the Council of the Royal Agricultural Society of England 

 some time since to furnish them with our opinion, and to offer 

 any suggestions we might think advisable upon the method 

 employed to test the capabilities of the different implements 

 exhibited at their annual shows. A variety of circumstances 

 caused us, quite unintentionally, to overlook the prescribed 

 period for doing so ; we, therefore, take the liberty of offering 

 a few observations on the subject, trusting you may find them 

 of sufficient importance to give them a place in your valuable 

 columns. 



The first remarks we have to make will be upon portable 

 engines. It is unnecessary for us to remind you that the pri- 

 mary object the Council had in establishing prizes ^or them 

 was by testing the euginea of various makers to be in a po- 

 sition to guide the decision of farmers and the public as to 

 which were the most serviceable, and the best adapted for the 

 purposes of a farm, aud therefore most fit to be placed in the 

 hands of an ordinary farm-servant. So far so good ; but the 

 annual testing of these engines, aud the great stress laid by 

 the judges upon the consumption of coal induced all the first- 

 class makers to depart from the ordinary commercial engine 

 they were iu the constant habit of making, and to construct 

 one whose especial purpose would be to effect that economy 

 without regard due to other points— such as simplicity of 

 parts, strength of construction, &c., so that the trial engine 

 would bear about the same likeness to its commercial brother 

 in point of simplicity that a chronometer would bear to a com- 

 mon watch. Tubes were multiplied to three or four times the 

 surface of an ordinary engine, their thickness reduced to 16 

 to 18 in. wire gauge, and the spaces between them to f or 

 -}j in. Further expansion valves were introduced as well as 

 water-heaters, and all this for the simple object of economizing 

 the fuel in the hope of securing the society's prize. This de- 

 scription of engine we have known to cost the makers £200 

 more than the ordinary kind, while this large expense has been 

 incurred not to produce a more serviceable engine, not to pro- 

 duc3 a stronger one, not to produce one more calculated for 



