THE FARMER'S MAGAZINE. 



209 



machine, and catching a wrinkle or two from his success. So his 

 laurels sit uneasily, lest they should be soon snatched from him. 



There is no good in looking back 12 or 15 years, to rake up 

 every mistake that implement judges have made, or to criticise 

 the hurried aud imperfect trials which were then common^ 

 The subject in those days was not well understood, and cf 

 course errors of all sorts have occurred. But we will con6ne 

 our remarks to what has taken place during the last four or 

 five years, and while we readily admit that the system as now 

 adopted by the Royal Agricultural Society is by no means 

 perfect, and is capable of still further improvements, we think 

 we shall show that the prize system has, during that period, 

 been of very great service to the farmers of England. 



One of the chief accusations against the prize system io, that 

 it creates an "unhealthy mania for something new" — "a 

 straining for novelty, and a restless desire for change." If, as 

 some manufacturers assert, many implements are perfect, cf 

 course it is useless to try to improve them ; but where is that 

 agricultural machine to which we can point and say, it is in 

 every respect perfect ? We might single out the Banbury 

 turnip-cutter. This very excellent machine has been but 

 slightly improved since it was firat introduced, and has, when 

 competing as a alicer of root* for sheep, stood unrivalled' 

 Then let it take its prizes and wear its me.^als tillrdiother and 

 better machine can be produced ; and should that day ever 

 come, the farmers will at once know it from the trials of the 

 Royal Agricultural Society, and v/ill buy the improved ma- 

 chine as readily as they have patronized Mr. Gardner's useful 

 invention. But it by no means follows that because an imple- 

 ment is altered, that therefore it is improved ; nay, more, the 

 general result is, that if the original be very good, the second 

 edition does not answer. " Let well alone" is a first-rate 

 maxim, even in prize implements, for alterations too often in- 

 crease complexity, while nothing so delights the eye of a prac- 

 tical judge as simplicity. No doubt there are all sorts of 

 dodges to secure prizes, and catch the public gaze, which gloats 

 over any novelty ; but they will not go down with the plain 

 farmer-judge, though they may be extolled and brought into 

 notice, as something really very clever, by a learned theoretical 

 steward. Hovrever, we can confidently assert that during the 

 last four years no one can mention a single prize implement at 

 any of the great shows that is not well adapted for the 

 every-day purposes of the farm, nor point out a novelty which 

 has received a certificate of merit that is not a useful and meri- 

 torious invention. If there be any fault now, we think it is 

 that the judges are rather too cautious in praising a new im- 

 plement, and seem inclined to give it a timid commendation, 

 rather than a gold medal or special prize. One great object 

 of prizes is to direct the farmers' attention to the best machine 

 and implement of its class; and surely Howard's ploughs and 

 harrows, Coleman's scarifier, Garrett's and Hornsby's drills, 

 Clayton and Shuttleworth's thrashing machines, Tuxford's 

 portable and Barrett's fixed engines, are the best of their 

 class, though there may be others that have received com- 

 mendations, which, of course, are very'good. and very useful 

 machines. 



But, say the opponents of the prizes, these awards have been 

 given so hurriedly that there has been nojtime to really prove 

 the capabilities^or find out the defects of. the machines. These 

 remarks do not apply now. The trials, which formerly occu- 

 pied three or four days for all the implements, were last year 

 extended over eight days for only one-third of the former num- 

 ber. And surely a jury, formed of aome^of the best practical 

 farmers this kingdom can produce, aided by excellent engineers 

 and men of sound science, with all the appliances and means to 

 boot for proving and testing machinery, must find out^the 



merits of a machine with greater exactness than any one can 

 hope to do among the bustle of the show-yard, or from the 

 laudatory remarks of the maker. Persons unacquainted with 

 the trials of implements at the Royal Agricultural Society's 

 shows have but a slight idea of the exacting tests that are 

 applied. There is the steam break, the gauge, the dynamo- 

 meter, and what not ; so that, in awarding prizes to implements, 

 the judf»e3 have not much chance of following their own fancy, 

 as they cannot disregard the demonstration of these tests. Of 

 course, simplicity, cheapness, durability, good workman -hip, 

 and the like, come in for their share of reward ; but all these 

 qualities are more easily reduced to a certain rule than the 

 points of a cow or the form of a horse. However, if a wrong 

 award is made about cattle, the people only fancy there is a 

 mistake, and the matter is not long remembered; but if an 

 error is made in an implement prize, it is proved to be wrong, 

 and the mistake is hardly ever forgotten. 



It is contended that other branches of national industry 

 flourish and increase without the aid of this " artificial stimu- 

 lus." But at all shows and exhibitions there are prizes, or 

 medals, or certificates, or houourable mentions, or some hono- 

 rary reward. Government, if it lequire a design for a monu- 

 ment, or a plan for public offices, offers a temptmg prize. 

 Now, we can see no sort of good that would result from sub- 

 stituting certificates for money prizes for agricultural imple- 

 ments. What harm does the cash do ? The great makers, 

 the chief lt?aders of the opposition, do not want a £10 or £20 

 prize ; but to the smaller men such a sum does not prove 

 altogether unacceptable. The old argument, that too great a 

 distinction is made between two nearly equal implements, 

 when one has the prize and the other is merely commended, 

 has lost much of its force. When there was a pertain fixed 

 money prize offered for, say, the best harrow, the judges could 

 not divide the prize, but had to give it all to that which they 

 thought the very best. But now that there are £15 or £20 

 to distribute among the class of harrows, the judges have 

 bracketed two implements for the first or second prizes, and 

 have sometimes even divided the sum pretty equally among 

 two or three of the best makers. 



To expose the inefficiency of the prize system, the couflict- 

 iug awards about the reaping machines are constantly quoted. 

 Now these awards were made by one set of judges, and it is 

 not often that men like to contradict themselves, so we may 

 suppose they had good reasons for reversing their decisions. 

 It happened that the best machine in 1853 was not the best 

 in 1856, vet the 1855 machine was so improved by 1857, that 

 it again bore off the first prize, and will certainly hold that 

 superior position until the other machine makes another step 

 towards perfection, or a better one is invented. 



Then, manufacturers complain of the expense of these com- 

 petitive trials, and say that the farmers are the sufferers, as they 

 eventually pay for all this. Of course they do ; and so they 

 do for all the expenses the exhibitors are at ; for all the time 

 spent by masters and men at these shows — for all the cost of 

 transit— for every grand letter of the emblazoned name — for 

 every woid of the stupendous catalogue— for every dab of that 

 soft blue paint, and every drop of that brilliant varnish. But 

 what really is the extra cost of the trials over and above the 

 ordinary expenses of exhibiting implements ? The Society 

 find horses, coals, corn, straw, aud every material for the trials ; 

 all that the exhibitor has to do is to furnish hands, and these 

 would most likely be wanted for the arranging and selling the 

 articles at the stand. We remember, at Chelmsford, where 

 there was no prize offered for steam engines, that one celebrated 

 firm built up a large brick chimney, to show ofif their fixed 

 engine. Now what was the cost of that chimney, compared 

 T 2 



