THE FARMER'S MAGAZINE. 



386 



§6 Co.'s machine 19 points only over Ilornsby. And 

 how are those points gained ? Why, by making Clay- 

 ton & Co.'s clean dressing 21 points over Hornsby ; 

 while at the same time, in the dressing of wheat and 

 barley, Clayton & Co. are 11 points below the standard 

 of excellence, proving that their machine was not per- 

 fect—only better than Hornsby's. 



And how, may I ask, were those points gained (viz., 

 for clean dressing) ? Why, because Messrs. Clayton 

 did not thrash so clean as Ilornsby by 10 points ; his 

 shaking was not so good by 7 points ; and with cavlngs 

 free from corn, Hornsby was 21 points ahead. Hornsby 

 was 3 points the better on chaft' free from corn. In the 

 injury of corn, on wheat, they are equal ; on barley, 

 Hornsby loses 5 points ; but, remember, he thrashed it 

 cleaner than Clayton by 10 points ; consequently, there 

 was more chance of breakage. But for the finish : 100 

 stands for excellency of workmanship, which is given to 

 Hornsby, while Messrs. Clayton are 18 below that 

 standard. 



Hornsby clearly loses on account of power required ; 

 and why was it required ? Because he thrashed cleaner 

 by 10 points ; and those 10 points were on the barley 

 trial : but both were under the number denoting excel- 

 lence. Hornsby's shaking was cleaner by 7 points, and 

 those points were the cleaner shaking of the barley ; his 

 cAviNGS were cleaner by twenty-one points ; and 

 his chaff by five points : on which account, his riddles 

 had more work to do, and the whole machine had to 

 carry the weight of nearly all the corn put into [it into 

 the sacks, which Messrs. Clayton did not do ; and thus, 

 the cleaner dressing of Messrs. Clayton's machine, 

 but, remember, not fit for market, but better than 

 Hornsby's — evidently proving that all the corn had to 

 be again dressed for market. And then Ilornsby wins, 

 as his cavings and chaff were cleaner by twenty-six 

 points, and would require less riddling, one. parcel of 

 chaff being free from corn. 



But I now go further, and say the judges could not 

 lawfully give Hornsby the prize. The power he re- 

 quired exceeded 8 horse power. But on this rule they 

 do not act, but sum up all their points in page 336 of 

 the Journal, and say : 



" Consequently, we awarded the prize of 15 sovereigns to 

 Mesars. Clayton & Co." 



As they totally overlooked the rule for the prize, I 

 say they gave a wrong decision on their points, if 

 points — and, mind, improved points — are to be the true 

 standards of excellence ; and by their own figures they 

 show that the extra power which destroys Hornsby on 

 their points, was caused by the superiority of the work 

 done. The horse-power for barley is not given, but on 

 the wheat is, for Clayton & Co. 5.34, and for Hornsby 

 8.38. 



After all these figures and summing-up in page 333 

 of the Journal, we read, at the end of the table of Class 

 IX., the following remarks on Messrs. Clayton's ma- 

 chine : 



" Everything worked in harmony — worked remarhahhj 

 steady. Slides slipped, causing the riddles to choke. In 

 barley-dressing the riddle altered too fast for the hopper."' 



Who has ever read such remarks ? " Everything in 

 harmony!" I suppose, harmonious concord of three- 

 parts of the machine going wrong. 



All machines that have previously choked have been 

 turned aside. 



As one judge is annoyed by remarks made on one 

 bad point in a machine, I have written the above to 

 show that I was right in my opinion on that point — an 

 opinion given after the machines had returned to their 

 stands for at least an hour, und after the trials of four 

 selected machines for second trials (which trials are not 

 given account of, and in which Messrs. Clayton's ma- 

 chine did not choke) ; and when I was quite at liberty 

 to say, on being asked privately, " What do you think of 

 this work ?" (meaning the cavings, and which I had seen 

 before), I answered, " I should not like to give a prize 

 for such one part of work ; but, not knowing all the 

 other points, I cannot, of course, say which is the best 

 machine." But it was on that point that Hornsby won 

 by 21. 



I write with no rancour. I only wish to put mysel 

 right, after unfair and uncalled-for remarks, publicly 

 expressed ; and it has gone forth that I (steward-elect 

 of the Society last year, and now a steward), with Mr. 

 Hornsby, interrupted the judges. And how ? Merely 

 because, in private conversation, I made a remark, 

 which Mr. Hornsby repeated to a judge ; and, as I 

 have said before, after the trials had been concluded for 

 at least an hour, the machines gone to their stands, and 

 no judges near us. 



Having been a judge rnyself, and, I hope, not a use- 

 less one, and having had many remarks made to me by 

 disappointed exhibitors, still, I believe, not one of those 

 exhibitors would refuse again having their implements 

 tested by me. If the judge had spoken to the stewards 

 at once, all could have been set right, and ill feelings 

 have been done away. If Mr. Shackell had named to 

 me what had passed (for I sat next him at the dinner, 

 and he knows what I did there for him), all ill feelings 

 (if he had them then, which I doubt) would have been 

 allayed. And I am sure we parted as friends, and as 

 men mutually endeavouring to promote the interests of 

 the Royal Agricultural Society of England. 



To conclude, I am a friend to all parties who are 

 endeavouring to bring forward good implements. I 

 have tampered with no one, and am sorry that an ill 

 feeling has arisen, and that a judge should come for- 

 ward and make such remarks as Mr. Shackell has 

 thought proper to do. It is the first ill feeling brought 

 forward during the Society's duration of 20 years ; and 

 it passes my comprehension. 



I will now sum up as follows, and say— If Mr. 

 Shackell was interrupted, why did he not appeal to the 

 stewards ? and why delay his complaints until March 

 last past? I will say no more, but that " Practice with 

 science" is a good motto — understood in words, but not 

 carried out by all. 



I am. Sir, yours truly, 



H. B. Caldwell. 



lacMam House, Chippenham, Wilts, 

 April ISfh. 



