at the Bristol Meeting m 1842. 359 



taken, owing to the want of these precautions. The Society's prize 

 was not awarded for these, or for the turn-wrest ploughs. Two 

 of the latter kind were tried — the one made by Mr. Huckvale, 

 the other by Mr. Wilkie — but neither of them were in a condition 

 to satisfy the judges that a correct decision on their merits or 

 draught could be arrived at. Mr. Wilkie was not present, on 

 account of illness. 



Ploughs of other kinds were also submitted to trial, but nothing 

 worthy of note was elicited. 



Draining and paring j)loughs. — The premium offered for an 

 open-furrow draining- plough was not adjudged. The show^-yard 

 contained one implement only of this kind, by Mr. James Comins, 

 of South Molton, which was not tried. Mr. Johnson, of Leicester, 

 exhibited Mr. Glover's excellent turf and stubble paring-plough, 

 rewarded at Liverpool, which the judges were pleased to learn 

 has met with the encouragement it merits. 



In concluding these comments, the judges must express their 

 consciousness that, owing to the insufficient time allotted for ex- 

 amining minutely so extensive an assortment of implements, they 

 may have overlooked, or omitted the mention of, meritorious pro- 

 ductions. Some implements, not rewarded, m^ay also have been 

 esteemed by visitors equal or superior in excellence to those 

 which carried prizes ; and it is requisite to state that, for reasons 

 unexplained and undiscovered, the show-yard contained numerous 

 implements which were not entered for competition : of these, 

 therefore, no note was taken, as they did not pass under the ob- 

 servation of the judges. 



Observations on Ploughs. — Much useful instruction may be 

 drawn from the experiments on the draught of ploughs, and on 

 the quality of the work performed^ now annually made at the in- 

 stance of the Society. The mean resistance of the five wheel - 

 ploughs registered in the foregoing list was 386 pounds, whilst 

 that of the six swing -ploughs was 420 pounds, being a difference 

 of nearly 9 per cent, in favour of the wheel-ploughs; and the 

 difference in the resistance of the best implement of the two kinds 

 was 18 per cent, in favour of the wheel-plough.* It may also be 

 safely affirmed that the quality of the performance in the same 

 soil, by the respective ploughs, and under like circumstances of 

 depth, width of slice cut, &c., is as the lightness of draught, i.e. 

 in favour of the plough of least resistance. 



On this occasion the judges took the precaution, after the trials, 

 to suspend weights to the dynamometer, in order to verify the 

 accuracy of its graduation, and to ascertain if any change had 



* The draught of the double-furrow and turn wrest ploughs is not in- 

 cluded in this estimate. 



