394 General Report on the ExIiibUion of Inqihmcnts 



cutler-bar when passing over inequalities of surfaee. The cut is -1 feet wide, 

 and the draft, as tested by the dyuamouicter, extremely li;4ht for two horses. 

 The grass was not cut very low or oven, and it appeared to us that the 

 machine was not heavy enough to stand to its work, though in a moderate 

 crop it would, doubtless, have made good cutting. The finger-points were 

 rather short. 



L'urher^s Macliiui-, Xo. G91, also claims to be a novelty. The finger-bar is 

 flexible, and can be raised at either end, independently of the other, or the 

 whole knife can be raised to pass over ciit grass, or again can be brought into 

 an upright position for travelling. The track-board separates the cut from the 

 standing grass, and leaves the former light. It cut fairly, but clogged 

 repeatedly. Trice 221. 



J. and W. Dicker, No. 853, The working parts of the machine arc too near 

 to the ground, and clogged when going over the cut grass. The draft also was 

 very considerable. Trice 32/. 



" ChiliVs American Clipper Macliiue,'''' No. 9-15. By means of a lever con- 

 nected with the inside shoe, the workman can change the direction of the 

 fingers and knives from a level cut to one at an angle of 30°. This is very 

 ingenious. The work was, however, inferior, the bottom left uneven and high. 



tSamuehoii's, No. 5, made better work than No. 3. The cutter-bar is ]ilaced 

 behind the driving-wheel, but, as will be seen by the Table, the draft was 

 great. 



JI. Kcarsloj exhibited a strong, well-made machine, No. 458, which made 

 good work, cutting evenly and tolerably low. We were much pleased with 

 the steady motion of this mower. 



I'ickslcy and tiims, with No. IGGO, cut badly at first, but imin'oved the 

 second round, and left off creditably. 



BuinUtf, No. (i82. This, his second machine, is very similar to No. 681, 

 only the framework is of iron, and the fore-wheel is dispensed with, and the 

 machine is somewhat lighter. An accident occurred to this machine, whicli, 

 though repaired, may probably have afl'ected the work, which was hardly equal 

 to his first trial. 



ir. ^1. Wood, No. 41. A Well-made machine; light, both as to weight and 

 draught. This maker adheres to the Avooden frame, believing that it renders 

 the machine more elastic than those made entirely of iron. The knife-bar is 

 attached to the frame by a joint, it is supported and carried by a strong spring 

 and a slotted brace running backwards and clasping the main axle of the 

 machine. The freedom which this arrangement allows to the cutter-bar 

 enables it to adai)t itself to inequalities of ground. The knife can be raised by 

 a double-lever action, so as to clear mown-grass, or can be set upright for 

 travelling, and kejit in that position without su)>plemcntary attachment. Out- 

 side the shoe is a small graduating wheel, which ngulates the distance of the 

 knife-bar from the ground, ^^'e connnend this wheel, as it tends to reduce 

 friction. By reference to the subjoined 'I'ables it will be seen that this machine 

 cut with a very moderate expenditure of power — a fiict due, we believe, in 

 great measure, to the attention bestowed upon the projortiuns of the various 

 parts of the machine. 



11'. A. Wood's, No. 42, is the old machine Ihat gained the prize at Leeds, 

 and differs from the last by having the knife-bar rigid, and by the absence of 

 the graduating wheel. It appears to be a strong, useful machine, but did not 

 cut so close or even as No. 41, and consumed more power. The finger-points 

 in both machines are long, tapering, and .sharp at the points. 



Bur(jess and Key's oht machine. No. 2015, with rigid knife-bar, that must 

 be removed when travelling. Here we had weight and steadiness, and, conse- 

 quently, very good work was accomplished. The gi'ound was not cut quite so 

 close as by one or two others, but the work was veiy even and creditable. 



