at the Plymouth Meeting. 397 



Eornsly, Xo. 1900, a strong, heavy macliine, which made splendid worl^, 

 cutting very low and even, and leaving the cut grass well separated from the 

 standing crop. The peculiar features in Hornsby's machines consist in the 

 finger-bar being connected to the main frame by a ball and socket, or uni- 

 versal joint, allowing the cutter-bar to be carried up and down by a front 

 castor-wheel over the undulations of the land. The height of cut is also 

 altered by the setting of this front castor-wheel. The dividing board is so 

 arranged that it leaves a clear track 18 to 20 inches wide next the standing 

 grass, along which the horses and the driving-wheels pass at the next round. 

 It is also provided with a sledge block, to press the swathe gently down and 

 prevent its being blown about ; this is more useful in clover than in grass. 

 The draught of this machine was very much greater than that of Wood's 

 machine. It was not easy to determine the reason for this. No doubt the 

 difference in weight would have some slight effect, but the various parts of 

 the machine can hardly be properly adjusted to each other. We are inclined 

 to consider that too much stress should not be laid upon the question of draught ; 

 slight differences in this respect may be overlooked provided we have an 

 efficient machine ; but when, as in our case, we found two machines cutting 

 equally well, with such a great difference in draft, this necessarily influenced 

 our decision. Wood carries liis finger-bar partly ofi" the ground by a small 

 friction-wheel, whereas the whole weight of Hornsby's heavy bar presses on 

 the ground. 



As the Society's prize list specifies that the machines are to be "for natural 

 and artificial grasses," it w^as determined to test in the clover the four machines 

 that had distinguished themselves in the grass. This clover Avas old and 

 much twisted. The results of this second trial appear in Table E. The 

 cutting was considerably easier, and all the machines did creditably. The draft, 

 however, stood much in the same proportion as before. 



Our award was as follows : — 



£. s. d. 

 To Messrs. W. A. Wood, No. 41 .. .. Prize of 10 

 To Messrs. Hornsby and Sons, No. 1900 .. Ditto 8 

 To Messrs. H. Kearsley, No. 458 . . . . Ditto 7 



25 

 Highly commended : Burgess and Key, 2015. 



Combined Mowers and Reapers tried as Mowers. 



Eight machines competed in this class, and the trial was very successful ; 

 better work was made by some of these than by the mowers, which can only 

 be explained by the fact that the combined implements are heavier, more 

 rigid, and steadier in their work ; and we are more and more convinced that 

 strength of parts is of more importance than lightness. Lots were drawn as 

 before ; we remark as follows : — 



Samuelson and Co.^s, No. 4, precisely similar in construction to the mower, 

 No. 3. The work was not perfect, the grass was cut unevenly and left in ridges. 



Bamlett, No. G87. Much the same as No. 681. Made good work ; the 

 grass cut off evenly ; rather more left than was desirable. 



Kearsleifs, No. 459. Made good work, but grass not cut quite so close as it 

 might have been. 



W. A. Wood^s, No. 45. Made excellent work, cutting very close and even, and 

 leaving a well-cleared track, not so wide as Hornsby, but sufficient to allow 

 the imjilement to work clear of the cut grass. 



Barbers, No. 692. Made very creditable work. The finger-bar is flexible, 

 and adapts itself to inequalities of surface. The alteration to a reaper is 

 simple. As a mower this machine appeared to advantage. 



Bamlett's second machine, No. 688, which corresponds closely with the grass 

 mower. No. 682, made very good work. 



