398 General Report on the Exhibition of Implements 



In No. 2023, Burgess and Key exhibited a capital macbiue ; the cutting 

 was very clean ; but the grass left nearly over the whole surface is i^)erhaps 

 not so well as if it were put together, and a clean track left. 



Ilornshy and >Sons, No. 1905, again made capital work. Apart from draft, 

 the only slight defect in this machine appeared to bo that the shoe is rather 

 too wide, and pushes down the grass, so that a sort of narrow ridge is left at 

 the next bout. Tliis was so slight that it was hardly noticeable, and in every 

 other respect this machine made splendid work. In construction, it is pre- 

 cisely similar to their mower, Ko. 1900. We gave Hornsby, Wood, and the 

 Burgess and Key a second trial, making the machines follow each other ; the 

 work of the two first was so good that it was difficult to decide between them 

 whicli was tlie best ; Burgess and Key cutting well, but not so perfectly 

 true. W^e may say tliat the work of all the machines in tliis class as mowers 

 was highly commendable. (See '1 able F.) 



It is right to add a word of explanation. We gave Messrs. llornsbys' machine 

 the first place, not because we approve of its heavy draft, but because as a com- 

 bined machine, both as mower ond reaper, it made the best work, and because 

 it is strong and well-made, and likely to stand its work well ; but we par- 

 ticularly wish to draw attention to the comparison of its draught witli that 

 of Wood and Bamlett's. Either llornsbys' machine is not propirly jiroportioned, 

 or tlie working parts must be bound, the mere weight of the macliine can liave 

 but little to do with the draft, and our experiments with mowers showed us 

 that drawn along out uf work, with the knife going, the diflcrence between 

 Hornsby and ^\'ood was very slight. 



Our award was as follows : — 



To Messrs. Hornsby and Sous, No. 1905 

 To Messrs. W. A. Wood, No. 45 

 To Messrs. A. C. Bamlett, No. 688 



20 

 Highly commended : H. Kearsley, 459. Commended : H. D. Barber, 692. 



We cannot conclude our Beport without expressing our satisfaction at the 

 progi'css wliich has been made towards i>erfecting mowers and reapers, a class 

 of machines likely to prove of great advantage to the farmer, as labour becomes 

 scarce. 



We should have liked a more extended trial of the Beapers, as various points 

 of interest might have been elicited ; at the same time we liad sufBcient oppor- 

 tunity to enable us to satisfy ourselves as to the comparative merits of the 

 difTorent machines, and we cannot but feel that the severity of the trials will do 

 good by exposing tbe mistake of employing too light a construction. We beg 

 to oiXvY our best thanks to the Stewards for their courtesy and jirompt attention 

 to all our requirements. 



H. B. Cai.dwkll. 



EdWD. W0RTr>EY. 



GiLSON Mautin. 

 F. J. Bramwell. 

 John Coleman. 



Report on Carts and Waggons. 



The competition in Carts and Waggons was very considerable, and their 

 general construction was simple and good. There was little of novelty to 

 notice. Several exhibitors from Devonshire, amongst whom we specially 

 mention T. ^Tilford and Son, George Milford, and Frank P. Milford, sliowed 

 a class of carts and waggons well suited to the hilly country as regards 

 size, position of the body, balance, &c. ; and we regret that the Local Com- 



