at the Norwich Meeting, 1849. 



529 









No. of 



Awards. 











Exhibitors. 



Money. 



Medals. 







1839 





23 



£. 

 5 



4 







1840 



Cambridge .... 



36 



0 



7 







1848 





146 



• 230 



21 







1849 



Norwich . 



145 



364 



13 





From this it will be seen that at Cambridge, where the trial 

 of implements was confined to one day and was in other respects 

 so immature as to be of little practical value, the number of 

 exhibitors was only thirty-six, and the judges,, in whom a certain 

 discretionary power was vested, awarded no money and but seven 

 medals, in consequence of the scarcity of objects deserving of 

 reward ; whilst at York, eight years after, when the trials lasted 

 several days and had attained a considerable degree of perfection, 

 the number of exhibitors had increased fourfold. The additional 

 amount offered in prizes at the later meetings has undoubtedly 

 assisted in creating this great increase of competition, but it 

 cannot be considered the principal cause, since the implement- 

 makers are unanimous in declaring that, even when most success- 

 ful, the prizes they receive do not reimburse them for their 

 expenses and loss of time. How then are the increased exer- 

 tions of the machine-makers to be accounted for? Simply by 

 the fact that the trials of implements have gradually won the 

 confidence of the farmer, so that when selecting implements for 

 purchase, he gives the preference to those which have received 

 the Society's mark of approval. This inference is corroborated 

 by the makers themselves, who readily admit that the winner of 

 a prize for any implement of general utility is sure to receive an 

 ample amount of orders, and that the award of a medal is worth 

 on an average 50^. 



It thus appears that concurrently with the extension and 

 improvement of the trials, a corresponding increase and improve- 

 ment has taken place in the exhibitions of implements, and though 

 it is difficult to prove that the one has been the cause of the other, 

 still the probability that such is the case almost amounts to cer- 

 tainty when it is found that classes of implements which are so 

 faulty in construction as to be strongly animadverted on by the 

 judges at one meeting, are at the next nearly free from those 

 defects which had been previously pointed out. This is preciselv 

 what has occurred during the past year in the case of carts and 

 steam-engines, which were severely criticised at York, and found 



