at the Norwich Meeting, 1849. 



567 



however, we think t'hat this machine would accomplish it. Price 

 257. 



" The other machine, made by Messrs. Barrett, Exalt, and 

 Andrewes (Stand 53, Article 9), did not perform its work quite so 

 well as Mr. Bun-ell's, the exhibitors not having used any extra 

 weight of pressure, but it did a much larger quantity, namely, at the 

 rate of nearly 9 cwt. per hour — the power required being, as nearly 

 as we could judge, about that of 3 horses. This machine did its 

 work pretty well, although the gorse was too old, there being a 

 great many old dry twigs which it was impossible, with any rea- 

 sonable power, to bruise sufficiently ; and with two-year old gorse 

 we think it would do its work sufficiently well. It also got 

 through three times as much work as the last-mentioned imple- 

 ment, so that we felt justified in awarding it the prize. 



" We are of opinion that a smaller machine than either of the 

 above would be more generally useful, as many farmers have a 

 limited quantity of land that might be profitably employed in 

 growing gorse, but the great expense of a machine for bruising it 

 acts as a barrier to its cultivation, even under favourable circum- 

 stances." 



Oilcake -breakers (Judges' Report). — "In this class there was 

 great competition. Mr. Hornsby's (Stand 65, Article 14) was a 

 most efficient machine, doing its work exceedingly well, and 

 working easily. 



" Mr. Maynard's (Stand 88, Article 3) w r as a very good ma- 

 chine, having a decided improvement in the means of conveying 

 the motion to the rollers. This also worked exceedingly well. 



" Messrs. Ransome and May's (Stand 116, Article 47) is also 

 a capital machine, doing its work exceedingly well. 



" Mr. Nicholson's (Stand 113, Article 4) was powerfully made, 

 worked easily and well, and was calculated to do a great quantity 

 of work. 



" We decided to try only those machines possessing merit as 

 breakers for both cattle and sheep, considering them best calcu- 

 lated to supply the wants of farmers in general. We accordingly 

 selected seven possessing the greatest merit, one of which was 

 withdrawn, and one — namely, Mr. Hornsby's — was not tried, 

 owing to his being taken up in the field, and not able to attend 

 to its working. This we were sorry for, as w T e had a high opinion 

 of his machine. 



" We have given the result of our trial in the following tabular 

 form : — 



2 p 2 



