144 



TfJieel and Siving Ploughs. 



In the foregoing experiments it will be observed, so far from 

 the wheel-ploughs requiring more power, the Rutland and Bed- 

 ford, as compared with the Lincolnshire swing-ploughs (which are 

 acknowledged to be excellent of their kind, and but little varying 

 from the Scotch), actually required less ; and I cannot but re- 

 mark that, although the ploughing with each of the implements 

 was admirably well done, yet there was a manifest neatness and 

 regularity about the work done by the ploughs with wheels over 

 that of the swing-ploughs ; for the land-wheel acts as a lateral 

 gauge to the width of each furrow, as well as to the depth, and 

 therefore the uniformity of width, depth, and angle of the furrows- 

 slice thus produced gave a perfect form to the whole operation. 

 A further fact was established, namely, that the draught of the 

 plough is not increased in an equal ratio with the weight ; for on 

 loading the Rutland plough with 112 lbs., or 51 per cent., addi- 

 tional weight, the draught w^as only increased 33 lbs., or 12 per 

 cent. 



The foregoing results have been borne out in a greater or less 

 degree by subsequent experiments on land of greater tenacity, 

 and under different circumstances ; and even in the case of a 

 swing-plough, to which wheels were temporarily attached for the 

 occasion, and tried on an adjoining furrow, the draught was 

 proved to be diminished, although the plough was not originally 

 constructed as a wheel-plough, and consequently, from its length 

 of beam and differently-poised bearings, worked under a mani- 

 fest disadvantage. 



The experiments exhibit the it?/;eeZ-plough as requiring a 

 smaller amount of animal exertion than the sit; -plough ; in- 

 deed, the tractive force of the Rutland wheel-plough appears, by 

 the table, to have been less than that of the best experiment of 

 the Lincolnshire swing-plough by 23 per cent. ; and which is, I 

 think, to be accounted for in the way I have before noticed. A 

 second property of the wheel-plough — viz., that it demands less 

 skill in the ploughman — is on all hands acknowledged ; and that 

 it performs its work equally w^ell with the swing-plough is not, I 

 believe, denied by the admirers of the latter implement. I can- 

 not but consider the fact of the wheel-plough demanding less 

 skill in the ploughman to be a considerable advantage on its 

 side, though it receives but little favour amongst first-rate swing- 

 ploughmen, who are accustomed to estimate highly their own 

 manual dexterity, from the circumstance of the quality of their 

 work depending on dexterity alone. Undoubtedly there are 

 many men will make as good work with a swing as with a wheel- 

 plough ; but, if we take a district (and it need not be a large one) 

 in which a hundred ploughmen are required, it is more than 

 probable that not ten such will be found. This of itself appears 



