Report of the Judges of Farm Plans, &c. 775 
Having recognised such a limit, it was found that none of the 
plans which provided superior accommodation, with modern 
improvements, were so designed that they could be executed 
within it. Without pointing out instances in proof of this 
assertion, we mav state that in the design which we considered 
exhibited the greatest merit in arrangement and detail, and 
w hich we therefore " highly commended '" — we refer to the 
design sent in with the motto " Cheddar," by Mr. W. E. Keates, 
of Hanlev, Staffordshire, which represented a homestead and 
dairy arrangement suitable for a large farm of 400 acres — the 
estimate of the competitor himself was 6141?/. for homestead 
and dairv, excbisive of the dwelling-house, road approaches, and 
contingencies, which with architect's charges would raise the 
outlay to upwards of 1^1. per acre. To repay this outlay with 
interest at 4^ per cent., in 31 years, would amount to 21^. '2d. 
per acre, while if the outlay be repaid in 25 years, the annual 
charge would amount to 24.<. \d. per acre. 
Such a charge, the Judges considered, no farm of 400 acres, 
even if it consisted of the best land and commanded the best 
market, could bear without loss to the owner, let attendant 
circumstances be what they may. 
Having regard to the present state of agriculture, it was 
certainly not diflBcult to come to this conclusion ; at the same 
time, it is hardlv possible to over-estimate the value of those 
arrangements which best secure economy in manual labour, 
and warmth and comfort to live stock, and it was the wish of 
the Judges, while withholding the prize of 50/., to convev bv 
the expression of " high commendation " their approval of 
!Mr. Keates' design in these respects. Mr. Keates' description, 
with a ground-plan and isometrical view, is appended to this 
Report. 
When considering which of the plans in each class best met 
the intentions of the Society, the Judges encountered insuper- 
able difficulty in classification and comparison. This arose 
from the fact that, although in the conditions issued by the 
Societv certain figures were given as a limit of the size of 
farms to be dealt with in each class, yet the latitude left was so 
great that there were hardlv two competitors who aimed at the 
same thing. This was shown not only bv the different sized 
farms adopted, but by the great difference of estimate where 
the size of the farms was the same. The difference exhibited 
even in the same class clearly indicated that neither in extent 
of accommodation nor in strength of structure were the same 
fundamental data recognised. This will be evident by the 
tollowing illustrations, which form in the aggregate a proportion 
oi three-eighths of the designs examined : — 
