and Miscellaneous linplonents at Hull. 
633 
alacrity and courtesy for which the Stewards and Judges of the 
Society have often had occasion to thank them), and an excellent 
threshing machine from the Beverley Iron and Waggon Com- 
pany. Although the number on tliis machine showed that it 
was only the second sent out from these works, it threshed the 
corn very efficiently, the only inconvenience being that it was 
not fitted with the guide pulleys that some elevators need for 
working at any angle. We were, however, able to try all the 
elevators with it except that entered by Mr. Coultas. We 
found the machines with round hoppers could take the straw at 
any angle with the utmost facility ; we, consequently, awarded 
full marks to the untried Coultas' machine, as well as to the 
two others with rounded hoppers entered by Messrs. Tasker and 
Sons and Messrs. Barford and Perkins. The machine of 
Messrs. Holmes and Sons, although its hopper was square, took 
the straw perfectly at any angle ; this advantage was gained by 
the use of the fan-shaped expanding board that has been noticed 
in the description of their elevator. Messrs. Wallis and Steevens' 
machine took the straw well in a straight line and at right 
angles, but could not deliver it in other directions. Column 24 
contains the awards, which we had no difficulty in deciding ; the 
performance of Messrs. Tasker and Sons' machine, that obtained 
the prize of 25/., was throughout excellent, as the award of 900 
marks out of a possible total of 950 proves ; the performance 
of the two machines next on the list was also very good. The 
commendations bestowed upon the Nos. 4391 and 165 must be 
understood as referring to ingenuity and novelty of design quite 
as much as to their performance. If the latter point had been 
exclusively considered, the machine exhibited by Mr. S. Lewin 
and Messrs. Tasker's two-wheeled machine would probably have 
had equal claims to be so distinguished. 
In concluding the report of this trial, I may remark that the cir- 
cumstances under which it was conducted were very different from 
those connected with the trial of last year ; the Judges were not 
obliged to hurry over any part of it for want of sufficient time for 
judging. At the same time, it was felt that the implements in this 
class are probably still in a state of transition. The type for an 
elevator should not yet be considered as fixed. Different machines 
possess different merits. By combining these, and by further 
invention, we may hope to obtain better machines than any yet 
made. Perhaps before another seven years have gone by, the 
Council may think it desirable to give another extra trial to 
these comparatively recent inventions, that have already done 
so much to meet one of the difficulties experienced on the farm 
from the increasing scarcity of hand labour. 
The trials of the combined elevators occupied the whole of 
