and on Miscellaneous Inventions at the Birmingham Shore. 255 
of points for performance in the very brief trial at Leamington, 
stood last in respect of total merit, on account of its small 
number of points according to inspection. Upon analysing the 
points obtained for performance, it appears that the several 
machines stood in the following order in respect of (5) lightness 
of draught, and (G) general perfection of work, respectively : — 
1 
a 
11 
u 
I 
- 
£ o 
CO C 
Name of Exhibitor. 
p 
Description of Machine. 
£ S 
£| 
'3 C 
Jlonour Awarded. 
Catalog 
I'oints 
of i 
Points 
Perfect 
Total 
Perl 
Perfection being 
125 
300 
425 
.Johnston Harvester Co. 
378 
Five rakes controllable 
125 
2i0 
395 
Commended. 
Hornsby and Sons . . 
464 
Six rakes controllable . . 
100 
290 
390 
First Prize. 
Ilornsby and Sons 
469 
112 
270 
382 
Highly Commended. 
Hornsby and Sons . . 
463 
Five rakes controllable 
105 
276 
381 
Second Prize. 
Horosby and Sons 
466 
Six rakes controllable . . 
105 
270 
375 
Third Prize. 
ilornsby and Sons 
467 
Five rakes controllable 
103 
250 
358 
Highly Commended. 
Hence The Johnston Harvester Company's reaper took the 
highest number of points for performance mainly from the 
lightness of its draught, while it stood fairly well for general 
perfection of work ; and Messrs. Hornsby's first-prize machine, 
though it gained by far the highest number of points for general 
perfection of work, came second to the Johnston machine in 
total points for performance, owing to heavier draught. The 
dynamometer testing, it must be remembered, was conducted 
in an easy crop. But remarks with regard to the comparative 
draughts of the two machines here named will be found in the 
description of the trials. 
It is evident that to have determined the relative merits of 
the machines by performance only, or even mainly by per- 
formance, would have been untrustworthy, unless the trials had 
extended through a considerable period, say a whole season, in 
the cutting of large areas of cropping ; and an adequate safe- 
guard against the possibility of the honours being won in the 
short trials on small plots by any machine which would not be 
likely to prove lasting in its efficiency, was provided in the 
mechanical or engineering points of merit settled principally 
by a careful examination of all details of construction. At the 
same time, it may be open to question whether the scale of 
points might not be i-evised with advantage in one or two par- 
ticulars — apportioning the number of points under the several 
heads in more just accordance with the true relative values of 
the different qualifications required. 
