Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire in 1888 : Class 1. 537 
The Competition. 
The following list contains the names and addresses of the competitors 
in Class I., with particulars of their holdings : — 
Ko. 1 Name 
Address 
Acreage 
Nature of soil 
Sub-soil 
Bemorks 
1 
Beasley, Chas. 
Harston, Grantham 
A. 
595 
n. p. 
3 18 
1 part clay. 
Miscellaneous 
Highly 
3 parts light 
commended 
2 
Bowles, T. . 
Lvndhurst, Mans- 
field 
721 
3 
21 
Light 
Sand 
Highly 
commend«d 
8 
Brown, W. C. 
Appleby, Brigg 
611 
0 
0 
Miscellane- 
Limestone 
Highly 
ous 
and sand 
commended 
4 
Dyson, Wm. 
Goldthorpe, Worksop 
420 
2 
12 
Sand 
and 
Gravel, sand. 
Commended 
limestone 
and lime- 
stone 
5 
Faux, J. W. . 
Coleorton, Ashby-de- 
425 
0 
0 
Heavy 
Clay 
Commended 
la-Zouch 
6 
Glnssop, W. 
Forest House, Bet- 
587 
1 
6 
Light 
Chiefly sand 
H 
ford 
7 
Henson> Geo. 
Prestwold Farm, 
Longhborough 
400 
0 
0 
Mixed 
Various 
Commended 
8 
Howard.Robt. 
G. F. . . . 
Temple Bruer, Gran- 
tham 
732 
0 
0 
Light 
Limestone 
Highly 
commended 
9 
Longstaff and 
High Toynton, Horn- 
300 
2 
29 
Light 
White clay 
Dunham. . 
castle 
10 
Lvnn, Chas. 
K 
Church Farm, Strox- 
ton, Grantham 
433 
0 
0 
Light 
Rock and 
ironstone 
Commended 
11 
Machin, 
Forest Farm. I'apple- 
522 
0 
0 
Light 
Bad sand 
1st prize 
Samuel C. . 
wick, Nottingham 
12 
Macliin, Wui. 
Papplewick, Xotting- 
839 
3 
15 
Light 
Sand clay 
2nd prize 
h;im 
and rock 
la 
Martin, 
Walter . . 
Wainfleet 
G32 
1 
18 
Light 
Silt 
14 
Morley, K. N. 
Leadenham Old Hall, 
569 
0 
2 
Light 
and 
Limestone 
Commended 
Grantham 
clay 
and clay 
15 
Wilkinson, 
William . . 
Car Colston, Bing- 
ham 
430 
2 
30 
Light 
heavy 
and 
Clay stone 
and sand 
results of the last year only are furnished, the previous ones, if 
given, would probably have yielded no better proportionate • 
returns than did those earlier ones, of which particulars are 
given. If this is not remembered, it is obvious that the accounts 
of those competitors, which include the results of one or more 
previous years, will be unfairly prejudiced. 
The instructions to the Judges of farms have often been 
given in the Journal, but may nevertheless be once more 
repeated here : — 
In making their awards the Judges are instructed especially to con- 
sider : — 
1 
General Management with a view 
to Profit. 
2. Productiveness of Crops. 
3. Quality and suitability of Live- 
stock. 
4. Management of Qrftsa-Land, 
5. State of Gates, Fences, Roads, 
and General Neatness. 
6. Mode of Book-keeping followed 
(if any). 
7. Management of the Dairy and 
Dairy Produce, if Dairying is 
pursued, 
