Report on the Trials of Implements at Cardiff. 419 
points, but with the oats a very considerable difference occurred ; 
Messrs. Marshall, Sons, and Co., obtaining the very high score of 
447, out of a possible total of 450, Messrs. Ransomes, Sims, and 
Head, getting 433, while Messrs. Clayton and Shuttleworth only 
obtained 414 points. A part of their deficiency is due to their 
having dispensed with the use of the screen, thus making only 
two, instead of three, divisions of the corn. But their loss is 
chiefly due to the choking of one of the sieves in the shoe of 
their second dressing apparatus. The two sieves had been placed 
in the first and third grooves, instead of the second and third ; 
the consequence being that there was not sufficient space to 
receive the oats as they passed from the white-coater box. The 
choking of this sieve of course caused an accumulation of corn in 
the white-coater box and cup-elevators, and soon stopped the 
working of the machine. As soon as the cause of the hitch was 
discovered it was rectified without much loss of time, and the 
trial resumed. On taking a grand total of the four runs, the points 
made by each machine, and the average of foot-lbs. of work 
done for each pound of sheaf-corn, stood thus : — 
Average foot-lbs. 
Total points per pound of 
of merit. sheaf-corn. 
Messrs. Marshall, Sons, and Co. . . 1685 . . 2321 
„ Ransomes, Sims, and Head 1685 . . 2715 
„ Clayton and Shuttleworth. . 1670 .. 2481 
„ Ruston and Proctor . . . . 1623 . . 2719 
The first prize of 40Z. was awarded to No. 5025, Messrs. Mar- 
shall, Sons, and Co., of Gainsborough ; the second prize, of 20/., 
to No. 4658, Messrs. Ransomes, Sims, and Head, of Ipswich. 
No. 4943, Messrs Clayton and Shuttleworth, of Lincoln, was 
highly commended; No, 5014, Messrs, Ruston, Proctor, and 
Co., of Lincoln, was commended. 
j The general standard of work attained in Class II. may be 
j reported as good ; all the four machines selected for the final 
trial did their work admirably. 
' We will now briefly describe the differences of construction 
, observable in the machines tried, and for convenience of descrip- 
|tion it may be well to classify them according to the general 
arrangement of their parts. 
5025. Marsliall, Sons, and Co. — In this machine we have a good example 
I of the arrangement of parts adopted witli only slight modifications by the great 
^majority of makers ; although in Gibhons' machine the external appearance is 
'modified by placing both screen and corn-elevator outside the frame, there is 
thardly any important divergence from this type, except in the machines made 
[at Norwich by Messrs. Holmes and Sons, and Messrs. Eichesand Watts, and in 
I the I pswich machines made by Messrs. Eaiisomcs, Sims, and Head. In the 
f Norwich machines the drum is placed low, and th« mixed grain and chaff 
|are together elevated to the winnowing ajiparatus placed at the top of the 
2 E 2 
