the Royal Agricultural Society. 
11 
reasons which have always boon considered conclusive against 
adopting the change of system which they advocate. 
The controversy is not new. Several years have elapsed since 
a few of the loading firms first objected to the prize system, and 
a sort of crisis took place at the Canterbury mooting in 1860; 
but as the object of the present remarks is not to put any one in 
the wrong for what is past, but for the sake of the future clearly 
to ascertain which view is right, no note of triumph shall be 
sounded on account of the result of that trial of strength, and 
the arguments pro and con shall be as fairly considered as if 
no differences had ever arisen on the subject. 
The Prize System. — The fullest and best statement that has 
yet been made of the views of the implement-makers is contained 
in a paper by Mr. J. C. Morton, on the Helps and Hindrances 
to Agricultural Progress, read at the Society of Arts on the 9th 
of December last. That gentleman has brought to the considera- 
tion of this question the extensive information and thorough 
impartiality for which he is distinguished, and throughout his 
remarks it is apparent that he is actuated by no carping or fault- 
finding spirit, but by a bona fide wish that these important 
exhibitions should attain their maximum of efficiency. His 
arguments are therefore entitled to the most careful consideration, 
and in dealing with them it is satisfactory to feel that wc have 
the whole case before us. 
It must be premised that the prize system which is called in 
question is the system of subjecting all implements exhibited to 
actual trial, in order to award prizes to those which acquit them- 
selves the best ; the alternative being that the implements should 
be inspected but not brought into competition with others of their 
own class in such a way as to enable the judges to pronounce any 
opinion on their comparative merit. Mr. Morton contends that 
the trials are inadequate, partly because the land in July is not 
in a fit state for the purpose, partly because sufficient time is 
not allowed the judges for forming their decisions. He further 
argues that " the award of a prize confers too great i. e. too 
abrupt a distinction " between the winning implement and others 
whose performances are almost equally good. 
The argument founded on the state of the land is not entitled 
to much weight. Having attended seventeen of the Society's 
country meetings, we have sufficient experience of the weather on 
such occasions to assert that though the trials are sometimes 
interrupted by wet, and sometimes rendered difficult by drought, 
— yet that, taking into account temperature and length of day, as 
well as the state of the land, no month is, on the average, so well 
fitted as J uly for carrying out these trials ; and that, unless the 
