the Royal Agricultural Society. 
15 
mcrcial success to tlie instruction and corrections received in the 
Society's showjard — tliat we cannot but consider tlie cases men- 
tioned by Mr. Morton as altogether exceptional. 
Many of the leading manufacturers are undoubtedly opposed 
to the continuance of competitive trials, and their view of the 
subject is, we believe, somewhat of the following kind. They 
have devoted their time, talents, and capital to the improve- 
ment of agricultural machinery. They have been eminently 
successful, and they think that having arrived at this pitch of 
excellence, they might be trusted to furnish sterling articles 
in future without being put to the trouble and expense of con- 
stantly fighting to maintain their position, with the additional 
mortification of being occasionally beaten by an implement 
which they honestly believe to be inferior to their own. With 
these feelings they are naturally disposed to be hypercritical 
with regard to the Society's trials, and to magnify unduly every 
little error or mistake. 
Taking a broad view of the question as it affects the imple- 
ment-makers : what do we find to be the result of three-and -twenty 
years' experience ? Are the firms of old standing continually 
driven out of the trade by new men ? Quite the reverse. No 
doubt many new men have taken up the business, and some few, 
like Messrs. Clayton and Shuttleworth and Messrs. Fowler, have 
in a comparatively short time taken their place among the very 
first. But it is equally true that the repeated decisions of so many 
different judges have made more and more clear the indisputable 
fact that amongst the most improved and best-manufactured im- 
plements in the various classes are always to be found those of 
the original leaders in this department, Messrs. Garrett, Hornsby, 
Howard, Ransome, &c. &c. Can these gentlemen then be serious 
in maintaining that the trials are so hurried and inadequate ax to 
be unworthy of the confidence of the public ? We feel persuaded 
that on reconsideration they will lean rather to the more general 
opinion that on the whole these decisions are not far wrong. 
But though the old-established firms have been able to hold 
their own against all legitimate competition, it is by no means 
equally clear that in the absence of trials they would be suc- 
cessful in protecting their business from the inroads of plau- 
sible charlatans, who are only kept in the background at present 
by the impossibility of their winning prizes. By abolishing com- 
petitive trials the outsiders would have a clear course, and the 
usual results would probably follow the tempting announcement 
of the best qualify of work and materials at half the usual prices. 
It thus appears that the prize system is not without compensa- 
tion to the implement-makers for some unavoidable annoyances, 
but if the question be treated solely with a view to the interests 
