68G Report on the Exhibition of Implements 
Implements aud Exhibitors' Names. 
AWARDED BY 
THE COUilCIL. 
Refereaoe to Catalogue 
To William Crosskill, of Beverley, Hull, fbr% 
liis Clod-Crusher; invented and maiiufac- 1 
tured by himsell" . . . . ,1 
Gold Medal. 
18 
1 tolL 
£. s. (/. 
I 12 0 0 
to 
[ 27 10 0 
NoTK. — The prices affixed comjnehend the range of the cost according to the various 
sizes, materials, fitthigs, &c., of tlie implements. 
Ploughs. — The only fault to be found with the ground destined 
for the trials of the field implements was that the heavy land did 
not prove to be so stiff as is desirable on these occasions. In 
other respects the choice was perfectly satisfactory both to the 
judges and exhibitors, and the condition of the soil for the va- 
rious trials could not have been more suitable at any period of 
the year. 
The trial-ground was conveniently situated about two miles 
from Newcastle, at the farm of Mr. Henry Hall, of Gosforth 
Cottage, with whose preparations and attentions the stewards and 
judges had every reason to be well satisfied. 
Ploughing was first commenced on the light land, seventeen 
implements having been selected for competition, some of which 
were furnished with two wheels, some with one wheel, and some 
worked without a wheel, or as swings ; each plough being set to 
complete a land, without the interference of any party on the spot, 
until the whole performance v.as complete. 
The manifestation of superiority in favour of the two-wheel 
ploughs made by Messrs. Howard and Co., of Bedford, was un- 
questionable, and in all the respects which would guide the judg- 
ment of a competent farmer in liis choice of this important imple- 
ment. They had two ploughs in the field, bearing the marks 
J. A. and H. L. It was the latter plough to which the judges 
awarded the prize of 10/., remarking " that the sole of the furrow 
was cut perfectly flat, the land side clean and true, the furrow- 
slices ^verc laid with perfect uniformity throughout the field, and 
in a beautiful position for receiving the seed." The J. A. plough 
was considered to be next in merit to the H. L., and but in a 
trifling degree inferior to the latter. 
Good work was done by several otlier ploughs in the field — the 
judges commending those respectively made by Mr. Grant, of 
Stamford; Mr. David Harkes, of Mere, Knutsford, Cheshire; 
and Messrs. Barrett and Ashton, of Hull; but observing that 
these parties " have much lee way to fetch up bslbre tlieir 
implements can equal the work done by Messrs. Howard's 
plough." 
