456 
Implement Slioio at Leicester. 
Meport of Trials of Cultivators, Clod-cruslicrs, Boilers, and Harrows, 
Class IV. — Cultivators. 
1st Trial. — These implements were tried on a piece of tare-stubble, from 
which the crop had been recently removed, and Avhich was in a tolerably 
friable state on the surface, but exceedingly hard and tough below ; so much so 
that only two out of the eighteen selected for trial were able to withstand the 
severity of the strain. We therefore came to the inevitable conclusion that 
the implement No. 405, exhibited by Mr. E. H. Bentall, which did its work 
most admirably, and the cultivator No. 49, exhibited liy Mr. C. Clay — and 
those only — had any claim to a prize. At the same time we should be sorry to 
condemn all the other implements, as many of them would certainly be most 
useful and efficient on light soils. 
2nd Trial. — Owing to the very exceptional state of the ground, we were 
requested by the Stewards to give this class a second trial, which took place on 
a piece of land which had been steam-cultivated, and afterwards iised in the 
clod-crusher trials. Here also Bentall and Clay held their own against all 
comers ; but several which broke down on the previous trial made good work, 
particularly Messrs. Hunt and Pickering's, No. 508, which we Highly Com- 
mend. The implements also of Messrs. G. Ball, Coleman and Morton, and 
Mellard and Co., proved useful for light soils. 
On the whole, we consider that the cultivator that will do its work under 
the greatest difficulties, will also do so under other and more favourable cir- 
cumstances, and therefore must be considered the best ; we therefore award 
the First Prize, of 131, to E. H. Bentall (No. 405) ; the Second Prize, of 71, 
to Mr. Clay (No. 49) ; and highly commend No. 508, exhibited by Messrs. 
Hunt and Pickering. 
Class V. — Clodcrushers. 
Clodcrushers were put to work on the laud which had been steam-culti- 
vated by Howard's tackle, some portion having been also steam-harrowed. It 
was in a very rough state, and admirably suited to test the capabilities of a 
clodcrusher. Sixteen implements were selected for trial, being a very large 
increase on the number (8) tried at Newcastle. But it was apparent that 
a large majority of them were simply variations of the principles which dis- 
tinguished the prize implements on that occasion, and although perhaps 
imjiroved in some minor details of construction, they liad no claim to take 
precedence of the original inventions. Our attention, therefore, was soon con- 
fined to the four implements noticed in our award, and which we tested a 
second time on land worked by the cultivators on their second trial, after 
which we came to the conclusion that the Beverley Iron and Waggon Company 
were still to the fore in this class, and we award them the First Prize, of 11/., 
and the Second Prize, of 9/., to Messrs. Amies and Barford for their Press- 
wheel Roller, fitted with scrapers ; also fore-steerage wheel in lieu of shaits, 
which we consider a very great improvement in the case of such heavy rollers. 
We also highly commend W. Crosskill and Sons (No. 23), and commend 
E. Cambridge and Co. (No. 89). 
Class VI. — Hollers. 
Ten rollers were selected in this class, and were tried on the land used for 
the horse-plough trials, and subsequently for the trial of heavy liarrows over 
the same ground. In this class we had little difficulty in arriving at a decision. 
Considering the Water-Ballasting Poller (No. 228) of Messrs. Amies and Barfurd 
