Implement Show at Leicester, 
483 
cultivator sufficiently far for the o]iposite engine to complete the turn. Con- 
sidering the unfitness of the groun(l, tlie work was extremely good, sufiicicutly 
showing what might bo acconii)Uslied under more favourable conditions. The 
steadiness of the implement was a point deserving of notice, contrasting with 
the jumping tendency of balance implements, steadied though they are by tlic 
rope-lever before referred to. 
Tlie cost of the cultivator is 75?. 
The last implement in the class tried by Messrs. Fowler and Co. was their 
4-furrow Digger; this was the plough-frame (24!)1) fitted with plough-share, 
&c., but with digging-breasts in place of ordinary mould-boards. The work 
was very deep and good, vide Table. 
Messrs. Howard worked their 5-tined Pieversible Cultivator with Rocking 
Tines (part of the set No. 1194) 4 tines only in work — a capital cultivator for 
small occupations. It is not capable of moving a great weight of soil ; but 
what it does, is always well done. The regularity of the bottom, partly in 
consequence of the sole-plates, was noticeably good. The rapidity of reversing 
at the land's end is also great, and altogether we were favourably impressed 
\\it\i trhe work done. In very foul land, the distance between the under side 
of the frame and the ground is not sufficient to prevent choking up. 
Messrs. Howard next worked the Plough-frame (1198) fitted as a Digger ; 
but the depth moved was small, and the work done only iudifierent. 
Lastly, Messrs. Howard showed a large Cultivator (1192) suitable for light 
soils, cai)able of carrying 9 tines and moving a width of 7 feet 10 inches. 
The space between the wheels, however, is only G feet 10 inches, the extra 
foot being cultivated by tines removable at pleasure. The arrangement for 
deepening the tines was very inferior to that of Fowler's large implement. In 
light soils this cultivator of Howard's would doubtless prove a very useful tool. 
The work at Leicester Avas very irregular ; in some places it was out of the 
ground, at others it went in well, and, as will be seen, moved more soil than 
Fowler's implement of a similar kind. 
Hayes and Tasker competed with Cultivators on W. Smith's principle (Hayes, 
17; Tasker, 5518). We can only state that the work was inferior, the depth 
variable and never great, and the area moved small. Whatever may be the 
capabilities of these implements in soft soils, it was evident they were not 
fitted for tlie hardened surface at Leicester. 
Our award was as follows : — £ 
To (249G) Large Cultivator for light land — J. Fowler and Co 15 
„ (2498) Seven-tinod Cultivator — J. Fowler and Co 12 
„ (1194) Five-tined Cultivator for moderate occupations — Messrs. 
Howard 12 
Class of Earrows, Hollers, and Clodcrushers. 
We were not able to subject the implements competing in this class to any 
dynamomctrical tests. Even had time permitted such trials to be made, the 
extreme roughness of the surface would have greatly interfered with the ob- 
taining of accurate results, neither were such tests necessary, since the excel- 
lence of these implements depends comparatively little on the draught they 
require, but very largely upon their efficiency ; and working them over some 
deeply dug land gave us a very accurate notion of their merits. 
Fowler's " Implement-frame " (2500), with its sensitive steerage, is a very 
useful application, carrying with equal facility harrows only, or harrows 
one-half, and a Croskill roller or Norwegian harrow ; thus the surface can be 
crushed and harrowed at the same time, and a great area passed over in a 
day. 
The harrows themselves jump more and are less efficient than those of Messrs. 
Howard (1203), which made excellent work. 
