September 30 , 1880 . ] JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 315 
be well placed and covered-in, but considered also as to the best 
mode of placing the different apartments in the buildings in rela¬ 
tion to each other. This attention is needed to form an economical 
farmstead whereby the cattle shall be best preserved in health and 
condition, and the farm produce—whether of hay, straw, roots, 
Ac., together with purchased foods for cattle—shall be so expended 
as to preserve the most valuable portions of the manure arising 
from their consumption in the most useful state and condition. 
There is, too, another point—that of economy, to be considered 
m the cost of these erections which come within the term of 
farmsteading. 
For the purpose of explaining our subject we shall refer to 
essays and plans of farm buildings which have on several occasions 
been in competition for prizes offered from time to time by the 
Royal Agricultural Society of England, and also refer to papers 
which have been read and discussions entered into at the meet¬ 
ings of the Council of this Society. We feel justified in assum¬ 
ing that in these contests for prizes, and the discussions upou the 
subject, are included the best designs for farm buildings that have 
ever emanated from the most intelligent agricultural architects, 
and the most clever and practical farmers to be found in the 
kingdom. In the year 1819 prizes were offered by the Royal 
Agricultural Society for the best constructed farm buildings, 
which brought out various competitors. The prize plans, the highly 
commended and other competing plans, were all very valuable 
at the time—in fact, they may even now be examined with 
interest and advantage, as they are shown in the Society’s Journal 
for the year 1850. The late Mr. Fisher Ilobbs and Lord Kin- 
naird have both furnished valuable essays itpon the subject, 
which will also be found practically described in the Royal 
Agricultural Society’s Journal also. We must call attention to 
the paper and plans produced before the Council of this So¬ 
ciety on the 18th of June, 1862, by Mr. John Elliot, architect of 
Southampton, which exhibited some novel and important points 
not to be found in any previous plans and statements referring 
to these subjects ; but it was left for the Royal Agricultural So¬ 
ciety to crown their endeavours to obtain the best and most im¬ 
portant information by offering prizes for plans of farm buildings 
at the London International Exhibition in 1879. On reference 
to the report of the Judges as to the plans submitted for compe¬ 
tition we find that it was most extensive—in fact there were 
sixty-eight sets of plans sent in for competition from thirty-nine 
different authors, of which only three sets were disqualified as 
not fulfilling the conditions required by the Society. No prizes, 
however, were awarded on this occasion, principally on account 
of the cost; but at the recommendation of the Judges a high 
commendation was given to the plans of Mr. W. E. Keates of 
Hanley, Staffordshire, which represented a homestead and dairy 
arrangement suitable for a farm of mixed arable and pasture 
land of 100 acres, a description of which, with a ground plan and 
isometrical view, is given amongst five others, with a full descrip¬ 
tion by the authors, not only of the objects and purposes of all 
parts of the buildings, and with detailed estimates of the materials 
required in the erections, but also as to the total cost. In con¬ 
sidering the cost of the buildings, as shown by Mr. Keates’s plan, 
we find that Mr. Bailey Denton, in his report as one of the Judges, 
says in this case the estimate of the competitor himself was £6116 
for homestead and dairy, exclusive of the dwelling house, road 
approaches, and contingencies, which, together with architects’ 
charges, would raise the outlay on this farm of 100 acres to up¬ 
wards of £18 per acre. Such a charge the Judges considered no 
farm of this size, even if it consisted of the best land and com¬ 
manded the best market, could bear without loss to the owner, let 
attendant circumstances be what they may. It therefore appears 
if we are to take the commended plan entirely for our guide in 
erecting buildings on a farm, it could not be done except by 
making an injudicious outlay ; we will therefore endeavour to 
make some comparisons between this plan and that of Mr. Elliot 
and others which deserve notice, in order to draw some con¬ 
clusions therefrom in the interest of the home farm, or any farm 
in fact. We can, however, only allude to either, in the absence 
of plans, to the general advantage or otherwise of the system 
involved in management, and the style and cost of the buildings, 
which our readers perhaps will scarcely understand sufficiently 
without reference to the plans themselves, as given in the Royal 
Journal for 1879, also for 1850, 1862, and the Agricultural Gazette 
of November 4th, 1878, the last-named giving a plan of the dairy 
homestead designed by Mr. Gilbert Murray, which obtained the 
first prize at the London Dairy Show in October, 1878. 
The first point we will consider is the site of the homestead ; 
and we think it should neither be too highly elevated and ex¬ 
posed, nor yet low enough to be below the fog level ; at the same 
time it is well that it should be placed near some pasture land at 
a lower level, in order that the drainage both of liquid manure 
and the rain water from the buildings may fall of their own 
gravity to the pastures for the purpose of irrigation. After all 
the arrangements which we have proposed for utilising the liquid 
manure there is nothing equal as a matter of economy to its use 
for watering grass land, but the rain water being mixed with it 
on entering the pastures serves to dilute it, and distribute over 
a large area of land. Nearly all the plans exhibited arranged 
for the corn and hay to be stacked near the buildings; but we 
consider that a better plan is to stack the corn, &c., in the fields 
where grown, except in a field or two near the farm premises, and 
not extend the time of securing the stacks in our fickle climate, 
for we would sooner carry the straw and hay to the homestead as 
required than that the corn should be ricked at the homestead, 
the former being done without risk, and at a leisure time for 
horses and men. Let us take Mr. Keates’s plan of buildings first. 
Now we find stalling for cattle, horses, the piggeries, and also the 
barn implement shed and other farm offices very fairly placed in 
relation to each other ; but we do not approve the position of the 
dung pits, although they are a necessity whilst three or four yards 
are retained in the plan. Now, these are covered it is true ; but 
are they required or necessary when ample accommodation for all 
the stock is well arranged, and the drainage and ventilation well 
provided for, as it is in this case? We think not, and consider 
that the great expense incurred by covering these yards is, under 
the circumstances, a great defect as compared with other home¬ 
steads. On referring to the plans exhibited] in 1849] for the 
Royal Agricultural Society’s prize, which was awarded to Sir 
Thomas Tancred's homestead, and which is made up of de¬ 
tached buildings with uncovered yards between them ; and 
although the boxes and stalls, stables, &c., are good, we find that 
a fixed engine only is provided, and a large collection of corn 
stacks in the rick yard near. Our object in naming these points 
is to show the contrast with more recently approved systems. We, 
however, think the award was an error, and that the commended 
plans furnished by Messrs. Spooner and] Elliot contained fewer 
defects and offered more advantages. For instance, the cattle 
boxes and the tramways were more convenient and better placed, 
with improved roofing and ventilation ; still there was in these 
plans the open yards, the fixed engine, and the collection of ricks 
to which we have previously objected. cvu-. 
, We must now refer to the entirely ^covered, homestead by Mr. 
Elliot/plans of which were, exhibited jat the. Council meeting of 
the Royal Agricultural Society onthe 18th of June, 1862,fand the 
advantages of their construction and position was explained by 
an illustrative statement read by the author, and which ?at the 
time raised a discussion amongst the members, and generally of 
approval by the practical men. As space will not allow^us to go 
into the minute, details of the plan we will endeavour to furnish 
