1852 
THE CULTIVATOR 
407 
I 
Reaping Machines in England. 
Mr. Editor —In the last number of your Cultivator, 
you copy from an English paper a notice of what are 
called “the most important trials,” made in England, 
“ of the American (Reaping) Machines,” which con¬ 
cludes with the question—“ who can yet say which of 
them is best ?” leaving it to be inferred that upon that 
question, no general opinion has been formed. 
If, however, you will look over the reports of the seve¬ 
ral trials, which have taken place during the past year, 
you cannot. I think, fail to come to the conclusion, that 
the results have sustained to the fullest extent, the 
award of the Council Medal, for my machine, by the 
jury and council of chairman of the Great Exhibition. 
And for the purpose of satisfying your readers upon 
this point, as well as to contradict the statement in the 
article referred to, that “The Highland Society threw 
out both, and decided in favor of one of Bell’s,” I beg 
the insertion in your columns of the following proofs— 
premising simply, that one of the two trials referred to 
in the article which you quote, was the “ Hurricane 
trial ” by the Cleveland Ag. Society, made last year, 
after I had left England; and the other was made by a 
majority, only, of a committee of the same Society this 
year, awarding to Garrett’s machine, (a prominent 
manufacturer, residing not far distant from the place of 
exhibition,) the 1st premium, on account of some sup¬ 
posed improvements made on Mr. Hussey’s machine, 
while mine was at this same trial “ highly commended, 
and considered, by a minority of the committee, equal in 
merit to Garrett’s, and would have been awarded the 2d 
premium, over two other Hussey machines, had one been 
offered—while Mr. Hussey himself, for an exhibition of 
one taken this year from the U. States, was cre¬ 
dited in the report for “ much ingenuity in some 
respects.” I have only to add, that, as was subsequently 
explained in a letter by Mr. Valentine, the farm manager 
at the Royal Agricultural College, and owner of the 
Garrett machine , operated in that trial—the waste of 
wheat, as stated in the report of the trial, was, not per 
acre, but on a lot of three acres —the proportion be¬ 
tween the two machines, as stated, being correct. 
Letter of the Hon. Wm. Miles , M P. 
As one of the jurors appointed to test the merits of 
the different reaping machines, exhibited last year at the 
exhibition, it will be impossible for me to say and write 
more than I did then. I am truly glad that our decision 
lias now been sustained by repeated trials. I remain, 
dear sir,faithfully yours, W. Miles. Leigh Court , Oct. 
4 th, 1852; 
Albany, Nov. 17,1852. C. H. McCormick. 
[From the New-York Herald .] 
THE RIVAL REAPERS IN ENGLAND. 
We have published repons of the several trials, both in this coun¬ 
try and in England, of rival reapers and mowers by various agricul¬ 
tural associations during the present year. The Economist , a Lon¬ 
don Journal of high character, sums up the more important tests of 
the respective merits of rival machines which have been made during 
the late harv* si in England, as follows: 
Reaping Machines. —We have purposely abstained from com¬ 
menting upon the various accounts of the progress made in reaping 
corn by machine until the termination of the harvest should enable 
us to form some estimate of the success of this new class of instru¬ 
ments, and to ascertain which of the several competing reaping ma¬ 
chines has proved the most effective. Enough has been done by the 
use of the reaping machine to prove that ere long it will in a great 
measure supercede hand reaping on large farms. Even now groat 
economy is obtained by using the machine, and there seems reason 
to believe that great improvements will be made in the different-ma¬ 
chines now before the public. The following are reports on com¬ 
parative trials made between rival reaping machines. The first was 
a trial between Hussey’s American machine, as manufactured by 
Croskill, and Mr. Bell’s original Scotch machine. The trial took 
place on the farm of Mr. Watson, of Keillior, in the presence of a 
numerous party of distinguished (find-owners and agriculturists.— 
The award of the judges was strongly in favor of Bell’s machine. 
The next extract is from the report of a committee of the Driffield 
Farmers’ Club in Yorkshire, in a trial between Hussey’s and Mc¬ 
Cormick’s machines, in which the decision was in favor of the latter, 
and the following contains their reasons for that decision :— 
McCormick’s machine is six feet wide, and Hussey’s five ; but as it 
would be impossible always to keep up a cutting exactly to these widths 
they conceive that six inches less is all that can be calculated upon, 
and at those widths, viz : five and a half and four and a half feet, and 
the horses moving at an average speed of two and a half miles per 
hour, (a speed which your committee would recommend,) Hussey’s 
machine would in five and half hours cut exactly seven and a half acres; 
while in the same time, and with full as little horse power, McCor¬ 
mick’s machine would do nine acres and twenty .six poles. Another 
matter worthy of consideration is, that one man only is needed to 
drive the horses in McCormick’s machine, the horses being yoked 
abreast, while two are necessary in Hussey’s, the horses having to 
draw in a line. McCormick’s machine also possesses another ad¬ 
vantage in having a wooden reel, which, without any injury to the 
corn, materially assists the man who pulls away the sheaves, and 
gives him a better opportunity of adjusting their size. But the great¬ 
est superiority of McCormick’s machine over Hussey’s, which your 
committee have to notice, is, that the sheaves when pulled off, are 
laid in such a way as not to impede its working so that two men and 
two horses may move on uninterruptedly, leaving the rest of the 
laborers to be otherwise employed: while in Hussey’s the sheaves 
are left behind, and a sufficient number of workmen is, consequent¬ 
ly requisite to remove them, so that the machine may go on. This, 
your committee need not point out, is a grave objection, more espe¬ 
cially when the crops are much mixed with clover seeds, and when 
it is desirable to let the sheaves remain unbound for a few days.— 
Your committee are further of opinion that from the violent rever- 
bratory motion imparled to every part of Hussey’s machine, durabili¬ 
ty is not to be expected; and that the form of the serrated cullers in 
McCormick’s machine is far preferable to the deeply indented cutters 
in Hussey’s, and that they will not nearly so often need renewing.-— 
In giving a decided preference to McCormick’s, their opinions were 
unanimous. 
The report concludes with the following very sensible remarks on 
the effect produced on the agricultural laborers, by the increased use 
of machinery in husbandry :— 
As your committee have already stated their opinion of the utility 
of well constructed reaping.machines on the interests of the farmers, 
it may not be improper to state, what, in their opinion will be their 
effect upon the condition of that useful and necessary class, the far 
mers’ laborers. They conceive they would be at no loss for argu 
ments to prove that in whatever branch of industry, machinery 
has been the most extensively useful, the condition of the operative;* 
(however paradoxical it may' appear) has been improved in a cot- 
responding degree. For proof of the truth of this assertion, your 
committee need not go into the West Riding or Lancashire, but "may 
confine themselves to a branch of our own industry immediately 
under the observation of every one connected with agriculture ; and 
as one fact is worth many arguments, they may' call attention to the 
effects that thrashing machines, drills, and many other implements 
for facilitating and lessening the necessary operations of agriculture, 
have had upon the condition of the laborer, and we shall find, that 
notwithstanding the immense increase of the laboring poor upon a 
limited surface and their improved condition, that their predicted fears 
of the baneful effects of the introduction of machinery'were altogeth¬ 
er chimerical and unfounded* and that instead of considering them¬ 
selves likely to be injured by the shifting of severe bodily labor to 
animal or steam power, they are reaping an advantage which, prop¬ 
erly' understood, ought to be hailed by' them as a boon as no advan¬ 
tage can be gained by any class, that will not ultimately be spread 
over the whole community. 
A third report is of a trial between Hussey’s machine, manufac¬ 
tured by Garrett, and McCormick’s, made by Messrs. Burgess <fc 
Key, which took place on the Agricultural College farm, at Ciren¬ 
cester. Here also, McCormick’s seems to have been preferred:— 
That, upon examination of the fields in which the crops had been 
cut, we found the work to have been generally well and satisfacto¬ 
rily done by both machines, but the stubble left by' Hussey’s appeared 
in all descriptions of grain, rather the neatest and most even. In 
each case it bad been considered necessary to follow with the horse 
rake, which had effectually cleared up all the waste, amounting, it 
was found on the wheat stubble to bushels per acre after McCor¬ 
mick’s, and 8| after Garrett’s machine. The wheat fields we con¬ 
sidered to have been favorable for the workihg of the machines being 
generally level and clean, and to have presented fair average stand 
up crops, in no places much laid, such as Were likely to have pro¬ 
duced in a fair yield, about, probably thirty bushels per acre or rather 
more. The beans, a moderate crop, drilled twenty-two inches 
apart, had been cut principally by McCormick’s machine, which had 
made very fair work; and the small portion upon which Hussey’s 
had been tried was equally well done in both instances, leaving a 
more tidy stubble than the scythe which had been applied to an ad¬ 
joining portion of the crop. A crop of oats of about twenty-five acres, 
which we inspected had been cut by the machines, and the oats were 
lying on the ground. The part cut by Hussey’s appeared the clean¬ 
est and best work, but we considered either sufficiently well done.— 
We made a careful inspection of the working of the two machines 
in a field of barley-, laid down with clover and rye grass. The barley 
was estimated to produce about four quarters per acre on the average, 
but not equal throughout, a portion being estimated at five quarters, 
while other parls were but only, at three quarters, the clover being 
regular and very’ luxuriant, particularly' where the barley was light- 
