232
M«CORMICK’S REAPER—HORSE-RAKES—HAYMAKERS, &c.
crop until they finished in the centre, showing that theycould cut easily fifteen acres in ten hours. One mandrives sitting, and another stands on the machine to rake.It is hard work for him, and the men ought sometimes tochange places. The straw left behind at the trial wascut very regularly—lower than by reaping, but higherthan by fagging. The inventor stated that he had amachine which would cut it two inches lower. This isthe point, I should say, to attend to, especially for autumncleaning. Though it seems superfluous to bring this ma-chine to the test of economy, we may estimate the pre-sent cost of cutting fifteen acres of wheat, at an averageof 9s. an acre, to be G/. 15s. Deduct, for horses and men10s. 3d., and for binding 2s. Gd. per acre; the accountwill stand thus:—
£. s. d.
Average cost of reaping 15 acres,
at 9s. per acre.G 15 0
Horses and men for reaper - - £0 10 0Binding 15 acres, at 2$. 6rf. per acre 1 17 6
-2 7 6
Saving per acre, 5s. 10 d. .£4 76
The saving of wages, however, would of course be animperfect test of the Reaper's merits, since in bad sea-sons arid late districts it may often enable the fanner tosave the crop.
Since this statement was written, fresh trials have beenmade of Mr. M'Cormick’s reaper, as also of one by Mr.Hussey; and as the award under the Commission hasbeen called in question, it is right that some statementshould be made on the subject. In the first trial at Tip-tree Hall, Mr. M‘Cormick’s reaper worked well, and theother did not act at all. As the corn, however, was thengreen, it was thought right to make further trial, andspecial leave was obtained from the Council of Chairmento give two Council Medals, one to each Reaper, if, onfurther trial, their respective performances should befound to deserve one. The object in our second trial wasnot to decide which was the best implement, but whethereither or both were sufficiently good to receive the CouncilMedal. Mr. M*Cormick’s in this trial worked—as it hassince worked at Cirencester College and elsewhere—tothe admiration of practical farmers, and therefore receiveda Council Medal. Mr. Hussey’s sometimes becamedogged, as in the former trial at Tiptree, and thereforecould not possibly obtain that distinction.
Further trials, however, have since been made by otherparties, elsewhere, in which Mr. Hussey’s machine workedwell; and one of our colleagues, Mr. Thompson, informsme that it has been used for a week by a practical farmeron his own farm, who was perfectly satisfied. Its in-ventor states that at the trials for the Commission thefailure arose from the mal-adjustment; and Mr. Thomp-son informs me that at one of the subsequent trials a simi-lar mal-adjustment impeded its action, until Mr. Husseyarrived to set it right. I am bound, then, to express mvown individual opinion that the merits of the machineare such as entitle it to a Council Medal, and my regretthat it should be formally disqualified to receive one.
. We have, then, two good American reaping-machines.Their respective merits time will discover: but there isone caution which applies to the introduction of bothinto England. They both cut by a sidelong vibration,the frequency of which must be determined by the num-ber of straws to be cut in passing over a given space.Now, as the acreable yield of England nearly doublesthat of America , our straw it is probable stands muchthicker than in the crops these Reapers have been accus-tomed to deal with, so that both implements when appliedto heavy crops must be adapted to the superior fanningthey will have to encounter. At present, we only knowthat Mr. M‘Connick’s machine is best for barley and oatswhen not intended to be bound up in sheaf: Mr. Hussey’sfor corn laid by the weather, or standing upon steepridges. Mr. Hussey’s can cut rushes, as was shown inWindsor Park. Mr. M‘Cormick’s lias received a prizethis autumn in the United States for cutting prairie-grass,competing there with three others.
[Class IX.
2. Horse-rakes.
These are very neat implements, about 8 feet wide,running on low wheels, drawn by one horse rapidly be-tween the rows of cocked barley, oats, or hay, and tippedfrom time to time, while they move on, by a man whofollows. One of them must do the work of 10 or 15women. They are common in many counties, yet in othersunknown, or, when made known, not adopted.
3. Haymakers.
Every one has seen these machines tossing the hayhigh above them: instead of this rapid action, if themovement of the frame be reversed, they gently stir thegrass without lifting it from the ground. The saving oflabour must be as great as with the horse-rake, and thework is far better done.
It is proved beyond question that the Scotch andNorthumbrian farmers, by using one-horse carts, saveone-half of the horses which south-country fanners stillstring on their three-horse waggons and three-horse dung-carts, or dung-pots, as they are called. The said three-horse waggons and dung-pots would also cost nearly threetimes as much original outlay. Few, I suppose, if any,farmers buy these expensive luxuries now; though it iswonderful they should keep them; for last year, atGrantham, in a public trial, Jive horses with five cartswere matched against five waggons witlx ten horses, and thefive horses beat the ten by two loads. It appears that someof our one-horse carts, not being well made, carry thecorn less steadily than the waggons; but this last defenceof the primitive waggon is broken down by the curvedform which Mr. Busby has given his haivest rails, as iswell explained by Mr. Thompson, of Moat Hall, a highauthority on these matters, in the following interestingreport:—
Carts and iVaggons .—The Jurors appointed to examinethese classes of implements were considerably influenced intheir selection by the opinion that really good carls ought tobe capable of easy adaptation to all the kinds of work forwhich agricultural wheel-carriages are required, thus ren-dering waggons unnecessary. The great majority of cartsarc, however, ill adapted for harvest work, and this is, nodoubt, one reason why such slow progress has been made insubstituting light carts for waggons. It may, therefore, beuseful to mention the leading points which ought to be keptin view in the construction of harvest carts, or harvestframes adapted for common carts.
"When a load of any height, technically termed a top load,is borne upon one pair of wheels instead of two, it isexposed to much more violent trials of its powers ofcohesion. Every slight alteration of position of the horsewhich elevates or depresses the shafts of a cart, gives a ten-dency to the load to slide off either before or behind, whichis not the case in a waggon, where no part of the weightrests on the horse’s back. If, therefore, as is commonly thecase, the harvest frame consists of two or three horizontaland parallel bars, it is found requisite to take small loads,or to bind the load very firmly together with ropes, eitherof which expedients causes a waste of time, which can ill bespared during harvest; and, in spite of such precautions,accidents frequently occur. To remedy this fault, somemakers have constructed harvest frames with one bar onlyat the front and back, strengthened by iron stays, as is thecase in Morton’s harvest cart, exhibited by Messrs. Stratton.This is a considerable improvement upon the two or threebars above mentioned, inasmuch as the sheaves arc bentover the single bar by the weight of the load, and thusobtain a firmer hold; but the desired object is more surelyand efficiently obtained by the harvest frame attached toBusby’s cart, where the ends and sides all slope towardsthe body, so as to condense the load by the motion of thecart. The fact that raised ends have a tendency to con-dense the load was first pointed out by the judges of cartsat the Norwich Show of the Royal Agricultural Society in1849; and in Mr. Busby’s cart these suggestions have notonly been adopted, but improved upon, by raising the sidesas well as the ends.
Another important point is, that carts should be low, notonly for the sake of diminishing the labour of loading, butto lower the centre of gravity of the load, and therebylessen the great inequality of pressure on the horse which