the corn, chaff, and cavings or short straw to the | first riddle, which separates the corn and chaff from the cavings, and delivers the latter outside the machine; the chaff and corn fall on another inclined board, which carries them to the second riddle, and subjects them to the first blast, which takes out the greater part of the chaff. A second inclined board takes the grain to a third riddle, to take off any thing larger than corn. The corn passes from the third riddle over an inclined screen (which takes out small seeds) on its way to an elevator. This clevator takes it up to the barley hummeller, where a spout admits of the grain being put into sacks, or passing on through the hummeller, which, by having the slides open, acts as a carrier; it may again be delivered into a sack, or it passes down, and the operations it received on the second and third riddles and blast are repeated, constituting the second blast, and fourth and fifth riddles. On leaving the fifth riddle, it reaches the second elevator, and is carried up and subjected to the third blast, where it can also be taken out as it passes on to the rotary screen, with Palmer's separator blades, which sizes the grain and finishes the operation. I may sum up, I am afraid, this rather vague description with repeating that the grain is five times riddled, thrice blasted, once screened, and once sized. As there are no toothed wheels in the machine, the whole being driven with belts and pulleys, it is not liable to breakage, and the chief noise is the loud hum of the drum, which sounds at a distance like a huge French top. It is extraordinary the quantity of work it will do, the difficulty being to get people to carry off the straw fast enough. It thrashes clean, and shakes the straw admirably; however, with very thick feeding, a small quantity of grain may be found under the straw-heck. Of course it requires some knowledge to set the concave properly in relation to the drum, to thrash clean, and at the same time not to injure the grain; with a little experience this is soon obtained by a workman of ordinary intelligence. The chaff is deposited at one end of the machine, and the straw at the other. This latter comes out so unbroken that it might almost be again tied up into sheaves. I think this a matter of some importance, even for littering cattle; it remains longer dry than broken straw, and it is incomparably superior for thatch. Before last harvest I was thrashing some wheat stacks at Fenton farm with an excellent Scotch mill put up 12 years ago, and I wished to make the straw into thatch; but it came out so broken as to be quite unfit for that purpose. I therefore drove the unthrashed grain to Fenton Barns, put it through the English mill, and sent the straw back tied up into excellent thatch. I had the Scotch mill completely overhauled at the same time last summer that the English mill was fixed, and having used both regularly since then, I thought it would be well to test the one against the other. The first trial was with wheat. Two carts were placed beside the stack, and sheaf about was regularly given to each; then other two carts were loaded in the same way, thus giving two loads to each machine. The carts having been previously weighed, were again weighed when loaded. The weight of the grain and straw sent to the English machine was found to be 30 cwt. 1 qr. 8 lb., and to the Scotch mill 29 cwt.

This

3 qr. 14 lb., making a difference of 44 ib. of additional grain and straw sent to the English mill. latter produced of wheat, including best and light, 12 cwt. 14 lb. The Scotch mill gave only 11 cwt. 2 qr. 1 lb., being 69 lb, less. If 17 lb. are deducted for the extra weight of grain and straw in carts sent to the English mill, it will leave 52 lb, as the net gain on 1289 lb., or rather over 4 per cent. in its favour. The time taken to thrash these quantities was, by the English mill, 25 minutes, and by the Scotch mill 40 minutess. The straw that had been thrashed by the English mill was then put through the Scotch machine, and 10 lb. of wheat were obtained; and the straw from the Scotch machine, on going through the English one, produced 14 lb. The wheat was excellent quality, had been secured before the rain, and having been cut by a reapingmachine, there were few or no heads at the bottom of the sheaves, so that the circumstances were highly favourable for the Scotch machine. The next trial was with oats. When weighed, the oats from the English mill were found to be 43 lb. per bushel, while from the Scotch mill they were only 421 lb. ; but there was an extraordinary discrepancy in the quantity in favour of the Scotch mill, which made me doubtful of its accuracy. At least it did not appear the grain was left in the straw, for on putting what came from the English mill through the Scotch one, literally nothing was got; while, when the straw from the Scotch mill was put through the English one, 12 lb. of oats were obtained. This experiment not having been conducted altogether under my own immediate superintendence, and the person who weighed the grain admitting it was probable he might have been mistaken with regard to the weights, I resolved to make another trial with oats. On this occasion the weight of the grain and straw thrashed by the English mill was 25 ewt. 18 lb., and by the Scotch 25 cwt. 84 lb., thus giving the latter 66 lb. of additional grain and straw, though I saw sheaf about given to each cart, which shows the necessity of weighing if perfect accuracy is required. The English mill produced 997 lb. of best oats, weighing 43 lb. per bushel, 81 lb. of grey, and 7 lb. of thirds. The Scotch mill produced 9324 lb. of best oats, weighing 423 lb. per bushel, 95 lb. of grey, and 22 lb. of thirds-making altogether 1049 lb. Thus the English mill produced 35 lb. more corn, or 3 per cent., and that without any allowance for the larger weight of straw and grain sent to the Scotch mill, or for what forms a most striking feature in the experiment, the greater value of the oats, from their being 14 lb. per bushel heavier, from hav ing passed through the open hummeller in the English machine. The time taken by the English mill was 26 minutes, and by the Scotch one 47 minutes. The oats were the Sandy variety; they had been cut by the scythe, and though particularly tall and rank, they had been well handled, and no rakings were given to either machine, though to the English one it does not signify whether heads or tails go first. I attribute the great additional time taken by the Scotch mill to the extreme length of the straw. As every part of this experiment was done under my own eyes, I feel perfectly certain of its entire correctness. I have no hesitation in say ing that before I made these experiments I preferred

Forty quarters of wheat may be counted a fair day's work at eight hours' thrashing; this makes the expense 9d. per qr., but exclusive of the interest of capital invested in buildings and machinery.

Machines are being put up by different English makers in various parts of Scotland, and in many instances the bolting drum is being substituted for the old Scotch beater. In my own neighbourhood this is very much the case; my neighbour, Mr. Bridges, of North Berwick, has already changed a considerable number. He does not consider they require more power, though an enlarged boiler is generally necessary, as they are more dependent for complete success on a high uniform rate of speed. In new machines Mr. Bridges also adopts the horizontal shaker, though, from its lifting only at one end, I should scarcely think it so efficient as that used by Messrs. Clayton, Shuttleworth, and Co. He has, however, ingeniously contrived to put three blasts into his mill fanners, to which the corn is subjected before being lifted by an elevator to the finishing fanuers, which have two blasts. Thus, with only one elevator, the grain is exposed to five blasts, besides being put through or over five riddles and a shaking screen. I mention these facts to show what is doing, that Scotch engineers see the necessity of marching with the times, and that they are determined not to yield without a struggle to their southern rivals. But we Scotch farmers, nevertheless, owe a deep debt of gratitude to our English friends for the vast improvements they have already accomplished, and we may trust to be still more benefited by their wholesome influence. Viewing these English machines as portable ones, I consider them very near, if not altogether perfect. While I am more than pleased with my own new one, it would be too much to say that, as a fixture, it is unimprovable. The straw and chaff are deposited at opposite ends, which is better than having them together; but I would prefer a side delivery for the chaff; in fact, I have a strong leaning to the old Scotch plan of having the whole dressing apparatus set across the barn; it suits our buildings better. This new dressing apparatus does remarkably well, but it always appears to me too confined. You can only see the effect; you cannot see how it is done; and if any part requires attention, it takes some time to discover where the particular point is. I would prefer seeing the grain finished off by our old Scotch

fanners, and desposited in them by Archimedian screws, carrying forward and regulating the feed, as Mr. Hislop has done. Again, from the general height of our buildings, it appears to me greater use might be made of the hopper or inclined plane, to run the grain to the blasts, without the intervention of reciprocating or other movements, which require to some extent an increase of power, besides extra attention and greater expense for wear and tear. But whether right or wrong in these remarks, which I offer with great diffidence, I believe you will all agree with me in thinking that the Highland Society has done well in offering an increased premium for thrashing machines to be exhibited at the Aberdeen Show, and I hope a still more handsome one will be allocated next year for the Edinburgh meeting. The rules which should be adopted in testing these machines require some consideration. I consider the first and greatest point to be clean thrashing, or the perfect separation of the grain from the straw. This can best be ascertained by the self-acting test of weighing quantities of similar straw and grain for each machine, and then weighing the produce. The second point I consider to be the state of the grain as it comes from the machine and the number of separations made in it. This test might also be made self-acting by passing each separation through a dressing machine, and ascertaining the proportion of tail corn left amongst the good, and also the good amongst the tail. The third point might be the unbroken state of the straw. The fourth, the simplicity of construction, strength, finish, and nonliability of the machine to get out of repair. Fifth, time required for the work in proportion to the power employed. Sixth, perceptible injury to the grain, or throwing it over amongst the straw, to be held as disqualifying points. If this meeting was to pronounce an opinion on these matters, it would confer a practical benefit on the Society, and also intending exhibitors, by allowing the former to have proper data to supply to the judges for their guidance, and the latter to know exactly what was wanted and expected from them.

We labour our land, we enrich it with manure often brought from the distant Pacific, we sow our seed, we reap and harvest our grain, and then too frequently throw a large percentage of it away. I trust the time is not far distant when improved thrashing machinery will be so common, as that every farmer in the land will have the satisfaction of knowing that no portion is lost of what costs so much.

The CHAIRMAN asked if any gentleman was prepared to offer any remarks on the paper that had been read.

Mr. SCOTT, Craiglockhart, stated, that having long ago been satisfied with the imperfections of the old Scoth thrashing machine, so ably described by Mr. Hope, he watched with interest the introduction of the English machines, and after careful inspection of the work performed at the English Society's Show at Carlisle, at our own Show at Glasgow, and of a machine he saw at the home-farm at Windsor, and having had a day's trial on his own farm of one of Clayton and Shuttleworth's machines, he formed the opinion that whilst the high speed open drum and horizontal shakers were greatly

superior to the Scotch drum and revolving shakers, that the Scotch dressing apparatus was fully as efficient as the English ones, while at the same time it was less complicated, and the working of the different parts more easily seen, and when anything might happen to go wrong, much more easily put to rights; and having a tolerably good machine with three sets of fanners, hummeller, and elevators, he resolved to endeavour to combine these with the English drum and shaker, for which purpose he applied to Messrs. Mollison and M'Vitie, of Earlston, to make the necessary alterations, which they have done by removing the old drum and shakers, and replacing them by a high-speed open drum with patent beaters, and Clayton and Shuttleworth's patent horizontal shakers. The result has been most satisfactory, and from the trials he has made with the different kinds of grain, he can with confidence recommend any person who is not inclined to put up a new machine to make a similar alteration. However, he thought it required more power to drive his thrashing machine than it did formerly, and he had observed that unless the drum be kept up to its proper speed, about 1,100 revolutions per minute, it did not thrash clean.

Sir J. M'NEILL: I think it would be satisfactory if Mr. Hope or Mr. Scott could state whether the machine will do its work with horses. This is a matter of some moment in the more remote parts of the country. Does Mr. Scott think that the horsepower machines could be connected in the manner suggested by him?

Mr. SCOTT stated that he did not think it would be advisable to attempt to work those high-speed drums by horse-power, but thought either water or steam was more suitable as the motive power.

Mr. FINNIE, Swanston, said that a farmer in his neighbourhood had twice an English machine, and from what he had heard, the machine did not

answer.

Mr. HOPE said he had received a letter from Sir John S. Forbes, calling attention to a machine patented by Mr. Isaac Harkless, suitable for a small farmer, whereby one horse could do the work.

Mr. HALL MAXWELL: There is one point of great importance to which I may refer. It would be of great moment if any gentleman in the meeting could throw out suggestions in reference to the conditions that should attach to the trial of the machines in the show-yard at Aberdeen, such as were intimated by Mr. Hope. If such suggestions could be made, they might prove useful for the guidance of the gentlemen whose duties it will be to try the machines. I sce Mr. Waller, machine maker, present-perhaps he could give his opinion.

it

Mr. WALLER said the points that Mr. Hope alluded to in his paper had been freely canvassed in connection with the English Agricultural Society, and some difficulty had been felt there. The conditions had been left very much to the judges. He thought very unfair to the maker that his machine should be subjected to a trial even by the most honourable men living, for this reason, that suppose two pieces of the very same quality of paper were taken-one blue and the other white-probably no two people would agree as to their respective value. It was merely a question of opinion, and it was much the

same with agricultural machines. Again, in some cases the judges were all agriculturists, while makers were excluded. Now, the agriculturist told the maker what he required, and they tried to succeed to the best of their ability. In some recent cases they had certainly failed, and perhaps had done so with thrashing machines. Clean thrashing depended, he believed, more on the feeder than on the maker of the machine, and he thought that with a plain beater they could thrash as clean as with one of the improved beaters now in use, provided the drum were made suitable, and the beater in a proper state. The drum, as at present in use, was neither more nor less than the Scoth drum invented a hundred years ago, running at double the speed. The new power, instead of applying the old-fashioned drum, substituted an instrument specially adapted to man. Every animal had its greatest power in the direction of the spine, and the flail therefore was best suited to man. The horse worked, as it pulled, in the direction of its spine. The spine of the machine was rotary, and had a revolving power, and therefore the Scotch machine had a revolving drum and a revolving shaker. In the English machines they had gone back again to the horizontal movement with crank shakers. Now, with these shakers, there was a great waste of power, and of course an increased expense. He believed that a shaker crank, with ordinary work, could not work sixty days without repair. If the Scotch machines were put in competition with the English make, he did not think that the English would have a good chance, and the arrangements with regard to the awarding of the prizes would therefore require to be very seriously considered. He thought it would be better if the judges were not all agriculturists. In the English Society the judges were both machine makers and agriculturists.

Mr. MAXWELL said that the same thing was done by the Highland Society.

Mr. WALLER remarked that, in his opinion, it would also be necessary to come to some agreement as to the number of separations of the corn in the machine. He thought there ought to be four. This would require more power and more expense, but four separations of the grain could be effected as quickly as a fewer number. It was all one operation. It would be fair to the competitors to have everything stated.

Mr. MAXWELL hoped that Mr. Waller would send his views in writing to the committee, who would consider the subject.

Mr. MACLAGAN expressed the pleasure he felt in listening to the interesting history of the thrashing machine given by Mr. Hope, his graphic description of the machine itself, and his statement of the inconvenience, annoyance, and loss to which farmers are subjected from ill-constructed machines. Having seen an admirably working machine erected in his neighbourhood by Clayton and Shuttleworth, and also the results of an experiment made between it and an ordinary Scotch one, he determined to test the efficiency of his own mill by comparing it also with an English one. He, therefore, engaged the machine made by Hornsby and Son, which gained this Society's premium in Glasgow. The experiment was made last autumn with a stack of wheat, of

opinion, depended on the style of feeding, and he hoped the judges would be very particular in selecting the feeder. If possible, they should have the same feeder for the whole of the mills. (Expressions of dissent.) Mr. Suttie went on to say that the English machines broke the straw, and that he had found a Scotch machine with peg drum thrash oats much cleaner than with the English machine. A member wished to know if the peg drum would answer as well with steam as with horse power?

Mr. HOPE said, the right of patent was sold to various parties, and machines had been put up, but they were all taken down again in a few months. They did not answer when driven by steam. He did not know what was wrong.

Mr. WALLER said the peg drum was an American invention, and from the nature of its construction it must break the straw. Mr. MACLAGAN: In the drum of the machine

which I used the thrashing was performed by means of rubbing, and not by beating. There are rows of buttons on the drum, and also on the concave, which buttons rub against one another on the grain, exactly as if the grain was held in the hands and rubbed. The straw came out beautifully unbroken. It was so good that I thatched my stacks with it; after that I used it for thatching my turnip pits, besides using it for some other purposes.

No other member offering further observations,

Sir JOHN M'NEILL brought the discussion to a close by saying, that it was impossible for any one, whether connected with agriculture or not, to doubt of the importance of the subject to the welfare of the community, or to doubt of the excellent mode in which it had been brought before the Society by Mr. Hope.

A vote of thanks to Sir John terminated the proceedings.

A Monthly Council was held on Wednesday, the 7th | of April: present-Colonel Challoner, Trustee, in the Chair; Lord Walsingham, Lord Feversham, Hon. W. G. Cavendish, M.P., Sir Watkin W. Wynn, Bt., M.P., Sir Charles Gould Morgan, Bt., Sir John V. B. Johnstone, Bt., M.P., Sir Archibald Macdonald, Bt., Mr. Raymond Barker, Mr. Bramston, M.P., Mr. Brandreth, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Druce, Mr. Brandreth Gibbs, Mr. Hamond, Mr. Fisher Hobbs, Mr. James Howard, Mr. Humberston (Mayor of Chester), Mr. Jonas, Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Milward, Mr. Paget, M.P., Mr. Pain, Colonel Towneley, Mr. Turner (Barton), Professor Voelcker, Mr. Vyner, and Mr. Jonas Webb.

The following new members were elected ::Barrs, Thomas, Brompton Hall, Churchstoke, Salop. Benington, Thomas, Wallingfen House, Brough, Yorkshire. Case, Thomas, Testerton Hall, Fakenham, Norfolk,

Claridge, William, Pitchford Park, Salop.

Collings, Rev. William, Sark, Channel Islands.

Davies, Richard, Aylstone Hill, Hereford.

Finch, Jacob, 1, Adelaide Place, London Bridge.

Gardner, Francis, Ryburgh, Fakenham, Norfolk.

Garsed, John, The Moorlands, Lantwit-Major, Cowbridge,
Glarmorganshire.

Grundy, Edward S., Reddish Hall, Lymm, Warrington.
Henry, Frederick, Lodge Park, Streffan, Scotland.
Horner, James, Lincoln.

Houblon, John Archer, Hallingbury Place, Bishops-Stortford.
Jackson, Robert, Corporation Road, Carlisle.

Johnson, J., Gunnersbury Park Farm, Ealing, Middlesex.
Johnson, J., junr., Hanger Hill Farm, Ealing.
Kettle, George Mackenzie, Dallicot House, Bridgenorth.
Lockbart, William, Hall Wood, Satton, Chester.
Mead, James, Penryn, Cornwall.

Menson, James, Brinsworthy, Northmolton, Devonshire.
Naylor, Richard Christopher, Hooton Hall, Chester.
Osbiston, Samuel, junr., Ryburgh, Fakenham, Norfolk.
Price, Joshua, Featherstone, Wolverhampton.
Richards, John, Mathgrafel, Meifod, Montgomeryshire.
Rigg, Rev. Arthur, The College, Chester.
Roscoe, Edward Henry, Newton House, Chester.

Sill, Rev. John Parkinson, Witheringsell Rectory, Stonham,
Suffolk.

OF ENGLAND.

Stark, Michael John, Duke's Palace Bridge, Norwich.
Stobart, John Henry, Wilton-le-Wear, Darlington.
Strode, George Sidney, Newnham Park, Plympton, Devon.
Trench, William Stuart, Essex Castle, Carrickmacross, Ireland.
Tuley, Joseph, Truewell Hall, Keighley, Yorkshire.
Walker, Rev. T., Clipston Rectory, Northampton.
Weeding, Mrs., 47, Mecklenburgh Square, London.
Walker, John, Newton Bank, Chester.
Welsh, John, Kirkton, Hawick, Scotland.

FINANCES.-Mr. Raymond Barker, Chairman of the Finance Committee, presented the monthly report on the accounts of the Society, from which it appeared that the current cash-balance in the hands of the bankers was £868.

HORSE-SHOEING.-Mr. Thompson, Chairman of the Journal Committee, reported the completion of a cheap reprint of the article in the last Journal on Horse-shoeing, by Mr. Miles, of Dixfield, near Exeter, of which members had the privilege of purchasing copies (at the office of the Society, 12, Hanover-square), at the rate of half-a-crown per dozen.

EDITORSHIP OF JOURNAL.-Mr. Jonas had leave to postpone his motion, "on the best course to pursue for the future editorship of the Journal," till the next Monthly Council.

LECTURES.-Colonel Challoner, at the previous Monthly Council, having called the attention of the meeting to the desirableness of having a lecture delivered before the members once in each month during the season, Mr. Fisher Hobbs moved, and Mr. Raymond Barker seconded, the following resolutions, which were carried unanimously:

1. That there shall be not less than four lectures during the

season.

2. That Professor Voelcker, the Consulting-Chemist of the Society, be requested to deliver a lecture before the menbers in the Council-room of the Society, on Wednesday, April 28th, at half-past 12 o'clock, on " Agricultural Chemistry in its Relation to the Cultivation of Root Crops."

3. That the Journal Committee be requested to make ar