By the 1820s most of the land had been enclosed and farming methods, significantly improving since the 1780s, required the correctly designed machinery to cope with the changing farming techniques. Machinery being designed to help with the improved husbandry, although still rather basic, was becoming more successful.
During this time, much invention and experimentation was carried out with various new designs of farm implements and machines. The threshing machine was one such design and a successful thresher would have given the farmer good reason to improve his corn yields.
It seems that arguments occurred concerning the origins of some designs. Sometimes, when a machine became successful the idea would be copied, making it difficult to trace the true designer.
Early correspondence concerning the threshing machine, dated 1800, and written by a knowledgeable correspondent, whom had studied the threshing machine's recent history, wrote in no uncertain terms...
“The thrashing machine is confessedly one of the greatest improvements that have been introduced in our day. It not only lessens human labour, and that of a kind that is intolerably severe, but gives a greater return to the farmer than was formerly gained by the flails...The earliest attempt in Britain to construct a machine for thrashing was made by a Mr Menzies. The principles of it, as is well known, was to work a number of flails by a water wheel, and this was afterwards imitated by Mr Meikle, as may be seen in a letter describing the operation thereof, from six respectable farmers, subjoined to the second volume of wight's State of Scottish Husbandry, published in 1778.
A Mr Stirling of Perthshire next devised a machine upon the principles of the flax mill, which was used by himself for several years, and even imitated by others, but those which chiefly engaged the public notice, were two machines constructed in Northumberland, in 1772 and 1773, the first by Mr Ilderton at Alnwick and the other by a Mr Oxley at Flodden. Mr Ilderton's acted on the principle of pressing or rubbing out the corn, which it is said, was in several instances imperfectly performed. Mr Oxley's attempt approached nearest to success, therefore, I shall be more particular in detailing the several parts thereof, especially as it has been alleged by many people, that the machine now in general use was borrowed from it. This however, is not true, for I am confident that Mr Meikle never saw nor heard any thing of it, till long after it was taken down...
The machine erected by Mr Oxley for Sir John Delaval Bart. had two feeding rollers, and instead of a drum, had a double set of arms connected at the arms by cross bars. The skutchers were formed of pieces of wood about 3" broad, 1½" thick at one edge, by ¾" at the other, and were connected with the cross bars by leather straps. A circular breast was fixed beneath the centre, about 3" distant from the skutchers, so as to allow the corn to pass betwixt them. The unthrashed corn was laid on a board at the level of the centre of the skutchers and drawn in by two fluted rollers. The operations of the machine were very defective, and as very little corn could be passed at a time, the expense of thrashing was greater than if executed by the common flail...another defect, and a material one, was the want of a drum, which is absolutely necessary to prevent the corn from flying about the house and the straw and chaff from clogging the machinery to which the skutchers are suspended. The abandonment and destruction of this machine, however, proves its inefficacy better than the strongest arguments, and the most satisfactory human testimony. “The machine was never made public, and I believe that Mr Oxley was very shy in showing it to strangers. The particulars, which I now give, were communicated by a mill-wright at Newcastle, who assisted in taking it down, and being corroberated by information from others, may I think, be fully depended upon”.
These observations, from the horses mouth as it were, is a very interesting consideration on perhaps the most important invention of British farming history. The correspondent goes on to say...
“Having detailed several of the unsuccessful attempts to construct a machine capable of thrashing, I come with pleasure to narrate the circumstances which led to the construction of the machine now in general use...the late worthy Sir Francis Kinloch Bart. of Gilmerton, who, as is well known, possessed a large stock of mechanical knowledge, in one of his tours through Northumberland, happened to see the machine erected by Mr Ilderton, at his farm near Alnwick, and ordered a model thereof to be made for his use, upon which he afterwards formed a number of improvements.
Several of the models, executed under Sir Francis's inspection, are still preserved, and one of them, tolerably perfect, I examined in the ware-room of the Board of Agriculture in London. As Sir Francis had no opportunity of trying a large model which he caused to be made, it was sent by him to Mr Andrew Meikle, civil engineer at Houston-mill near Haddington, in order that its effects might be assertained by the water-wheel of Mr Meikle's barley-mill, but in making this trial, the model was torn to pieces, and the like fate befell a machine of full size, erected at the expense of Sir Francis, several years afterwards, upon the principles of the model sent to Mr Meikle...
“Mr Meikle, after trying Sir Francis Kinloch's model, as is already said, was induced to apply a principle entirely new, and which had not hitherto been used by any other. It is evident that the force required to thrash perfectly, or even in any quantity, must be considerable; for no machine is capable of doing the work in a perfect manner, that does not move with a velocity exceeding two thousand feet of the circumference of the drum in a minute. This occured to Mr Meikle; and he could discover no surer method of executing the work, than to beat out the corn from the ear by means of a strong drum or cylinder, upon which fixed beaters should be placed.
Experience sanctions the justice of the principle adopted by him; for every machine now in use has been copied from those he first erected, though, no doubt, many variations upon the size of the drum, and other matters totally distinct and unconnected with the original principle, has since been adopted, both by himself and others. The machine is so generally known, that it would be a work of supererogation, were I to take up your time in describing it. I may only add, that one of the chief advantages of the machine is, that is capable of being safely wrought with greater velocity than I have mentioned; and, without velocity, corn cannot be thrashed in a perfect manner”.
Mr Meikle obviously had customers waiting for his new designs, and his first customer in 1788, was for a Mr Stein, of Kilbeggie. As our correspondent mentions, as proof that no other machine capable to do the work exists, Mr Stein, was to supply the timber and materials, and if the machine didn't work, he was to hand over no monies to Mr Meikle. His second customer was a Mr Selby of Middleton, and the correspondent continues...
“Another was shortly thereafter erected for Mr Selby of Middleton, Northumberland, which was immediately copied and imitated by several mill-wrights of that county; one of whom afterward had the singular modesty to claim the invention, and, what was of more importance, at least to him, had the good luck of getting many peaple to credit the assertions which he offered”.
Mr Meikle, apparantly, aquired patents at considerble expense for his designs soon after, although, because he didn't act upon them for some considerable time, when he came to do so, many others claimed the ideas for themselves.
As our correspondent points out...“afterwards, when attempts were made to carry the patent into execution, the immense number of interlopers to be combated rendered the task too Herculean to be accomplished...thus, the worthy inventer, partly owing to indolence at the outset, has been deprived of the reward he justly merited, though his case well deserves the application of national magnificence”.
Correspondence written around 1800, stated a thrashing machine was invented and erected in Sweden, before Mr Meikle's invention. This statement appears to be untrue, as this machine was installed at Gottenburgh, two years after Mr Meikles's machine was installed at Kilbeggie, for Mr Stein in 1788. The gottenburgh machine came about when a pipe layer, Andrew Blackwood, went to the place to lay pipes. Realizing the lack of mechanisation about the area, he wrote to John Girvan, a fellow tradesman, who assisted at the building of Mr Stein's machine. Mr Girvan made haste to Gottenburgh and actually erected the first thrashing machine seen in Sweden, based on Mr Meikle's thrashing machine installed for Mr Stein, two years earlier.
See also A ventilating GRANARY for the preservation of corn in a state of rest.
During this time, much invention and experimentation was carried out with various new designs of farm implements and machines. The threshing machine was one such design and a successful thresher would have given the farmer good reason to improve his corn yields.
It seems that arguments occurred concerning the origins of some designs. Sometimes, when a machine became successful the idea would be copied, making it difficult to trace the true designer.
Early correspondence concerning the threshing machine, dated 1800, and written by a knowledgeable correspondent, whom had studied the threshing machine's recent history, wrote in no uncertain terms...
“The thrashing machine is confessedly one of the greatest improvements that have been introduced in our day. It not only lessens human labour, and that of a kind that is intolerably severe, but gives a greater return to the farmer than was formerly gained by the flails...The earliest attempt in Britain to construct a machine for thrashing was made by a Mr Menzies. The principles of it, as is well known, was to work a number of flails by a water wheel, and this was afterwards imitated by Mr Meikle, as may be seen in a letter describing the operation thereof, from six respectable farmers, subjoined to the second volume of wight's State of Scottish Husbandry, published in 1778.
A Mr Stirling of Perthshire next devised a machine upon the principles of the flax mill, which was used by himself for several years, and even imitated by others, but those which chiefly engaged the public notice, were two machines constructed in Northumberland, in 1772 and 1773, the first by Mr Ilderton at Alnwick and the other by a Mr Oxley at Flodden. Mr Ilderton's acted on the principle of pressing or rubbing out the corn, which it is said, was in several instances imperfectly performed. Mr Oxley's attempt approached nearest to success, therefore, I shall be more particular in detailing the several parts thereof, especially as it has been alleged by many people, that the machine now in general use was borrowed from it. This however, is not true, for I am confident that Mr Meikle never saw nor heard any thing of it, till long after it was taken down...
The machine erected by Mr Oxley for Sir John Delaval Bart. had two feeding rollers, and instead of a drum, had a double set of arms connected at the arms by cross bars. The skutchers were formed of pieces of wood about 3" broad, 1½" thick at one edge, by ¾" at the other, and were connected with the cross bars by leather straps. A circular breast was fixed beneath the centre, about 3" distant from the skutchers, so as to allow the corn to pass betwixt them. The unthrashed corn was laid on a board at the level of the centre of the skutchers and drawn in by two fluted rollers. The operations of the machine were very defective, and as very little corn could be passed at a time, the expense of thrashing was greater than if executed by the common flail...another defect, and a material one, was the want of a drum, which is absolutely necessary to prevent the corn from flying about the house and the straw and chaff from clogging the machinery to which the skutchers are suspended. The abandonment and destruction of this machine, however, proves its inefficacy better than the strongest arguments, and the most satisfactory human testimony. “The machine was never made public, and I believe that Mr Oxley was very shy in showing it to strangers. The particulars, which I now give, were communicated by a mill-wright at Newcastle, who assisted in taking it down, and being corroberated by information from others, may I think, be fully depended upon”.
These observations, from the horses mouth as it were, is a very interesting consideration on perhaps the most important invention of British farming history. The correspondent goes on to say...
“Having detailed several of the unsuccessful attempts to construct a machine capable of thrashing, I come with pleasure to narrate the circumstances which led to the construction of the machine now in general use...the late worthy Sir Francis Kinloch Bart. of Gilmerton, who, as is well known, possessed a large stock of mechanical knowledge, in one of his tours through Northumberland, happened to see the machine erected by Mr Ilderton, at his farm near Alnwick, and ordered a model thereof to be made for his use, upon which he afterwards formed a number of improvements.
Several of the models, executed under Sir Francis's inspection, are still preserved, and one of them, tolerably perfect, I examined in the ware-room of the Board of Agriculture in London. As Sir Francis had no opportunity of trying a large model which he caused to be made, it was sent by him to Mr Andrew Meikle, civil engineer at Houston-mill near Haddington, in order that its effects might be assertained by the water-wheel of Mr Meikle's barley-mill, but in making this trial, the model was torn to pieces, and the like fate befell a machine of full size, erected at the expense of Sir Francis, several years afterwards, upon the principles of the model sent to Mr Meikle...
“Mr Meikle, after trying Sir Francis Kinloch's model, as is already said, was induced to apply a principle entirely new, and which had not hitherto been used by any other. It is evident that the force required to thrash perfectly, or even in any quantity, must be considerable; for no machine is capable of doing the work in a perfect manner, that does not move with a velocity exceeding two thousand feet of the circumference of the drum in a minute. This occured to Mr Meikle; and he could discover no surer method of executing the work, than to beat out the corn from the ear by means of a strong drum or cylinder, upon which fixed beaters should be placed.
Experience sanctions the justice of the principle adopted by him; for every machine now in use has been copied from those he first erected, though, no doubt, many variations upon the size of the drum, and other matters totally distinct and unconnected with the original principle, has since been adopted, both by himself and others. The machine is so generally known, that it would be a work of supererogation, were I to take up your time in describing it. I may only add, that one of the chief advantages of the machine is, that is capable of being safely wrought with greater velocity than I have mentioned; and, without velocity, corn cannot be thrashed in a perfect manner”.
Mr Meikle obviously had customers waiting for his new designs, and his first customer in 1788, was for a Mr Stein, of Kilbeggie. As our correspondent mentions, as proof that no other machine capable to do the work exists, Mr Stein, was to supply the timber and materials, and if the machine didn't work, he was to hand over no monies to Mr Meikle. His second customer was a Mr Selby of Middleton, and the correspondent continues...
“Another was shortly thereafter erected for Mr Selby of Middleton, Northumberland, which was immediately copied and imitated by several mill-wrights of that county; one of whom afterward had the singular modesty to claim the invention, and, what was of more importance, at least to him, had the good luck of getting many peaple to credit the assertions which he offered”.
Mr Meikle, apparantly, aquired patents at considerble expense for his designs soon after, although, because he didn't act upon them for some considerable time, when he came to do so, many others claimed the ideas for themselves.
As our correspondent points out...“afterwards, when attempts were made to carry the patent into execution, the immense number of interlopers to be combated rendered the task too Herculean to be accomplished...thus, the worthy inventer, partly owing to indolence at the outset, has been deprived of the reward he justly merited, though his case well deserves the application of national magnificence”.
Correspondence written around 1800, stated a thrashing machine was invented and erected in Sweden, before Mr Meikle's invention. This statement appears to be untrue, as this machine was installed at Gottenburgh, two years after Mr Meikles's machine was installed at Kilbeggie, for Mr Stein in 1788. The gottenburgh machine came about when a pipe layer, Andrew Blackwood, went to the place to lay pipes. Realizing the lack of mechanisation about the area, he wrote to John Girvan, a fellow tradesman, who assisted at the building of Mr Stein's machine. Mr Girvan made haste to Gottenburgh and actually erected the first thrashing machine seen in Sweden, based on Mr Meikle's thrashing machine installed for Mr Stein, two years earlier.
See also A ventilating GRANARY for the preservation of corn in a state of rest.
Threshing machine
preserving rural bygones
rescuingthepast.co.uk
©rescuingthepast.co.uk 2006-2011
|
