498 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER, 
[ December 26, 1878. 
were refused admission to the Crystal Palace Shows is a perversion 
of facts which Mr. Bagshaw, who is “a gentleman of unimpeach- 
able veracity,’ very properly declines to support, either by his 
own word or by the production of documentary evidence. 
That Mr. Bagshaw wrote to me several times I admit ; but that 
in reply I ever wrote a single word which would admit of the 
construction Mr. Pettigrew puts upon one or the other, I utterly 
deny. Indeed from the first I had no such one-sided idea. The 
proposal to hold a Crystal Palace Show originated at my own fire- 
side. The first idea was simply to hold a meeting of bee-keepers, 
and after dining to discuss bee matters and make friendships. A 
roposition was made to that effect in the “ British Bee Journal” 
of October 1, 1873. On January Ist, 1874, a first list of subscribers 
was published in that Journal, followed on the Ist of February by 
a proposed schedule of prizes subject to alteration. In the second 
class in its list, marked b, a prize was awarded of £2 and certi- 
ficate “ for the best skep or box hive for depriving purposes,” and 
there were four other classes, c, d,e,f, and in which the straw 
hivist could have competed if he had chosen to do so, the prizes 
being of the same value. ? 
Mr. Pettigrew at that time made no objection to them, though 
during the spring months his friends did what they could in the 
Journal of Horticulture to bring the movement into discredit. 
Mr. Symington replied in the “ British Bee Journal” to a letter 
of Mr. Bagshaw’s which appeared in the Journal of Horticulture 
on March 19th, 1874, explaining the nature of the proposed Crystal 
Palace schedule, and plainly showing that skeps could compete in 
four classes for hives and sixteen for honey. A copy containing 
Mr. Symington’s communication having been sent to Mr. Pettigrew, 
how can he ignore it and charge the promoters of the shows with 
having excluded straw skeps therefrom ? 
Now up to this time the British Bee-keepers’ Association had no 
existence, but I had received upwards of £70 towards the prize 
fund of the proposed show, and I then invited all those who had 
subscribed to a meeting at Camden Town, where I hoped “ not 
only to revise the schedule of prizes to be offered, but to lay the 
foundation of a national society for the promotion of bee culture.” 
The meeting took place accordingly on May 16th, 1874, and the 
British Bee-keepers’ Association started into existence. But there 
was no alteration of the schedule that would exclude the skep or 
its produce from competition, though Mr. Hunter, in his eagerness 
to provide or cause to be provided a hive that should be within the 
reach of all cottagers, carried a motion which added to the word- 
ing of class 2, and made it read—“ For the best skep or box hive 
for depriving purposes that can be supplied for’ 3s., exclusive of 
floor board, prize £2 2s. and certificate.” 
The Show was held, and it was a great success. Amongst 
other reports of it which appeared in the Journal of Horticulture, 
alluding to class 2 as above described, the writer says, “Some 
very good straw skeps were showa. One (No. 9) exhibited by 
W. Martin even was fitted with bars. but the prize in the class 
was we think justly awarded to Mr. C. N. Abbott fora veritable 
Woodbury, price 3s., with many improvements,” &c. Thus we 
have Mr. Pettigrew denying documentary evidence which must 
have come under his notice. In the schedule of the Association 
for the second great exhibition at the Crystal Palace in 1875, 
prizes of 20s. and certificate were offered “for the best and 
cheapest skep for depriving purposes.” The first prize was 
carried off by Messrs. Neighbour with a Pettigrew hive at 4s. Gd., 
Mrs. Pagden coming in second with her neat little skep at 1s. 9d. 
These are facts, and “ facts are stubborn things.” 
I am sorry for Mr. Pettigrew’s sake that he has rendered it 
necessary for me to ask you to publish these facts; but for the 
implication of my name I should have taken no notice of this sub- 
ject. Those who desirea more minute understanding of my mean- 
ing should refer to Mr. Bagshaw’s letter on page 91 of the Journal 
of Horticulture, 1874, and to the scorching denunciation with which 
his defence of the Manchester swindle was met in the succeeding 
week, page 113, by the straightforward steady and true apiarian, 
“B. & W.,” who does his best to keep the common weal of bee 
culture up to the times. - 
I remember that before the first Crystal Palace Show, 1874, took 
place Mr. Bagshaw asked me in a letter if in class 8,“ For the 
largest and best harvest (of honey) from one stock of bees under 
any system or combination of systems,” he could bring to the 
show the produce of a stock, and of all the swarms that had 
issued from it ; and, it being our first show, I preferred to let the 
matter be decided by the Committee, which must have been 
appointed or I could not have been the “ treasurer,” and in my 
reply I probably said his query was a ‘“‘ poser” which the Com- 
mittee must decide upon, and doubtless from Mr. Hunter’s hands 
he received the desired information. 
That Mr. Pettigrew perfectly understood the position of affairs, 
and took in the whole situation, may be best gathered from his 
“proposed schedule of prizes for the Manchester Show” wherein 
the first set of prizes in class A were offered “For the largest 
and best results obtained from one stock of bees managed on 
any system, either swarming or non-swarming,” the prizes being 
respectively 80s.,40s., and 20s. Unfortunately the season 1875 was 
a very bad one, and as a consequence the thing collapsed. In the 
schedule first referred to, written by Mr. Pettigrew, prizes were 
offered in class 9“ for the best and neatest observatory or unicomb 
hives” to the amount of “60s., 40s., and 20s. ;” and in class 10, 
“for the most ornamental hive of glass, or glass and wood,” prizes 
were offered, in Mr. Pettigrew’s own hand, to the value of 40s. 
and 20s., with the stipulation that in both instances the hives 
were “to be exhibited with bees in them.” Further on, in class 13, 
he proposed a prize of 20s. “for the best bar-frame hive,” and 
an equal amount for “the best straw hive.” Later, in the same 
schedule, he offered prizes of the value of £5, £2, and £1 respec- 
tively “for the best and largest collection of hives, bee furniture, 
and other necessaries for an apiary ;” and in the last class No. 10 
offered 20s. “ for a collection of the best and cheapest supers 
(empty) for general use in an apiary.” This occurred in May, 
1875, yet now in 1878 Mr. Pettigrew alludes to the outcome of the 
great show by the British Bee-keepers’ Association at South Ken- 
sington in August last as “ puffed-up novelties,’ though the text 
in their schedule was almost identical with his own in respect of 
the foregoing, and the meaning undoubtedly the same. I have 
no desire to comment on Mr, Pettigrew’s method of teaching ; 
and as it will be evident to the meanest capacity that he and I are 
not in the same boat, I need say no more than that I have felt it 
necessary, by a plain statement of facts, to clear the air during 
this dull season, that he may not in darkness or ignorance run the 
stem of his craft into the stern of mine.—C. N. ABBOTT. 
[We have been obliged to omit much of Mr. Abbott’s com- 
munication, which was discursive, hoth from want of space and 
from its irrelevancy ; confining it entirely to the subject in dis- 
pute—Epbs. J. or H.] 
OUR LETTER BOX. 
BRITISH BIRDS (Col. Bulger).—We regret that we cannot remember the 
dates of the papers yourequire. They would, we think, be a portion of the 
week’s issue previously to that in which the articles appeared in this Journal. 
CANARY MOULTING (Stamford).— Your bird certainly should not be 
losing his plumage just at the season when it is most required. If your pet 
is kept in a room where fire or gas is used this, ina great measure, will 
account for the continual casting of feathers. In its semi-weakly condition 
it would be hazardous to life to remove the bird into a colder temperature 
just now. If the cage is suspended high up in the room, lower it some 
couple of feet, and at night time cover it over. Spurt on the bird with 
your mouth a little sherry wine, and place in the bird’s drinking vessel 
some scraped liquorice. The “ great variety of extras’ may have tended 
to upset the bird’s system; in other words, you are killing your pet with 
kindness. Excepting occasionally treating your bird with a little biscuit 
and lettuce seed, let its food consist of the seeds you have named, but scald 
the rapesee’ before supplying it ; also a piece of salt to peck at, and plenty 
of grit sand and fresh water. The best way to keep birds in good health is to 
give them good sound seed and pure water, and keep them in an even tem- 
perature free from draught. 
SUDDEN DEATH OF CANARY (4 Merry Christmas)—We cannot fully 
account for the sudden termination of your Canary’s life. Such mishaps 
are of everyday occurrence through fits and other causes. Like other 
animals birds are subject to diseases of various kinds, and from yoar 
description of the attack which brought about its death it is just possible 
your bird might have died through heart disease. You did wrong by 
keeping the two birds “in one cage all the year round,’ more especially as 
you state “the birds haye been fighting a good deal of late.” Instead of 
promoting harmony you have allowed them to encourage their pugnacious 
propensity until the weaker of the two has gone to the wall. Such excite- 
ment would naturally bring about prostration, and the holding of the bird 
before the fire would hasten death through suffocation. We cannot attri- 
bute the cause of death to the small quantity of hempseed you gave, 
especially as the hen bird, which is strong, partook of the same food. We 
advise the keeping of the sexes separate until the proper time for pairing 
them to breed; then it is more likely the birds will pay due respect to each 
other. 
METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS, 
CAMDEN SQUARE, LONDON. 
Lat. 51° 32’ 40” N.; Long. 0° 80" W.; Altitude, 111 feet. 
9 AM. IN THE Day. 
Hygrome-| 25 3#2,.|Shade Tem-!_ Radiation B 
ter. S38 |e—o) perature. Temperature.) ¢ 
o= goa | ——— fe 
IS |owr In On 
As |& Max.| Min.| sun. | grass 
Inches, j deg. | deg. | deg. | deg. | deg. | In 
We. 18 | 29.360 30.9 S.W. | 33.6 | 39.8 | 25.3 52.0 21.8 | 0.080: 
The) 19>) <3 7 N.W. | 33.7 | 37.6 | 30.3 52.8 26.5 —_ 
Pri. 20 N.E. | 33.6 | 35.7 | 29.4 35.0 | 25.2 | — 
Sat. 21 NW. | 33:6 | 82.5 |} 274 38.5 28.3 _ 
Sun.22 W. 33.2 | 33.4 | 27.7 S48 24.2 | 0.068 
Mo, s rit 
Ta. = 
ae — SS 
Means | 29.521 | 533'5) || (3518 | 28.0 | 42.6 | 25.2 | 0128 
REMARKS. 
18th.—Bright clear day with sunshine, snow all disappearing. 
19th.—Very clear fine day, bright sunshine ; cold starlight night. 
20th.—Thick and very dark all day. b 
21st.—Clear and cold dry day, intervals of sunshine; rather thick in after- 
noon ; starlight evening. Snow in night but not deep. 
22nd.—Fair but dull morning, snow till 11 A.a., and heavy from noon till 
4 P.M, total depth 1}inch. Fine and clear at night. 
The frost continues, and though not severe is becoming noticeable for its 
duration.—G@. J. SYMONS. : 
