May 7, 1835. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
883 
erroneous statement, and which, on investigation, will not 
hold water. To take an example from bee life. No one, we 
think, will attempt to deny that the use of foundation saves 
the bees much time and food ; but if we carried out the 
opinion that Nature was all-sufficient we should not give the 
bees any of this most valuable invention; nor should we feed 
them at all, as if they did not get enough to keep them 
during the winter they were not the fittest, and therefore 
they ought not to survive ; but though proud of our Scotch 
descent, this opens a field of metaphysics that we shudder to 
enter. Properly managed, spreading brood is one of the 
greatest advantages of the bar-hive system. It must be done 
cautiously and skilfully, or it will result in failure, the advent 
of foul brood, and maybe the loss of our hive or hives. The 
old adage holds true: “Fools rush in where angels fear 
to tread,” and if the novice without any experience tries to 
attempt this, unless he is one in a thousand, his failure is as 
certain as if, without knowing the difference between an 
artery and a vein, he tried a difficult surgical operation. 
One great advantage in favour of the skep, and that which 
appeals most strongly to the man who wishes to make bee¬ 
keeping pay, is the cheapness as compared with a good bar 
hive. A common skep can be bought for 2s. and a Pettigrew 
for some 6s., while we can get no bar hive of any service for 
winter and summer under 15s. or 21s. Again and again 
have we been told that splendid hives can be made out of 
old egg boxes, lobster-tin boxes, or any other kind of packing 
cases, and that the total cost is only 2s. or 3s. We have 
tried the experiment with a fair measure of success, and a 
hive made out of these materials is still in our apiary; but it 
did not pay for the trouble of making it, and it is far better 
to make hives out of good deal than experiment with old 
lumber. A bar hive properly made will last for years; we 
have some now which, with an occasional coat or two of 
paint, have been in constant use for over seven years. Their 
original cost, as we make all our own hives, was 7s. 6d. for 
materials ; if we had bought them from a hive-maker the 
cost of labour, &c., would most probably double the price. 
The articles absolutely necessary for a bee-keeper can be 
procured by the outlay of a few pounds. If he cannot handle 
tools the bar-frame hives will be the most expensive item. 
As we have said before, these hives cost about 15s. each, and 
though we are fully convinced of the great superiority of the 
bar hive, we would advise no one to launch out into buying 
a large stock of these to begin with. Let him get one or 
two in the first instance, and then compare the results with 
those of the skeps that he possesses, and then by degrees 
convert his straw hives into bar hives. If he imagines that 
his harvest and wintering, which is the chief sign of a good 
hive or a clever bee-keeper, is superior from using the former 
system, by all means let him stick to it, for he will do no 
good with the other system. The sectional supers can now 
be purchased for 4s. per hundred ; they will require a super 
case, which can be made for a few pence, or obtained fitted 
with sections for 3s. 6d. In addition, the beginner will have 
to buy a smoker, which will cost him 4s. 6d., but this, with 
proper care, will last him for years, as we still use the one 
we purchased some ten years ago. An old jam bottle 
(Beach’s 20 oz. is a useful size) with a piece of cheese strainer 
tied over the mouth when the bottle is filled with syrup, will 
do for a feeder, though better kinds may be bought for slow or 
rapid feeding, and a small quantity of foundation will start 
him with all the necessary furniture, with the exception of 
the indispensable slinger, which will cost 15s. Abbott’s 
Little Wonder having served us for many years, and as 
economy must be studied, this expense might be shared be¬ 
tween two or more bee-keepers. So, after all, the tirades 
against the expensiveness of the bar-hive system, the differ¬ 
ence of cost between it and the skep system lies practically 
in the first cost of the hives, and, as we said above, these 
with proper care ought to last for years. The real difference 
in the outlay is, after all, very small, and will be repaid 
many times over if the novice will follow out instructions and 
not take it for granted that after a year’s experience in bee 
keeping he has nothing to learn. The great charm of a 
progressive science like bee-keeping—for it is a science—lies 
in the fact that no one is too old to learn. Every year that 
passes increases our knowledge, and though “ Knowledge 
comes but wisdom lingers ” we progressive bee-keepers are 
not above picking up the crumbs of information, no matter 
where we may find them. We test n9w theories to see if 
they will bear practical proof, and as a result bee-keeping, 
which used to be only a hobby, is now becoming an industry, 
and that not unimportant. But to make it profitable we 
must not follow blindly any one system or systems, but strive 
to weigh each and all, always keeping our minds open to 
convictions, no matter how much it may disturb our former 
belief, and then we shall find our knowledge will lead us to 
the higher wisdom, instead of being bigoted upholders of any 
one system. 
We again repeat: Keep accurate accounts, do not waste 
your money in buying useless appliances, follow the experi¬ 
ence gained by others before you, modified, it may be, by 
your own; and no matter how low the price of honey may 
fall, the profits of bee-keeping will well repay you for your 
outlay, as well as provide a most pleasant and interesting 
occupation. —The Surreyshire Bee-keeper. 
THE NATIONAL BRITISH BEE-KEEPERS’ UNION. 
“ A Staffordshire Bee-keeper ” wants to know the promoters’ 
names of the above scheme, makes an insinuation, and also says the 
same question was asked in the British Bee Journal, but fails to note any 
answer, so concludes none was sent. I wish to inform him and others 
who were looking for my letter that I sent a reply in time for its appear¬ 
ance on April 15th in answer to the querist; but the editor, in the exercise 
of his sense of justice and fairness, declines to publish it, giving the 
reason “ why ” on page 1C1 for May 1st, because, I suppose, I had invited 
him to publish particulars of the scheme and let his readers see what it 
really was that he was misrepresenting. As he says, “ If you wish to 
advertise the Bee-keepers’ Union you can do so in the ordinary way by 
using our advertisement columns.” By tbis I presume he thinks he will 
be able to make something at least out of it, and contrasts very strongly 
his motives with those of the promoters of this scheme. He also says he 
will decline to insert any letters on the subject until he knows more 
about the Union. Knowing the antagonists with whom we have to deal, 
at present 1 must decline to publish any list of names. 
When a person adopts a nom deplume he generally wishes his logic or 
arguments to be considered, and not himself personally, and it is some¬ 
thing of this nature that actuates the promoters. The scheme is put 
forward as a definite proposal, and in it every member will be equal to 
and on a level with every other member ; so it would be contrary to this 
principle for anyone to arrogate to himself exclusive powers. So every 
bee-keeper who approves of the scheme was invited to join in promoting 
it, and if any could find fault with its rules or improve them he was 
invited to do so. As I have not yet received or seen any complaint or 
suggestion either way I must take it for granted that the articles are as 
perfect as they can be made at present. Those who are interested in 
preventing the scheme floating are doing their utmost to misrepresent and 
undermine it, which is very flattering to us. On the other side, I find bee¬ 
keepers are getting impatient for its launching, so convinced are they of 
its ultimate value, and not a single person has as yet given an opinion 
against its value to the honey producer. 
I am willing to answer all questions, either publicly or privately, as 
we have nothing to be ashamed of, but querists must not expect answering 
if they couple insinuations with their questions. 
It is proposed to devote all the remainder of this year to enrolling 
members, whose subscriptions will date from January 1st next ; the first 
assemblies can then be held next Easter. The expenses of floating it and 
getting the necessary plant and fixtures will be somewhat heavy, so we 
shall be glad of any benevolent donation towards the preliminary expense 
fund which bee-keepers and well-wishers may be willing to contribute. 
In conclusion, allow me to say the money to float it will be found, and 
it will certainly be floated notwithstanding the opposition of the British 
Bee-Keepers’ Association and the British Bee Journal .— John Hewitt, 
Hon. See. to the Promoters, Cambridge Street, Sheffield. 
In my previous letter I asked a simple and direct question, “ Who are 
the promoters of the National Bse-keepers’ Union ?” In return, I am 
favoured with thirty-two lines of evasion. I want a plain answer to a 
plain question, and until I obtain one I shall certainly keep my half-crown 
in my pocket.—A Staffordshire Bee-keeper. 
ZINC FLOORS FOR HIVES. 
I have adopted some zinc floor hoards with sliding shutters under¬ 
neath to cover same, which I presume should always he kept closed 
