July 19, 1883. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
61- 
could be sent to market. We are approaching the desired standard for 
such useful articles. Unless the pure English honey be offered in a clear, 
meat, prettily labelled receptacle, it has a chance of being pushed out of the 
market by foreign produce of far inferior quality when offered in a more 
inviting form. The eye first requires to be pleased, the palate has the 
second chance. First displease the eye, and the taste is unlikely to be 
called into the arbitration. We must therefore congratulate Mr. Blow 
and other exhibitors on the success which has attended their efforts to 
obtain such inviting receptacles for run honey. 
We always approach the table set apart “ For any New Invention 
■Calculated in the Opinion of the Judges to advance the Culture of Bees” 
with some amount of excitement and much expectation. We cannot say 
that our expectations were realised by this year’s exhibits. • Mr. Cowan 
has invented an ingenious contrivance for ripening honey. It consists of a 
number of shallow trays arranged one over the other, and placed at such 
angles as to allow the honey when poured into the top tray to gradually 
run from tray to tray until it reaches the bottom, traversing in its course 
some 50 feet of surface. These trays are traversed by metal tubes, which 
would become a miniature system of hot-water pipes when in use, and the 
heat from these would cause sufficient evaporation of surplus moisture from 
the honey to render it fit for bottling in a short period of time. A nother ingenious 
contrivance which we noticed consisted of a small cage made of excluder 
metal, to which was fastened a calico bag absut the size of a pillow case. 
This was said by the inventor to be an apparatus for enabling the novice 
to capture the queen bee readily. The swarm, after being hived in a skep, 
was to be shaken into the bag, and by constantly shaking this bag the- 
worker bees were expected to all pass through the wire cradle, while the 
queen would be left’. We should conceive that the bee-keeper would after 
all have some trouble in capturing the queen, where many drone3 had 
Joined the swarm. In some cases the cradle would be filled with them. 
A long narrow horsehair brush might be useful, which was among these 
exhibits; but we always find a goose-quill or bunch of asparagus quite 
equal to the occasion when brushing bees from combs. All these little 
luxuries can be purchased by those who make bee-keeping a mere hobby, 
but our aim should ever be to render bee-keeping such an inexpensive 
undertaking that the cottager may take up the more humane and modem 
system and gain thereby. 
We must now leave this part of the Exhibition and examine the exhibits 
of hive3. In Class 5 Mr. Hooker, in the opinion of the Judges, showed the 
best hive for winter and summer use. This was his well-known 
Alexandra hive, which first appeared in 1876. Some slight alterations and 
improvements had been added. As a specimen of the elaborate and expensive 
■class of hives it is certainly an excellent one, and would doubtless give 
pleasure to the amateur who does not care much about cost of appliances. Mr. 
Thompson and Messrs. Abbott took second and third prizes respectively in 
this class. Clas3 6 was to contain hives adapted to the same purposes as those 
in Class 5, but the price was not to exceed 40.?. There were eight entries, 
all priced at £2 each. Nos. 19 and 18, exhibited by Messrs. Baldwin and 
Abbott respectively, were excellent hives of the class, and secured first and 
second awards. We think it would be better for ease of manipulation 
when changing sections to have the rows in the rack separated by a strip 
of wood, which could be easily lifted out and replaced. The sections on 
No. 18 fitted closely together, and in the height of the honey harvest would 
give some trouble to the bee-master. Mr. Baldwin also gavq us a little 
more for the money by having his hive nicely painted and fit to stand any 
•weather. Messrs. Neighbour’s twin hive, No. 24, deservedly bad the 
second prize. It was a very cheap hive considering the great amount of 
work in it, and there is no reason why two stocks of bees should not winter 
well in it. It is a pity that hive-makers will fasten on the covers to hives 
with immoveable butts. It is next to impossible to open a hive on a windy 
day with such an arrangement. The lid could be hanged on pivots, which 
would allow of its being either folded back or on windy days lifted off 
altogether without running the risk of a gust of wind upsetting the hive 
.altogether. 
In Class 7, for hives not exceeding 30.?, were some excellent exhibits. 
Who would wish for a more serviceable, solid, well-made hive, replete with 
every convenience for wintering and for honey-harvesting, than Messrs. 
Abbott’s “ Combination ? ” Mr. Baldwin’s “ Universal No. 2 ” was also a 
•similarly useful hive, and Messrs. Neighbour’s formed with the others 
a good trio. Mr. Overton had evidently expended much trouble in 
-rendering the exterior of his hive sound and weather-tight, but did not 
give us so much for the 20.?. within. 
In Class 8 we come to hives nearer the price which a poor man could 
•afford to give. Mr. Howitt’s combination hive was a most useful one. The 
frames might be made to hang more accurately, but that is a matter easily 
•rectified. The hive was good and solid, and would last for many years 
with the outlay of the cost of a little paint each summer. No. 40 was 
almost equally cheap and substantial; and No. 37, which was awarded a 
prize at Bridgewater, was very solid and good. Although only three prizes 
were awarded to this class there were other hives of great merit, especially 
those exhibited by Messrs. Abbott, Overton, Hooker, and Walton. All 
cheap useful articles, and such as a cottager with fair practice would soon 
pay for by the extra honey his bees would give him through, using such 
appliances. 
We now come to the cottagers’ hives in Class 9, at the low priceof 15.?. 6d., 
and here, without doubt, there was keen competition. In this class we saw 
a decided improvement on former exhibits of equal value. A great 
advance has evidently been made by manufacturers towards solving the 
difficulty of placing a really useful hive before cottagers at a price within 
their means. Such articles as those which took prizes in Class 9 are com¬ 
paratively far cheaper than skeps, and the amount of pleasure the owner 
of such a hive would derive, let alone the greater facility for obtaining 
surplus honey, would soon compensate him for the extra outlay. Messrs. 
Bines & Son took first honours with a solid, well-made, well-fitted hive, 
with a broad frame of sections inside, fourteen sections on top, dummy, &c. 
—a hive, which in the hands of an intelligent man could be made to do any¬ 
thing practicable in bee-keeping. No. 49, Baldwin’s Bridgewater prize 
hive No. 2, was another excellent piece of workmanship at the price. In 
this hive two frames of sections were placed in the body box, ten frames for 
brood nest, and a set of ten sections over. There were other hives almost 
equally cheap and good. Mr. Stothard’s, No. 58, gained third prize, a 
wonderfully cheap hive at the low price of 7s. 6 d., for which low sum 
was given a well-made body-box, eight frames, a dummy, and 15 lb. 
sections. No. 48, a section of a tree hollowed out, and so arranged as to 
contain bars and frames, was exhibited by Messrs. Abbott. A similar section 
could be used as a super. This hive would be a pretty ornament on a 
lawn or in a shrubbery, but we should be doubtful as to its utility as a 
bar-frame hive. The wood could hardly fail to swell with wet or crack 
with dry weather, and the greater objection would be the fact that the 
frames being of various lengths are not interchangeable. A minor objection 
is the zinc roof, which would not do for a winter covering on account of 
condensation and drip, nor as a summer cover to the super, as the combs 
would melt beneath it. 
We have now exhausted our remarks on this year’s exhibits, excepting 
that one must not fail to notice Mr. Drinkwater’s hive—the only exhibit in 
Class 10. This was an amateur's praiseworthy effort to show a useful hive 
of his own make. So far as the workmanship went there was room for 
improvement. Some little difficulty was experienced in moving and 
replacing the various parts of the hive. A more simple contrivance for 
giving the bees access to the side sections could be arranged. Again, the 
cover was fixed to the hive—a drawback in a windy spot. Some good 
straw hives were exhibited in Class 11 ; and Mr. Blow, the only exhibitor 
in Class 12, showed a good specimen of the Stewarton hive. Altogether 
the Exhibition was a decided success, and will doubtless help to increase 
the knowledge of bee keeping and to encourage its humane culture in the 
United Kingdom.—P. H. P. 
BEES, HIVES, HONEY, &c., AT THE ROYAL 
AGRICULTURAL SHOW AT YORK. 
Ax the recent annual Exhibitien of the British Bee-Keeper3’ Associ¬ 
ation, held in the Duke of Wellington’s Riding School, Knightsbridge, 
the Bishop Suffragan of Nottingham in distributing the prizes called 
special attention to the fact of a tenant farmer, residing in Lincolnshire, 
being well known to his lordship, having made a profit of £100 from bee-keep¬ 
ing during the preceding year. Many other instances of success in bee¬ 
keeping may also be recorded. The Council ot the Royal Agricultural Society 
of England may, therefore, feel highly gratified at the success which has 
attended their efforts to promote bee-keeping in connection with their 
annual exhibitions during the last five years. The bee department of 
the Royal Show at York is, as in previous years, under the management of 
the British Bee-Keepeis’ Association. 
The Show opened on Monday, the attendance being somewhat limited 
owing to the high fee, 5s., which is charged for admission on the first day. 
The department for bees was, however, well patr nised, and the sales for 
surplus honey very brisk, good prices being realised. Prizes were awarded 
as follows: — 
For the best hive for observation purposes—first, Mr. S. J. Baldwin ; 
second, Mr. T. B. Blow; third, Messrs. Neighbour & Son. For the best 
hive not exceeding 15?.—first, Messrs. Dines & Son of Maldon, Essex; 
second, Mr. T. B. Blow, Welwyn ; third, Mr. S. G. Baldwin, Bromley, 
Kent. For the best hive not exceeding 10.?. 6 d. —first, Mr. S. G. Baldwin ; 
second, Dines & Son; third, Mr. T. B. Blow. 
Messrs. Neighbour & Son of Regent Street, London, were awarded first 
prize for the best collections of bee-keeping appliances, the second prize 
going to Mr. Blow. The collections of these two exhibitors were an 
exhibition of themselves, and were well woithy of inspection. 
In the classes for comb honey the prizes were awarded—first to Mr, 
J. Garratt, Hockenden, St. Mary Cray, Kent; second, Mr. E. Gulston, 
King’s Langley, Herts; and the third to the Rev. T. B. Garland of Ranby, 
near Retford, Notts. Prizes for run or extracted honey are only offered in 
one class, the prizes being gained by first, Mr. Garratt; second, Mr. 
R. R. Godfrey ; third, Mr. W. Martin. Practical instruction in the art of 
bee-keeping and the manufacture of comb foundation is given at intervals 
on each day of the Show. 
Peat as a Fuel for Smokers. — Many bee-keepers have had 
trouble in procuring a good article for use in smokers—one that will 
light easily and last well. It has been so with myself, until, seeing 
it suggested that peat was a good thing, I found that it produces 
volumes of smoke, is easily lit, and keeps alight well if broken in 
pieces the size of a walnut. The Tramways Companies use peat-moss 
for bedding, and this peat is used somehow to stick the corners of the 
bales, and can be bad for very little. I use Clarke’s smoker, and think 
it would be an improvement if fuel could be added as needed at the top 
of fire-box ; the latter should be same diameter top and bottom, and with 
a longer, narrow chimney, which would give a sharper draught on apply¬ 
ing the match. What enterprising firm will manufacture one on the cold 
blast principle with these improvements?— John C. Lambert (in the 
British Bee Journal). 
