182 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ March 3, 1887. 
beginners, besides otber six swarms to fill up vacancies caused by 
the deaths of queens and from the effects of the past severe winter, 
and kept a third more than I intended or have any use for. Ten 
of my stocks were nuclei, being ten of twelve formed from a 
stock after it had swarmed. Every one of these nuclei is in 
capital condition. They had no assistance whatever with bees or 
brood, only combs, neither do they requite bees, and to have joined 
the strong swarms I gave away to them would have done more harm 
than good. 
Now, after studying the matter thoroughly, both from present 
and past experience, and finding that stocks will increase in number 
in spite of every precaution to prevent it, and there being no 
demand for the surplus bees, and which will serve no good purpose 
to join to stocks already in full strength, what can we do with them 
but suffocate them, however inhuman it may be ? If it was the case 
that six weeks was the average life of the bee, there would be less 
difficulty in getting them disposed of, but that is not the case. In 
June. 1885, my neighbour had a large swarm composed of two or 
three swarms. An unfertilised queen was the victor, she missed 
the drone and become a drone breeder. The bees wrought well up 
till September this year, when some were still alive. —Lanarkshire 
Bee-keeper. 
THE HONEY QUESTION—DR. GEO. WALKER AND 
THE BEE-KEEPERS’ UNION. 
Dr. Geo. Walker, page 142, asks “ Why did not the Bee-keepers’ 
Union make a start ? ” and hints that it and its promoters “ were snuffed 
out, Keats like, by an article or two in the Bee Journal." If two leading 
articles in each issue of the British Bee Journal, besides letters in the 
correspondence column, all in the favour of the Honey Company, are 
only “ an article or two,” all I can say is the Doctor must intend his 
language, like his physic, “ to be well shaken before taken.” As to why 
thAUnion did not start, just let me refer him to the pages of this Journal 
and the British Bee Journal —where we were all boycotted—for his 
plea to let the Honey Company have a trial. It was stated to have 
been successfully floated, and had begun business, though we now 
know how small it was, and in addition to Dr. Walker there were 
the Baroness Burdett Coutts, the late Mr. Peel, and others, who all re¬ 
quested or begged bee-keepers to give it a trial. Then there was the 
expense of giving the Union a start, £500 being spent in starting the 
Honey Company. Under this head we found a great difficulty, for 
though most were willing to give their services freely and work for 
nothing, they were too poor to accept all the necessary financial re¬ 
sponsibility. ' Then we could not go to the county gentry, as the funda¬ 
mental principle of the scheme required all its members to be bona fide 
bee-keepers, and we could not enrol outsiders like the British Bee¬ 
keepers’ Association ; so under the circumstances it was decided to hang 
up the Union scheme till we saw what the Honey Company would 
succeed in doing with its £20,000 capital, and as the result is ludicrous 
in every way we look at it from a bee-keepers’ point of view. 
I think it is now an opportune moment to set the Bee-keepers’ Union 
afloat, and perhaps Dr. Walker will help us. This scheme is all cut and 
dried ready to start any time, and is to carry out on an organised scale 
the principle so successfully worked by Mr. Godfrey at Grantham, and so 
successfully imitated by the Canadians in London last year, and is not in¬ 
tended to interfere with, or clash with, the various bee-keepers’ associa¬ 
tions. The scheme in full was published in this Journal on February 19th, 
1885. So if anyone would like to see the Union floated, he should write 
Mr. J. Hewitt, Cambridge Street, Sheffield. First, those intending 
members, enclosing 3s. 6d., being Is. entrance fee and 2s. 6d. subscription 
under rule 4 ; second, those who will join the Union as members ; and 
third, those who are willing to contribute towards the preliminary 
expenses. Should there not be sufficient response to justify us in going 
on with the scheme, all money will be returned to senders, and should 
sufficient show their desire we should be able to hold several honey fairs 
in the autumn, and have everything organised before the year is 
out. 
Every person, male or female, who keeps bees can be members, and 
not only will distinctive labels be found them to put on their honey and 
markets found for them, but all their interests will be attended to. For 
instance, a bee-keeper here sent to a noted appliance dealer for some 
frame hives, which were packed inside one another very solid, and were 
consigned as “ joinery.” The railway company said they were “ bee 
hives,” and charged three times as much for carriage than they would 
for fowl pens or dog kennels. When the list of charges were framed bee 
hives were all straw, and in addition to being light had to be careful y 
handled. Of course, they were overcharged, but who is to fight the 
matter ? If the hive maker paid the carriage he might, though he 
would be doing so for the benefit of rivals. My neighbour says it is 
not worth his while, as he would be more out of pocket even if he won. 
Had there been a bee-keepers’ union and this man a member a letter 
from its secretary to the railway company would quickly settle the 
matter, for the knowledge that all the bee-keepers in the country were 
backing him up would carry more weight than any private demand. 
Another advantage to bee-keepers in the Union will be found in the 
labels, which will first declare the honey to be pure British honey from 
the apiary of John Blank, Beebank, Sweetborough, a member of the 
N.B.B.K.U., which carefully guards against fraudulent practices by its 
members, &c. Thus, should his honey, though dark in colour and strong 
in flavour, find a purchaser whose palate particularly fancies that honey, 
he can, by means of a postcard and the Parcels Post, get supplied direct 
from the producer. This class of bee-keepers are legion ; and it is a 
fact, which I challenge Dr. Walker to disprove, that what little honey 
his Company buys does not comprise any that is dark in colour or strong 
in flavour ; but rather that they buy the finest samples only, carefully 
see that the producer’s name is not on, and then put on their own, so 
that he can boast, “ Our brand is making its way, and grocers find that 
the public will not take other honey in place of it.” Very consoling 
this to bee-keepers ! The “ brand ” that should be on all merchandise 
should be the producer’s. The name and address of the producers were 
on all the Canadian honey. Another item for reflection consists in his 
statement that they “ made a gross profit of £100 in a turnover of 
£700,” and this, mind, as wholesale dealers, which is about 15 per cent. 
The shopkeepers whom they supplied would require on this basis 30 per 
cent., making the difference between the price paid by the public and 
received by the producer about one-half ; or say we pay carriage to the 
Honey Company and get 6d. per lb., the public pay for the same honey 
Is. per lb. At this rate bee-keepers could supply the public well through 
the Parcel Post at even less than the gross profits made by the Honey 
Company. All the public want is a certain knowledge that what they 
buy is pure, and to know where more like it can be had. 
Dr. Geo. Walker says they “turned over £700, and during 1885 
bought upwards of £1000 worth of honey.” Is there a printers’ error here 
Mr. Editor? as 1885 was the first year of the Honey Company, and how 
they could turn over £700, and yet buy upwards of £1000 worth of 
honey, puzzles me quite. I do not wish to be unkind to Dr. Walker, but 
may I remind him that prosperous joint stock companies are not amongst 
those who defer presenting their annual balance sheet for nearly eleven 
months after the end of the year. He is not correct in saying that I, 
“ Felix,” “ A. L. B. K.,” or others praised to the skies the Bee and Fruit 
Farming Company, which was brought out to buy up and carry on a 
certain business already established, and did not profess to profit bee¬ 
keepers in general, and find them a certain market for their honey. 
In conclusion let me remind every person who is interested in bees, 
that if he or she neglects to write to Mr. J. Hewitt and do their share, 
they may never have another chance of being organised into a Union 
which is calculated to aid them so much in everything which concerns 
them as bee-keepers.— A IIallamshire Bee-keeper. 
TRADE CATALOGUES RECEIVED. 
J. R. Pearson & Son?, Chilwell Nurseries, Nottingham.— Catalogue of 
New Zonal Pelargoniums and other Plants. 
Messenger & Co., Hot-water Engineers, Loughborough.— Catalogue of 
Horticultural Buildings and Heating Apparatus ( illustrated). 
James Carter & Co., High Hoi born, London.— Farmers' Handbook and 
the Practical Farmer. 
All correspondence should be directed either to “ The 
Editor” or to “ The Publisher.” Letters addressed to Dr. 
Hogg or members of the staff often remain unopened un¬ 
avoidably. We request that no one will write privately 
to any of our correspondents, as doing so subjects them to 
unjustifiable trouble and expense. 
Correspondents should not mix up on the same sheet questions 
relating to Gardening and those on Bee subjects, and should 
never send more than two or three questions at once. All 
articles intended for insertion should be written on one side of 
the paper only. We cannot reply to questions through the 
post, and we do not undertake to return rejected communica¬ 
tions. • 
TO CONTRIBUTORS.—Our friends who favour with communications 
on controversial subjects will oblige by sending their articles as 
soon after they receive the Journal as possible. Our space is prac¬ 
tically filled on Monday, and only articles that are “ expected,” and 
which arrive on Tuesday, can, as a rule, be inserted in the current 
issue. 
Address (F. Crook ).—The address you require iB given in the report, 
which we presume you have read on page 133. 
Books (J. IF.).—The French gardening book to which you refer 
was no: sent to us for review, therefore we are unable to express an opinion 
thereon ; nor without knowing your particular requirements are we able to 
recommend a work likely to Buit you. (TV. B.). —Pearson’s “ Vine Culture ” 
is a small work, giving sound information in few and plain words. The 
price is Is. Id., post free, from that office. ( S. E.). —Mr. Sander’s new work, 
the “ Garden Calendar,” tells when to do most things in and outdoors. It 
s published by Messrs. Hamilton, Adams & Co., price 2s. 
