300 
THE COTTAGE GARDENER AND COUNTRY GENTLEMAN, February 8, 1859. 
inequality. They proved (1) that tradesmen’s fixtures were not 
rated by the parish of Great Berkhampsted, and (2) that their 
structures were subject to all the condition of fixtures—they 
were removeable at will, their own property, and liable to be 
seized for debt like other property. These facts being proved, 
the assessment was pronounced by the bench to be untenable, 
and was therefore quashed. 
“ Influenced by a similar feeling, Messrs. E. S. Dodwell and 
John Bay ley appealed on the 20th of January last, at Oldham, 
against an assessment made on Bradshaw Gardens, by the parish 
oflicers of the township of Tonge, which assessment was exactly 
ten times in amount that made upon their predecessor, Mr. John 
Holland. They proved exactly the same facts adduced by the 
Messrs. Lane and Son ; demonstrated by their solicitor, that the 
assessment was both unequal in the mode in which it was laid, and 
excessive in amount; and had then to listen to the dogma pro¬ 
pounded by the bench,—that ‘ such structures were subject to 
be assessed to the poor’s-ratc exactly as other, or habitable, 
buildings, and that the assessment laid upon them was not ex¬ 
cessive.’ ” 
We think the decision of the Ilerls magistrates, in the case of 
Messrs. Lane and Son, was correct, and this is no recently-formed 
opinion, for we published the following in The Cottage Gar¬ 
dener, during July, 1851: — 
“ A nurseryman rents a piece of ground, erects upon it ! 
greenhouses, and stocks it thoroughly. The parish then en¬ 
deavours to rate him to the poor’s-rate according to its improved 
value ; and the question has arisen whether this higher rating 
is admissible. The question was brought before the Winchester 
bench of magistrates, and was decided by a majority that the 
higher rating is not maintainable. They held that greeuliouscs, 
unlike other buildings erected by tenants in other trades, do not 
attach to the land, but are always treated in law as fixtures in 
trade, which are clearly not rateable. What Lord Kenyon stated 
in Fenton v. Hobart (2 East, 90), is so strongly in support of 
this view of the case, and is so illumined by that enlightened 
policy which should influence a decision upon this question, that 
we oiler no excuse for its quotation : — 
“ ‘ The old eases upon this subject,’ said his lordship, leaned 
to consider as realty (part of the freehold) whatever was annexed 
to the freehold by the occupier; but in modern times the leaning 
has always been the other way, in favour of the tenant, in support 
of the interests of trade, which is become the pillar of the state. 
What tenant will lay out his money in costly improvement s of the 
land, if he must leave everything behind him which can be said 
to be annexed to it ? Shall it be said that the great gardeners 
and nurserymen in the neighbourhood of this metropolis, who 
expend thousands of pounds in the erection of greenhouses, 
hothouses, &c., are obliged to leave all these things behind 
them, when it is notorious that they are even permitted to remove 
trees, or such as arc likely to become so, by the thousand, in the 
necessary course of their trade. If it were otherwise, the very 
object of their holding would be defeated. This is a description 
of property divided from the realty.’ 
“ Now, if a greenhouse be property divided from the freehold, 
it cannot, in the case of a nurseryman, be anything but a part of 
his fixtures in trade, which, as we have already observed, are 
clearly not rateable. The bench were not unmindful of the 
decision in The Queen v. llaslam (Justice of the Peace, xv. 24) ; 
but they held, though not unanimously, that greenhouses being 
uniformly treated as part of a nurseryman’s fixtures in trade, the 
present was distinguishable from that case. We should not have 
mentioned this, but to apprise nurserymen of the mischief that 
is stirring; for if that mischief fixes upon them, they need not be 
reminded that it will be a very serious annual charge upon them.” 
CURE AND PREVENTION OF MILDEW, &c. 
As I take in The Cottage Gardener, I noticed the query 
and answer, as to “ Mildewed Peach Shoots,” in this week’s 
paper (January 25th), and with some interest, having experienced, 
last year, the same trouble. In an orchard-house, the trees in 
which had borne and were bearing a good crop of fine fruit, I 
was plagued with red spider on a good many, and mildew on a 
few, trees. On inquiry for the cure, all the authorities seemed to 
agree, that sulphur was the antidote to both these pests. I had 
been puzzled when seeing my father’s gardener smearing the 
pipes in a greenhouse and hothouse, to check mildew on the 
Grapes. The heat could not be sufficient to sublime the sulphur; 
and the only plausible explanation seemed to be, that moisture 
rising from the smeared hot-water pipes, carried on its shoulders 
some of the finely-divided particles of sulphur. This would not 
help me, as 1 had no hot water pipes. In my sister’s orchard-house, 
she had made trial of the more recently suggested plan, of placing 
quicklime, sprinkled with flowers of sulphur, and then slaking it. 
How this acted, I do not quite see, as even here the sulphur 
could not have been sublimed, and sulphurous acid gas could 
not, by any possibility, have been given olf. This remedy proved 
a dangerous one, as fine Apricot trees, with withered leaves and 
seamed young fruit, soon bore melancholy witness. So, then, 
smearing seeming a clumsy, and evaporation a ticklish, remedy, 
it seemed well to try for a practical one in solution ; and this, 
unless I am much mistaken, resulted, not only in a solution of the 
sulphur, but of the problem. 
Soluble compounds of sulphur decompose quickly, and are 
awkward to apply. But I hit upon a more complicated one, which, 
on being applied to my red-spidered leaves, all but the very-far- 
gone ones, and all the young shoots, gradually recovered their 
greenness, and, on other trees, the mildew was arrested. Wanting, 
then, the confirmation of more experienced authorities, I sent 
specimens of my compound to two gardening friends, one pro¬ 
fessional, well known to your columns, the other, an amateur, 
but with great experience, derived from a number of forcing, 
green, and orchard-houses. In both cases, the reports were 
encouraging. 1 then, through friends, had the privilege of send¬ 
ing specimens to Bowood, Trentham, and Chiswick House, and 
of receiving a promise that the compound should be tried, and 
the results communicated in the spring. 
Recently, Messrs. Arthur Dickson and Sons, of Chester, having 
tried it with success, proposed to sell the compound among their 
customers ; and, as I had taken out a patent, and had the appara¬ 
tus of a large working laboratory at my command, I could at 
once make the compound in considerable quantity, and, there¬ 
fore, could at once accept the offer. Messrs. Dickson and Brown, 
of Manchester, have since undertaken to sell it among their 
customers; and, to-day, I have received a note from one of the 
greatest Orchid authorities, stating, •' I have found it very 
valuable for cleaning Orchids and Ferns from scale and thrip.” 
If the above facts lead you to think that the matter deserves 
to be thoroughly tested, will you favour me by passing on one 
of the small boxes sent with this, of the compound called 
“ Gisliurst Compound,” to Mr. Erringlon, and placing the other 
one elsewhere.— Geo. F. Wilson. 
[We have placed the “ Gisliurst Compound” in the hands of 
parties well qualified to report upon its efficacy, and will report 
accordingly. Mr. Wilson is the excellent manager of Price’s 
Candle Manufactory, and if his “ Compound ” is as efficient as 
lie states it to be, he will deserve to be still more highly esteemed 
by the public. —Eds.] 
BEES REPAIRING COMBS IN WINTER. 
In reply to “ A Devonshire Bee-keeper,” he may either 
apply to Longman and Co., or to myself, for a copy of my book 
on bees. I may mention, however, that since it was written, I 
have had more experience respecting those insects, and now could 
correct, or modify, some statements which it contains, but not 
on the subject of bees secreting wax, which is the question between 
us. The fact of bees repairing slight damages to their combs 
during winter, or, at least, after the usual time of the insects 
appearing abroad, has given rise to conjectures as to how they 
obtained the wax. But the mystery is very easily explained. 
I n strong hives there is always an ample supply of wax for slight 
repairs, amongst the broken remains which sealed up the stores ; 
and even the seals of wax may be taken off the mouths of the 
cells, with litttle risk of losing the honey. 
The mended parts of the combs vary in colour, according to the 
materials, which shows that the wax was not an original deposit. 
I mention this more particularly, as the writer in question gives 
an instance of what 1 have stated at page 235, in favour of his 
belief of bees obtaining wax solely from honey, backed, also, by 
some other very eminent men. But all that he adduces, when 
closely sifted, rather tends to show that honey is only the food 
of bees, which enables them to secrete, or make wax. It is, there¬ 
fore, in favour of Hunter’s theory, of beeswax being “ an external 
secretion of oil.” I spoke of this in my previous paper, in 
Number 536; and may now state, that this view of the case 
discloses a close analogy between beeswax and animal secretions, 
