A Bee-master.
Tunbridge Wells, August 2.
* * * * *
The origin of the following letter was a very foolish letter which a
correspondent sent to _The Times_. His cannot be the deliberate conviction
of anyone acquainted with bees. Perhaps he was offended that no notice was
taken of a very unsatisfactory hive patented by him. But as I could not
praise, I thought it unnecessary to blame.
A Hornet Among the Bees.
_To the Editor of The Times._
Sir,--It is well that bees have not learnt to read _The Times_. Did
they see all that your correspondent says about them, they would send
a battalion to his residence, and ere they returned to Tunbridge
Wells they would make their calumniator exhaust all his remedies
for bee-stings. Had this good gentleman eaten more honey and drank
less vinegar he would have written a more affectionate letter; and
had he watched the habits of bees as I have done, or studied the
results of the investigations of Huber, he would not surely have
written with ignorance so crass. I am not irritated with him, but I
am immensely jealous for the honour and good name of my bees. It is
said of some crotchety people, "they have each a bee in his bonnet,"
but I venture to think of your correspondent, "he has a wasp in his
bonnet." The only philosophical way by which I can account for the
absurdities of this letter is that it was written, as he observes,
"for our continental and transatlantic brethren," neither of whom have
any precedent or encouragement for recent Austro-Prussian misdeeds,
or American democracy and its recent excesses, in the habits and
instincts of bees.
"First," says your correspondent, "with regard to remaining at peace
with each other, as soon as honey-gathering is over, should any stocks
betray weakness, the war of Germany against Denmark is enacted, and
the invaders take all. Whatever virtues bees possess, honesty or even
the slightest respect for _meum et tuum_ is not among them."
A grosser libel on the apiarian race was never perpetrated. Their
respect for _meum_ is so intense that they will defend their queen and
home to the death. Their respect for _tuum_ is so entire that they
never touch the property of their neighbours, unless in circumstances
which would justify men as well as bees in seizing the property of
another.
Your correspondent perhaps robs one of his stocks of its stores, or
takes away for the market or his table too much of their accumulated
wealth. Winter threatens its arrival. Can this irritable old apiarian
expect that 6,000 or 10,000 bees will lie down and die martyr deaths
in order to confute his libellous theory of _meum et tuum?_ Or he
has neglected to feed a caste of 4,000 bees; or, instead of giving
them barley-sugar, he offers them the miserly mess he recommends, and
the unhappy, famished bees, like a Highland clan, set out "to lift"
the means of existence. He starves his bees, and when they forage he
denounces them as thieves. If a bee-master does his duty by protecting
his hives, feeding the unfortunate and weak, no such freebooters will
be found among his bees.
2. Your correspondent, for once, is gracious. He acquits bees of
habits of intoxication. He forgets that I stated they never get drunk
unless the bee-master supplies the intoxicating element. But if he
will place a feeding-pan full of good Scotch ale before the hives, I
will eat pan and beer and bees if they do not sip every drop, and give
very unmistakable proofs that they have done so.
3. Your correspondent says: "Mr. Harbeson, a sturdy citizen of
the American Republic, considers the queen a simple machine for
laying eggs, absolutely under the workers' control. I do not go
these lengths, but Mr. Harbeson is far nearer the truth than your
correspondent."
There can be no doubt that this "is written for our transatlantic
brethren." It is a fine illustration for Abraham Lincoln. I hope your
correspondent will not be offended if I suspect in him a machine for
speaking nonsense. He has only to extend this free philosophy, to
see in rose-bushes machines for growing roses, and in birds machines
for building nests; in Tennyson a machine for spinning poetry, and
in Lord Palmerston a machine for turning out speeches. This wretched
materialistic philosophy may please the "sturdy American citizens
and transatlantic brethren;" but how a sane Englishman can dare to
ventilate such arrant rubbish, I know not.
His exaggerated talk about bees being regicides would electrify Red
Republicans, but it is not true. That the queen, who has precedence
of birth, destroys the princess next to her that might be her rival,
I admitted and deplored in my letters as sad. But that bees are
regicides is not fact. They never kill their queen; they love and are
loyal to her, and obey her commands. I said they hate republicanism,
and so they do, and so do I. No doubt your correspondent's
discoveries will charm his transatlantic brethren. But if ever a
people were in want of a queen, they are. Your correspondent may like
Abraham Lincoln; I infinitely prefer Queen Victoria. He says cottagers
cannot make Ayrshire hives. They do cleverer things. At all events,
they can try. The Ayrshire hive is octagonal, I admit; but all I said
was, that my success as a bee-master led me to suspect they prefer
a box similar to their combs, and therefore I intend this winter to
have several hexagonal bee-hives. A suspicion of preference was all I
ventured to state.
Your correspondent says: "Common sugar (lump-sugar is best) does not
require to be exposed to a heat of 300° to be available to bees." No
wonder his weak stocks plunder his strong ones, for bees cannot eat
and do not eat lump-sugar or brown sugar. Their lambent organisation
renders it impossible. I spoke of feeding with pure sugar, and stated
that it is available alone in the shape of barley-sugar only. That it
can be presented boiled up in beer or water, I taught when I alluded
to its being dissolved in ale. But whether in water or ale, it smears
their wings, clogs their feet, and is vastly inferior in all respects
to barley-sugar.
Your correspondent objects to rubbing the wound of a bee's sting
with tobacco-juice. I speak from experience. I have tried every
prescription, and most assuredly I will not try his. He says:--
"If anyone has a swarm consisting of only 5,000 or 6,000 bees, let him
not take the trouble of hiving it. A good swarm will weigh 4 lbs., and
I have known one weigh 8 lbs. Now, 5,000 bees are computed to go to
a pound, and this is not too many, for a friend of mine counted and
weighed 5,020 freshly-killed bees this spring, and they only weighed
12-1/2 ounces. Let any one, therefore, do a simple sum in mental
arithmetic, and say if 15,000 to 30,000 are not within the mark, even
allowing for the weight of honey earned off by the swarm."
I mentioned 5,000 or 6,000 bees as a swarm. It is the lowest, I
freely allow. But I will add to your correspondent's knowledge. I
had a caste thrown off last year, at the end of June. I despaired
of its weathering the winter, but I resolved to feed it richly with
barley-sugar till March. The maximum number of bees was 5,000. It had
filled the lower box with at least 40 lbs. of honey by the middle
of June this year. The bees had increased immensely. I opened the
communication with a large super. This super has in it now not less
than 26 lbs. of the whitest cells and honey I ever saw. I have shown
it to many whose mouths watered for a slice of it. I never join
stocks. We feed cattle on oil-cake: why not feed weakly stocks with
barley-sugar? What your correspondent proposes as his explanation of
2,000 drones in a hive where there is only one queen, with, perhaps, a
couple of princesses, is, like his whole philosophy, very absurd, and
unworthy of a serious answer.