Mr. Woodbury then captured the queen, secured her in a "cage," and placed her in a clean empty hive; all her bees were brushed from their combs into it as rapidly as possible, in order to prevent their carrying much of the infected honey with them, whilst the combs themselves were set draining out of the bees' reach, and consigned as quickly as possible to the melting pot. After the lapse of three or four days, the queen (still imprisoned) and bees were again transferred to another clean hive, furnished with a few pure combs, and in this they were suffered to remain, their queen being released in a day or two, as soon as they appeared contentedly settled. Mr. Woodbury gives another important hint that operations of this kind with tainted combs should be performed out of reach of robber-bees from adjacent hives, lest they should carry the infection to their respective houses. By the before-mentioned process, Mr. Woodbury succeeded in completely extirpating foul brood from his apiary in 1863, and has had no return of it since. English apiarian writers have made so little allusion to this disorder, that some of our older bee-keepers contend that modern hives and foreign bees have something to do with bringing it about. To show that the disease made its appearance in former days, there is a chapter on this subject in Bonner's "Bee-Keeper's Companion," published at Berwick, in 1798, entitled, "An uncommon Disaster which sometimes, though rarely, happens to Bees," which Mr. Woodbury quotes at length in the _Journal of Horticulture_. Bonner, after recounting therein his observations of the dwindling state of his apiary for which he could not account, says: "He saw plainly that the young were all going backward in the cells, and that he looked down between the combs, but was unable to proceed for the stench that the rotten maggots produced." Mr. Langstroth writes that "Aristotle speaks of a disease which was accompanied with a disgusting smell, so that there is reason to believe that foul brood was known two thousand years ago." When we take into consideration how sorely our farmers are perplexed by the cattle plague, known as the rinderpest, concerning which so many conflicting opinions exist (and the same may be said of the recommendations for its cure), can we wonder that our little favourites should occasionally be liable to disorders of this sort, which puzzle even experienced bee-keepers? In the hope of allaying unnecessary alarm, we would just add that "foul brood" is not a very general complaint, and, so far as our observation extends, has been most fatal in large experimental apiaries, where extensive propagation has necessarily had to be pushed forward. With the experience and advice already gained, this disorder may now be said to be deprived of its terrors. GENERAL REMARKS.