January 10, 1895. 
JOURNAL OF HORTIGULTULE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
37 
Mr. Foster Melliar (with his coat off) sets me a puzzle. I am invited 
to “ comment on what I have heard with my own ears ; ” yet this “hear¬ 
say business will be unsatisfactory.’’ Why then the invitation 1 I 
certainly did hear with “ my own ears ’’ from the mouth of my friend 
who was at the meeting, and I know he would not willingly mislead. 
I could not hear with my “ own ears,’’ long as they are, the original 
speakers, because that “ waiter at the Windsor” caused the date of the 
meeting to be changed. What more natural than that I should ask one 
who was present to give me a narrative of the proceedings ? Has not 
Mr. Foster Melliar ever made inquiries of a similar nature when he was 
interested in certain proceedings at meetings which he was unable to 
attend ? If not, his bump of inquisitiveness is not so largely developed 
as is that of humanity generally. 
But seriously, if any gentleman did not want a position that he was 
entitled to fill he would not be bound to accept it (except that of High 
Sheriff), and if he did want it, as he might very properly and 
reasonably do, without being a “ cad,” would it be otherwise than frank 
and honourable on his part to say so ? Is it not commendable on the 
part of a man, no matter in what worthy connection, to aspire to a 
higher status ? I think so, decidedly. If I were a curate, and wanted 
to be a vicar, I should see no harm whatever in letting my desire be 
known ; or if I wanted to be an M.P. I should not mood silently over 
my ambition if I had a chance of being elected. 
I have had the pleasure of attending I do not know how many 
annual meetings of the N.R.S., and the proceedings were to me enjoyable. 
I might have even enjoyed the last, though I am told it was a “ bewilder¬ 
ing affair ” at times, and that something like a spirit of cliqueism 
appeared to be in the air. This is a pity. It is not the way to 
strengthen a Society, and there should be no animosities “under the 
Rose,” whatever little differences may now and then arise on lines of 
policy. _ 
As my comments on what I “ ’ear with my own ears ” will as “ hear¬ 
say business be unsatisfaetory,” I fear I must forego the pleasure of 
making Mr. Foster Melliar “ happy ” by accepting his invitation, and 
it will, I think, be better in future, if I venture to comment again, only 
to do so on what I see with my own eyes in print. I am bound, how¬ 
ever, to consider, and not without regret, that there seems to be a 
certain amount of danger in tilting with men who are under the gentle 
influence of the Rose.— Gleanek. 
RANUNCULUS PARNASSIFOLIUS. 
This is a charming and beautiful alpine (fig. 7) very dwarf in habit, 
with deep green radical leaves and comparatively large white flowers 
borne on bold peduncles. It is a native of the Swiss and Carinthian 
Alps and the Pyrenean mountains, and though always scarce in England, 
has been long known. Messrs. Kennedy k, Lee introduced it as early as 
1769, but there is no reeord that they succeeded in flowering it. Mr. 
William Curtis was more fortunate in 1797, as recorded in the 
“Botanical Magazine” of October 1797. He received roots of this 
and Several other rare and curious plants from M. Neckar de Saussure 
in 1796, and obtained blooms the following June from which his 
•characteristic figure was taken. He grew it in a small pot of loam 
and bog earth. Mr. Bonn of Cambridge grew the plant in 1818. 
Messrs. Loddiges found it prosper and multiply abundantly in san iy 
loam without any winter protection, giving it abundance of water in the 
summer, rearing the young plants both from the ripened achenes and 
by division of the roots. 
appears to me, hence in those posthumous notes which follow a halo of 
interest and solemnity is thrown over them, apart from their intrinsic 
value. For “ True and fervent are the prayers that breathe forth from 
the lips that fade with coming death.” Farewell, the gentle pen 1 
—“ A long farewell 1 ” 
Amongst the pens contributing to this unusually interesting number, 
it is pleasing to note a gathering so fairly representative over the well 
known names or well known initials. Amongst those I miss is the able 
one of “ Y. B. A. Z.” Let us hope that it is still as vigorous, e’en 
though these remarks should bring down a long threatened chastisement, 
for the Roses still bristle with thorns, and promise some friendly 
skirmishing to come, but by all means let it be “ friendly,” not 
acrimonious.—Bi K. 
FEEDING PEARS. 
No fruit responds so readily to good treatment as Pears, and where 
old varieties seem to be running out, a new lease of life is given to them 
p-IG. 7.—EANUNCULUS PAENASSIFOLIUS. 
THE FIRST NUMBER OF THE NEW YEAR. 
I DO not know how it is that the first number of the Journal of 
Horticulture for the new year appears of more than usual interest. 
Whether it is that its readers and writers are specially addressed, or 
■whether the turning over of a new leaf has aught to do with it. 
Anyway, it has been so to me in years that have come and gone, and 
this year I venture to say that mauy who have ere this scanned its 
pages cannot fail to share in the feeling. From first to last it is preg¬ 
nant with matter, much of which engenders thoughts difficult to 
express in words. It is gratifying to find in the leader the honoured 
pen tenderly touching on the past, the present, and the future. This 
panegyric of the dead year breathes a spirit of forgiveness for its faults 
that few of us workers are generous enough to accord to it. Wbacever 
divergence of opinion its doubtful character gives rise to, but one wish 
can prevail amongst those who read it—viz., that this year may deserve 
more compliments, and that its character, when revealed in the fulness 
of time, may, too, be summed up and signed by “ D., Beal." 
In the leader one is prepared for the brief biography of the bright 
young life foreshortened on the path of duty. Simple and eloquent is 
this sketch of a gentle life (page 5) so early closed. Does not the final 
paragraph of it, in which he anticipates his last resting place, convey 
the feeling that he was—though cheerfully fighting the battle of life— j 
conscious that the summons from it might be, as it was, sudden ? So it 
by applying ground bones and potash. Without doubt these are the two 
essential constituents of the soil that the Pear trees exhaust, and when 
they can no longer draw them from their surroundings they refuse to 
produce saleable fruits. After many years of experience 1 can safely 
say that all of the Pear trees of an old orchard can be revived almost 
beyond recognition by the annual application of potash and ground 
bones. 
The process I have found the most serviceable is to apply about 
400 lbs. of muriate of potash with 800 lbs. of ground bone per acre each 
year. One-half of this mixture is applied in the autumn and the other half 
in the spring. Crimson Clover seed is sown with the dressing in order to 
give the necessary nitrogen. This repeated several years in succession 
brings the orchard up to a condition where excellent crops of Pears can 
be depended on every season. 
Lately many of our standard Pears have been degenerating, and even 
on good soil they fail to produce the paying crops that they should. The 
fruits are small, tasteless, and apt to be knotty and poor generally. Our 
autumn fruits are usually poor and insipid, and if better Pears could be 
produced at this time of the year there would be a better general 
demand. Autumn and winter Pears are susceptible of higher and more 
delicious flavours if we only give them the right cultivation and atten¬ 
tion. The comparative difference between the fruits of the same variety 
of Pears taken from two orchards is sufficient to convince one of the 
truth of this remark. Not a few are so poor that one can hardly believe 
