April  25,  1901. 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER . 
353 
position  for  this  valuable  late  dessert  Pear.  So  good  is  it  that  it  would 
be  no  easy  matter  to  find  two  better  Pears  in  the  month  of  April. 
Bergamotte  Esperen  has  been  recently  brought  into  prominence  by 
the  action  of  the  Fruit  Committee  of  the  Royal  Horticultural  Society 
recommending  for  it,  as  represented  by  fruits  belonging  to  Lord 
Ilchester,  an  award  of  merit.  Though  this  recommendation  is  believed 
to  have  been  unanimous,  the  Council  of  the  Society  summarily  rejected 
it,  and  published  its  condemnation  of  the  judgment  of  their  own 
experts.  It  cannot  be  expected  that  the  Committee  will  remain  silent 
over  this  extraordinary,  if  not  unparalleled,  rebuke,  and  further  incidents 
will  be  awaited. 
Under  the  circumstances  it  seems  desirable  to  adduce  the  testimony 
of  some  authorities  relating  to  this  now  celebrated  Pear. 
Dr.  Hogg,  qfter  referring  to  the  size  of  the  fruits  as  “  medium, 
frequently  above  medium,”  describes  the  quality  as  “quite  melting, 
very  juicy  and  sugary,  with  a  pleasant  aroma.  A  most  delicious  Pear: 
season  middle  of  February  till  April.  A  fit  successor  to  Winter  Nelis.” 
Messrs.  James  Yeitch  &  Sons,  Ltd.,  state  the  Pear  to  be  of 
“medium  size,  melting,  juicy, 
and  richly  flavoured  ;  tree  forms 
a  prolific  pyramid,  and  succeeds 
well  on  the  Quince.  Very  fine 
fruits  can  be  obtained  on  a  wall, 
particularly  from  cordons.” 
Messrs.  T.  Rivers  &  Sou’s 
estimate  is,  “  fruit  medium  size, 
a  most  excellent,  hardy,  late, 
melting  Pear;  forms  a  handsome 
prolific  pyramid  and  bush,  but 
deserves  a  wall  in  late  climates.” 
Messrs.  J.  Cheal  &  Sons  put 
the  Pear  in  their  short  “  select 
list,”  and  describe  it  “  above 
medium,  Bergamot-shaped  ;  fiue 
grained,  melting,  and  sugary.” 
Messrs.  J.  R.  Pearson  &  Sons 
(not  southern  growers),  allude 
to  it  as  “  fruit  above  medium 
size,  a  good,  late,  melting  Pear  ; 
requires  a  wall,  and  does  not 
succeed  well  in  cnld  soils.” 
Messrs.  G.  Bunyard  &  Co.,  in 
their  catalogues  of  1898  and 
1899,  describe  the  Pear  as 
“medium:  good  bearer;  re¬ 
quires  a  wall  ;  succeeds  on  the 
Societies. 
Quince ;  should  be  carefully 
thinner*,  as  it  bears  in  clusters.” 
In  the  litest  catalogue  of  the 
firm,  1900  -  1901,  Bergamotte 
Espeien  is  not  described  at  all. 
Its  name  has,  accidentally  or 
otherwise,  been  removed  from 
the  descriptive  list.  It  is,  pre¬ 
sumably,  accidental,  seeing  that 
at  the  end  of  the  descriptions 
“  Bergamotte  Esperen  ”  appears 
in  a  short  list  of  five  late  “  first- 
class  Pears.”  It  is  noteworthy 
that  by  the  omission  of  the 
variety  under  notice  from  the 
general  descriptive  list  there 
only  remains  one  “April”  des¬ 
sert  Pear,  the  two  others  in  the 
list  thus  distinguished,  Catillac 
and  Uvedale’s  St.  Germain,  being 
stewers.  In  the  opinion  of  most 
experts  the  list  would  be 
strengthened  by  the  reinstallation 
of  Bergamotte  Esperen.  The 
Society  may  differ,  but  there  is 
Pear  Bergamotte  Esperen 
now  adduced  in  favour  of  this  variety. — On-looker. 
Council  of  the  Royal  Horticultural 
the  somewhat  formidable  testimony 
At  the  meeting  of  the  Fruit  Committee,  held  on  Tuesday  last  in 
the  Drill  Hall,  a  disagreeable  discussion  took  place  between  the  two 
gentlemen  who  had  respectively  proposed  and  seconded  the  award  of 
merit  for  this  Pear,  and  the  chairman  of  the  Fruit  Committee,  who, 
it  was  alleged,  had  been  instrumental  in  obtaining  the  Council’s  decision 
not  to  recommend  the  award.  The  proposer  and  seconder  went  so  far 
as  to  resign  their  seats  on  the  oommittee  unless  a  compromise  was  come 
at,  or  the  award  upheld.  They  afterwards  withdrew  their  resignations. 
The  chairman  explained  that  there  had  been  not  the  slightest 
intention  on  the  part  of  the  Council  of  casting  any  disparagement  on 
the  Fruit  Committee.  The  Council  had  had  greater  time  to  deliberate 
on  the  award,  and  they  had  deemed  it  to  be  to  the  best  interests  of 
horticultuiists  not  to  confirm  the  recommendation  in  this  case.  It  was 
ultimately  decided  that  the  Council’s  decision  will  hold  good  for  a  year, 
when,  if  the  Pijar  is  again  shown  in  good  condition  the  award  will 
be  allowed  to  stand.  This  buries  the  subjeot  for  the  time  being,  j 
Royal  Horticultural— The  General  fleeting. 
Another  general  meeting  of  the  Fellows  of  the  chief  of  Great 
Britain’s  horticultural  societies  has  to  be  recorded.  The  meeting  was 
held,  according  to  announcement,  at  three  o’clock  on  Tuesday, 
April  23rd,  in  the  Canteen  Room,  Drill  Hall,  Buckingham  Gate, 
Westminster,  S.W.  Sir  Trevor  Lawrence,  Bart.,  president,  occupied 
the  chair,  and  nearly  every  member  of  Counoil  was  present,  including 
Earl  Ilchester  and  Captain  Holford,  who  were  recently  appointed. 
Mr.  Wm.  Marshall  was  not  present.  There  was  no  means  of  making  a 
computation  of  the  number  of  Fellows  gathered,  for  the  room  was 
chokefull,  and  even  half-way  down  the  stairs  were  Fellows  making 
vain  endeavours  to  hear  and  see  what  was  being  said  and  done. 
Verdict  Against 
- . __  Farningham  Site. 
Prompt  to  the  minute,  Sir 
Trevor  rose  and  called  upon 
the  secretary  to  read  the  usual 
notices.  These  disposed  of,  he 
(Sir  Trevor)  addressed  the  meet¬ 
ing,  saying  that  he  wished  to 
clear  up  a  misapprehension  that 
one  or  two  of  his  friends  seemed 
to  be  labouring  under.  He 
wished  it  to  be  clearly  under¬ 
stood  that  he  .  had  no  personal 
likes  or  dislikes  either  way,  either 
against  or  for  a  hall  and  offices, 
supposing  these  to  be  within 
reach  of  the  Society.  Probably 
it  would,  indeed,  be  best  that 
the  Society  should  have  a  hall 
in  which  to  do  its  work — 
(applause). 
Sir  Trevor  went  on  to  say 
that  he  had  taken  the  trouble 
to  ascertain  if  there  were  any 
suitable  sites  obtainable  for  a 
hall.  Numerous  sites  had  been 
mentioned,  but  all  of  them  had 
been  excessively  dear.  The  only 
one  which  met  with 
was  that  brought  to 
Leopold  Ro'.hschild, 
which  the  ground 
£23uO  per  annum. 
Sir  Trevor  then  directed  atten¬ 
tion  to  the  position  of  the 
Council  in  the  present  circum¬ 
stances.  He  reviewed  the  facts 
that  had  led  up  to  the  meeting 
of  that  afternoon,  stating  that 
at  a  certain  Council  meeting, 
held  during  the  year  1900,  a 
proposition  was  brought  forward 
that  the  centenary  of  the  society 
(which  takes  place  in  1904), 
should  be  celebrated  by  re¬ 
moving  the  society’s  gardens 
and  establishing  themselves  in 
a  suitable  part  of  the  country. 
After  a  little  further  considera¬ 
tion  the  matter  was  put  before  the  Fellows  at  the  annual  meeting  on 
February  13th,  1900,  in  these  words  “  The  Council  recommend  the 
acquisition  of  a  new  garden  in  place  of  Chiswick  as  being,  under  all 
the  circumstances,  the  best  and  most  practical  method  of  celebrating 
the  centenary  of  the  society.”  (The  italics  are  ours). 
Special  attention  was  drawn  to  this  recommendation  of  the  Council, 
and  along  with  the  report  was  approved  and  adopted  on  that  occasion 
without  one  dissentient  voice.  Some  Fellows  of  the  Society  having 
subsequently  maintained  that  this  approval  and  adoption  of  the  report 
by  the  annual  meeting  was  not  intended  to  approve  and  adopt  the 
Council’s  recommendation  quoted  above,  the  Council  again  submitted 
the  matter  to  another  general  meeting  held  on  April  25th,  1900,  when 
the  following  resolution  was  carried  by  a  large  majority  viz.  . 
That  this  meeting  confirms  the  recommendation  of  the  Council  made 
to  and  adopted  unanimously  by  the  annual  general  meeting— viz.,  that  the 
centenary  of  the  Society  be  celebrated  by  romoving  the  gardens  from 
Chiswick,  subject  to  the  Council  being  able  to  find  a  new  site  which  recommends 
itself  to  the  majority  of  the  Fellows.  (Here,  also,  the  italics  are  ours.) 
approval 
notice  by 
Esq.,  of 
rent  was 
