Part 32

In order to prove this, let us then examine Kœmpfer’s description of the parts of the flower, and see whether it does not answer exactly to the genus of Rhus; and whether the flowers are not male and female in themselves, that is, hermaphrodites, on the same tree. The original of Kœmpfer is as follows, p. 791 of his _Amœnitates_: “Flosculos continent pumilos, et citra coriandri seminis magnitudinem radiantes, in luteum herbaceos, pentapetalos, petalis carnosis nonnihil oblongis et repandis, staminibus ad petalorum interstitia singulis, apicatis, brevissimis, stylo perbrevi tricipite, floris turbini insidente; fructus flosculum excipit gibbosus utcunque in rhomboides figuram compressus.” Whereas Dr. Dillenius, and the authors that have copied after him, say, that his Toxicodendron has the male blossoms on one plant, and the female on the other; from whence it must evidently be another genus.

It appears, however, that Dr. Dillenius was not altogether ignorant of this difference of genus in these two plants; but, rather than his Toxicodendron, which he had made agree exactly in the leaves, should not agree in the fructification, he makes the accurate Kœmpfer guilty of an unpardonable oversight, in not taking notice of the difference of the sexes of this varnish-tree in different plants: whereas we have just now shewn, that nothing can be more minutely and judiciously described, than he has done both the male and female parts of the blossom, which change into the fruit on the same plant.

The original of Dr. Dillenius’s remarks on Dr. Kœmpfer’s specimen runs thus: “Planta sicca, quæ in Japonia lecta, servatur in phytophylacio Sherardino, nostræ huic specie examussim quadrat, id tantum sexus nempe differentia prætervisa fuit auctori.” Hence we find how this error came to spread, and this false synonym to be adopted by the botanic writers, who copied after Dillenius.

This shews us what little dependance we can have upon the result of that meeting, which Mr. Miller mentions he had with his botanic friends; where, from the similitude of leaves only, without the parts of fructification, they determined these two plants, so different in their growth, to be one and the same plant.

Mr. Miller remarks very justly, that the leaves of the same tree often vary much in shape, such as those of the poplar, sallow, _&c._

But in answer to this, we may reasonably suppose, that Dr. Kœmpfer, who was on the spot, would not choose for his specimens leaves of the most uncommon sorts that were on the tree, and neglect the most common. This would be carrying the supposition farther than can be allowed, unless we suppose this author had not the understanding even of a common gardener; for otherwise, I am persuaded, Sir Hans Sloane would not have thought his specimens worth purchasing.

For another synonym to the true Japan varnish-tree, as also to Dillenius’s pennated Toxicodendron with rhomboidal fruit, Mr. Miller brings in (in his answer to the Abbé Mazeas’s letter) the Bahama Toxicodendron _foliis alatis fructu purpureo pyriformi sparso_ of Catesby’s Nat. Hist. vol. i. p. 40. so that he would have all these three different plants one and the same; and, in his reply to my letter, he still insists on it, that these two Toxicodendrons are the same. But here I must beg the favour of this Honourable Society, when they come more attentively to consider this matter, to compare his answer to the Abbé Mazeas’s letter, and his reply to me, in this particular part.

I shall only at present take notice, that Catesby says, this Toxicodendron, with the pear-shaped fruit, grows usually on rocks in Providence, Ilathera, and other of the Bahama islands; and does not mention, that he ever saw it in Carolina. I cannot find it described by any author as growing in Carolina, or in any other part of the continent of North America: nor do I believe that there is a plant of it now growing in England, or that it is even the same genus with Dillenius’s rhomboidal-fruited one, from the different structure both of its leaves as well as fruit.

In looking over Dr. Linnæus’s _Hortus Cliffortianus_, I find he gives this Bahama Toxicodendron of Catesby as a synonym to his _Elemifera foliis pinnatis_, p. 486.

I now come to that part of Mr. Miller’s reply, relating to the China varnish-tree, that was raised from seeds sent to the Royal Society by Father D’Incarville; where he still insists on it, that this is the same with the spurious varnish-tree of Kœmpfer. His reasons are, that notwithstanding the indentation and roundness of the bottom of the lobe-leaves of the China varnish-tree, and tho’ the lobe-leaves of the spurious Japan varnish-tree come to a point at the base, and are no-way indented, but quite even on the edges; yet he says, because they have an equal number of _pinnæ_, or lobe-leaves, on the whole leaf of each tree, they must be the same.

In answer to this, I say their lobe-leaves are not equal; for I have examined both the specimens and drawings of Dr. Kœmpfer’s spurious varnish-tree, and I don’t find that the number of the _pinnæ_ exceed seven on a side: whereas I have a small specimen of a leaf by me, that was taken from the top of one of D’Incarville’s China varnish-trees, which is above eight feet high, and stands in an open exposure; and this leaf, tho’ but a foot long, has 12 lobe-leaves, on a side, and each lobe indented at the base[210]. At the same time I observed, that the leaves of the young shoots of another tree were a yard long, as they were this summer at the garden of the British Museum. Another thing is remarkable in the leaves of this China varnish-tree; and that is, the lobes of the leaves, as they approach to the end, grow smaller and smaller; whereas in the spurious Japan varnish-tree they are rather, if there is any difference, larger towards the end.

I shall make this further remark, that tho’ these indentations on the lobe-leaves may vary in number in this China varnish-tree; yet, as I observed before, since they are continued on even in the smaller leaves at the top of the branches of a tree eight feet high in the open ground, it appears to me, that this specific character, besides the form and insertion of the lobe-leaves, will ever distinguish it as a different species from the _Fasi-no-ki_, or spurious varnish-tree of Kœmpfer.

Mr. Miller now goes on to tell us, he is confirmed in his belief of their being the same, by making some observations on the seeds of this China varnish-tree; and therefore asserts, that they are the same. It is natural to suppose he compared them with the accurate drawings of the seeds of Kœmpfer’s _Fasi-no-ki_, p. 794. that being the only place where the seeds of it are described.

In the very next paragraph Mr. Miller seems to forget, that from his own observations on the seeds of the China varnish-tree, he has asserted it to be the _Fasi-no-ki_ of Kœmpfer; but now he finds, in his memorandums, that those seeds were wedge-shaped, and like the seeds of the beech-tree; and that all the three seeds he received seemed to be inclosed in one capsule: so that now he is at a loss what to call it; and at the same time says I have been too hasty in calling it a Rhus.

Mr. Miller goes on, and allows this China varnish-tree changes to a purple in the autumn; but not so deep as the true varnish-tree. I suppose he means, by this true varnish-tree, the Carolina pennated Toxicodendron; for Kœmpfer has not told us what colour the true varnish-tree of Japan changes to in autumn.

But this is no certain proof on either side of the question, only a corroborating circumstance of the species of a tree: nor should I have mentioned it, but for the manner in which Kœmpfer, with an imagination truly poetical, describes the autumnal beauty of his _Fasi-no-ki_, or spurious varnish-tree. “Rubore suo autumnati quâ viridantes sylvas suaviter interpolat, intuentium oculos e longinquo in se convertit.” Even this description would make one suspect it is not the same with the China varnish-tree, which, I am informed, did not turn purplish in the garden of the British Museum till the first frost came on: whereas it is well known, that some of the Rhus’s and Toxicodendrons, particularly the Carolina pennated one, change to a fine scarlet colour in the beginning of a dry autumn, even before any frost appears.

Mr. Miller seems surprised, how I should think, that the Carolina pennated Toxicodendron, or poison-ash is like the _Fasi-no-ki_ of Kœmpfer. I must here acknowledge, at this time, not having seen Doctor Kœmpfer’s specimen, I imagined, from the shape of the lobe-leaves (as he has described them) and from the remarkable scarlet colour of both these trees in autumn, that Mr. Miller might be right in what he has advanced; for it was from his authority I took it, depending on the information he gives us in his Dictionary, fol. edit. 6. under the article _Toxicodendron_, where he takes some pains to assure us, that they are the very same plants.

In the next paragraph I find Mr. Miller has intirely mistaken the meaning of one part of my letter to Mr. Webb; which I must recommend to him to read again, and he will find it exactly agrees with his own sentiments. There he will find my opinion is, that notwithstanding the change of soil and situation, this _Sitz-dsju_, or true varnish-tree, and the _Fasi-no-ki_, or spurious varnish-tree of Kœmpfer, are distinct species of Rhus or Toxicodendron, and will ever remain so.

Mr. Miller now desires me, since I have seen Dr. Kœmpfer’s specimens in the British Museum, to declare, whether I think I am mistaken.

In answer to this, and to satisfy Mr. Miller as well as myself, I have been very lately at the Museum, and have looked very carefully over Dr. Kœmpfer’s specimens, and do sincerely think, as did other judges at the same time, that the _Sitz-dsju_ is not the same with the Carolina pennated Toxicodendron, nor the _Fasi-no-ki_ the same with Father D’Incarville’s China varnish-tree.

Mr. Miller informs us, that one of the best kinds of varnishes is collected from the Anacardium in Japan.

In answer to this, I must beg leave to shew the Society, that Dr. Kœmpfer does not so much as mention, that this Anacardium grows in Japan; but that the varnish, which is collected from it, is brought to them from Siam: and I believe it will appear plainly, from what follows, that there is not a plant of this kind in the kingdom of Japan; for Siam and Cambodia, especially the parts of those kingdoms, where Kœmpfer informs us this Anacardium[211] grows, lie in the latitudes of from 10 to 15 degrees north, which must be full as hot as our West Indies: so that it is not probable, that it would bear the cold of the winters in Japan; for Japan lies from the latitudes of 33 to above 40 degrees north, which is about the same parallel with our North American colonies.

I shall now beg leave to lay before the Society that passage of Dr. Kœmpfer, which relates to this dispute, together with my translation of it, that it may be compared with Mr. Miller’s translation, which he gives us in his reply to the Abbé Mazeas’s letter, Philosoph. Trans. vol. xlix. p. 164. 2d paragraph. Dr. Kœmpfer, in his _Amœnitates_, p. 793. speaking of the true varnish-tree, says, “Colitur frequens in provinciis Tsi-kocko et Figo, in quibus inserti agris scapi radices agunt et caudices edunt post triennium vernicem suppeditantes. Optima regionis, quin totius mundi, vernix perhibetur circa urbem Jassino colligi. Vernicem ceres Japonica largitur oppido nobilem et pretiosissimam, sed admodum parcam; nec pro operibus, quæ regio construit, sufficeret, nisi prius cum, _Nam Rak_, i. e. vernice ignobiliore ex Siamo invecta, pro basi illinerentur. Siamensis vernix promitur in provincia Corsama, et regno Cambodiæ ex arbore Anacardo, incolis _Tong Rak_, i. e. _Arbor Rak_ dicta, cujus fructus officinis nostris Anacardium dictus _Luk Rak_, liquor _Nam Rak_ appellatur. Perforatus truncus immisso tubulo, tantâ copiâ fundit liquorem ut Sinæ, Tunquino et Japoniæ pro deliniendis utensilibus sufficiat, quin jam Bataviam et alia Indiæ loca vasis ligneis inclusa appellit.”

Which, translated into English, appears to me to be thus:

'This varnish-tree is often cultivated in the provinces of Tsi-kocko and Figo: there they plant the cuttings or truncheons in the fields, which take root, and send forth vigorous shoots, which in three years time yield this varnish.

'The best varnish of the kingdom, nay, of the whole world, is said to be collected about the city of Jassino. The produce in Japan of this most noble and very precious varnish, is so very little, that there would not be sufficient for the wares made in the kingdom, if they did not first lay on a ground with an ordinary kind of varnish, which they call _Nam Rak_, and is brought to them from Siam.

'This Siam varnish is collected in the province of Corsama, and in the kingdom of Cambodia, from the tree Anacardus, called by the inhabitants _Tong_ or _Tree-Rak_; the fruit of which is called in our shops Anacardium, or _Luk Rak_, and the liquor is called _Nam Rak_.

'To collect this liquor, they bore a hole in the trunk, and put in a tube. By this method they get as much of it as is sufficient not only to varnish all the utensils of China, Tonquin, and Japan, but it is even exported in close wooden vessels to Batavia, and other parts of India.’

The original of Kœmpfer, p. 794. speaking of the true Japan varnish, is as follows: “Prostat non sincera modo, sed et colorata, vel cinnabari nativa Sinensi, vel terra rubra (quam Batavi antea, nunc Sineses advehunt) vel atramenti popularis materiâ.”

Which I apprehend may be read thus in English:

'This varnish is not only sold quite pure, but likewise coloured, and that with Chinese native cinnabar, and a kind of red earth, which the Dutch formerly, but now the Chinese, bring them; and also with the materials that they make their common (or Japan) ink of.’

Mr. Miller translates it thus (_See p._ 164. _vol._ xlix. _Phil. Transact._): 'This varnish is used without mixture to stain black: but the Chinese mix native cinnabar, or a red kind of earth, with it, to make a different colour.’

Here we may observe, that Mr. Miller uses the words staining black; which is not the sense of the author, who, by mentioning the materials of Japan ink, shews, that even in varnishing black it was necessary to use this black mixture.

Further, Mr. Miller says, that the Chinese mix these colouring ingredients with this varnish: but the original plainly says, that the Chinese import them, and the Japanese mix them with their varnish for sale.

And in a former part of this letter, p. 162. vol. xlix. Phil. Trans. he says, speaking of this true varnish-tree, that callicuts are painted with the juice of this shrub. But this bare assertion of his, without producing a proper authority, I am persuaded this Honourable Society will never admit as a matter of proof to invalidate the discovery of the Abbé Sauvages.

In looking over one of the numbers of Mr. Miller’s Dictionary, under the title of Anacardium, I find he quotes a passage from Dr. Grew, which Sir Hans Sloane has placed among his observations on the Cashew-tree, _Hist. Jam. vol._ ii. _p._ 127. which is, that cottons are stained with lime, and the oil, or mellaginous succus, called Mel Anacardium (but for the account of this Mel Anacardium I shall refer to Parkinson’s Theat. p. 1568); and Mr. Miller seems to think it difficult to know which of the Anacardiums is here meant.

One would be apt think, from this passage, and another that follows a little after in the same page of the Hist. of Jamaica, relating to the black dye of the mellago of this nut, that Sir Hans, at the time his history was published, thought them, as Caspar Bauhin did, of the same genus, but different species; and therefore he has mixt the observations on both together.

For, immediately after mentioning the staining of cottons with this mellaginous succus, Sir Hans says, that the gum is, in faculties and colour, like gum-arabic; and that it is given internally in female obstructions; and that the juice stains linen, which will not wash out suddenly: but he says it is false, that they remain till they flower next year, as Du Tertre asserts.

Sir Hans further quotes, from an anonymous Brasilian author, that the apples stain linen; and that the gum is good to paint and write; and the bark dyes yarn and vessels serving for pots.

And in another place he quotes De Laet, who compiled a general history of America, and who likewise takes his quotation from an old Brasilian author, treating of the trees of Brasil, That the gum of the Acajou is used by painters; the bark is used to dye cotton-yarn and earthen ware. Here I must remark, tho’ foreign to our present purpose, that in the original of Laet, what relates to the earthen ware runs thus: “Et a faire de vaisseaux de terre.” So that I believe it will appear more probable, that the bark of these trees was used rather to burn earthen ware vessels, than to dye them, as we find these earthen vessels were used to boil their victuals in.

These two quotations from Sir Hans Sloane confirm the former, with regard to the use of the gum; that is, its being fit, like gum-arabic, to be used for water-colours, and to make ink; and that it is the juice of the apple that stains, but this we find is not durable.

Mr. Miller has now only the bark of the Cashew-tree left to support his argument. This the above-mentioned Brasilian writers say, that the native Indians of Brasil used to dye their cotton-yarn with; but of what colour no mention is made. And whether this bark is used to give strength to this yarn, as we dye and tan our fishing-nets with oak-bark, or for ornament, is uncertain; for a great deal of this yarn was used in the making their net-hammocks, as well as their coarse garments.

Mr. Miller then introduces Sir Hans Sloane, in opposition to Dr. Browne, whose History of Jamaica I had quoted, to prove that the juice of the Acajou was of the same nature and properties with that of the gum-arabic, and consequently not fit for varnish: whereas it plainly appears from the foregoing quotations, taken from Sir Hans Sloane, that Dr. Browne is right, and agrees exactly in opinion with him.

He then makes Sir Hans say, that the inhabitants of Jamaica stain their cottons with the bark of the Cashew-nut tree. By this, one would naturally conclude, that Mr. Miller has been endeavouring to prove, in opposition to the Abbé Mazeas’s letter, that the art of painting or staining cottons of a fine deep black colour, equal to that discovered by the Abbé Sauvages, as described in his experiments on the Carolina Toxicodendron, was practised by the English forty or fifty years ago in Jamaica.

If this was the case, it is something surprising, that, notwithstanding our great intercourse with that island, the callico-printers of England never got intelligence of this valuable secret.

Further, if Mr. Miller will consult Piso and Margrave, writers of the best authority on the Brasilian plants, he will find their accounts of the Acajou exactly correspond with that delivered by Dr. Browne, in his History of Jamaica, as well as Sir Hans Sloane’s: for they say, that the juice of this tree is equal in virtue, and mechanical uses, to the best gum-arabic. And if he still doubts, I shall lastly recommend him to go to the British Museum, and there he may see a most elegant specimen of the Cashew-gum, which will put this matter quite out of all doubt.

I shall now leave the decision of this controversy, which Mr. Miller has obliged me so fully to explain in my own vindication, to the candour and impartiality of this Honourable Society.

_P.S._ Since the foregoing paper was read, Professor Sibthorp was so kind to deliver me an exact drawing of the _Fasi-no-ki_ in the Sherardian collection at Oxford, taken by the Rev. Mr. William Borlase, F.R.S. the title and synonym of which are both in the Hand-writing of Dr. Dillenius, as the Professor assures me. See TAB. XVIII.

LVII. _A Letter to the Rev._ Thomas Birch, _D. D. Secr. R.S. concerning the Number of the People of_ England; _by the Rev. Mr._ Richard Forster, _Rector of_ Great Shefford _in_ Berkshire.

[Read Dec. 22, 1757.]

Shefford, Nov. 9. 1757.

Revᵈ Sir,

Since I did myself the honour of writing to you in July[212], my bookseller has sent me part ii. of vol. xlix. of the Transactions; in which[213] I find another medium advanced to determine the amount of the people in England: and this is the number of houses, which pay the window-tax, and which “amount to about 690,000, besides cottages, that pay nothing.” To this is added, that “tho’ the number of cottages be not accurately known, it appears from the accounts given in, that they cannot amount to above 200,000.”

Here I cannot but express my concern, that this very ingenious gentleman has not been a little more explicit, by informing us, what these accounts are, upon which he builds so positive a conclusion. The law requires no such accounts to be delivered in; and parish-officers cannot be accused of works of supererogation: besides (which is more to the purpose) I am very certain no such accounts have been given in from this part of the world. On the other hand, in all parts of England, which I have seen (and that is, I think, almost the whole) the number of cottages greatly exceeds that of all other houses, except in the middle of towns, and some villages about London.

This is agreeable to the general interpretation of that sentence passed upon our original parent, that _he should eat bread by the sweat of his brows_; which is, that the majority of his descendents should be poor labouring people. This I do not mention with design to defend the interpretation, but only to shew the general sense of mankind.

As my notion of the matter differs so widely from that of this worthy gentleman, I did every thing in my power to check any mistake, which might arise from a fondness of one’s own opinion; and which, I hope, will vindicate me in the eye of every candid inquirer. In a word, I set myself to count all the houses in several contiguous parishes; and then examined how many of them paid the window-tax, or duty upon houses. And here I must observe, that if there be any small mistake, it can hardly be supposed to be in favour of my own scheme; because I had the whole number of houses, by counting as I rode along; and some might possibly be missed, tho’ of this I took the utmost care: whereas the number of those, that pay the window-tax, I had from the collectors rolls.

The following table is the fruit of my labours:

Great Shefford 90 17 Little Shefford 12 3 Welford 162 62 Chaddleworth 62 20 Bright-Walton 72 21 Catmore 10 1 Farmborough 34 5 Fawley 47 7 East Garston 99 41 ---------- 588 177

Here we see, that out of 588 houses only 177 pay the window-tax. Now if we say with the philopher _ex pede Herculem_, and suppose, that 200,000 taxable houses stand in the country, we shall have the following proportion, 177: 588 ∷ 200,000: 664406, for the whole number of houses that stand in the country, commonly so called.