« PreviousContinue »
racy, as well as friendship, I can depend, has sent me the following dimensions of one at Hillingdon, in his neighbourhood. The perpendicular height is 53 feet; the diameter of the horizontal extent of the branches from east to west, 96; from north to south, 89; the circumference of the trunk close to the ground, 15}; 33 feet above the ground, 13}; 7 feet above the ground, 12); 12 feet above the ground, 14 feet 8 inches; 13., just under the branches, 15 feet 8 inches. It has two principal branches, one of which is bifid is foot above its origin: before it divides, it measures in circumference 12 feet, after its division, one of its forks measures 8), the other 7 feet 10 inches. The other primary branch at its origin measures 10 feet; and, soon dividing, throws out two secondary ones, each 5. The proprietor of this tree says he can with much certainty deterinine its age to be 116 years.
The largest of those at Chelsea, measured last month, is in height 85 feet; the horizontal extent of its branches is about 80; the circumference of its trunk close to the ground 18}; at 2 feet above the ground, 15; at 10 feet, 16; at about 1 yard higher it begins to branch. These trees Mr. Miller says, were, as he was credibly informed, planted in 1683, about 3 feet high. The soil is a lean hungry sand mixed with gravel, with about two feet surface.
In the garden of the old palace at Enfield, is a cedar of Libanus, of the following dimensions, taken by Mr. Thomas Liley, an ingenious schoolmaster there, at the desire of my friend Mr. Gough, who was so obliging as to communicate them to me:
Fourth Girt 14 6 Large arm that branches out near the top, 3 feet 9 inches; several boughs, in girt 3 feet 5 inches; and the boughs extend from the body from 28 to 45 feet. The contents of the body, exclusive of the boughs, is about 103 cubical feet. This tree is known to have been planted by Dr. Uvedale, who kept a flourishing school at this house at the time of the great plague 1665, and was a great florist. Eight feet of the top were broken off by the high wind of 1703. Tradition says this tree was brought hither immediately from Mount Libanus in a portmanteau. The first lime-trees planted VOL. II.
3 7 10.
in England found their way over in the same conveya
Several other cedars of considerable size are scattered about in different parts of the kingdom.
I find not, with exactness, when, or by whom, the cedar was first introduced into England. . Turner, one of our earliest herbarists, where he treats “ of the pyne tree, and other of that kynde," says nothing of it. Gerard, published by Johnson in 1636, mentions it not as growing here; and Parkinson, in his Theatram Botanicum, 1640, speaking of the Cedrus magna conifera Libani, says, “ The branches, some say, all grow upright, but others straight out.” Evelyn, whose discourse on forest trees was delivered in the Royal Society in 1662, observing that cedars throve in cold climates, adds, “Why then should they not thrive in Old England! I know not, save for want of industry and trial.”
Hitherto, I think, it is pretty plain the cedar was unknown among us: and it appears probable, that we are iudebted to the last mentioned gentleman for its introduction into England; for he informs us in the same paragraph from which I made the above quotation, that he had received cones and seeds from the few trees remaining on the mountains of Libanus.
Something better than 20 years afterwards, we find, among Mr. Ray's Philosophical Letters, the following curious one addressed to him from Sir Hans Sloane:
" London, March 7, 1684-5. “ I was the other day at Chelsea, and find that the artifie ces used by Mr. Watts have been very effectual for the preservation of his plants; insomuch that this severe enough winter has scarce killed any of his fine plants. One thing I much wonder, to see the Cedrus nontis Libani, the inhabitant of a very different climate, should thrive so well, as, without pot or greenhouse, to be able to propagate itself by layers this spring. Seeds sown last autumn have as yet thriven well, and are like to hold out: the main artifice I used to them has been, to keep them from the winds, which seem to give a great additional force to cold to destroy the tender plants.”
This is the first notice that has occurred to me of the
cultivation of the cedar among us. Perhaps the tree that propagated itself by layers in 1684, might be from the seed received by Mr. Evelyn; and the reputed age of that at Hillingdon agrees with the time of that importation; supposing that importation was made about the time of the delivery of the Discourse on Forest Trees: nor probably, notwithstanding tradition, is that at Hendon to be referred to a higher date. Why Sir Hans should wonder at the cedar thriving so well in the open air at Chelsea, I know not; for, though it he found in the warmer climates, it is known to be a native of the snowy mountains of Libanus, and consequently not likely to be destroyed by the inclemency of an English winter. But, I believe, we generally treat exotics, upon their first arrival among us, with more tenderness than they require. Perhaps the fear of losing them may be one reason; perhaps, too, they may be gradually habituated to endure a degree of cold which at first would have proved fatal to them. Upon the first introduction of the tea-tree, it was either kept in our green-houses, or, if planted in the open ground, matted or otherwise sheltered in the winter; we now find such care unnecessary. I have had one, at a degree N. of London, thrive and blossom for some years, in the open air, without the slightest protection, in the severá est winter.
That this little memoir may not appear to terminate in mere curiosity, I think it warrants me in recommending the cultivation of the cedar for common use; as it is well known to be a very valuable material in the hand of the joiner and eabinet-maker. Mr. Miller observed their quick growth at Chelsea, in a poor gravelly soil: those at Hendon, Hillingdon, and Enfield, shew that they thrive as well in a very different one. Those planted by the old Duke of Argyle,
. at Whitton, have made the happiest progress; and I am assured that a room has been wainscotted with their timber.
If these slight notes should induce any better informed person to throw more light on this subject, it would afford entertainment to many, as well as to,
Yours, &c. 2779, March,
XLVI. The Harmless Nature of Hedge-Hogs.
Aug. 17, 1779. A COUNTRY churchwarden wants to be informed, whether the law hath set a price on the head of a hedge-hog, and whether it hath inclination and the power to milk the cow.
As to the first part of this inquiry, your correspondent may rest assured, that no such law is now in being, or ever did exist: for to what purpose should mankind be roused to persecute, even with circumstances of barbarity, a poor, harmless, inoffensive creature, slow and patient, incapable to offend, or to do the least injury to any part of the animal creation, except devouring worms, snails, and other such creatures, on which it feeds, together with the berries of hawthorns and brambles, and other wild berries? Perhaps the appearance it makes may have disgusted some unthinking people, being guarded by nature against all common dangers, by prickles, and a power of rolling itself round in them when apprehensive of an enemy, by means of a strong membrane or muscle, something like a foot-ball.
As to the power and inclination of milking a cow, I may venture to say, that such a notion is one of the most absurd and the silliest of all vulgar errors. Had providence intended the hedge-hog should have been vested with such a power, it would have been properly enabled to have carried that power into execution, by endowing it with a mouth large enough to receive the pap of the cow, and without giving any uneasiness to the cow during the operation of sucking: but, instead of that, the head of the hedge-hog terminates in a snout like that of a common hog, the mouth is small, armed with sharp and short teeth, utterly improper for suction, and which must destroy the very supposition of such a power; and thence we may safely conclude the hedgehog cannot have any inclination to milk a cow. The hedgehog lives in the bottoms of hedges and among furze or whins; it collects moss, dry leaves, and grass, wherewith to make a warm bed. I reinember formerly, that a roasted hedgehog and fried mice were reckoned good in the chin-cough, or hooping-cough. 1779, dug
XLVII. Account of the Free Martin.
An Extract from Mr. Hunter's Account of the Free Martin,
in the Philosophical Transactions.
IT is a known fact, and, I believe, is understood to be uni-' versal, that'when a cow brings forth two calves, and that one of them is a bull calf, and the other a cow to appearance, the cow calf is unfit for propagation. They are known not to breed: they do not even shew the least inclination for the bull, nor does the bull ever take the least notice of them* ; but the bull calf becomes a very proper bull.
This cow calf is called in this country a Free Martin ; and this singularity is just as well known among the farmers as either cow or bull.
This calf has all the external marks of a cow calf.
When they are preserved, it is not for propagation, but to yoke with the oxen, or to fatten for the tablet.
They are much larger than either the bull or cow; and the horns grow larger, being very similar to the horns of an
The bellow of the Free Martin is similar to that of an ox, which is not at all like that of a bull; it is more of the cow, though not exactly that.
The meat is also much finer in the fibre than either the bull or cow; and they are more susceptible of growing fat with good food. By some they are supposed to exceed the ox and heifer in delicacy of food, and bear a higher price at market.
However, it seems that this is not universal; for I was lately informed by Charles Palmer, Esq. of Luckley, in Berkshire, that there was a Free Martin killed in his neighbourhood, and, from the general idea of its being better meat than common, every neighbour bespoke a piece, which turned out nearly as bad as bull beef, at least worse than that of a cow. It is probable, that this might arise from this one having more the properties of the bull than the cow, as
* I need hardly observe here, that if a cow has twins, and that they are both bull calves, that they are in every respect perfect bulls; or, if they are both cow calves, that they are perfect cows. † Vide Leslie on Husbandry, p. 98, 99,