In the second entry of the preceding transaction in the Ledger, which is peculiar to the system of Double Entry, there is an elegant fiction adopted-viz., that of making the GOODS the Creditor instead of the MERCHANT: thus a merchant's name is never entered in his own books, either as Debtor or Creditor; for when he buys goods on credit he makes the Goods Account appear as the Debtor to the Person of whom he buys them; and he makes the person of whom he buys them appear as the Creditor by the Goods Account. In like manner, when he sells goods on credit, he makes the person to whom he sells them appear as the Debtor to the Goods Account, and he makes the Goods Account appear as the Creditor by the person to whom he sells them.

In keeping books by Single Entry this fiction cannot be adopted; for the Ledger, in this system, contains only Personal Accounts-that is, the accounts in the names of the persons with whom the merchant transacts business. In the books of many persons who use Single Entry, such as tradesmen, shopkeepers, etc., the names of those persons only who are Debtors in the business are entered in the Ledger, and the names of those who are Creditors are left out, on the supposition that there is no need to keep the Creditors' accounts, seeing that they will be sure to take care of their own affairs. But this system cannot be called Bookkeeping, according to our definition, because it is utterly impossible, from the state of the Ledger, to arrive at a knowledge of the tradesman's affairs. Such a system, at best, can only be called Semi-bookkeeping. In the case of those who employ Single Entry, and who keep Personal Accounts both of Debtors and Creditors, there is of course a better view of the actual state of business kept in the Ledger; but still there is no proper record kept of many transactions connected with the purchase and sale of goods, such as the gain or loss made by these transactions, their settlement by cash or bills, the discount or interest allowed on some transactions, the charges and expenses of the business, and various other items of very considerable importance in the management of a tradesman's affairs. While treating of this difference between Single and Double Entry, we cannot but cite the opinion of a very good authority, George Jackson, Accountant:" The system of bookkeeping by Double Entry is one of consummate beauty; every debit amount having its corresponding credit; and every Dead* account exhibiting either profit, loss, or stock in hand. Personal Accounts: these are Debited (made Debtor) to goods, cash, charges, commission, and for everything we give out; and Credited for what we receive in goods, cash, charges, etc. Single Entry (according to the common method of keeping books by Single Entry) has effected the ruin of thousands, simply from the neglect of duly collecting the various charges that appear upon the face of the Personal Accounts. As cancerous sores

Dead is another name for fictitious or nominal accounts; such as Goods Account, Cash Account, etc.

corrode and ultimately destroy the vitals, so do these imperceptibly eat up the profit of a man's business. By Single Entry your accounts current' are perhaps examined into most scrupulously, and upon being found correct, Charges' and 'Interest' are suffered to run off,' unnoticed in the Ledger, but are never collected together into one account; and whether your CHARGES upon Personal Accounts amount to £50 or £500 per annum seems to be a matter of total indifference; all you seek, in order to ascertain the state of your affairs, are your balances, Dr. and Cr., with the stock of goods and cash on hand; and, should you have omitted any amount in the posting [carrying the entries from the Journal or Day-book into the Ledger], you possess not the slightest means of discovering such an omission unless you happen to recollect the transaction, or that you fall into the hands of an HONEST MAN, who informs you of it."

In every mercantile house of business there ought to be at least four books kept for the purpose of properly recording the entries of the mercantile transactions of the concern; these are the Day-book, the Cash-book, the Bill-book, and the Ledger. If the books be kept on the principles of Single Entry, these four books are, in general, sufficient to effect the common purposes of Bookkeeping; but with these only, the merchant can seldom or ever ascertain the state of his affairs without constant reference to the value and quantity of goods actually in his possession. In such cases, if the business be very extensive, it is necessary to keep a Stock or Warehouse-book, an Invoice-book, a Sales-book, and various other books, which take their names from the nature of the business pursued, or from the particular kind of goods of which it is necessary to keep an account. If the books be kept on the principles of Double Entry, then an important book, not yet mentioned, becomes an indispensable requisite; this book is called the Journal, and this name, as its origin implies (being derived from the French, jour, a day), has exactly the same meaning as Day-book. The use of a Journal, however, is very different from that of a Day-book, or, as it is sometimes called, a Waste-book. The Journal, in Double Entry, is the assistant and companion of the Ledger; into it are collected all the entries of the different transactions of the business, however numerous they may be; and in it they are methodically arranged for the purpose of being posted (entered) into the Ledger. The entries in the Journal are, of course, collected from all the different books kept in the concern, commonly called the Subsidiary Books, whether they be few or many, in order that, by this means, every transaction may appear and have its proper place in the Ledger. According to the old Italian method of bookkeeping, so called because it was first practised in the mercantile states of Italy, every transaction in business, whether of purchase or sales, whether of cash or bills, whether of interest or discount, whether of barter or exchange, whether of gain or loss,-all was entered first in the Waste-book, as a sort of original Memorandum-book, without order or system; from this book the entries were then taken, and classified and arranged in the Journal from time to time, as the bookkeeper could find opportunity; the same entries were again taken from the Journal and posted into the Ledger-that is, they were then finally arranged and collected under the different heads of Dr. and Cr. to which they properly belonged, so that all the transactions with each customer, tradesman, merchant, or other individual, were distinctly and clearly seen at one view.

It is to the Italians, therefore, that we originally owe the system of keeping books by Double Entry; and it is to them that we owe the elegant fiction of personifying Cash, Stock, Goods, Bills, Merchandise, Adventures, Profit and Loss, etc., so as to give them "a local habitation and a name' in the Ledger; thus making them a counterpart to the real persons with whom a merchant transacts business; and thus dividing his Assets and Liabilities under distinct heads, so that a proper account can be kept of each without confusion, and his real or actual worth periodically ascertained. The Italian method looks very simple and beautiful at first sight, and it would seem to be preferable to our multifarious modern improvements in Bookkeeping, by which separate books and accounts are multiplied, and the labour of keeping them apparently increased; but this is not the case, it being found that subdivision and distinct separation in books and accounts lead to accuracy, punctuality, and readiness, and afford the best means of avoiding error, of checking errors when they occur, and of not only ascertaining at once the particular

position of any department of a merchant's business, but of speedily ascertaining the condition of the whole concern. The modern system of Bookkeeping by Double Entry, therefore, as it now exists in its present state of perfection in the first mercantile houses, is but an exemplification of the admirable principle of the division of labour, a principle which has raised the arts and manufactures of this country to their present pitch of excellence and grandeur.

With respect to the books called Subsidiary (from the Latin, subsidium, help or assistance), they of course form the subsidies or basis upon which the superstructure of the Ledger is raised; and many of their names sufficiently indicate their nature and the purposes for which they are employed. Thus we need scarcely tell our readers that the Cash-book is used for the entries of all moneys received or paid, whether it be in coin of the realm, in notes of the Bank of England, or of any other bank, or in checks upon a merchant's banker; and that the Bill-book is used for the entries of the particulars of all bills drawn or accepted by the merchant himself, or transferred to him or by him, in lieu of cash to be received or paid. The names of Day-book and Journal, however, instead of indicating the nature or use of these books, merely indicate the time of making the transactions; but these names, which, as we have seen from their origin, were once synonymous, having in respect of modern improvements in Bookkeeping lost their original meaning, it is plain that other names more expressive of the real use of these books must necessarily come to be adopted. The name Goodsbook is a more appropriate term than that of Day-book, which is still applied by some to the book in which the daily record of purchases and sales of goods is entered; but it is not sufficiently general for those who enter accounts of other transactions, exclusive of those belonging to cash and bills. If a merchant wishes to keep separate books for his purchases and sales, he has only to keep two books, which will indicate by their titles the object thus intended; these titles may either be Purchasebook and Sales-book, or Goods-bought-book and Goods-soldbook. As goods when bought by and sent to a merchant are always, or ought to be, accompanied with an invoice or account stating their quantity and price, the Goods-bonght-book might be called the Invoice-book, and the entries in this book might contain the exact particulars of quantity and price, made out in a form prepared for journalising or posting, without being a mere copy of the invoices. The invoices themselves are generally preserved, as important documents, by being pasted into a book made of coloured paper. The Sales-book, or as it might be called the Outward Invoice-book, might in like manner contain the exact particulars of quantity and price relating to goods sold, and prepared for journalising and posting, without being a mere copy of the invoices sent out with them; for, as a merchant receives invoices with goods bought, so he must give invoices with goods sold. The former book might then be called the Inward Invoice-book, to distinguish it from the latter.

As to the Journal kept by modern Double Entry, it has no longer any right to this title; it is used, as has been observed, as a companion and assistant to the Ledger, and therefore might be appropriately denominated the Sub-Ledger; but if a name were given to it which indicated the period that elapsed before making it up from the Subsidiary books, then it might be called Week-book, Fortnight-book, or Month-book, according as time was found or appointed to make it up; but Day-book or Journal, in their original sense, it could not and ought not to be called. The verb to journalise-that is, to transfer entries from the Journal into the Ledger-would require to be changed accordingly, unless we chose to retain the term posting, when the application of sub to it would be necessary. For, as posting means transferring entries from the Journal into the Ledger, so sub-posting would mean transferring entries from the subsidiary books into the Journal or Sub-Ledger.

The Ledger, as before observed, is by far the most important book in a merchant's business, or indeed in any tradesman's business whatever. It contains, or ought to contain, an account of every transaction affecting business in any way whatever; it ought to be so lucidly and clearly kept that if brought into a court of law by any unforeseen accident, the judge, the commissioners of bankruptcy, or any other legal authority, would pronounce it a pattern for imitation, and compliment the owner of it on the occasion. It arranges every transaction in business

HISTORIC SKETCHES.-XIV.

HOW ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND BECAME ONE.-PART I.

"WHILE an hundred Scots are left to resist, they will fight for the liberty that is dearer to them than life." Thus spoke the Scottish nation by the mouths of eight earls, thirty-one barons, and all the great officers of the Crown, assembled at Arbroath, in April, 1320, when they sent a letter to the Pope of Rome (John XXII.), in answer to his bull requiring them to yield obedience to that English king (Edward II.) whom they had driven with shame and confusion from Bannockburn. With words expressive of the same indomitable liberty have the Scottish people ever spoken, when it has been a question of their free. dom, political, social, or religious; and may the day be far dis tant when they shall abate one iota of the high-mettled courage which enabled them thus to speak to the most powerful and most dreaded potentate at that time on the earth. Let us examine the circumstances under which the words abovementioned were spoken, and then trace out the history of the nation which spoke them, until it became blended in the history of its southern neighbour, England.

We have only to look at the earlier ballads of England and Scotland to see how continuous and bitter was formerly the hostility which existed between the two countries. The most spirit-stirring of them are those in which the feats of arms of favourite heroes on both sides are commemorated with how much exaggeration on the one hand, and unfriendly depreciation on the other, it is not necessary to say. When international rancour, unmeaning as it was violent, ran high, and was handed down from father to son as a sacred flame which was never to be allowed to go out; when feuds were family property, and were cherished with as much tenderness as the family honour, it is only to be expected that some signs of them should find their way into the popular songs and ballads. And in effect the popular songs and ballads are full of such signs, of stories how this chief drove a prey" into Northumberland, and of how "the stout Earl of Northumberland" returned the compliment by harrying the border with as many rough-riders as could be induced to bear the loose discipline of the northern wars, Who has not heard or read of Chevy Chase, of Otterbourn, of Adam Bell and Clynn of the Clough, of William of Cloudesley, and many more whose names are enshrined in the deathless ballads of their respective countries? These are all signs of the bygone times, of days which are happily past for ever: days of great trial and tribulation, but days also in which was nursed with steady care that spirit of bold courage and of fearless outspokenness which breathed in the words at the head of this article.

The two people contiguous, yet essentially distinct, it must needs have been that in barbarous times their essential disting tiveness should be shown barbarously. Springing from different races, or at least from different branches of the same race, with scarcely anything in common except their form of government and their religion-and even here there was not perfect uniformity-there must have been frequent occasions on which the national feelings of hostility found vent. The histories of England and Scotland for many years are taken up with little

else than detailed accounts of those scenes in which the heroes commemorated in the ballads took part. The border land, indicated by the Cheviot Hills, and extending from Berwick-onTweed, on the one side, to the Solway Frith on the other, was a theatre of never-ending war. The Scotch Earl Douglas was guardian of the border on the Scottish side, and the Percys, Earls of Northumberland, were wardens of the Marches on the English side; and these noblemen, without waiting for any ceremonious declaration of war, were wont, whenever they felt disposed to the exercise, to try conclusions for the honour of their country, themselves, their lady-love, or anything or anybody else, to open unexpectedly a little war on their own account. Thus does Shakespeare make Prince Henry (afterwards Henry V.) speak of Percy, "the Hotspur of the north; he that kills me some six or seven dozen of Scots at a breakfast, washes his hands, and says to his wife, 'Fie upon this quiet life! I want work.' O my sweet Harry,' says she, 'how many hast thou killed to-day?' 'Give my roan horse a drench,' says he, and answers 'Some fourteen,' an hour after; a trifle, a trifle.' Lesser chiefs, living in strongholds, some of which remain to this day, followed suit; and, moved by less noble instincts-by hunger, by greed, by bloodthirstiness pure and simple-inflicted enormous injury in their expeditions, which often extended far into the limits of either country. The damage done by these freebooters was not confined to the death and destruction which ever marked their advance or retreat; it was impossible that any sense of security, or that any of those national blessings which are attendant upon it, could have place while such things were done; and each new raid only furnished material for new disturbances by arousing in the minds of the spoiled a spirit of revenge and a sort of lust for retaliation, which were the fruitful source of bitter troubles to be. There was always war upon the border, which was a nursery for soldiers, and where the discipline among those who were nominally in the king's service must have been pretty severe. At least it must have been so in the time of Henry VIII., if we may judge from the order which was sent from the Privy Council to the general commanding in the north, when the Council wanted to punish Alderman Reed, citizen of London, for refusing to subscribe to a forced loan. The alderman was sent down to Sir Ralph Ewer, Henry's general, with a letter in which Sir Ralph was directed, in order to punish the man for resisting an illegal tax, to subject him to "the strong discipline militar of the northern war." Though war was constantly going on at the border, it was, unfortunately, not confined to it. Whenever the Plantagenet kings of England had time; whenever they had no other big foe on hand-no Frenchmen, Flemings, or Spaniards to fight; when ever they had an exchequer that would bear the cost; whenever they wanted to divert into a foreign channel activity and energy that would have been troublesome to them at home, they picked a quarrel with the King of Scotland, and invaded his kingdom. Protexts were never wanting, whether they arose out of incidents connected with the border warfare, or whether they had an origin more general and national, and the war, when undertaken, was always of the bloodiest and most ruinous kind, both to assailant and defender. One pretext there was to which a semblance of right attached, after the treaty made at Falaise in Normandy, in December, 1174, between King William of Scotland and Henry II. of England, a pretext of which the kings of England always availed themselves when all other excuses failed. The Scottish kings were nominal lords of Cumberland and Northumberland, by virtue of a grant made in Anglo-Saxon times by the earl of those parts, and for the two counties the king of England required his royal neighbour to do homage and swear to be his liegeman. Whenever this demand, because made roughly by design, or because it was disputed, was not complied with, the English king declared his vassal contumacious, and led an army into his territory to reduce him to obedience. Sometimes the fortune of war inclined to one Fide, sometimes to the other; but the more frequent course was for the English king or his lieutenant to march a certain distance into Scotland, killing, burning, and destroying en route, and then the Scotch having taken to the hills, whither the enemy could not follow them, but from which they could easily annoy and harass the enemy, the English troops would return, with little to compensate them for having gone so far into a poor and unsubduable country. Sometimes the Scotch king procured that the English should retreat by conceding the point

which by right he should never have questioned-the English king's right to homage for the English honours held by the Scottish king. But this pretext for invasion was unhappily much strengthened by the disgraceful treaty of Falaise, already mentioned.

Up to December, 1174, there had never been a question of homage for more than the Anglo-Scotch possessions, but in that year Henry II. of England took ample revenge for the injury William the Lion had done him by fomenting his domestic troubles, and by entering into engagements with the king of France adversely to the interests of England. William was captured in a foolhardy combat into which his courage precipitated him at Alnwick, and being brought to Northampton, was kept close prisoner till he would agree to the terms imposed by Henry. These terms included not only the render of homage for Northumberland and Cumberland, but for the whole of Scotland, over which kingdom Henry was to be acknowledged Lord Paramount. At York the homage was rendered, so eager was the Scotch king to be free, so eager was the Scotch nation to see him so. Soon after Henry II.'s death, Richard Cœur de Lion renounced the claim which had been wrung from William in captivity, and the kings of Scotland were remitted, so far as that kingdom was concerned, to the same position they had held before the treaty of Falaise.

But the right to homage survived, in the estimation at least of ambitious and interested men, the renunciation of it, and Edward I. availed himself of the first opportunity to re-assert his right in the most absolute and positive way.

It was at this juncture that the most popular heroes in Scottish history came upon the stage, and it was at this period that the Scottish nation began to show forth that spirit of enthusiastic patriotism which has been their chief characteristic ever since. The alliances which the Scots made with France, and from time to time with other occasional enemies of England, were only short-lived, and were entered into by those enemies quite as much in their own particular interests as out of a desire to do a service to Scotland. Indeed, though the first thing a Continental prince did, when about to declare war on England, was to secure the help of the Scots, so as to make a diversion of the English forces in his favour, the same prince was ever unwilling to help the Scots when their interests alone were concerned. Foreign alliances were therefore of little use to Scotland, and alone it was felt she was no match for her powerful southern neighbour-no match, that is to say, as France was a match-either in wealth, population, or resources. But when the element of desperation was added to the contest, when the Scots had the alternative of subjection or freedom, it was felt by the Scots at least, whatever other men thought, that they were fully equal to the warlike game, for they were ready to fight to the death, every man of them, rather than lose the "liberty that was dearer to them than life."

Such were the men, such was the spirit which Edward I. proposed to himself to conquer. That great warrior and statesman looked with an evil eye upon the existence of an independent kingdom so close to his own. He saw in it a refuge for all the insurgent spirits, and there were plenty of them, among his own subjects, and saw in it also an excellent assailing point for any of his enemies who chose to make an alliance with the Scots. He could not bear to be at the mercy of the Scots for the safety of his northern boundaries, and he believed. probably, that the demoralising and injurious border warfare could be stopped only by abolishing the difference of jurisdiction which was the cause of the warfare. Add to this the desire for conquest and possession which seems to be natural to all princes of any worth, and we have a fair notion of the motives which induced King Edward to set about the conquest of the kingdom of Scotland.

The foundation, flimsy though it was, upon which he rested his claim, has been already pointed out. Let us see the occasion of which he availed himself to put his claim forward. When Alexander III. died in 1284, Margaret, his grand

She was a child at

daughter, known in history as the Maid of Norway, was sole and undoubted heir to the Scottish throne. the time, and Edward I. conceived the idea of marrying her to his own son Edward, and so to join the two kingdoms. Arrangements were made for that purpose by consent of the barons of Scotland, safeguards being insisted on, however, for the due preservation of the distinct privileges and immunities of the Scotch

nation. At Bingham, in July, 1290, the conditions of the marriage and of the international union were agreed upon; there seemed to be opening a fair prospect of concord and prosperity for the whole island, when the Maid of Norway unexpectedly died, and the union of the nations was postponed for nearly three centuries and a quarter.

With Margaret's death the line of Alexander III., on which the Scottish crown had been settled, became extinct, and the crown was to be won by him who could show the closest connection with the Scotch royal family.

LESSONS IN BOTANY.-XIV. SECTION XXV.-UMBELLIFERE, OR APIACEA: THE UMBELLIFEROUS, OR PARSLEY TRIBE. PERHAPS there does not exist a natural family of vegetables more distinctly marked than this. Their general aspect alone, without going into anatomical minutiae of structure, is almost sufficient to distinguish them; nevertheless, we will indicate the botanical characteristics of this great natural order.

Characteristics: Calyx adherent to the ovary; petals, five, inserted upon an epigynous disc; æstivation valvular, involute; stamens, five, alternate with the petals; ovary, inferior, two-celled uniovular; ovule, pendent, reflexed; styles, two; carpels separating at the base; seed, dicotyledonous; leaves, alternate, simple, often divided, petiolate, in an involucre. The word epigynous, the only one in the preceding description of the characters of the Umbellifera that we have not met with before, means "growing on the summit of the ovary," from the Greek (ep'-i), upon, and yuvn (gu'-ne), a

woman.

T

Such are the precise botanical characteristics by which the umbelliferæ, or umbrella-bearers, as we may call them, are known; but, we repeat, their aspect is almost enough to distinguish them from other plants; not but that a few plants of other orders bear umbels, and many seem to bear umbels without doing so; but, generally speaking, the aspect of an umbelliferous plant is sufficient to characterise it.

Taking for our example a specimen of Fool's Parsley (Ethusa Cynapium,

What, then, is the fruit of an umbelliferous plant? We hear frequently enough of carrot, parsley, celery, and carraway seeds, but we do not hear of carrot, parsley, celery, and carraway fruits. Nevertheless, all these are fruits, not seeds. The real seed is embedded within the structure of a surrounding mass, as we I found to be the case in the apple and pear. There the sur rounding mass is fleshy and easily separable; here it is hard and firmly adherent; therefore the so-called seeds of umbel liferous plants are fruits of the kind which botanists denominate by the term achanium. All these fruits separate naturally when ripe, or admit of ready separation into two parts, and they are all furrowed; moreover, the nature and direction of these furrows differ in each species; of the order, consequently, they are an important means for enabling the botanist to distinguish umbelliferous species. The two grand peculiarities, then, of the umbelliferous tribe are, first, the presence of umbels; secondly, the inferior fruit separable into two portions. Why did we select a sprig of Fool's Parsley, as a specimen to illustrate the tribe Umbellifera when so many more readily obtainable plants

existed ? For this reason: to show in what respect Fool's Parsley, which is poisonous, may be distinguished from the culinary parsley.

If the reader examines each terminal umbel of the Fool's Parsley, he will recognise at the base of it three f like things, which are bracts, and which, when they are arranged as we find them in umbelliferous plants, constitute each set an involucre. The student will observe that in the Ethusa Cynapium, or Fool's Parsley (Fig. 138), these bracts all point outwards, by which characteristic sign may the Fool's Parsley be distinguished not only from common parsley, but from all wild umbelliferous plants.

Whilst treating of these bracts, which in Umbellifera constitute the involucrum, the reader's attention may as well be directed to certain modifica tions of form which bracts are capable of assuming. Thus, in the oak they grow together and give rise to the acorn cup (Fig. 87, p. 341); in the pine-apple they grow together, become fleshy, and constitute the part we eat; in the fir-cone they constitute the scales; in Umbellifera, however, they assume the appearance of leaves, which, indeed, is their general or normal aspect. With regard to the physiological and chemical characteristics of the Umbellifera, they may be stated to depend on the presence either of an odorous volatile oil, or a poisonous matter. Everybody is aware how agreeably odorous are the so-called carraway seeds; everybody is aware of the poisonous nature of the hemlock; and the noxious character of the Fool's Parsley has already passed under notice. Umbelliferous plants may, therefore, be designated in general terms as suspicious plants, comprehending, however, a far greater number of innoxious than noxious species; the latter may be generally discovered by their agreeable, the former by their disagreeable odour.

stems which constitute large ones (Vol. I., page 217, Fig. 66). We shall find, both in the small and large umbels, that the petioles, or flower-stalks, shoot forth from points exactly opposite each other, otherwise the structure would not be an umbel. Take, for example, the elder-tree. A general examination of its flower would lead one to suppose that the elder was an umbelliferous plant; but, on examining it more attentively, the petioles do not branch off at a point exactly opposite each other; hence the inflorescence of the elder-tree is not that of an umbel, but of a cyme. Nevertheless, in the geraniums, and some other plants, the inflorescence is really umbelliferous; hence the existence of an umbel is not quite sufficient for the botanist to rely upon in the discrimination of a plant belonging to the natural order Umbelliferæ. Let us, therefore, examine some of the remaining characteristics enumerated at the beginning of this description. If we examine the flower of a parsley plant, we shall discover that the calyx is almost absent. The petals, five in number, spring from a narrow line or border. There are five stamens, each arising from between two petals.

As in the apple, the ovary in an umbelliferous plant is inferior -that is to say, it appears below the calyx and corolla, inasmuch as the latter springs from above it.

In certain species of this natural order the innocent and the noxious principles are combined. This is the case in the wild celery, which in this condition is a rank plant, altogether unfitted for food. The change which ensues when celery is culti vated in gardens we are all aware of; but the reason of that change merits a few remarks. Garden celery, as the reader knows, is carefully buried in the earth, not only its root, but much of its stem being totally deprived of light. Under this treatment, the buried portion of the plant becomes etiolated or bleached; becomes, in point of fact, botanically considered, diseased; that is to say, the poisonous secretion of the plant is no longer elaborated, the odorous principle alone being formed. A consideration of the nature and effects of etiolation leads us