In reply to your kind letter let me state that the gum of North Africa is from acacias1 similar to our wattles, while the so-called gum of our eucalyptus is kino, two widely different substances which cannot be used for the same purposes.2 It is remarkable that our Alpine country should have never yielded rural products and thus increase also the revenue of the colony. On many former occasions I recommended that plantations should be formed there.3 The culture would likely be that of the Highlands of Scotland, also here in the more elevated portions. If once a few Scottish and other settlers from cold countries took up land in our Alps, and showed even only through one season what could be done there by cultural pursuits, numerous other settlers would soon follow, even where products would have to be brought from deep valleys and by pack horses to the main roads.
Then named Acacia senegal and A. seyal (see B95.08.05).
M was dampening enthusiasm, based on a misinterpretation of the Eucalyptus gum that was being seen as a replacement for the decreased availability of African gum arabic.
There are many newspaper reports from mid-February onwards about the possibility of a new industry based on the Australian Gum, based on a letter to a resident of Benalla from a 'friend in Great Britain' reporting that 'a discovery has been made by a French chemist which will increase the value of the woods in Australia more than a hundredfold'; see for example Ballarat star, 14 February 1890, p. 2. Full context for M's dismissal of the report is in 'Australian Gum', Goulburn herald, 1 March 1890, p. 2, a full reprint of the probable source article sent by the 'friend in Great Britain', 'A bonanza for Australia', Liverpool weekly courier, 14 December 1889, p. 2, col. f:
A great sensation has been produced by the discovery made by a French chemist which will increase the value of woods in Australia more than a hundredfold. It appears that one of the wealthier settlers in the colony has sent specimens of gum, the produce of his gum trees, to the Paris exhibition. The exhibit was labelled with an elaborate description of the yield and gathering of the gum, with the assertion that it was found almost useless in consequence of its not being soluble. Application was made to the exhibitor for a fragment of the material by a young chemist analyst, who felt determined to try the experiment. So little faith had the Australian in the success of the trial that he merely furnished about a dozen pieces for the work. The analyst however set bravely to his task, and in a short time met with complete success. The Australian gum liquifies readily, and the produce of the trees can be sold at 6 fr. a pound. This news comes just at the moment when it is announced that the supply from Africa has been stopped since the Italians have seized Massowah, [in February 1885] and keep what little comes to the coast for their own use. The gum in use by confectioners and stationers has been for some time past made entirely of gelatine and sugar, and is worthless for the making of varnish, for which purpose it is required in large quantities. The young analyst writes in the exuberance of his glee that the news of his success will be good for the whole world, but for Birmingham in particular, whose carriage builders and japanners will have cause for rejoicing at the cheapness and expedition with which their work can henceforth be executed.
See, for example, his Presidential address delivered on 18 January 1886 to the Royal Geographical Society of Australasia (Victorian Branch) (B87.05.03), p. 46; the report of M's speech at a reception held at Bright (Vic) on 22 January 1890, during the excursion following the Congress of the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science held in Melbourne ('Distinguished visitors', Ovens and Murray advertiser, 25 January 1890, p. 2). M continued this advocacy by direct approach to Government in M to A. McLean, 10 December 1890, and via M to J. Stirling, 19 July 1891 (in this edition as 91-07-19b). However, there were opponents of the ideas advocated by M. An editorial in the Argus. 17 February 1890, p. 5, cols a-b, rehearsed the arguments for and against, concluding 'There can be no real occasion to destroy wholesale and in wantonness our healthy and beautiful forest regions while the open lowlands at their base are not yet turned to account.'
Letter not found. The text given here is from 'The value of Natural Products', Ovens and Murray advertiser, 19 April 1890, p. 11. It is introduced by "some time since a paragraph was published in regard to the value of Australian gum [ex]perimented upon by a French expert and found to be worth in the London market 5s per lb. A resident of the Benalla district noticing the paragraph cut it out and sent it to Baron Von Mueller who has since forwarded the following reply :—'.
The cutting was probably from the Benalla standard as the version of M's letter in Albury banner and Wodonga express, 25 April 1890, p. 30, is introduced by 'A paragraph appeared recently in these columns in regard to the value of the Australian gum in the London market (remarks the Standard)'. The 1890 issue of the Benalla standard containing the report has not been found.
The letter is dated to February 1890 as the earliest likely date it could have been written, based on publication in other newspapers of information likely to have been in the clipping.
Please cite as “FVM-90-02-00h,” in Correspondence of Ferdinand von Mueller, edited by R.W. Home, Thomas A. Darragh, A.M. Lucas, Sara Maroske, D.M. Sinkora†, J.H. Voigt† and Monika Wells accessed on