CAPTAIN COOK IN NEW SOUTH WALES

This being the age of criticism, and not the time of taking for granted as a fact whatever one had heard from book or speech, an investigation of the story of Cook's Discovery of New South Wales may neither be unwelcome nor unexpected.

The story must have been deemed of consequence, when the Admiralty was willing to pay Dr. Hawkesworth six thousand guineas, or pounds, as reported, to write the account of that voyage in H.M.S. Endeavour.

Though even after its appearance some doubts were expressed as to its propriety, or even veracity, yet some allowance was made for professional jealousies, as well as for the paucity of information upon Australian matters, and the want of means either to substantiate or reject the assertions of the writer.

Objection was taken to the literary mode adopted. The author chose to make the narrative in the form of a personal record of events. The Captain was represented as speaking of himself, saying, "I saw," or "I did," &c. It was asserted by critics that to accomplish this personal mode of narration, there would necessarily arise some difficulties in the rearrangement of his sources of history. Was there not a little temptation in the adoption of that plan to alter, repress, or exaggerate facts, or even to invent trivial matters for accommodation?

The book had a wonderful sale, and no great amount of hostile remarks. Dr. Hawkesworth's death, so soon after the publication, disarmed those ready to question. Cook's fellow-voyagers, Banks, Matra, and the officers of the Endeavour, were either silent, absent, or unqualified to speak. Thoughtful men did inquire into the sources of the writer's information, their extent, and authenticity. The singular dispersion, loss, or destruction of such sources were fresh causes of embarrassment. Mr., afterwards Sir Joseph, Banks, is said to have declared that he furnished no assistance to the Editor.

Here it may be at once announced that this inquiry into the published Voyage of the Endeavour through the pen of Dr. Hawkesworth, has little to do with Cook as a man and a navigator. The story was written by a literary man, commanded or selected, and the Grand Old Sailor who has for so long a time engrossed the affectionate interest and respectful regard of all Australians, as the discoverer, or, if you will, the re-discoverer of the eastern side of New Holland, will not suffer in our esteem by the criticism of a book about the voyage.

Though that side happened to be that chosen for the New South Wales early settlement, yet the people of South Australia, Western Australia, Queensland, New Zealand, and Tasmania, with its emigrating offspring of Port Phillip—now Victoria—lands first seen by Hollanders a century or more before Cook was born, have the like reverence as those of Sydney for the indirect cause of British extension in those Southern Colonies.

Canada is as indebted to the scientific pilot of the St. Lawrence for the addition of its western woodlands to the British Empire, as the continent and islands of Australia may be to the Yorkshire mariner on the Pacific, for their occupation by our countrymen under the Crown.

No one who reads with pleasure the Voyage of the Resolution, about which no doubts ever existed, will think the less of James Cook, because the narrative of the Endeavour had the misfortune to be prepared, in his absence, by a less capable historian. As the worthy Captain always candidly acknowledged his inability, from defective education, and from absorption in seamanlike pursuits from his early boyhood, to tell his own tale, we naturally wonder how Dr. Hawkesworth compiled the adventurous voyage of the Endeavour.

The natural answer would be the Logs and Journals of the voyagers. Cook himself wrote very little, but there are now in existence several Journals attributed to him, or written under his direction. Those in the so-called Queen's Log, the Admiralty Log, the British Museum Log (presented by Banks), and that one in the possession of the Hudson family at Sunderland. There is, also, in the British Museum one precious Autograph Log whose records included the Australian portion of the voyage, in Cook's handwriting, and the only one extant which we expect can claim to be written by himself. Others are reported copies, by ships' clerks, sent home from Java.

What great differences may be observed even in these Logs? or, in what way does the official "Cook's Voyage" differ from any of them?

The most important points are those affecting the names of Botany Bay and New South Wales, with the language used in taking possession of the new Territory.

We have next to consider whether there are Logs remaining which were compiled by officers of the ship Endeavour.

A few years ago, behind some old wainscotting in the Deptford Government Victualling Yard, were discovered several Logs of the interesting ship, which are now safely preserved in the admirably conducted Public Record Office, Chancery Lane.

Do these veritable Logs and Journals throw any light upon the disputed questions respecting Botany Bay and New South Wales? The plain unvarnished tale of seamen, though oftentimes copied from each other, yet evidently written down at the period of the occurrence of events, may be set against the much varied accounts attributed to Cook himself, and in copies recorded to have been sent home from Java, where so many of the crew were sick.

But these copies were, apparently, made by the same transcribers, and done upon the same plan. There were blank spaces left for the day and date, with other spaces for the after insertion of the locality visited. It is not a little singular that our navigator should allow these Logs to be sent forth in so incomplete a state. It is not to be wondered that, if en route, or upon arrival in England, such copies should have these spaces more or less filled up, according to order, or to the fancy of the copyist.

We are thus prepared for the remarkable aspect of one called after its salesman, Mr. Corner, and now in Sydney's custody.

I had three opportunities, as a supposed expert, of examining that Log. I pointed out, in a personal interview with a distinguished Admiralty authority, my reasons for doubt as to its authenticity as a genuine Cook.

Corner's Log has side references in a hand differing from that in the text. The days named are clearly written by another party, and in red ink. The first copyist never ventured to name place or date, but left the open spaces to be filled by another. This Log names both Point Hicks and Cape Howe, unknown in earlier copies of the voyage chronicles.

There is some reason to think that Corner's document may have served as one of the authorities with Dr. Hawkesworth. Thus, it records "the bay which I called Edgecombe Bay," while the published work says "the bay I called Edgecombe Bay." Corner has it, of a native woman, "had nothing to cover her nudities"; but the author states "both were stark naked." In cases, the penknife was used: as, Iron Head was altered to Cape Cleveland, and both Rockingham and Halifax Bays were afterthoughts, judging from the former erasures being unsuccessfully performed.

The Logs of the Endeavour could not have troubled the authors of "Cook's Voyage" over much, discrepancies appearing so often between them (the supposed medium of information) and the printed volume; so much absurd or such unnecessary matters being introduced, with so large an extent of imagination employed.

These supposed Journalistic sources being frequently absent, the Doctor was treated by some as a mere romancer. It is singular that, while the assertion was repeated that he regulated his descriptions by the Journals, nothing is ever said as to what became of them, and the very names of the writers are not mentioned. Dalrymple, the great naval historian, declared at the first that Dr. Hawkesworth had not collated all the Journals, "as these indubitably prove"; adding, "there are many Journals he never once looked into." Dalrymple evidently knew something of them, and challenged Hawkesworth to give a list of the Journals he had incorporated.

The simple fact that the Doctor dwells so much upon Botany Bay and New South Wales, places never mentioned by the great majority of Logs in our present possession, shows singular carelessness, or a doggedness in maintaining a personal conviction wanting confirmation. The Monthly Review of August, 1773, admits the confusion of a composite style in having each Commander telling his own story, with the Doctor's reflections being intermixed, so that the result is a medley of seaman and philosopher, employing indiscriminately the "language of the Log book and the Portico."

COOK'S LOGS.

These are of two ages, determined by their contents. Those which introduce Stingray Bay instead of Botany Bay, and which mention neither New South Wales nor New Wales pertain to the primitive order, executed while on the voyage, like the logs of the Lieutenant, the Gunner, the Boatswain, the Master's-Mate, &c.

Of this class there are two in the British Museum, one of which (a copy) was presented there by Cook's friend, Sir Joseph Banks, and the other, containing only a portion of the voyage, written in Cook's own hand as seen in his own official letters. Outside the Museum only one Log can be identified as genuine; being, though a copy, signed by Cook, and declared to be a present from the Captain himself to his friend and patron, Sir Hugh Palliser, and ever since remaining in the custody of the Palliser family.

These three Logs know nothing of New South Wales nor Botany Bay.

Several other Logs, purporting to have been sent home later by the Captain, have filled up spaces with the names of New South Wales, Port Jackson, and Botany Bay, all unknown to Captain Cook or Lieutenant Hickes.

It does not yet appear that Dr. Hawkesworth, Editor of the Voyage of the Endeavour, had access to any original Cook's Log or Journal. Sir Joseph Banks is said to have repudiated supplying the Doctor with any material. Cook and his Lieutenant were absent on another voyage, nor does any other person connected with the voyage, as Dr. Solander and James Matra, appear to have communicated information. The Editor was perforce driven to make use of other and less reliable sources for his story, framed, as it was, on the model of a personal narrative—the Adventures of Captain Cook.

That Journal of Cook's presented by Sir Joseph Banks, and still to be examined by a visitor at the Museum, is numbered among the "Additional Manuscripts" as 8959. It is well bound, bearing at the back the words Mus. Brit.—ex legato—Banks, Bart.—8959. The priceless copy in Cook's own hand, well written, if not always correctly spelled, is numbered 27,885 in the Museum Catalogue, and contains on a fly-sheet at the beginning the statement that the Log was purchased of Messrs. Borne on 13th of May, 1868.

Cook's own Journal is known generally as the Autograph, from bearing his correct signature. The transcriber of the Endeavour Log, 8959, possessed by Banks, wrote in a neat but rather small hand, very different from Cook's. It is, as might be well expected of such an early Journal, though passing through Banks's hands, ignorant of the existence of a Botany Bay, but refers to Skeats rather than Stingray, after which Cook's Autograph Log names the Bay. It has neither Point Hickes nor Cape Howe as in later days, though indicating Pidgeon's House Hill and Mount Dromedary. Yet we have smoaks and smooks as in Cook's own hand work.

THE PALLISER LOG.

The Palliser Log, presented by Cook himself to his old American Commander and patron, Admiral Sir Hugh Palliser, was examined by me in Sunderland, when invited there by its owner for some days, Mr. R. W. Hudson, the northern shipowner. His lady, a Palliser, assured me the book had never been out of the possession of the family since Cook's gift.

I read therein:—

"This Book was a Present from Captain Cook to Sir Hugh Palliser, containing his Logg from the 27th May, 1768, to the 11th June, 1771, during his voyage on board the Endeavour Bark, sent to make observations on the Transit of Venus in the South Seas, and afterwards to make discoveries in the Southern Hemisphere."

The book was bound in red morocco, gold bordered, with a fancy back, and marked:—

"Cook's Logg Book, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771."

Though not, as I saw at once, wholly in Cook's handwriting, the record had no knowledge either of Botany Bay or of New South Wales, but had the Cook's style of spelling, as: "severell smokes were seen," and "saw smokes upon the shore." What was afterwards known as Botany Bay is there called "Sting Ray Harbour."

Apart from the Museum Logs, this one is undoubtedly the best authenticated Cook's Log.

THE DEPTFORD LOGS.

Among the profound Endeavour mysteries must be cited the extraordinary disappearance of the Log books of officers in the ship.

It was according to naval rule that any so compiled should, at the expiration of the voyage, be deposited with the naval authorities. After a hundred years or so a number of Endeavour Logs were discovered behind some wainscotting at the Deptford Victualling Yard. They were safely conveyed to the good custody of the officers of the London Record Office, Chancery Lane. They could not have been seen by Dr. Hawkesworth any more than those of Cook himself.

The one by Lieutenant Hickes was kept from May 27, 1768, to March 14, 1771. Third Lieutenant Gore became Second Lieutenant March 26, 1770. Bootie's Log was from May 17, 1768, to September 3, 1770; Forward's, May 17, 1768, to September 26, 1770; Green, astronomer, September 24, 1763, to October 3, 1770; C. Clerke's, August 26, 1768, to October 3, 1770; Wilkinson's, June 22, 1768, to August 3, 1770; Pickersgill's, June 10, 1768, to September 29, 1770; Lieutenant Gore's from July 3, 1768, to December 7, 1769. An unsigned Log was from May 27, 1768, to September 28, 1770; a second from August 26, 1768, to July 15, 1769; a third, May 27, 1768, to September 28, 1770; and a fourth from May 27, 1768, to January 9, 1770.

George Nowell was Carpenter; Samuel Evans, Boatswain. The Quarter-master Thierman, and Widowson came from New York. James Magra, afterwards Matra, of New York, volunteered as seaman, but rose to be Midshipman, and the special friend, through many years, of Sir Joseph Banks, whose correspondence is in the Museum. Not one of the Deptford Logs knows Botany Bay or New South Wales.

How came these seamen's Logs hidden? Why was their testimony not to be forthcoming in the book? Had the discovery of the Dauphin Map, 1542, put Stingray Bay out of court, and induced the Editor, not Banks, nor Cook, to revive the ancient name of Baie des Plantes? Did Banks and Solander object to the removal of Cook's name, or were other and higher influences at work to conceal the Deptford Logs, so that all might hear only Botany Bay and New South Wales? But the Record Office has the Deptford hidden Logs, that came to tell another tale than that of the official publication.