Produced by Martin Pettit and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from scans of public domain works at The National
Library of Australia.)






+-------------------------------------------------+
|Transcriber's note:                              |
|                                                 |
|Superscript characters are prefixed with         |
|the 'carat' sign ^.                              |
|                                                 |
+-------------------------------------------------+


CAPTAIN COOK IN
NEW SOUTH WALES

OR
THE MYSTERY OF NAMING
BOTANY BAY

BY
JAMES BONWICK, F.R.G.S.
AUTHOR OF "GEOGRAPHY OF AUSTRALIA," "LAST OF THE TASMANIANS,"
ETC., ETC.

SAMPSON LOW, MARSTON AND CO., LTD.
ST. DUNSTAN'S HOUSE, FETTER LANE
1901


RICHARD CLAY AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BUNGAY.




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 _deavour_, 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.




BOTANY BAY.

LOG REFERENCES.


The Cook's _Museum Autograph Log_, 27,885, has this version of the visit
to the Bay:--


     "_Sunday, April 29, 1770._--Gentle breezes and settled weather. At
     3 p.m. anchored in 7 fathom water in a place which I call'd
     Sting-Ray Harbour, the South point bore S.E., and the North point
     East distant from the south shore 1 mile. We saw several of the
     natives on both sides of the Harbour as we came in, and a few
     hutts, women, and children on the north shore opposite to the place
     where we anchor'd, and where I soon after landed with a party of
     men, accompanied by Mr. Banks, Dr. Solander, and Tupia--as we
     approached the shore the natives all made off except two men, who
     at first seem'd resolved to oppose our landing. We endeavour'd to
     gain their consent to land by throwing them some nails, beeds, &c.,
     ashore, but this had not the desired effect, for as we put into the
     shore one of them threw a large stone at us, and as soon as we
     landed they threw 2 darts at us, but the firing of two or three
     musquets loaded with small shott they took to the woods, and we saw
     them no more. We found here a few poor Hutts, made of the Bark of
     trees, in one of which were hid 4 or 5 Children, with whom we left
     some strings of Beeds, &c. After searching for fresh water without
     success except a little in a small hole--dug in the sand--we
     embarqued and went over to the north point of the Bay, where in
     coming in we saw several of the natives--but when we now landed we
     saw nobody, but we here found some fresh water, which came
     trinkling down and stood in Pools among the rocks, but as this was
     troublesome to get at I sent a party of men ashore in the morning
     abreast of the Ship to dig holes in the Sand, by which means we
     found fresh water, sufficient to water the Ship. After breakfast I
     sent some empty casks ashore to fill, and a party of men to cut
     Wood, and went myself in the Pinnace to sound and explore the Bay,
     in the doing of which I saw several of the natives, who all fled at
     my approach."


In reference to the name of BOTANY BAY, Cook's _Autograph Log_, numbered
27,885, Additional Manuscripts, British Museum, must have the first
place. There we read:--


     "_Remarks on May the 6th, 1770._" "Pleasent weather. People emp^d
     wooding," &c.


Afterwards came the Bay news, thus:--


     "The Yawl return'd from fishing, having caught two Sting rays,
     whose weight was near 600 lbs. The great quantity of these sort of
     fish found in the place occasioned my giving it the name of
     _Sting-Ray Harbour_. Light airs and fair weather."


The _Endeavour_ or Banks's Log, 8,959 of Museum, under date May 6,
simply remarks: "Caught two Skeat whose weight was near 600 lbs."; but
the ship left without naming the _Stingray_ or Skeat Bay in this log.

The PALLISER Log, a direct present from Captain Cook to his old patron,
Sir Hugh Palliser, and ever since preserved in the family, though not
positively in Cook's handwriting, is signed by him, and must be ever
considered of the highest authority. It knows nothing of _Botany Bay_.


Extracts from the Palliser Log.

Remarks, &c., in Stingray Harbour:--


     "Gentle breezes and settled wea^r. At 3 p.m. Anchor'd in 7 fa.
     water in a place which I called Sting-Ray Harbour, the S^o. point
     Bore S.E., and the N^o. p^t. East Dist. from the S. Shore 1 Mile.
     We saw Severell of the Natives on both sides of the Harbour as we
     came in, and a few Hutts, women, and children, on the North Shore
     opposite the place were we anchor'd, and where I soon after Landed
     with a party of men, Accompanied by Mr. Banks, Dr. Sollander, and
     Tupia. As we approached the Shore the Natives all made off, except
     two men who at first seemed resolved to oppose our landing. We
     endeavour'd to gain there Consent to land by throwing them some
     Nails, Beeds &c. ashore, but this had not the desir'd effect but as
     we put in to the shore, one of them threw a Large stone at us and
     as soon as we landed they threw 2 darts at us but the Fireing of 2
     or 3 musquets loaded with small shott they took to the woods and we
     saw them no more. We found here a few Old hutts made of the Bark of
     Trees in one of which were hid 4 or 5 children with whom we left
     some strings of beeds &c^a. After searching for fresh water,
     without Success Except a little in a small hole dug in the Sand we
     embarqued."


Remarks on Monday, 6 May, 1770:--


     "The Yawl returnd from fishing having Caught 2 Stingrays the weight
     of which was near 600 lb. The great quantity of these sort of fish
     found here. Occasioned my giving it the Name of _Stingray
     Harbour_."


THE LIEUTENANT'S LOG AND STING REA BAY

The most reliable opinion as to matters connected with a voyage may be
expected from the first mate or chief officer of a vessel. Lieutenant
Zackary Hickes, whose log of the ship _Endeavour_ was recovered a few
years ago, gives his "Remarks on board his Majesty's Barque _Endeavour_
New Holland, 1770." Therein we read for successive days:


     "Moor'd in Sting Rea Bay."


While there, on Sunday, April 29, he wrote:


     "Hoisted y^e boats out, and y^e Capn^n &c. attempting to land was
     opposed by a few of y^e Natives who dispersed on being wounded with
     small shot. In y^e evening returned having found a watering place."


Zackary Hickes notes their leaving Sting Rea Bay, May 8th. Under
latitude 34° 6″ he writes:


     "Moored in _Sting Rea Bay_ the mouth of the Bay from E. to N.E. ½
     E. distant from the shore ¾ mile."


On May 17 his progress was "Sting ree bay 2° 00 E^t." The Chief Officer
knew nothing of Botany Bay.

RICH^D PICKERSGILL is the signature to what is called "A Logg of ye
Proceedings, &c." He was master's mate for the ship. After stating on
April 28:--


     "Moor'd in Sting ray Bay," it adds: "April 29. At 3 the Cap^n &c
     went ashore and were opposed on landing by 2 of the Nat^s whom they
     were obliged to sting with small shot which frighted them into y^e
     woods."


On May 4 he notes "striking Stingerrays."


     "May 5, 1770--_Stingerray Bay_ lies in Lat^d 34·06 S & Long^d W^t
     of Long^d on 20·43. It is form'd by two Low P^ts between which
     their is a passage of one mile with 12 f^ms water on the E^t side
     lies a Little Island and off y^e S^o end of it is a Shore where the
     Sea some times Breaks after you are in the Bay spreads and tends to
     y^e w^t ward for about 6 or 7 Miles and then ends in two large
     Lagoons off the S^o shores lies large flats with only 6 & 7 feet
     water upon them is a great Quantity of Stingerrays the Bay is very
     Shole but there is a Channel which lies open to y^e entrance with 5
     and 6 f^m water, but after you are two miles within it sholes to 3
     the Bay is about 4 Miles Broad and has a regular tide. The Country
     is very rich and fertile and has a fine appear^ce we saw a large
     tree which grows allone and yealds a Gum like Dragons Blood this we
     found in great Quantitys sticking to y^e Bark the Tree on which it
     grows is very large & spreads, but does not grow Stright nor tall
     besides we saw a wood which has a grain like oak and would be very
     durable if used for Building the leaves are like a Pine leaf the
     Soil is a light sandy black earth mix'd but is very shallow upon
     digging we found vast Quantitys of Oyster Shells which seem'd to
     have been underground a great while We also found a Tree which bore
     a red berry about y^e size of a Cherry, but they grew only in one
     Place--the inhabitants are so shy that we had no kind of Intercous
     with them they us'd to come down every evening arm'd with Lances
     and wooden Swords they appeard very thin and had their faces Daub'd
     over with some thing white one day as the Surgeon was walking in
     the woods which is all clear of under wood he had a Lance hove at
     him out of a tree but the man made of this was all we saw of them
     except when they were fishing off in their canoes which are very
     small & made of Bark they carry one man who paddles with two small
     pieces of wood they use them in striking fish on y^e flats their
     Houses are several Pieces of Bark sett up against an other & open
     at each end and are the worst I ever saw the people have nothing to
     cover themselves but go quite naked men & women, and are the most
     wretched sett I ever beheld or heard of."


Green's Log is by the astronomer of the expedition. He heads his page
"Coasting New Holland northward." Though he puts April 28 for 29, his
Botany Bay visit is thus recorded:--


     "Hoisted out the boats at 3 the Cap^tn &c with Marines and boat's
     crew arm'd attempted landing but were opposed on the rocks of Sandy
     beach by 2 Indians with 4 prong'd wooden fish gigs tipt at the ends
     with 4 fish bones and fastened to y^e wood with a gummy resinous
     substance; one of them under cover of a shield approach'd the boats
     and threw his Gig and in return was wounded with small shot. They
     now fled & with them a woman and 6 or 7 boys.

     "On the beach they found 3 or 4 canoes made of the bark of a tree
     gather'd up at either end and stuck open with a few sticks for
     thwarts--the houses too (about 5) were no more than angular Kennels
     made by binding a piece of bark in the middle and resting either
     end on the ground encreasing the N^o of the pieces of bark
     according to ye length desired."


An _unnamed_ log has the same account of the Bay.

The _Log_ signed _Cha Clerke_ is, like others of the early Cook age,
wholly innocent of a reference to _Botany Bay_.

This is its treatment of April 29th:--


     "Moored in _Sting Rea_ bay. Little wind and fair. ½ past 1 came
     too with y^e B.B. in 6½ fa sandy ground hoisted y^e boats out.
     The Cap &c attempting to Land was opposed by a few natives who
     dispersed on being wounded by small shot, in y^e evening they
     returned having found a watering place."


On Saturday, May 5, we read:--


     "Moored in Sting Rea Bay."


The WILKINSON'S Log ranges from June 22, 1768, to August 3, 1770. Under
April 29 we have this report:--


     "Little wind and fair W ½ past 1 came too with the Bower in 6½
     fm water, sandy ground. Hoisted out the Boats at 3 P.M. the Capt
     and Mr. Banks and Dr. Sollander went on Shore and was Opposed by
     the Natives at their landing on account the Captain was obledg to
     Sting one with Small Shot. After they all retired to the woods in
     the Evening the Cap^t having found a watering place" &c.


On May 5 is recorded:--


     "Moored in _Stingray Bay_, New Holland."


In "A Logg of the Proceedings of His Majesty's barque _Endeavour_,"
commencing May 27, 1768, to September 26, 1770, _Step^n Forwood_,
gunner, writes:--


     "_Remarks on Sting Ray Bay New Holland._ Little wind and fair
     weather ½ past 1 came too with B^n B^r in 6½ fath^m water
     Sandy ground. Hoisted out the Boats and the Cap^t and Gentlemen
     went on Shore but were Opposed in landing by two Indians standing
     on the Shore with their Spears in their Hands Ready to heave at the
     Boat. Notwithstanding the Cap^t tried all Means to Perswaid them to
     Lay their wapons down by Heaving them on shore Presents but all to
     no purpose. At last finding Nothing would do the Cap^t fired a Load
     of small Shott at them which so frightend them that they Run into
     the woods After finding a watering Place the boats returned."


An unsigned Log of the _Endeavour_ was kept from August 26, 1768, to
September 28, 1770. Its account of the Bay entered April 29 was:--


     "Little wind & fair wea^r ½ past 1 came too with the B^t Bower in
     6½ fam Sandy Ground. Hoisting the Boats out at 3 the Captain and
     Mr. Banks & Dr. Sollander went on shore. They were opposed in
     attempting to land by some of the Natives whom they were obliged to
     sting with some shotts which frightened them in to the woods--in
     the Evening the Capt^n Returnd having found a watering Place."


The Log in the possession of the Admiralty, differing only in the
inferiority of writing from that called the _Queen's Log_, is similar to
others and later so-called Cook's copies.

Neither of them cites the first named _Stingray_ or _Sting Rea_ Bay. But
the Admiralty Log records two sorts of trees there, one hard, heavy and
black like _Lignum Vitæ_, and the other "tall and straight something
like Pines."

Then follows:


     "The great quantity of new plants &c Mr. Banks & Dr. Solander
     collected in this place occasioned my giving it the name BOTANY BAY
     it is situated in the Lat^de 34°. 11 S. Long 208°."


The Admiralty Log notes what none of the old Cook's Logs knew.


     "Abreast of a Bay or Harbour wherein there appeared to be safe
     anchorage which I called PORT JACKSON it lies 3 Legs to the
     northw^d of Botany Bay."


Other Logs only notice it as an inlet, but add no name.


CORNER'S LOG.

Around this production the battle has raged awhile. As it was exposed
for sale more than once, failing to attract attention, and had evidently
been manipulated, suspicion was naturally excited, and one well known
official expert assured me it was practically worthless. A bad
impression was made by the assertion of Mr. Corner that the _Log_ was in
Cook's handwriting. As the Record Office, as well as the British Museum,
could show a number of Cook's own letters, official and private, experts
could not be deceived.

It may, nevertheless, have proceeded from the same source as some others
of a later date, as that one in Royal Possession, and the one in the
keeping of the Admiralty. In fact, the latter is very similar in its
text to _Corner's_ Log, always excepting the reference to _Botany Bay_
instead of Cook's own appellation of _Stingray Harbour_, and the
insertion of the name of _New South Wales_, or _New Wales_, instead of
the total absence of those words in ALL the Logs of Cook and his
officers.

It was evident to me, as to others, that several copies, more or less
similar, had been sent to England after the last day's record in any
_Log_ upon leaving New Holland, the name of which is alone the heading
of any page of a _Log_.

I have not seen the so-called _Queen's_ Log, but any one who examined
_Corner's_ Log, as many did, would see that it came here originally with
blank spaces for certain days, and others were vacant to receive the
proper names of places, which had, it is to be presumed, to be added in
this country!!

It is, however, not a little puzzling to find that Cook, who is
_reported_ to have sent these copies from Batavia, while staying there,
should have allowed a copy for the Admiralty to go off with NEW SOUTH
WALES as the name of the new territory, and send another (Corner's)
bearing the denomination of NEW WALES. Still more extraordinary that
Cook's own well ascertained _Logs_, two in the British Museum and one at
Sunderland--the only ones extant--should have neither _New South Wales_,
_New Wales_, nor _Botany Bay_ mentioned.

The knowledge of such circumstances might well have caused experts to
entertain doubts.

I had this hawked-about _Log_ in my possession, and took tracings of
portions, satisfying a well-known historian, and valued public officer
at the Record Office, that the Log before us had been tampered with.

Although one of the empty spaces had, as in other cases, been filled up,
in a handwriting different from that in the text, as _Port Jackson_,
which never appears in the Logs of Cook and his officers, it was easy to
suppose it referred to a Secretary to the Admiralty, Sir George Jackson,
afterwards recognised as Sir George Duckett, the great friend to Bishop
Stortford.

Erasures and re-writing are not confined to _Botany Bay_. _Rockingham
Bay_ has evidently had two earlier changes. Halifax Bay has similarly
suffered. If adopted, as some fancy, as the Log used by Dr. Hawkesworth,
considerable freedom was used.

The signatures to all Cook's genuine logs and copies is _Jam^s Cook_,
with a grand flourish; but Corner's has _James Cook_ only.


CORNER AND BOTANY BAY.

_Corner's Log_, having been re-written, corrected in spelling, &c., and
afterwards printed and circulated as a veritable Cook's Log, what it had
to say about _Botany Bay_ may reasonably excite the deepest interest and
attention.

In various Logs, elsewhere described, the Bay has been called _Sting
Rea_ or _Ray Harbour_, and the reason stated in Cook's own words, and
those of his chief officer, was on account of the numbers of the fish
_Stingray_, _Skeats_, or _Skate_.

Corner's, May 6th, says, on the contrary:


     "The great quantity of _plants_ Mr. Banks and Dr. Solander found in
     this place occasioned my giving it the name of _Botany Bay_."


On May 30th we read of:


     "The same sort of Water Fowl as we saw in _Botany Bay_."


We cannot avoid expressing surprise at finding that the gentleman whose
duty it was to fill up the vacant spaces, purposely left open for the
insertion of names of places, was not always correct in orthography. He
may have intended always to write _Botany_, but varied it in _Bottany_,
_Bottony_, _Bottonest_, _Botony_, _Botanist_.

He is not sure even when describing "which I called _Port Jackson_" as
he is led to write, "it lies 3 Leag^s to the Northw^d of _Botóny Bay_."

When, however, we come carefully to examine the full original paragraph
about Botany Bay, we seem to understand the mode of action. The
alteration was not made by the first copyist of the _Log_, nor by one
particular person afterwards. There may have been some doubt even then
about the settlement, or else why the erasure of one way of spelling,
the substitution of another, and even traces of further erasure before
final arrangement of name.

It was this that excited my suspicions. I was very candid in statement
to some officials at the Admiralty of my honest belief that there had
been some foul play in London. Later on, when I had again, with others,
looked at the real journals in the British Museum, regarded, and copied,
the _Logs_ found at the Deptford Victualling Yard, and especially had
made personal inspection for three days at Sunderland of a Log given by
Cook himself to his old Admiral, Sir Hugh Palliser, my doubts of this
Log were confirmed.

Let us now refer to the original Corner's Log, transported by purchase
from Mr. Corner, to New South Wales, where, if not further affected, it
will be seen as I state.

If the reader mentally divide the Botany Bay story, under May 6, he will
discover first the usual Log transcriber. In the space which he left,
_by somebody's order_, he would perceive quite a different hand ("plants
Mr. Banks and Dr. Solander"). Then returns the first hand, "found in
this place occasioned my giving it the name of" ----. Another space is
filled with a half erased second-hand "Botóny" followed by the word in
original "_bay_."

In a tracing I took some years ago, under head of May 6, I read:
"appeared to be safe anchorage which I called" (in original hand); but
in the space adjoining, in the second hand I read: "_Port Jackson_."
Then, as usual, the first resumed: "it lies 3 Leag^s to the Northw^d
of." After a space, or, rather, within the space, is a bungling
"_Bottony_" Bay.

Under May 13 we read: "we found (in the space) _Bottonist_ Harbour."
Eight lines lower, though in distinctly altered form, we read: "saw at
_Botany_ Harbour."

How different all this from the unaltered, unspaced account by the
Captain's copy, given by himself to Sir Hugh Palliser, in which it only
says: "The great Quantity of these sort of fish found here occasion'd
my giving it the name of Stingray Harbour"!

So it is hardly correct to say, "It is, however, called _Botany Bay_
from the first in the Journals," any more than "No autograph Journal is,
so far as is known, in existence."

The fact of this "Corner's Log" becoming another ground for the
publication of one, or many more, "_Cook's Endeavour_," can arise only
from the supposition of its likeness to the so-called "_Queen's Log_"
and "_Admiralty Log_." But these, admitted to be copies, cannot compare
with the one personally sent by Cook, with his signature, to Palliser,
or that sent to the British Museum as Cook's by his companion on the
voyage, Sir Joseph Banks; or, far more, that in Cook's _own hand_ and
_signature_, as seen in his own official letters.

Yet this Harbour was placed on a French map, dating from the reign of
our Henry VIII, as _Baie des Herbages_.


Geographers have not been the most reticent upon the singularity and
apparent after-thought of the name _Botany Bay_. It was hardly to be
expected that Cook, though a skilled draftsman and interested in charts,
would trouble himself about old _Mappemondes_, dealing with localities
that were scarcely likely to come in his way, or, at any rate, until his
appointment to observe the Transit of Venus in the Northern Pacific; yet
he was not ignorant of what French navigators had done. In the British
Museum one may see his translation of a French Voyage from Havre up the
St. Lawrence. This copy is dated 1755. He may, therefore, be credited
with the knowledge of French Mappemondes before the Fronde Civil Wars;
in which charts, parts, at least, of Australia were delineated, and of
dates anterior to Dutch movements.

The _Gazette Nationale_ of February 11, 1807, discusses the question as
to the possibility of Cook making acquaintance of a celebrated map in
London, before the _Endeavour_ sailed in August, 1768.

That wonderful and precious _Dauphin Mappemonde_, which I have seen at
the Museum, dating from 1542, might not have been known to
non-scientific Englishmen, but found a home at last in our Museum. Was
Dr. Solander, Cook's botanical fellow-voyager, curator at the Museum
when it arrived there? Were he or his friend Banks aware of its
existence, or only learnt of it after their return? On that Map the
_whole_ eastern coast of New Holland, afterwards known as New South
Wales, is laid down distinctly.

In that case, there was no marvel in Cook's striking from New Zealand,
in a _direct_ line to the southern extremity of that coast, at Cape
Howe, and following the shore northward, instead of seeking a connection
with the Dutch Nuyt's discovery to the south-west. He would be going
over the old waters traversed by the ships from Spain and Portugal.

That gorgeous Dauphin map had its places marked in a sort of Frenchified
Portuguese, as if a Dieppe cartographer had not got hold of the right
words, or had, for a purpose, disguised them. Thereon, however, we read
"coste dangerouse" about the spot where Cook was afterwards wrecked, as
well as _Baie des Plantes_ on the site of our _Botany Bay_.

The _Gazette Nationale_ writer notes that the _Dauphin_ map, marked with
the Arms of France, was discovered, by chance, in the house of a private
person, and asks if the news of it could have reached the Dutch, and so
got known to a few English before its real presence in London about
1767, it not being there in 1766.

Referring to the Librarian, Solander, the French critic of 1807 adds:
"That the denomination of _Baie des Plantes_, which he had read upon the
Map confided to him, might be a fresh stimulus in the hope of botanizing
on this unknown coast, since the memory of it no longer existed, and
particularly in a place designated by a name so attractive to him."

It is curious that Cook gave Solander's name to the south point of the
bay, "as if," says the French writer, "he were pleased to compliment his
botanical friend, on perceiving at length this land, the object of his
desires, where since it was already named the _Bay of Plants_, he must
have hoped to reap an ample harvest."

Yet the secret, if so, was well kept till _after_ the voyage of the
_Endeavour_, since then _only_ did the name of _Botany Bay_ appear in
Dr. Hawkesworth's work. In all Cook's old _Logs_ we see merely
_Stingray_ or _Skeat Bay_, and similarly in _all_ the Logs or journals
of the chief officers and the petty officers.

Or, had Dr. Hawkesworth, Cook, Banks and Solander meanwhile made
acquaintance with the appellation of _Baie des Plantes_ and appropriated
it for history? This theory would account for the various alterations of
_Botany_ on Corner's Log.




THE TAKING POSSESSION OF THE TERRITORY.


The variations upon this subject are very remarkable.

Without noting what is contained in the so-called "Official History" of
the "Voyage in the _Endeavour_," it must be allowed that _reported Logs_
of Cook, now in the possession of the Sovereign and the Admiralty, give
the general statement that Possession of the Territory was taken by
Cook, after leaving the eastern side of New Holland, in the usual form,
in the name of the King, as NEW SOUTH WALES. By that name Dr.
Hawkesworth publicly acknowledges the country in his work; and by that
name it has since been known. It is so seen in the Admiralty Log, though
Corner calls it _New Wales_.

The official story of taking Possession, as given by Dr. Hawkesworth, is
as follows:


     "As we were now about to quit the eastern coast of New Holland,
     which I had coasted from latitude 38° to this place, and which I am
     confident no European had ever seen before, I once more hoisted
     English colours, and although I had already taken possession of
     several particular parts, I now took possession of the whole
     eastern coast from latitude 38° to this place, lat. 10° 55″ , in
     right of His Majesty King George the Third, by the name of NEW
     SOUTH WALES, with all the bays, harbours, rivers and Islands
     situated upon it; we then fired three vollies of small arms, which
     were answered by the same number from the ship. Having performed
     this ceremony upon the Island, which we called POSSESSION ISLAND,
     we re-embarked in our boat, but a rapid ebb tide setting NE made
     our return to the vessel very difficult and tedious."


The Admiralty Log contains, like some other later journals, this
version:--


     "I now once more hoisted English Colours and in the name of His
     Maj^y King George the Third took Possession of the whole Eastern
     Coast from the above Lat^de. down to this place by the name of
     NEW SOUTH WALES together with all the Bays Harbours Rivers and
     Islands situate upon the said Coast upon which we fir'd 3 Volleys
     of Small arms which were answer'd by the like number from the
     ship."


Although Corner's Log resembles the Admiralty one so nearly, being one
among several copies made while Cook was staying to refresh in Java, yet
it, curiously enough, calls the land NEW WALES, which according to me
would give the copy some priority to other copies thence.

Corner's Log has this story of the Possession:


     "The Eastern Coast from the sea of 38°.1″ down to this place, I am
     confident was never seen or visited by any European power before us
     and notwithstanding I had in the name of his Maj^y taken possession
     of several places on this coast, I now once more hoisting colours
     in the name of His Maj. King George the Third took Possession of
     the whole Eastern Coast from the above lat^de. down to this place
     by the Name of NEW WALES, together with all the Bays."


This log, therefore, commits Cook to the distinct affirmation that he
was the first European who had either seen or visited any part of that
eastern coast. He effectually disposes of the claims of Dutch, Spanish
and Portuguese navigators.

Before dismissing this log, I would call attention to a notable
observation on the margin of one page, which I recognised to be in
Cook's own handwriting, and which, though no evidence of the log itself
having been composed by the Captain, must be reported as once having
been in his hand, at some time or other. Here are the words:


     "This day I restore Mr. Magra to his duty as I did not find him
     guilty of the crimes laid to his charge."


The _crimes_ consisted in some ridicule of Orton, the Captain's clerk,
when exhibiting himself in a state of intoxication. Magra, or rather
Matra, a gentleman volunteering for the voyage as a seaman, had, upon
the discovery of his ability, enforced by the active recommendation of
Mr. Banks, been made a midshipman, from which position he had been
degraded for a few days on account of the part he was known to have
taken in this frolic.

It is interesting and important here to note that this very James Matra,
travelling companion with Mr. (afterwards Sir Joseph) Banks, was the
_direct instrument_ of the establishment of the English Colony of New
South Wales. He, encouraged by Banks, petitioned the Ministry that the
land, even then recognized as New South Wales, should be appropriated as
a colony for English settlers in America, who had lost their all in
supporting the English Government against the American rebels. Mr. Pitt,
however, preferred a settlement of persons taken from overcrowded
English gaols.

This log incorrectly signs the Captain's name as _James_ Cook, not
_Jam^s_, the correct way, so continuously used by himself.

An unnamed Deptford Log has this reference to the taking possession on
Wednesday, August 22, 1770:--


     "At 6 Possession was taken of this country in his Maj'^s. Name
     &c. by hoisting a Jack on shore, this was announced from the Ship
     with colours flying; the whole concluded with 3 cheers."


The astronomer, Mr. Green, is satisfied to copy Pickersgill, saying:--


     "At 6 Possession was taken of this country in his Majesty's Name
     &c.; this was announced from the shore by Vollies and answered from
     on b^d. Colours flying and concluding with 3 cheers."


One Log, unsigned by the writer, has a description of taking possession
in similar terms to those evidently prepared on the voyage, saying:--


     "Aug. 22. The pinnace and yawl with the capt^n. and gentlemen
     went on shore to examine the contry and view the Coast. from one of
     the Hills some time after saw some Turtle. At 6 Possession was
     taken of this contry in his Majesty's Name and under his Colours,
     fired severell volleyes of small arms on y^e Occasion and cheard 3
     Times which was answ^d. from y^e ship".


_Gunner Forwood_ has a short story on Possession:--


     "The Capt^n. took Possession of the country in his Majesty's Name
     &c. This was announced from the shore Vollies Fired and Colours
     flying from on board with D^o. concluding with 3 cheers."


_John Bootie's Log_ treats the Possession narrative in the exact terms
of another, saying:--


     "August 22. At 6 possession was taken of this locality in his
     Majesty's Name &c. This was announced from the shore by Vollies and
     answered from on b^d. with Colours flying and concluding with 3
     Cheers."


Here, again, as in the other cases, the words "New South Wales" do not
occur.

The _Palliser_ or _Sunderland_ Log of Mr. Hudson's may be quoted:--


     "Betwixt these two points we could see no land, so that we were in
     great hopes we had found a passage into the India Sea, but in order
     to be a little inform'd I landed with a party of men on the Island
     which lays on the right side of the Passage where from a hill I
     could see no lands in the above direction Before and after we
     anchor'd we saw many of the Natives upon this Island, but they all
     fled upon my landing--a little before Sun sett I took Possession
     of the country in His Majesty's Name, and fired a volley of small
     arms on the occasion, which was answered from the ship."


On this _Possession_ subject we have the weightiest authority, Cook's
_autograph Log_, _Museum Catalogue_, 27,885 for August 22, when leaving
the Australian coast:--


     "We were in great hopes that we had found a passage into the India
     Sea but in order to be better inform'd I landed with a Party of men
     on the Island which lays to the S.E. side of the Passage where from
     a hill saw no land in the above direction. Before and after we
     anchor'd we saw a good many of the Natives upon this Island but
     they all fled upon my landing. A little before sunsett I took
     possession of the Country in His Majesty's name and fired 3 Volleys
     of small arms on the occasion which was answerd from the ship. High
     water at 4 o'clock," &c.


_Banks's Log_ (of Cook), 8959 of Museum Catalogue, remarked:--


     "The Pinnace and Yawl with the Capt^n. and gentlemen went on
     shore to Examine the Country and view the Coast from one of the
     Hills soon after saw some Turtle. It was high water. When we came
     too the Tide of Ebb set from the S.W. 5k. 2m. per hour. At 6
     possession was taken of this Country in his Majesty's name and
     under his Colours fired several volleys of small arms on the
     occasion and cheer'd 3 times which was answer'd from the ship."


In each case of Cook's real _Logs_ no name of any kind would appear to
have been selected for the country, else, in all probability, it would
have been stated in one or in both Logs.


The Chief Officer, Lieut. Hickes, knew nothing of taking possession of
the land in the King's name as _New South Wales_.

His Log for August 21 refers to Chacho Harbour:


     "Wednesday 22. Latt. 10° 45″ Long, made W. from y^e Straits 00° 13.
     These Straits are in Longitude 142° 25 E^t. The Capt^n. went on
     shore, hoisted y^e Colours and took possession of y^e Country for
     y^e King, fired several volleys and cheered 3 times which was
     answered from y^e Ship, at 10 a.m. slack water weighed and made
     sail."


The Log of _Richard Pickersgill_ gives this short version, imitating or
being imitated:--


     "At 6 _Possession_ was taken of this country in his Majesty's Name
     and this was announced from the shore by Vollies and answer'd from
     on b^d. Colours flying and concluding with 3 cheers."


The _Cook's Log_ presented by Sir Joseph Banks to the British Museum,
and catalogued therein as 8959, is the most important of what Logs I, as
an archivist, would regard the genuine Cook's, as it was sanctioned by
the authority of a fellow voyager.

The quotation from this Log, on the taking possession of the territory,
runs thus:--


     "Mod. and clear wea^r. saw a number of smoaks along shore at 1
     Lay too for the yawl, Pinnace and Longboat, Sounding ½ p^t. 2
     made sail and steer'd for a passage, Between some Islands and the
     Main at 3 fired a gun and made the Signell for the Boats to sound
     the next Passage, to the N.ward of the above Mention'd ¾ p^t. 3
     was in the Passage Dist^ce. from Each shore ¾ of a mile--saw
     several Indians who follow'd us shouting. At 4 fir'd a gun and made
     the Signell for the Boats. Came too with the B^t. Bower in 6¾
     fa^m. good ground Veer'd to ½ a Cable. Ext^e. of the Land on
     the East side No. 56 E^t. an Island to S.W. the Main on the
     W^t. side from N.S.E. to S. 73 W^t. 8 miles Dist^ce. from the
     Eastern shore One mile. The Pinnace and yawl with the Capt^n. and
     Gentlemen went on shore to Examin the Country and view the Coast
     from one of the Hills. Soon after saw some Turtle it was high
     water. When we came too, the Tide of Ebb set from the S.W. 3k. 2m.
     p^r. Hour, at 6 possession was taken of this Country in his
     majesty's name and under his Coulours Fired several volleys of
     small arms on the occasion and Cheer'd 3 times, which was answer'd
     from the ship."


There is, therefore, in the most orthodox Logs of H.M.S. _Endeavour_,
not any authority for the names of _Botany Bay_ and _New South Wales_.




END.


In a capital sketch of Captain Cook, appearing in the Sydney _Town and
Country Journal_ on February 22, 1879, when the noble New South Wales
statue to Captain Cook was unveiled, the writer observed, "what the
legendary Æneas was to Rome, Captain James Cook is to Eastern
Australia."

Though the remark only referred to the remarkable wanderings by both men
over various seas, the word _legendary_ may, in a way, be applied to the
two. The voyage of the _Trojan_ has been regarded by the learned men of
Europe as mythical, or, at least, explanatory of shifting reckonings of
time, or to such groupings of constellations as should elucidate human
fancies, and the inventions of quasi-historians.

Æneas was but a poetical creation, and Cook was a living hero of the
ocean. Yet, around the narratives of Cook's first southern voyage, when
he was said to have discovered Eastern Australia, have gathered so many
mysteries, as almost to give them the colour of myths.

Suspicions regarding the official account of the voyage arose at an
early date. It leaked out, from those who had accompanied Cook, that the
recorded official Admiralty narrative did not agree with their
recollection of the several facts. The death of the author soon after
the issue of his work increased the embarrassment as to the source of
the materials from which he made his compilation. The second of Cook's
voyages, so ably described by the Dean of Windsor, had the advantage of
genuine logs, together with the presence and active assistance of the
navigator himself. It unfortunately happened that most of the actors in
the first or New Holland voyage were out of reach for questions whilst
the story was being written.

Dr. Hawkesworth meant to prepare as interesting a narrative as he could,
and tried to please home parties as flatteringly as circumstances
permitted. Thus, men of science would be gratified by the selection of
the place as _Botany Bay_, an Admiralty officer would be glad of the
adoption of his name in _Port Jackson_, while the Dutch appellation of
_New Holland_ gave place to the more British one of _New South Wales_.
Even _Torres Strait_, that honoured the navigators of Spain and
Portugal, surrendered to the English name of _Endeavour Strait_.

The value of Cook's second voyage in the _Resolution_, which was brought
out by the Dean of Windsor, had the advantage of good logs, with the
presence of Captain Cook at its revision, and was, consequently, never
questioned as that of the _Endeavour_ had been under the editorship of
Dr. Hawkesworth, which had a far more novel and romantic story to tell.

In a remarkable letter to Sir Joseph Banks by John Frederick Schiller,
German translator of Hawkesworth's voyage, and dated November 14, 1773,
the writer expresses the deep concern of a German bookseller at the
wrong done to the sale of this translation by some published remarks in
England, impugning the correctness of the official Admiralty narrative.
He therefore seeks "some lines" from Sir Joseph, as Cook's fellow
voyager, in refutation of those injurious assertions. The German scholar
adds: "Mr. Ferber, an eminent mineralogist, says he has of late made a
literary tour through Europe, and after his return from England asserted
at Berlin that


     "Not only the respective Commanders, Messrs. Biron, Wallis,
     Carteret, &c., had publicly protested against Dr. Hawkesworth's
     account of their voyages, as containing misrepresented facts, but
     also that especially Messrs. Banks and Solander had publicly
     declared that they had never delivered any Papers of theirs into
     that Editor's hands, and that the Public was to wait for their own
     narrative, which was to be published within 3 or 4 years."


Mr. Schiller goes on to say: "In order to support these assertions, Mr.
Ferber is said to have produced a letter which he affirmed to have
received from Mr. Banks, and in which all these assertions are plainly
expressed and corroborated."


If, then, suspicions were excited immediately after the publication of
our authorised and popular version of Cook's voyage, it is not
surprising that further investigation, as now made, should develop
renewed scepticism. The recent record of the London Press that the
Corner's Log had been pronounced by the Admiralty experts to be genuine,
and in Cook's own handwriting, might well puzzle outsiders.

Had Sir Joseph Banks publicly answered the appeal of Mr. Schiller in
1773, and satisfied the world as to the authenticity of Dr.
Hawkesworth's story, the necessity of any subsequent controversy might
have been avoided. In that appeal to Banks and Solander "in the cause of
Truth, of Justice, of Honour and Humanity," we read that the two
naturalists "intend to publish in five or six years hence, in sixteen or
eighteen folios and two thousand copper plates, and totally unconnected
with Dr. Hawkesworth's narrative." Such a great work did not appear. Why
not? History does not tell.

There has been sufficient reason for the present writer's long silence
upon this inquiry, and particularly since he had reported on Cook's logs
some six years ago.

Now, however, as the acting archivist is just entering his eighty-fifth
year, Colonial friends here deemed it a proper time for the printing of
this pamphlet in the cause of Truth, Justice, and Honour, it being his
last contribution to Colonial history, the series of which began in 1845
by the publication of his _Geography for Australian Youth_, which was
the first production, by the Australian Press, of any _Geography of
Australia_.


JAMES BONWICK.

NORWOOD, _July 8, 1901._





End of Project Gutenberg's Captain Cook in New South Wales, by James Bonwick