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_."