Conflict of evidence between Baudin, Peron, and Freycinet as to whether
the French ships had sighted Port Phillip.
Baudin's statement corroborated by documents.
Examination of Freycinet's statement.
The impossibility of doing what Peron and Freycinet asserted was done.
One statement made by Captain Baudin to Flinders has been reserved for
separate treatment, because it merits careful examination.* (* The more
so as the conflict of evidence to be pointed out seems to have escaped
the notice of writers on Australian history. The contradictions are not
observed in Bonwick's Port Phillip Settlement, in Rusden's Discovery,
Survey, and Settlement of Port Phillip, in Shillinglaw's Historical
Records of Port Phillip, in Labilliere's Early History of Victoria, in
Mr. Gyles Turner's History of the Colony of Victoria, nor in any other
work with which the author is acquainted.)
He gave an account of the storm in Bass Strait which had separated him
from Le Naturaliste on March 21, and went on to say that "having since
had fair winds and fine weather, he had explored the south coast from
Westernport to our place of meeting without finding any river, inlet, or
other shelter which afforded anchorage." In his report to the Admiralty,
dated May 11, 1802, Flinders related what Baudin told him on this point,
in the following terms, which it is worth while to compare with those
used by him in his book, quoted above: "Captain Baudin informed me that
after parting with the Naturaliste in the Strait, in a heavy gale, he had
had fine weather, and had kept the coast close on board from Westernport
to the place of meeting, but that he had found no bay or place where a
vessel could anchor, the coast having but few bights in it, and those
affording nothing to interest." It will be seen that the official report
and the account given to the public twelve years later are in close
agreement. The important fact to be noticed is that Le Geographe had
slipped past Port Phillip without observing the entrance, and that her
captain was at this time entirely ignorant of the existence of the
harbour which has since become the seat of one of the greatest cities in
the southern hemisphere.
Now this statement, which is sufficiently surprising without the
introduction of complicating contradictions, becomes quite mysterious
when compared with the accounts given by Lieutenant Louis de Freycinet
and Francois Peron, the joint authors of the official history of the
French voyage. It is astonishing in itself, because a vessel sent out on
a voyage of exploration would not be expected to overlook so important a
feature as Port Phillip. Here was not a small river with a sandbar over
its mouth, but an extensive area of land-locked sea, with an opening a
mile and a half wide, flanked by rocky head-lands, fronted by usually
turbulent waters, at the head of a deep indentation of the coast. The
entrance to Port Phillip is not, it must be acknowledged, so easy to
perceive from the outside as would appear from a hasty examination of the
map. If the reader will take a good atlas in which there is a map of Port
Phillip, and will hold the plate in a horizontal position sufficiently
below the level of the eye to permit the entrance to be seen ALONG the
page, he will look at it very much as it is regarded from a ship at sea.*
(* A reduced copy of the Admiralty chart of the entrance (1907) is
prefixed to this chapter. The reader can perform the experiment with
that.) It will be noticed that a clear view into the port, except from a
particular angle, is blocked by the land on the eastern side (Point
Nepean) overlapping the tongue of land just inside the port on the
western side (Shortland's Bluff). Not until a vessel stands fairly close
and opposite to the entrance, so that the two lighthouses on the western
side, at Queenscliff, "open out," can the passage be discerned.* (*
Ferguson, Sailing Directions for Port Phillip, 1854--he was
harbour-master at the time--says (page 9): "Vessels having passed Cape
Schanck should keep a good offing in running down towards the entrance
until they open out the lighthouses, WHICH ARE NOT SEEN BEFORE BEARING
NORTH 1/2 EAST OWING TO THE HIGH LAND OF POINT NEPEAN INTERVENING."
Findley, Navigation of the South Pacific Ocean, 1863, has a remark about
the approach to the port from the west: "In approaching Port Phillip from
the westward, the entrance cannot be distinguished until Nepean Point,
the eastern point, bears north-north-east, when Shortland's Bluff, on
which the lighthouses are erected, opens out, and a view of the estuary
is obtained." A Treatise on the Navigation of Port Phillip, by Captain
Evans (a pilot of thirty-six years' experience), has also been
consulted.) Indeed, a pilot of much experience has assured the writer
that ships, whose captains know the port, are sometimes seen "dodging
about" (the phrase is the pilot's) looking for the entrance. Yet it may
be allowed that if Le Geographe had sailed close in, with the shore on
her starboard quarter, and the coast had been examined with care, she
would hardly have missed the port; and, her special business being
exploration, she certainly ought not to have missed it.* (* In Appendix
B, at the end of this chapter, are given quotations from the journals of
Murray and Flinders, in which they record how they first saw the port.)
But although Baudin said he had seen nothing "to interest," both Peron
and Freycinet, in their volumes--published years later, after they had
learnt of the discovery of Port Phillip by Lieutenant John Murray in
January 1802--stated that it was seen from Le Geographe on March 30.
Peron wrote that shortly after daybreak, the ship being in the curve of
the coast called Baie Talleyrand on the Terre Napoleon maps--that is,
between Cape Schanck on the eastern side of Port Phillip heads, and Cape
Roadknight on the western side--the port was seen and its contours were
distinguished from the masthead.* (* The matter is sufficiently important
to justify the quotation of the passages in which Peron and Freycinet
recorded the alleged observation, and these are given at length in
Appendix A to this chapter.) Peron did not say that he saw it himself. He
merely recorded that it was seen. Freycinet did not see it himself
either. He was at this time an officer on Le Naturaliste, and was not on
the Terre Napoleon coasts at all until the following year, when he
penetrated St. Vincent's and Spencer's Gulfs. He, without indicating the
time of day, or stating that the port was merely viewed from aloft,
asserted that the entrance was observed, though the ship did not go
inside.
In the first place, the statements of Peron and Freycinet are not in
agreement. To observe the entrance was one thing; to trace the contours
from the masthead quite another. To do the first was quite possible,
though not, as will be shown, from any part of the route indicated on the
track-chart of Le Geographe. But to distinguish the contours of Port
Phillip from outside, over the peninsula, was not possible.
Here, at all events, is a sharp conflict of evidence. We must endeavour
to elicit the truth.
It is certain that Baudin had no motive for concealing his knowledge, if
he knew of the existence of Port Phillip when he met Flinders. Had his
cue been to prefer claims on account of priority of discovery, he would
have been disposed to make his title clear forthwith. Frankness, too, was
an engaging characteristic of Baudin throughout. He was evidently proud
of what his expedition had already done, and was, as Flinders wrote,
"communicative." Had he discovered a new harbour, he would have spoken
about it jubilantly. Moreover, as Flinders explained to him how he could
obtain fresh water at Port Lincoln, a fellow-navigator would surely have
been glad to reciprocate by indicating the whereabouts of a harbour in
which the Investigator might possibly be glad to take shelter on her
eastern course.
It is also clear that Flinders did not misunderstand Baudin. He was an
extremely exact man, and as he said that he was "particular in detailing
all that passed," we may take it that one with whom precision was
something like a passion would be careful not to misunderstand on so
important a point. Brown, too, was with him, a trained man of science,
who would have been quick to correct his chief in the event of a
misapprehension. Flinders so far relied on Baudin's statement that when,
on April 26, he sighted Port Phillip heads himself, he thought he was off
Westernport, which his friend George Bass had discovered in 1798. "It was
the information of Captain Baudin which induced this supposition," he
wrote.* (* See also the entry in his journal, Appendix B.) It was not
till he bore up and took his bearings that he saw that he could not be at
Westernport; and he then congratulated himself on having made "a new and
useful discovery"--unaware, of course, that Murray had found Port Phillip
in the Lady Nelson in the previous January.
It must be noted in addition that Baudin wrote a letter to Jussieu, the
distinguished French botanist and member of the Institute, nine months
later, in which he gave an account of his voyage up to date.* (* Printed
in the Moniteur, 22 Fructidor, Revolutionary Year 11. (September 9,
1803).) Therein he said not a word about seeing Port Phillip, nor did he
allude to the possibility of there being a harbour between Westernport
and Encounter Bay.
Baudin, then, knew nothing about Port Phillip when he met Flinders on
April 8. But if somebody else saw it from the masthead on March 30, why
was not the fact reported to the commander? Why was he not asked the
question whether so large a bay should be explored? Again, if Le
Geographe did sight Port Phillip, why did she not enter it? Here was a
magnificent chance for discoverers. They were necessarily unaware of
Murray's good fortune in January. As far as their knowledge could have
gone, the port was absolutely new to geography. If we believe Peron and
Freycinet, surely these were the most negligent explorers who ever sailed
the seas.* (* It is true that Cook did not enter Port Jackson when he
discovered and named it on May 6, 1770. But exploration, it must always
be remembered, was not the primary object of the voyage of the Endeavour,
as it was of Le Geographe. Cook, when he achieved the greatest extent of
maritime discovery made at one time by any navigator in history, was
simply on his way homeward from a visit to Tahiti, the primary purpose of
which was to enable astronomers to observe the transit of Venus. Cook,
too, made a record of the latitude and longitude of Port Jackson. No such
entry was made by the French relative to Port Phillip, as will presently
be shown.) But if we believe that Baudin spoke the truth to Flinders--and
the absence of all reference to the port in his letter to Jussieu is
alone sufficient to show that he did--what shall we say of the statements
of Peron and Freycinet, written after Baudin's death, after they had
learnt of Murray's discovery, and when they had set themselves the task
of making the work of the expedition appear as important as possible?
Now, Baudin's statement is confirmed by five documents, the testimony of
which is convincing.
1. As an appendix to volume 3 of the Voyage de Decouvertes aux Terres
Australes, is printed the entire log of Le Geographe. The entry for March
30, 1802* (* Page 499.) (9th Germinal, Year 10 in the revolutionary
calendar, which is printed parallel with the ordinary dates), is latitude
38 degrees 33 minutes south, longitude 142 degrees 16 minutes east. The
reckoning is from the meridian of Paris, not of Greenwich.) The situation
when the entry was made, presumably at noon, was about midway between
Lorne and Apollo Bay, off the coast leading down in a south-westerly
direction to Cape Otway. The winds were east, east-north-east,
south-east, and east-south-east; weather very fine; a fresh wind blowing
("joli frais; beau temps"). It was the wind which was hindering Flinders,
sailing in the opposite direction. The column for "Remarques" opposite
this date was left blank. In other places where anything remarkable was
seen--even such a thing as a striking sunset--it was duly entered in the
proper place. But there was no entry relative to seeing Port Phillip from
the masthead, or observing the entrance, at any time. Baudin is
corroborated by the ship's log.
2. There is also appended to volume 3 of the same work a table of
geographical positions as calculated by the ship's officers. The
situation of Cape Schanck (Cap Richelieu on the French map) and of Ile
des Anglois (Phillip Island) are given; and next in the list comes Cap
Desaix (Cape Otway).* (* Page 544.) There is no record of a latitudinal
and longitudinal reading between these points. That is to say, the
position of Port Phillip is not indicated at all. In this case also the
column for "Remarques" is blank. Can we believe that if the port had been
observed, no attempt would have been made to fix the situation of it? The
latitudes and longitudes of some quite unimportant features of the coast
were duly noted. Here was a large bay, and not the slightest reference
was made to it in the table. The inevitable inference is that the French
saw nothing worth recording between Cape Schanck and Cape Otway. Baudin
is corroborated by the table of "positions geographiques."
3. The atlas issued with the first volume of the Voyage de Decouvertes in
1807 contained several coloured plates of views of coasts traversed by Le
Geographe. The work of the artists accompanying the expedition was very
beautiful; some of the plates have rarely been excelled in atlases of
this kind. These coast sketches, like narrow ribbons, prettily tinted,
were done from the deck of the ship, and represented the aspect of the
shore-line from seaward. The coasts of Bass Strait were duly represented,
but there was a gap between the Schanck and the Otway sides of Port
Phillip. Why? Obviously because the ship was not near enough to the coast
to enable the artists to see it clearly. Can we believe that men whose
particular task it was to depict the coasts traversed, would have missed
the picturesque gateway of Port Phillip if they had seen it? Baudin is
corroborated by the atlas.
4. The Moniteur of July 2, 1808, contained a long article by Lieutenant
Henri de Freycinet--elder brother of Louis--reviewing the work of the
expedition, on the occasion of the publication of Peron's first volume.
Now, Henri de Freycinet was Baudin's first lieutenant on Le Geographe. If
Port Phillip was seen from that ship on March 30, he should have seen it
if Baudin did not. If the captain was ill, or asleep, Henri de Freycinet
would be in charge. But in his article, though he described the
discoveries claimed to have been made with particular regard to the
so-called Terre Napoleon coasts, he made no reference to Port Phillip.
Baudin is corroborated by his chief officer.
5. Lastly, when Captain Hamelin returned to Europe with Le Naturaliste in
1803, Bonaparte's official organ, the Moniteur, published an article on
the voyage from information supplied partly by him and partly contained
in despatches.* (* Moniteur, 27 Thermidor, Revolutionary Year 11 (August
15, 1803).) Referring to Baudin's voyage along the "entierement
inconnues" southern coasts of Australia, the article said that he first
visited Wilson's Promontory (which it called Cap Wilson), and then
advanced along the coast till he met Captain Flinders. No reference was
made to seeing any port, although if one had been seen by any one on
board Le Geographe, it surely would have been mentioned with some amount
of pride in an official despatch.
As has already been said, Freycinet was not with Le Geographe on this
voyage, and therefore knew nothing about it personally. But before the
publication of the official history was completed, Peron died. Baudin was
also dead. Freycinet, who was preparing the maps, was instructed to
finish the work. He therefore wrote up from the notes and diaries of
other members of the expedition a geographical description of the coasts
traversed. His general plan, when describing coasts with which he had no
personal acquaintance, was to acknowledge in footnotes the particular
persons on whose notes he relied for his descriptions. But it is a
singular circumstance that when he came to describe this part of the
coast of Terre Napoleon, and to repeat, with an addition, Peron's
statement that Port Phillip was seen on March 30, he gave no footnote or
reference. In whose diary or notes was that fact recorded? It was not in
the ship's log, as we have seen. Who, then, saw Port Phillip from Le
Geographe? Henri de Freycinet did not; Baudin did not; Peron did not;
Louis de Freycinet was not there. If it were seen by a look-out man, did
no officer, or scientist, or artist on board, take the trouble to look at
it, or to make a note about it, or a drawing of it? What singular
explorers these were!
We must examine Freycinet's story a little more closely. He is not
content with saying, as Peron had done, that the port was seen from the
masthead. He is more precise--he, the man who was not there. He says:
"Nous en avons observe l'entree." That is more than Peron, who was there,
had claimed. If the "entrance" to Port Phillip was "observed" on March
30, still more incomprehensible is it that the ship did not enter, that
the fact was not mentioned in the log, that the latitude and longitude
were not taken, and that the artists neglected so excellent an
opportunity.
But that is not all. Freycinet, the man who was not there, and whose
narrative was not published till thirteen years after the voyage, has
further information to give us. He states, on whose authority we are not
told, that the country observed along part of this coast, between Cap
Suffren and Cap Marengo (that is, between Cape Patton and Cape Franklin),
presented "un aspect riant et fertile." The book containing these
descriptive words was, the reader will recollect, published in 1815. Now,
Flinders' volumes, A Voyage to Terra Australis, were published in 1814.
There he had described the country which he saw from inside the port as
presenting "a pleasing and in many places a fertile appearance." "Un
aspect riant et fertile" and "a pleasing and fertile appearance" are
identical terms. It may be a mere coincidence, though the comparison of
dates is a little startling. All the words which one can use are, as
Boileau said, "in the dictionaries"; every writer selects and arranges
them to suit his own ideas. But when Flinders said that the country
around Port Phillip looked "pleasing and fertile," he had seen it to
advantage. On May 1 he had climbed Station Peak, one of the You-Yang
group of mountains, and saw stretched at his feet the rich Werribee
Plains, the broad miles of fat pastures leading away to Mount Macedon,
and the green rolling lands beyond Geelong, opening to the Victorian
Western District. In May the kangaroo-grass would be high and waving,
full of seed, a wealth of luxuriant herbage, the value of which Flinders,
a country-bred boy, would be quick to appreciate. On the other side of
the bay he had climbed Arthur's Seat at the back of Dromana, saw behind
him the waters of Westernport which Bass had discovered, and traced the
curve of the coast as far into the blue distance as his eye could
penetrate. He had warrant for saying that the country looked "pleasing
and fertile." But how did Freycinet come to select those words, "un
aspect riant et fertile"? He was not there himself, and, as a matter of
probability, it seems most unlikely that such terms would occur to a
person who was there, either as applicable to the lands near Points
Nepean and Lonsdale, with their bastions of rock and ramparts of sand, or
to the scrubby and broken coast running down to Cape Otway, which, as a
matter of fact, is not fertile, except in little patches, and, even after
half a century of settlement, does not look as if it were. The conclusion
is hardly to be resisted that Freycinet thought he was safe in
appropriating, to describe land seen from seaward, terms which Flinders
had employed to describe land seen inside the port.
Three additional facts strengthen the conviction that Port Phillip was
never seen from Le Geographe, but that the statements of Peron and
Freycinet were made to cover up a piece of negligence in the exploration
of these coasts. The French, on their maps, lavishly bestowed names on
the capes, bays, and other features of the coasts seen by them. More will
be said on this subject in the next chapter. But meanwhile it is
important to notice that they gave no names to the headlands at the
entrance to Port Phillip, which are now known as Point Lonsdale and Point
Nepean. If they saw the entrance on March 30, why did they lose the
opportunity of honouring two more of their distinguished countrymen, as
they had done in naming Cap Richelieu (Schanck), Cap Desaix (Otway), Cap
Montaigne (Nelson), Cap Volney (Moonlight Head), and so many other
features of the coast? It is singular that while they named some capes
that do not exist--as, for instance, Cap Montesquieu, to which there is
no name on modern maps to correspond, and no projection from the coast to
which it can be applicable--they left nameless these sharp and prominent
tongues of rock which form the gateway of Port Phillip. But if they knew
nothing about the port until they learnt of its existence later at
Sydney, and saw no chart of it till an English chart was brought to their
notice, the omission is comprehensible.
Another fact which must not escape notice is that the French charts show
two lines of soundings, one along the inside of the Nepean peninsula, and
a shorter one towards the north. Mud Island is also indicated. How did
they get there? It was not even pretended in the history of the voyage
that Le Geographe went inside the heads. But see how the story grew: (a)
Baudin saw no port; (b) Peron says the port was seen from the masthead;
(c) Freycinet says the entrance was seen; (d) on the charts there are
actually soundings shown inside the harbour. Further consideration will
be given to these soundings in a later chapter.
The reader who has carefully followed the argument so far, will probably
have come to the conclusion that Captain Baudin's statement to Flinders
was perfectly true, and that the assertions of Peron and Freycinet which,
if veracious, would make Le Geographe the second ship that ever saw Port
Phillip--cannot be accepted. One other fact will clinch the case and
place the conclusion beyond doubt.
In 1812 Freycinet published a large folio volume of charts. The sixth
chart in the book is most valuable for our purpose. It is called a "Carte
generale du Detroit de Bass." Its importance lies in the fact that by
means of a dotted line it marks the track of Le Geographe throughout her
course. Now, this track-chart shows clearly that the ship was never, at
any moment, nearer than six or seven miles to Port Phillip heads. On the
greater part of her course across the so-called Baie Talleyrand she was
much farther from the land than that. On no part of her course would it
have been possible for a person at the masthead to see either the
entrance to Port Phillip or any part of the port itself. It shows that
the ship, while steering across from Cape Schanck in the direction of
Cape Otway, diverted a few miles to the north-west, and then abruptly
turned south-west. From any part of this course, the stretch of coast
where Port Phillip heads are would present the appearance of an unbroken
wall of rock, the gap being covered by the overlapping land on the
western side. The sudden north-westerly diversion, and then the sharp
turn south-west, seem to indicate that Baudin thought it well to sail up
to see if there was anything worth examining at the head of the bight,
and concluded that there was not.
There can be no more authoritative opinion on the possibility of doing
what Peron and Freycinet claimed was done, than that of a member of the
Port Phillip pilot service. The pilot steamer is almost incessantly on
duty in what the French chose to call Baie Talleyrand. The pilots know
the ground intimately; they are familiar with every part of the coast;
they see it in all weathers; they observe the entrance under all
conditions of light and atmosphere. Wishing, therefore, to confirm an
opinion already adequately supported, the writer showed two large
photographed copies of two of Freycinet's charts to an experienced member
of the pilot service, and asked him whether it would have been possible
for Port Phillip to be seen from the situation indicated, or anywhere in
the vicinity, under any conceivable conditions. He at once replied that
it was utterly impossible.* (* Indeed, he promptly said, in the direct,
emphatic speech which is the special privilege of sailors: "The man who
said he saw Port Phillip or the entrance from any point in that
neighbourhood would be lying.") Even if Le Geographe had sailed close
along shore, he further observed, nothing like the contour of the port
shown on Freycinet's chart could have been drawn from the masthead; and
the track-chart shows that the ship's course was several miles from the
coast. In fact, the chart shows more than could have been seen if the
French had sailed close up to the heads and looked inside.
Peron's statement--which is not confirmed by Freycinet--that it had at
first been determined to call the port "Port du Debut,"* (* See Appendix
A to this chapter.) is also rather puzzling. "Du Debut" of what? The
eastern extremity of the region marked "Terre Napoleon" on Freycinet's
charts is Wilson's Promontory, and the real "Port Du Debut" of the
territory so designated would be, if there is any relation between words
and things, not Port Phillip but Westernport.* (* In the Moniteur article
of 27th Thermidor, Revolutionary Year 11, Wilson's Promontory is referred
to as the point of departure: "Il visita d'abord le cap Wilson, d'ou il
prit son point de depart, et s'avanca vers l'ouest en suivant la cote
jusqu'a la distance de 15 degres de longitude.") Was there some confusion
in Peron's mind as to what port was seen? Unquestionably Le Geographe did
sight Westernport. Was it originally Baudin's intention to ignore Bass's
discovery of 1798, and, giving a French name to every feature of the
coast in Terre Napoleon, to call Westernport "Port du Debut"? That would
not have been an appropriate name for Port Phillip had it really been
seen on the morning of March 30, as it most certainly was not. But, it
being determined to denominate the land between Wilson's Promontory and
Cape Adieu "Terre Napoleon," Westernport might well have been counted as
the port of the beginning of the exploration of the territory, and, as
such, it would truly have been the Port du Debut. Freycinet, writing in
1824, acknowledged that Peron, "having written before the charts were
finished, made some mistakes relative to geography."* (* Preface to the
second edition of the Voyage de Decouvertes (1824) 1 page 16.) It is
possible that this was one of his errors; and it would be an easy one for
a man to make who was not familiar with the coast. But assuredly there
was no mere error on Freycinet's part.
What, then, are we to make of the statements of Peron and Freycinet?
The latter officer tells us, in one of his prefaces, that the French
Government was dissatisfied with the work of the expedition, and was at
first disposed to refuse to publish any record of it. Sir Joseph Banks,
closely in touch with movements relative to scientific work, had news of
the displeasure of Napoleon's ministers, and wrote to Flinders, then a
prisoner: "M. Baudin's voyage has not been published. I do not hear that
his countrymen are well satisfied with his proceedings" (June 1805).
Finally it was determined to issue a history of the expedition; but to
have published any charts without showing Port Phillip would have been to
make failure look ridiculous. By this time Freycinet, who was preparing
the charts, knew of the existence of the port. The facts drive to the
conclusion that the French had no drawing of Port Phillip of their own
whatever, but that their representation of it was copied from a drawing
of which possession had been acquired--how? It is quite clear that
Freycinet had to patch up the omissions in the work of his companions
from some source, to hide the negligent exploration which had missed one
of the two most important harbours in Australia. We shall hereafter see
how he did it.
APPENDIX A.
The following are the two passages from Peron and Freycinet to which
reference is made in the text. Peron wrote (Voyage de Decouvertes 1 316):
"Le 30 mars, a la pointe du jour, nous portames sur la terre, que nous
atteignimes bientot. Un grand cap, qui fut appele Cap Richelieu [it is
now Cape Schanck] se projette en avant, et forme l'entree d'une baie
profonde, que nous nommames Baie Talleyrand. Sur la cote orientale de
cette baie, et presque vers son fond, se trouve un port, dont on
distinguoit assez bien les contours du haut des mats; nous le designames
sous le nom de Port du Debut; mais ayant appris dans la suite qu'il avoit
ete reconnu plus en detail par le brick Anglois The Lady Nelson, et qu'il
avoit ete nomme Port Philipp [sic] nous lui conserverons avec d'autant
plus de plaisir ce dernier nom, qu'il rappelle celui du fondateur d'une
colonie dans laquelle nous avons trouve des secours si genereux et si
puissans."
Freycinet wrote (Voyage de Decouvertes 3 115): "Nous venons de vanter la
beaute du port Western; mais celui que l'on rencontre a peu de distance
vers l'O ne paroit pas moins recommandable, tant par son etendue que par
commodite. Nous en avons observe l'entree le 30 mars 1802, sans toutefois
penetrer dans son interieur. Les Anglois, qui l'ont examine avec details,
lui ont donne le nom de Port Phillip en l'honneur du premier gouverneur
de la colonie du Port Jackson...Vers l'interieur on voit de hautes
montagnes; elles se rapprochent du rivage a la hauteur du Cap Suffren; et
de ce point jusqu'au cap Marengo, la cote, plus elevee encore, est d'un
aspect riant et fertile."
APPENDIX B.
The reader may find it convenient to have appended also, the passages
from the journals of Murray and Flinders, in which they record their
first view of Port Phillip. These journals were used by Labilliere in
writing his Early History of Victoria (1 78 and 110). Murray's was then
at the Admiralty; it is now in the Public Record Office. That of Flinders
was placed at the disposal of Labilliere by the distinguished grandson of
the explorer, Professor Flinders Petrie, whose great work in revealing to
us moderns an ampler knowledge of the oldest civilisations, those of
Syria and Egypt, is not a little due, one thinks, to capacity inherited
from him who revealed so much of the lands on which the newest of
civilisations, that of Australia, is implanted.
Murray, in the Lady Nelson, sailing close along-shore west from
Westernport on January 5, 1802, saw a headland bearing west-north-west
distant about twelve miles, and an opening in the land that had the
appearance of a harbour north-west ten or twelve miles. When within a
mile and a half, he wrote: "With closer examination of my own, and going
often to the masthead, I saw that the reef did nearly stretch across the
whole way, but inside saw a fine sheet of smooth water of great extent.
From the wind blowing on this shore, and fresh, I was obliged to haul off
under a press of sail to clear the land, but with a determination to
overhaul it by and by, as no doubt it has a channel into it, and is
apparently a fine harbour of large extent." Murray did not enter the port
until after his mate, Bowen, had found the way in, with a boat, in
February.
Flinders, after visiting King Island, resumed his work along the mainland
on April 25. He wrote in his journal: "Until noon no idea was entertained
of any opening existing in this bight; but at that time an opening became
more and more conspicuous as we ran farther west, and high land at the
back appeared to be at a considerable distance. Still, however, I
entertained but little hopes of finding a passage sufficiently deep for a
ship, and the bearings of the entrance prevented me from thinking it the
west entrance into Westernport." In the journal, as in the report to the
Admiralty, and, twelve years later, in his book, Flinders wrote that it
was what Baudin told him that made him think there could be no port in
the neighbourhood. "From appearances I at first judged this port to be
Westernport, although many others did not answer; though Captain Baudin
had met with no harbour after leaving that, and from his account he had
fine weather and kept the shore close on board to the time of his meeting
us."