Part 2

"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:--