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."