Footnotes
1. Two voyages for discovering a North-West passage, through Hudson’s Bay, were then performed; one under the command of Captain Middleton, in his Majesty’s ships the Furnace, and the Discovery Pink, in 1741 and 1742; the other under the direction of Captains Smith and Moore, in the ships Dobbs and California, fitted out by subscription, in 1746 and 1747.
2. Captain, now Admiral, Byron had under his command the Dolphin and Tamer. He sailed in June, 1764, and returned in May, 1766.
3. Captain Wallis had under his command the Dolphin and Swallow. He sailed in August, 1766, and returned, with the Dolphin, in May, 1768.
4. The Swallow, commanded by Captain Carteret, having been separated from Wallis, and, by keeping a different route, having made different discoveries, this may be considered as a distinct voyage. The Swallow returned to England in March 1769.
5. Captain Cook, in the Endeavour, sailed in August 1768, and returned in July, 1771.
In his second voyage, he had the Resolution and Adventure under his command. They sailed from England in July, 1772, and returned on the 30th of July, 1775.
6. The account of the four first of these voyages, compiled by Dr. Hawkesworth, from the Journals of the several commanders, was published in 1772, in three volumes quarto; and Captain Cook’s own account of the fifth, in 1777, in two volumes quarto.
7. See Lord Anson’s Voyage, quarto edition, p. 91.
8. These are Captain Cook’s words, Introduction to his Voyage, vol. iii. p. 7.; and the evidence on which he forms this judgment may be met with in Hawkesworth’s Journal of Byron’s Voyage, vol. i. p. 23, 24, 51, 52, 53, 54.
9. See the Chart of Discoveries in the South Atlantic. Cook’s Voyage, vol. iv. p. 211.
10. Magalhaen’s Voyage was undertaken in 1519.
11. See the particulars of their discoveries in Mr. Dalrymple’s valuable Collection of Voyages in the South Pacific Ocean.
12. Bougainville, in 1768, did no more than discover that the land here was not connected but composed of islands. Captain Cook, in 1774, explored the whole group. See vol. iv. p. 88.
13. Vol. iv. p. 219.
14. See vols. i. and ii.
15. See vol. ii. p. 69.
16. Vol. iii. chap. 7.
17. Vol. ii. p. 202.
18. From October 6. 1769, to March 31. 1770.
19. Its southern extremity nearly in latitude 47°, and its northern in 351⁄2°. See Captain Cook’s chart, in Hawkesworth, vol. ii. p. 281.
20. See the track of Torré, in one of Quiros’s ships, in 1606, between New Holland and New Guinea, upon Mr. Dalrymple’s Chart of Discoveries in the South Pacific Ocean, before 1764.
21. M. de Brosses says of New Guinea: “C’est une longue isle, ou presqu’ isle, si elle touche à la Nouvelle Hollande.” Navigations aux Terres Australes, tom. i. p. 434.
22. “Le triste état où nous étions réduits, ne nous permettoit de chercher en faisant route a l’ouest, un passage au sud de la Nouvelle Guinée, qui nous frayât par le Golfe de la Carpenterie une route nouvelle & courte aux iles Moluques. Rien n’étoit à la vérité plus problématique que l’existence de ce passage.” Voyage autour du Monde, p. 259.
23. Hawkesworth, vol. iii. p. 660.
24. Hawkesworth, vol. i. p. 563.
25. The position of the Solomon Islands, Mendana’s celebrated discovery, will no longer remain a matter in debate amongst geographers, Mr. Dalrymple having, on the most satisfactory evidence, proved, that they are the cluster of islands which comprizes what has since been called New Britain, New Ireland, &c. The great light thrown on that cluster by Captain Carteret’s discovery, is a strong confirmation of this. See Mr. Dalrymple’s Collection of Voyages, vol. i. p. 16-21.
26. It must be observed, however, that Monsieur le Monier, in the Memoirs of the French Academy of Sciences for 1776, pleads for the existence of Cape Circumcision, seen by Bouvet in 1738, which our English navigator sought for in vain, and supposes to have been only an island of ice. Mr. Wales, in a paper read before the Royal Society, very forcibly replied to M. le Monier’s objections; and the attack having been repeated, he has drawn up a more extended defence of this part of Captain Cook’s Journal, which he hath very obligingly communicated, and is here inserted.
Arguments, tending to prove that Captain Cook sought for Cape Circumcision under the proper Meridian; and that the objections which have been made to his conduct, in this respect, are not well founded.
In the Memoirs of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Paris for 1776, printed in 1779, M. Le Monier has made some remarks with a design to show that Captain Cook sought the land, usually called Cape Circumcision, in a wrong place; and that, instead of looking for it under the meridian of 91⁄2° or 10° of east longitude, he ought to have looked for it under a meridian which is only 3°, or 31⁄2° to the eastward of the meridian of Greenwich; and consequently that this land may exist, notwithstanding all that has yet been done to find it. M. Le Monier has also two additional Memoirs on the same subject, in the volume for 1779, occasioned, as it appears, by some objections which have been made to his former Memoir before the Academy. For some reason or other, the Academy has not thought proper to print the objections which have been made to M. Le Monier’s hypothesis; nor has he been particular enough in his two Memoirs which reply to them, to enable me to say of what importance the objections are. I can only gather, that they contain some exceptions to the quantity by which M. Le Monier asserts the variation alters in 10° of longitude, under the parallel of 54° south; and which, I conceive, has little to do in the dispute.
Whether the land, usually called Cape Circumcision, exists or not, is a point of small importance to geography; as the most strenuous asserters of its existence must allow it to be a very inconsiderable island, and of no use. This, therefore, is not in itself a matter worthy of dispute; but in asserting this, M. Le Monier has, and I am sorry to observe it, with some asperity too, particularly in his second Memoir, endeavoured to censure the judgment and conduct of Captain Cook, whose memory I have every reason to revere, as well as the judgment of those who were with him; and, on this account, I cannot help feeling myself called on to explain the motives which induced Captain Cook to place no dependence on the arguments now adduced by M. Le Monier in support of his supposition; and which, M. Le Monier must know, were not unattended to at that time, from what the Captain has said, p. 236. Vol. II. of his account of the voyage. And it may be proper to observe here, that what fell from Captain Cook on this subject, was to show that this circumstance was then attended to, and not to throw blame on M. Bouvet, for whose memory and abilities Captain Cook entertained great respect: nor is it incompatible with the utmost respect, for a man to have a favourable opinion of his own labours; or to endeavour to show why he thinks the disagreement between them and those of another person, when there is one, does not arise from an error committed by himself. There could, therefore, be no occasion for M. Le Monier to express himself as he has done in several parts of his second Memoir.
The substance of M. Le Monier’s argument is this. In 1739, when M. Bouvet’s discovery is supposed to have been made, the methods for determining the longitude of a ship at sea were very defective; and, of course, the longitude of any land which happened accidentally to be seen by one, was equally uncertain. On a presumption that this was the case with respect to Cape Circumcision, M. Le Monier enquires into the quantity of the variation of the magnetic needle, observed by M. Bouvet at that place, and also into observations of the same kind, made at other places in the neighbourhood of it, about the same time, as well as both before and since. And by comparing these observations together, he concludes, that at the time when Captain Cook was in these seas, the variation of the needle at Cape Circumcision must have been 10° westerly: whereas, in the most westerly point of Captain Cook’s track, where he was sufficiently near the parallel of 54° south, to have seen land situated in it, the variation was 131⁄2° westerly. This difference of 31⁄2°, in the variation, answers to about 7° of longitude, in this part of the parallel of 54° south: and by so much did Captain Cook fall in with this parallel to the eastward of what he ought to have done to see the land in question. “Hence (M. Le Monier infers), that it is not surprising the British navigator should not find Cape Circumcision under a meridian which is 281⁄2° to the eastward of Ferro, when it is really situated under a meridian which is but 211⁄2° to the eastward of it.”
In replying to these allegations, I shall first show, that, granting the dependence which M. Le Monier supposes may be placed on observations of the variation made at sea, he has stated the quantity of the variation observed on board the Resolution, very erroneously.
Secondly, I shall prove, beyond contradiction, that observations of the variation, made at sea, cannot be depended on for the purposes to which M. Le Monier has applied them.
And, lastly, that no material error had crept into M. Bouvet’s reckoning; but that if any error did exist, it must have been of a contrary nature to that which M. Le Monier supposes.
That M. Le Monier has not given altogether a true representation of the matter, will appear from hence. On the 16th of February, at noon[27], the Resolution was in latitude 54° 311⁄2ʹ south, which is sufficiently near the parallel of 54° south, to see high land, the northern extremity of which lies to the southward of that parallel; and at that time we were in 6° east of Greenwich, or 233⁄4° east of the island of Ferro: that is, 43⁄4° less than is assigned for our situation by M. Le Monier. On the evening of the same day, the ship being in latitude 54° 24ʹ, and longitude 6° 30ʹ, or 241⁄4° east of Ferro, the variation was no more than 12° 7ʹ west, which also is near a degree and a half less then M. Le Monier says it was, when we first arrived in a proper parallel for seeing Cape Circumcision. It is true, the next morning, in latitude 54° 211⁄2ʹ south, longitude 8° 6ʹ east, we had 13° 42ʹ west variation; but this was after we had run more than two degrees within sight of the parallel of 54° south. It is, moreover, highly probable, that both these variations were too great; for, on the 17th, in the evening, latitude 54° 25ʹ south, and longitude 9° 20ʹ east; that is, 11⁄4° more to the eastward, and after we had run 31⁄3° on the parallel we were then on, the variation was no more than 13° 16ʹ west. It is also worthy of remark, that on the 14th, in the evening, latitude 56° 141⁄2ʹ south, and longitude 4° 50ʹ east, which is but 1° 10ʹ to the westward of the point, where the Resolution came first into a proper situation to see land, situated in the parallel of 54° south, the variation observed was no more than 6° 50ʹ west. And we may further add, that on the 1st of March, 1774, the Adventure had no more than 123⁄4° west variation, though she was then considerably both to the northward and eastward of our situation on the 17th of February in the morning, on both which accounts the variation ought to have been greater, instead of a whole degree less. From all these circumstances, there can be little doubt but that the two variations, observed by us on the 16th and 17th of February, were too great; or that the variation, at the point where the Resolution first came sufficiently near the parallel of 54° south, to see land, the northern extremity of which is situated in that parallel, could not be more than 111⁄2° west, instead of 131⁄2°, as M. le Monier has represented it.
Under this head of enquiry, I may also observe, that, although the Resolution was too much to the southward of the parallel of 54° south, when she crossed the meridian which is 211⁄2° to the eastward of Ferro, that is, 33⁄4° east of Greenwich, the longitude which M. Le Monier assigns for Cape Circumcision, to see if it had been in that situation, yet her consort, the Adventure, was for several degrees on each side of that meridian; and especially when she had 101⁄2° of west variation, full as near to the parallel of 54° south as M. Bouvet was to the land when he saw it[28]; and on the day that she actually passed that meridian, had fine clear weather.[29] Hence, therefore, granting M. Le Monier his own arguments, which, however, I have proved to be erroneous, and that observations made at sea, for the variation of the compass, may be depended on for the purpose of finding the longitude, it is utterly impossible that both the Resolution and Adventure could have passed Cape Circumcision without seeing it. But I shall now show, that these observations are liable to a much greater error than the whole quantity, so vigorously insisted on by this gentleman.
I will not here run the risk of incurring M. Le Monier’s displeasure, by calling the accuracy of M. Bouvet’s observations in question; but will admit every thing that he himself can think due to the instruments and observations of that deserving navigator. It is enough for my argument, and it is but too evident from the observations themselves, that ours were by no means capable of determining the variation to so small a quantity as that which M. Le Monier rests his whole cause upon; and if so, his arguments, which depend wholly on a supposition, that not only they, but M. Bouvet’s also, were capable of determining it with the utmost exactness, must fall to the ground.
1st, It appears, from various instances, that the variations observed by the same compass would differ 3° to 5°, 6°, and sometimes even 10°, from no other cause whatever, but putting the ship’s head a contrary way.[30]
2d, That the same compass, in the same situation in every respect, within a few miles, but at two different times of the same day, would give variations differing from one another, 3°, 4°, 5°, 6°, and even 7°[31].
3d, That the same compass, on the same day, and in the hands of the same observer, will give variations differing from one another by 5°, on board the same ship, when under sail, and when at anchor in a road-stead.[32]
4th, Compasses made by the same artists at the same time and place, but on board different ships, differed 3°, 4°, and even 5° in the variation.[33]
5th, The same compasses, on board the same ship, and within a few miles of the same situation, but at different times of our being there, gave variations differing by 4° and 5°, or upwards.[34]
6th, Different compasses, at the same time, on board the same ship, and in every respect under the same circumstances, will give variations differing from one another, 3°, 4°, 5°, and 6°.[35]
These differences, several of which happened very near the place in question, are all of them at least equal to, most of them much greater, and some of them double that which M. Le Monier founds his argument on, even according to his own account of it, which I have already shown is by no means admissible, and, therefore, totally invalidate it. To allege that the instruments made use of in Captain Cook’s two voyages were bad, or that the observers were not expert in the use of them, will answer no purpose: they are the instruments and observers which M. Le Monier’s argument must rest on; and, therefore, let those of the French, or any other navigator, have been ever so much better than they were (which few will be hardy enough to assert, and fewer still found weak enough to believe), it will avail nothing to the point in dispute, which must evidently fall to the ground, if the observations made for finding the variation in Captain Cook’s voyage are not sufficient to support it. What then must become of it, if M. Bouvet’s observations, of this kind, were liable to an equal, or a greater error? which, without any reasonable cause for offence, we might suppose they were.
It is not necessary to account for these differences in the observed variations in this place, nor yet to point out the reasons why such anomalies have not been noticed in observations of this kind before. I shall, however, remark, that I have hinted at some of the causes in my introduction to the observations which were made in Captain Cook’s second voyage; and many others will readily offer themselves to persons who have had much practice in making these observations, and who have attentively considered the principles on which the instruments are constructed, and the manner in which they are fabricated. Nor is it at all surprising, that the errors to which the instruments and observations of this kind are liable, should not have been discovered before, since no navigators before us ever gave the same opportunity, by multiplying their observations, and making them under such a variety of circumstances as we did.
Having now fully shown, that the circumstances, brought forward by M. Le Monier, in support of his argument, are neither such as can be depended on, nor yet fairly represented, I shall next attempt to demonstrate, that it is utterly improbable M. Bouvet could be out, in his account of longitude, so much as is here supposed, in the short run which had been made from the island of St. Catherine, the place they took their departure from: on the contrary, that there is sufficient reason to believe the error, of whatever magnitude it might be, was of a different nature from that contended for, and that the two ships, instead of being to the westward of their account of longitude, were actually to the eastward of it. For according to their journals, extracted from the archives of the French East-India Company, by M. D’ Apres, printed under his inspection, and published by Mr. Dalrymple, F. R. S. amongst other voyages made for the purpose of examining the southern parts of the Atlantic Ocean, the longitude, according to the Eagle’s run from St. Catherine’s, was, 26° 27ʹ, and according to the Mary’s, 26° 20ʹ east of Teneriff; that is, 9° 57ʹ, and 9° 50ʹ east of Greenwich, or 27° 43ʹ, and 27° 36ʹ east of Ferro. But the Mary, which went to the Cape of Good Hope, made 7° 13ʹ east longitude from the land in question, to that place. Consequently the Cape of Good Hope being in longitude 18° 23ʹ east of Greenwich, Cape Circumcision will be in 11° 10ʹ east of Greenwich, or 1° 20ʹ more to the eastward than the run by the same ship from the island of St. Catherine’s makes it. Again the Eagle made the difference of longitude between Cape Circumcision and the island of Rodrigues 49° 44ʹ; and by the observations of M. Pingre, this island is in 62° 50ʹ of east longitude from Greenwich: Cape Circumcision is therefore in 13° 6ʹ east of Greenwich, or 2° 9ʹ more to the eastward than by the Eagle’s run from St. Catherine’s. Hence, therefore, as the longitude of this land resulting from a comparison of that shown by each of the ships, on their making land at places where the longitude is exceedingly well determined, is greater than that which results from their run from St. Catherine’s, the longitude of which is not known with certainty within several degrees, we may infer, with great safety, that whatever the quantity of M. Bouvet’s error might be, when he is supposed to have seen Cape Circumcision, it must have been in defect, and not in excess, as M. Le Monier supposes it.
27. I here go by the dates in “The Original Astronomical Observations,” printed by order of the Board of Longitude; which, after the 14th of February, 1775, differ one day from Captain Cook’s date.
28. See The Original Astronomical Observations, p. 185., and Bouvet’s Voyage, published by Mr. Dalrymple, p. 4. and 11.
29. See the Observations p. 218.
30. See the Original Astronomical Observations, made in the second voyage, March 11. 1773, p. 372., January 24. 1774, p. 375., and July 28. p. 378.
31. Observations in the second voyage, February 2. 1773, p. 371., and January 19. 1775, p. 382. Also observations in last voyage, July 17. 1776, p. 179 August 30. p. 131., January 24. 1777, p. 192., and September 15. 1778 p. 205.
32. Astronomical Observations of second voyage, July 14. 1775, p. 385.
33. Compare the Astronomical Observations, made in the second voyage, August 8. and 9. and September 4. 1772, p. 181., with those of the same dates, p. 369. Those of January 11. and 14. and February 7. 1773, p. 182., with those of the same dates, p. 371. Also Astronomical Observations, made in the last voyage, of December 27. 1776, p. 191, February 22. 1778, p. 201., May 5. and 8. p. 102, July 9. and 24. 1779, p. 209., and January 16. 1780, p. 212., with those of the same dates, p. 291., 293., 294., 297., and 298.
34. Compare Astronomical Observations, made in the second Voyage, February 10. p. 375., with Observations of December 11. 1774, p. 381. Also Observations made in the last Voyage, May 3. and June 18. 1779, p. 208.
35. Observations made in the second Voyage, February 2. 1773. p. 371. March 18. p. 372., and January 24. 1774, p. 375. See also Observations made last Voyage, August 18. 1776, p. 180. October 7. and 14. p. 189, and 190. December 12. p. ibid. January 24. 1777, p. 192. March 10. p. 195. July 9. and 17. 1779, p. 209. January 16. 1780, p. 212. March 24. p. 213. and May 19. p. 214.
36. The judgment of the ingenious Author of Recherches sur les Américains, on this question, seems to be very deserving of a place here: “Qu’on calcule, comme on voudra, on sera toujours contraint d’avouer, qu’il y a une plus grande portion de continent située dans la latitude septentrionale, que dans la latitude australe.
“C’est fort mal à-propos, qu’on a soutenu que cette répartition inégale ne sauroit exister, sous prétexte que le globe perdroit son équilibre, faute d’un contrepoids suffisant au pole méridionale. Il est vrai qu’un pied cube d’eau salée ne pese pas autant qu’un pied cube de terre; mais on auroit dû réfléchir, qu’il peut y avoir sous l’ocean des lits & des couches de matières, dont la pésanteur spécifique varie à l’infini, & que le peu de profondeur d’une mer, versée sur une grande surface, contrebalance les endroits où il y a moins de mer, mais où elle est plus profonde.” Recherches Philosophiques, tom. ii. p. 375.
37. See Vol. IV. p. 219.
38. See the history of former attempts to sail toward the north pole, in the introduction to Lord Mulgrave’s Journal. Mr. Barrington has collected several instances of ships advancing to very high latitudes. See his Miscellanies, p. 1-124.
39. See the Statutes at Large, 18 George II. chap. 17.
40. See the Statutes at Large, 1776, 16 George III. chap. 6.
41. From his MS. Instructions, dated May 14. 1776.
42. In the Philosophical Transactions, Vol. lxviii. p. 1057, we have the track of Pickersgill’s voyage, which, probably, may be of use to our Greenland ships, as it contains many observations for fixing the longitude and latitude of the coasts in Davis’s Straits. But it appears that he never entered Baffin’s Bay, the highest northern latitude to which he advanced being 68° 14ʹ. As to Young’s proceedings, having failed absolutely in making any discovery, it is of less consequence, that no communication of his journal could be procured.
43. See the Abstract of his Journal, published by Mr. Dobbs.
44. Ellis’s Voyage, p. 328.
45. Ibid. p. 330.
46. Account of the voyage, by the clerk of the California, Vol. ii. p. 273. Mr. Dobbs himself says, that he thought the passage would be impracticable, or, at least, very difficult, in case there was one farther North than 67°.—Account of Hudson’s Bay, p. 99.
47. Printed for Jeffreys, in 1768. His words are, “There remains then to be searched for the discovery of a passage, the opening called Pistol Bay, in Hudson’s Bay.” P. 122.
48. Mr. Hearne’s Journey, back from the Copper-mine river, to Fort Prince of Wales, lasted till June 30. 1772. From his first setting out till his return, he had employed near a year and seven months. The unparalleled hardships he suffered, and the essential service he performed, met with a suitable reward from his masters, and he is now the Governor of Fort Prince of Wales, where he was taken prisoner by the French in 1782; and last summer returned to his station.
49. The Hudson’s Bay Company have a trading post called Hudson’s House, above five hundred miles up the country, in lat. 53° 0ʹ 32ʺ, and in long. 106° 27ʹ 30ʺ.
50. This day, Jan. 11. 1772, as the Indians were hunting, some of them saw a strange snow-shoe track, which they followed, and at a considerable distance came to a little hut, where they found a young woman sitting alone. They brought her to the tents; and, on examining her, found that she was one of the western Dog-ribbed Indians, and had been taken prisoner by the Arathapescow Indians in the summer 1770; and, when the Indians who took her prisoner, were near this part in the summer 1771, she eloped from them, with an intent to return to her own country; but it being so far off, and, after being taken prisoner, having come the whole way in canoes, with the winding of rivers and lakes, she had forgot the way; and had been in this little hut ever since the first setting in of the fall. By her account of the moons past since her elopement, it appears to be the middle of last July when she left the Arathapescow Indians, and had not seen a human face ever since. She supported herself very well by snaring of rabbits, partridges, and squirrels, and was now in good health and flesh; and, I think, as fine a woman of a real Indian, as I have seen in any part of North America. She had nothing to make snares of but the sinews of rabbits’ legs and feet, which she twisted together for that purpose; and of the rabbits’ skins had made herself a neat and warm winter’s clothing. The stock of materials she took with her when she eloped, consisted of about five inches of an iron hoop for a knife; a stone steel, and other hard stones as flints, together with other fire-tackle, as tinder, &c.; about an inch and half of the shank of the shoeing of an arrow of iron, of which she made an awl. She had not been long at the tents, when half a score of men wrestled to see who should have her for their wife. She says, when the Arathapescow Indians took her prisoner, that they stole on the tents in the night, when the inhabitants were all asleep, and killed every soul except herself and three other young women. Her father, mother, and husband were in the same tent with her, and they were all killed. Her child, of about five months old, she took with her, wrapped in a bundle of her clothing, undiscovered, in the night. But, when arrived at the place where the Arathapescows had left their wives, which was not far off, it being then day-break, these Indian women immediately began to examine her bundle; and having there found the child, took it from her and killed it immediately. The relation of this shocking scene only served the savages of my gang for laughter. Her country is so far to the Westward, that she says she never saw any iron, or other kind of metal, till taken prisoner; those of her tribe making their hatchets and chisels of deers’ horns, and knives of stone and bone; their arrows are shod with a kind of slate, bones, and deers’ horns; and their instruments, to make their wood work, are nothing but beavers’ teeth. They have frequently heard of the useful materials the nations to the east of them are supplied with from the English; but, instead of drawing nearer to be in the way of trading for iron work, &c. are obliged to retreat farther back, to avoid the Arathapescow Indians, as they make surprising slaughter amongst them every year, both winter and summer. Hearne’s MS. Journal.
51. Journal of a Voyage in 1775 by Don Francisco Antonio Maurelle, in Mr. Barrington’s Miscellanies, p. 508.
52. Ibid. p. 507. We learn from Maurelle’s Journal that another voyage had been some time before performed upon the coast of America; but the utmost northern progress of it was to latitude 55.
53. Dr. Campbell, speaking of Beering’s voyage in 1741, says, “Nothing can be plainer than this truth, that his discovery does not warrant any such supposition, as that the country he touched at was a great continent making part of North America.”
54. See Coxe’s Russian Discoveries, pp. 26, 27, &c. The fictions of speculative geographers in the Southern hemisphere, have been continents; in the northern hemisphere, they have been seas. It may be observed, therefore, that if Captain Cook in his first voyages annihilated imaginary southern lands, he has made amends for the havock in his third voyage, by annihilating imaginary northern seas, and filling up the vast space, which had been allotted to them, with the solid continents of his new discoveries of American land farther west and north than had hitherto been traced.
55. The Russians seem to owe much to England in matters of this sort. It is singular enough that one of our countrymen, Dr. Campbell [See his edition of Harris’s voyages, vol. ii. p. 1021.] has preserved many valuable particulars of Beering’s first voyage, of which Muller himself, the historian of their earlier discoveries, makes no mention; that it should be another of our countrymen, Mr. Coxe, who first published a satisfactory account of their later discoveries; and that the King of Great Britain’s ships should traverse the globe in 1778, to confirm to the Russian empire the possession of near thirty degrees, or above six hundred miles of continent, which Mr. Engel, in his zeal for the practicability of a north-east passage, would prune away from the length of Asia to the eastward. See his Mémoires Geographiques, &c. Lausanne, 1765; which, however, contains much real information; and many parts of which are confirmed by Captain Cook’s American discoveries.
56. See Maupertuis’s Letter to the King of Prussia. The author of the Preliminary Discourse to Bougainville’s Voyage aux Isles Malouines, computes that the southern continent (for the existence of which, he owns, we must depend more on the conjectures of philosophers, than on the testimony of voyagers) contains eight or ten millions of square leagues.
57. See Vol. III. p. 107.
58. Messrs. Hodges and Webber.
59. Mr. Green, in the Endeavour; Messrs. Wales and Bayly, in the Resolution and Adventure; Mr. Bayly, a second time, jointly with Captains Cook and King in this voyage; and Mr. Lyons, who accompanied Lord Mulgrave. The observations of Messrs. Wales and Bayly during Captain Cook’s second voyage are already in the hands of the public, by the favour of the Board of Longitude; and those of Captains Cook and King, and Mr. Bayly, during this last, will appear immediately after our publication. [First Edit.]
60. The Abbe’s words are, “Si ceux qui promettent une si grande precision dans ces sortes de methodes, avoient navigué quelque tems, ils auroient vû souvent, que dans l’observation la plus simple de toutes, qui est celle de la hauteur du soleil à midi, deux observations, munis de bons quartiers de reflexion, bien rectifiés, different entr’eux, lorsqu’ils observent chacun à part, de 5ʹ, 6ʹ, 7ʹ, & 8ʹ.”
It must be however mentioned, in justice to M. de la Caille, that he attempted to introduce the lunar method of discovering the longitude, and proposed a plan of calculations of the moon’s distance from the sun and fixed stars; but, through the imperfection of his instruments, his success was much less than that method was capable of affording. The bringing it into general use was reserved for Dr. Maskelyne, our astronomer royal. See the preface to the Tables for correcting the Effects of Refraction and Parallax, published by the Board of Longitude, under the direction of Dr. Shepherd, Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy at Cambridge, in 1772.
61. In addition to Mr. Wales’s Remark, it may be observed, that the proficiency of our naval officers in taking observations at sea, must ultimately be attributed to the great attention paid to this important object by the Board of Longitude at home; liberal rewards having been given to mathematicians for perfecting the lunar tables, and facilitating calculations; to artists for constructing more accurate instruments for observing, and watches better adapted to keeping time at sea. It appears, therefore, that the voyages of discovery, and the operations of the Board of Longitude went hand in hand; and they must be combined in order to form a just estimate of the extent of the plan carried into execution since his Majesty’s accession, for improving astronomy and navigation. But, besides the establishment of the Board of Longitude on its present footing, which has had such important consequences, it must also be ever acknowledged, that his present Majesty has extended his royal patronage to every branch of the liberal arts and useful science. The munificent present to the Royal Society for defraying the expence of observing the transit of Venus;—the institution of the Academy of Painting and Sculpture;—the magnificent apartments allotted to the Royal and Antiquary Societies, and to the Royal Academy, at Somerset Place;—the support of the Garden of Exotics at Kew, to improve which, Mr. Mason was sent to the extremities of Africa;—the substantial encouragement afforded to learned men and learned works, in various departments; and particularly that afforded to Mr. Herschell, which has enabled him to devote himself entirely to the improvement of astronomy; these and many other instances which might be enumerated, would have greatly distinguished his Majesty’s reign, even if he had not been the patron of those successful attempts to perfect geography and navigation by so many voyages of discovery.
62. See Dr. Shepherd’s Preface, as above.
63. Dr. Solander, Dr. Foster and his son, and Dr. Sparman. Dr. Foster has given us a specimen of the botanical discoveries of his voyage in the Characteres Generum Plantarum, &c.; and much curious philosophical matter is contained in his Observations made on a Voyage round the World. Dr. Sparman also, on his return to Sweden, favoured us with a publication, in which he expatiates on the advantages accruing to natural history, to astronomy, geography, general physic, and navigation, from our South-Sea voyages.