Mr F. Soon
Afterwards Presented A Second Specimen Of His Narrative To The Earl Of
Sandwich, But Was Surprised To
Find that it was quite disapproved of,
though at last he was convinced that, as the word "narrative" had been
Omitted in the above-mentioned agreement, he was not entitled to
compose a connected account of the voyage. He was, moreover, informed,
that if he chose to preserve his claim to half of the profits arising
from the plates, he must conform to the letter of that agreement. In
this he acquiesced for the benefit of his family; and accordingly,
though he had understood it was intended he should write the history
of the voyage, he found himself confined to the publication of his
unconnected philosophical observations. G. Forster adds, it hurt him
much to see the chief intent of his father's mission defeated, and the
public disappointed in their expectations of a philosophical recital
of facts; however, as he himself had been appointed his father's
assistant, and was bound by no such agreement as that which restrained
him, he thought it incumbent to attempt such a narrative as a duty to
the public, and in justice to the ample materials he had collected
during the voyage. "I was bound," he concludes, "by no agreement
whatever; and that to which my father had signed, did not make him
answerable for my actions, nor, in the most distant manner, preclude
his giving me assistance. Therefore, in every important circumstance I
had leave to consult his journals, and have been enabled to draw up my
narrative with the most scrupulous attention to historical truth."
Such is the defence which Mr G. Forster sets up in behalf of a
conduct, which it is certain was very differently construed by the
patrons of the expedition, whose indignant opinions were so far
regarded by the public, as to render the residence of both father and
son in England no longer pleasant or respectable.
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 61 of 885
Words from 16381 to 16708
of 239428
