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.
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 17 of 82
Words from 16579 to 17578
of 83218
