Up to the time when he lay at Port Jackson, only two ships had ever
entered Port Phillip. These were the Lady Nelson, under Murray's command,
in February 1802 - the harbour having been discovered in the previous
month - and the Investigator, under Flinders, in April and May. No other
keels had, from the moment of the discovery until Baudin's vessels
finally left these coasts, breasted the broad expanse of waters at the
head of which the great city of Melbourne now stands. The next ship to
pass the heads was the Cumberland, which, early in 1803, entered with
Surveyor Grimes on board, to make the first complete survey of the port.
But by that time Baudin was far away. From one or other of the two
available sources, therefore, Baudin must have obtained a drawing,
assuming that he did obtain one in Sydney; and if he did not, his sailing
past the port, when he had an opportunity of entering it in December, was
surely as extraordinary a piece of wilful negligence as is to be found in
the annals of exploration.
It is possible that Baudin or one of his officers saw some drawing made
on the Lady Nelson. If they saw one made by Murray himself, it is not
likely to have been a very good one. Murray was not a skilled
cartographer. Governor King, who liked him, and wished to secure
promotion for him, had to confess in writing to the Duke of Portland,
that he did not "possess the qualities of an astronomer and surveyor,"
which was putting the matter in a very friendly fashion. If a chart or
crude drawing by Murray had been obtained, Freycinet might still be glad
to get the Fame chart which he used.
Both in his book and his correspondence Flinders mentions having shown
charts to Baudin; and though the French commodore did not reciprocate by
showing any of his work to Flinders, we may fairly regard that as due to
reluctance to challenge comparisons. Flinders was without a rival in his
generation for the beauty, completeness, and accuracy of his
hydrographical work, and Captain Baudin's excuses probably sprang from
pride. The reason he gave was that his charts were to be finished in
Paris. But there was nothing to prevent his showing the preliminary
drawings to Flinders, and as a fact he had shown them to King. If
Flinders had had a sight of them he would have detected at a glance the
absence of any indication of Port Phillip. But we learn from the Moniteur
of 27 Thermidor, Revolutionary Year 11 (August 15, 1803), which published
a progress report of the expedition, that the charts sent home by Baudin
were very rough. Part of the coast was described as being "figuree assez
grossierement et sans details."
Flinders, it should be explained, did not publish the chart which he made
when he entered Port Phillip with the Investigator, because by the time
when he was preparing his work for publication, a copy of the complete
survey chart made by Grimes had been supplied to him by the Admiralty. He
used Grimes's drawing in preference to his own - acknowledging the
authorship, of course - because when he found Port Phillip he was not in a
position to examine it thoroughly. His supplies, after his long voyage,
had become depleted, and he could not delay.
It is most likely that the French learnt of the existence of Port Phillip
from Flinders, though not at all likely that they were able to obtain a
copy of his drawing. If Baudin got one at all, it must have been
Murray's.
Freycinet did not acknowledge on any of his charts the source whence he
obtained his Port Phillip drawing. Obviously, it would have been honest
to do so. All he did was to insert two lines at the bottom of the page in
that part of volume 3 dealing with navigation details, where very few
readers would observe the reference.
There remains the question: Why did General Decaen keep Flinders' third
log-book when restoring to him all his other papers? The reason suggested
by Flinders himself is probably the right one: that the governor retained
it in order that he might be better able to justify himself to Napoleon
in case he was blamed for disregarding the passport. He "did not choose
to have his accusations disproved by the production either of the
original or of an authenticated copy." It is difficult to see what other
motive Decaen can have had. The sheer cantankerous desire to annoy and
injure a man who had angered him can hardly have been so strong within
him as even to cause a disregard of the common proprietary rights of his
prisoner. The book could have been of no use to Decaen for any other
purpose. Its contents had no bearing on the Terre Napoleon coasts, as
they related to a period subsequent to Flinders' voyage there. Doubtless
the book showed why the Cumberland called at Mauritius, but the reason
for that was palpable. The idea that a leaky twenty-nine ton schooner,
with her pumps out of gear, could have put into Port Louis with any
aggressive intent against the great French nation, which had a powerful
squadron under Admiral Linois in the Indian Ocean, was too absurd for
consideration. But Decaen was plainly hunting for reasons for detaining
Flinders, and it is possible that he found a shred of justification in
the despatches which the Cumberland was carrying from Governor King to
the British Government; though the protracted character of the
imprisonment, after every other member of the ship's company had been set
free, cannot have been due to that motive.
It is most probable that representations made to Decaen by Peron, before
Le Geographe sailed, had an effect upon the mind of the governor which
induced him to regard any ship flying the British flag as an enemy to
French policy.
