CAPTAIN COOK'S SHIP

Cromwell Argus, Volume L, Issue 2648, 17 November 1919, Page 6

CAPTAIN COOK'S SHIP

how was shi-: rigged? IiARtJUK OR SHI!':statements have rcoantty appeared in print to tlie effect that whereas the popular conception as to the historic vessel in which Captain Cook sailed along the Australian coast, is that she was a brig, she was really a brigantiiie, a term applied to a twomaslcd vessel, squa rigged on the foremast only. It can. however, be affirmed with perfect safety that nobody possessed of even a superficial acquaintance with the voyages »t lhe illu-trious navigator would assert that the Kndeavor was a brigalithio any more [liiin thai she wis !i super-Dreadnought. writes T.F.M. in i he. Melbourne "Argus." Nor is it true that the popular conception !.-, that she was a brig. The orthodox belief is that the Kndeavor was a barque, and as that, belief is fully substantiated by unimpeachable evidence, it is distressing to find on view in the Verdun tJallcry of the Melbourne l'ublic Library what purports to be ;i. model of Cook's voss-M. which distinctly gives the impression that she was technically a "• ship "—i.e.. a vessel square-rigged on all her three nuists. The fabricator of Ihi.s model is the Sydney artist, Mr Norman Lindsay, who is obviously a gentleman endowed with great courage, seeing that in what i> alleged to be a re-creation in miniature of the original Kndeavor he sets at utler defiance the opinions of everybody possessed of any valid claim to recognition a- an authority on the subject. COOKS TERM.

li is doubtful if any living man could siv exactly what, this vessel was like, but many men can still be. found who are fully competent to say that she bore but a very sliglit resemblance to Mr Lindsay's work of art. In all official documents of the period the Endeavor was explicitly termed a barque -or "bark," as the. word was then spelt — and although every craft that rides the waters is a "bark" to the inspired poet, the Admiralty officials were not at temptim: any poetic flights when they applied the term fo Cook's vessel. They did so in order to avoid confusion between her and a naval cutler of the same name, then stationed at the Norc. And if Cook's vessel was actually a full-rigged ship, why did tlio.»c officials persistently style her a "bark." a word conveying only one meaning, then or now, to practical men? Cook himself, who was anything rather than a S?ila« Wetrg, judged he was in command of a barque." Sir Joseph <Banks and everyone else on board harbored a similar belief, as did Hawkesworlli and all of Cook's biographers, including the late Admiral Sir William Wharton, than whom no better authority on such a question can be found. Mr Lindsay is positively the first, to assail (he unanimous verdict thus recorded, which lie does by means of a production bearing more than n passing resemblance to fhe model now in the Whitby Museum of the vessel in which Cook made his two later vovageA— viz., 'he Resolution. That craftwas admittedly a " ship," and of a tonnage greatly exceeding that of the Endeavour. Itotll vessels were originally North Sea colliers, and positively nobody, dead or living, ever set eves on a vessel of the Endeavour's build and size (260 tons register) which was rigged in th<> way Mr Lindsay lias rigged his model. NOKMAN LINDSAY'S MODEL.

In one of the logs of the voyage an isolated entry appears that—if accepted as being meticulously accurate —might lend a slight measure of support to the fantastic hypothesis that the Kndeavor was a full-rigged = hij>: But when that particular entry is collated with the entries appearing in other logs mnler the same date, it becomes evident thai Mr Lindsay has jumped to a concius'on quite unwariaiitod. There arc as many as 10 journals of Cook's officers and men'deposited in the Ree:>rd Office, in London, and in making deductions from 'he published copies of these care must be taken io avoid conclusions that may seem plausible ai lit*! ■-ight. and yel oil a closer investigation prove to be utterly fallacious. Errors abound in each and all of the journals, and Mr Lindsay has brought hi< model to grief becsii-e he*seems to have ignored the admirable maxim " Ce sure, be sure, btu not ton .-lire." ' I'n addition to its cardinal defect, ilir production under criticism falls short, in olhur ibspecls of being, ns it is claimed to be. a faithful represent ait in of the original vessel. The Kndeavor was a bluff-bowed tJeordie. and would therefore have the upii»hi stent wh'eh all vessels of that type cc'itailllv had. but Mr Lindsay's model does nut po-se-s this cs-eniial fealuie of the tieoidie: nor does its hull, taking il altogether, show much resemblance to the hull "If the Kndeavor. as sketched by the aitist Uuchan. who sailed in her. and might, therefore be expected to have a tolerably accurate idea of the vessel's general appearance. A CHALLKNGK.

Again, she had exactly a hundred personn .111 board when <-he left the shores of England, vei Mr Lindsay equips his model will) only two boats, which is paying but :i poor compliment to the foresight and humane t'eeliii'.'s <>! Cool? and I lie Hiiiish Admiralty. Tin' faei is. however, that the vessel liarl three boats —a yawl, a pinnace, and a long boat —in constant use i\:< she nosed her way from Point Hicks, the present tape Coiirnn. io Torres Straits, and probably there would have been other boats available in case of emergency. It is likewise a fact beyond dispute thai the veswl was sheathed in wood. but Mr Lindsay has seen tit to sheath his alleged re-creation in copper. It also shows [he Blue Ensign hanging from its gaff-end, wheroa.* it is » moral certainty thai ihc Endeavor displayed ihe While Ensign of the British Navy. We ate explicitly told iliai the Resolution flew that ensign, so why not the Endeavor? There are still oilier defects noticeable in this work of art. but enough has been said to show that Mr Lindsay's" effort. however well meant, distinctly tends to propagate utterly wrong notions concerning the vessel so closely connected with the genesis of our Australian hisioiy. Our annals already furnish numerous Illustrations of how difficult it is lo overtake errors, however preposterous they may be. once they have obtained 3 good lead, so it is highly desirable that they •hould be nipped" in' the bud—like Boyle Itochc's rat. That being admitted, it would seem thai the gentlemen responsible for Ihe acquisition and public exhibition of thi» model —the Felt-on Bequest Committee—are ■•ailed upon to adduce reasons in justification of their action.

When opals were Mist t Jik'.jn from tho mine they iire so .-■oft that they can be [••eked to piei's with (lie lingcr-nail. "Tlk'V say that onions will build one up physieaHy." "Maybe; but they will pull one down socially."

Concerning the present high prices being given for dairying land, the prop?r estimate of valuation would appear to be on the oasis of the capacity of its production. Thus, a farm which will return a gross annual income of £2O per acre is clearly cheap at, s«y, £IOO per acre, provided there is a reasonable prospect of the present high prices for dairy produce retaining their high figure. " Teller" writing in Ihe " Hawera Star," knows of a small firm in the neighbourhood of Hawera, a few perches over 25 acres in area, which has returned this season (allowing the same payment for butter fat a3 last) the gross sum of £Ol9 tis (id, or rather better than £2O j-er acre. No doubt there are other returns in the district equally good or better. The dilliculty is to get the actual figures from the average farmer, a3 he is often inclined to " boost " the returns far above the actual show ing. The above, however, is correct, and is all the more meritorious in that the cows used were not by any means a purebred herd, averaging just •-oMlbs of fat each. With a 280 or :»001b average, ihe return for the area would have been quite noteworthy. Also, on this small place no roots or yrecn feed what ever was grown, mmeiont hay being aaved in the flush to ui-u thu cattle through the winter.