CAPTAIN COOK'S SHIP.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12776, 21 October 1919, Page 7

CAPTAIN COOK'S SHIP.

HOW WAS SHE RIGGED?

BARQUE OR SHIP?

. Statements have recently 'appeared in print to the effect that whereas ,the popular conception as to the historic vessel in which Captain Cook sailed along tiio Australian coa-st is that she was a brig, ehe was really a brigau--tmo, a term applied to a, two-masted vessel, square-rigged on the foremast only, .it can, however, be affirmed with perfect safety that nobody possessed of even a superficial acquaintance with the voyages of tho illustrious navigator would assert that the Encieaveur was a brigantine, any more than that she was a super-Dread--nought, writes T.F.M. in the MelDourno “ Argus-’’ Nor is it true that the popular conception is that she was % b r j S- Tlle orthodox belief is that the Endeavour was a barque, and as that belief ia fully substantiated bv unimpeachable evidence, it is distressing to find on view in the Verdon Gallery of the Melbourne Public Library what purports to bo a model of Cook’s vessel, which distinctly gives the impreskj°n that she was, technically, a ship, i.0., a vessel square-rigged on all her three masts. The fabricator of t-lua model is the Sydney artist, .Mr Aor man Lindsay, who is obviously a gentleman endowed with great courage, seeing that in what is alleged to be a. recreation in miniature of the original Endeavour, he sets ■at utter clenance tlio opinions of -everybody possessed of any valid claim to recognition as an authority on the sub}ect. COOK’S TERM. It is doubtful if any living man could say exactly what this vessel was like, but many men can still be found who are fully competent to sav that she bore but a very slight resemblance ta - Vl , r Lmdsay’s work of art. In ail official documents of the period the Endeavour was explicitly termed a barque —or ■ bark,” as the word whs then spelt—and although every craft that rides the waters is a “ bark ” to the inspired poet, the Admiraitv officials wore not attempting any poetic flights when they -applied the term to Cook’s vessel, 'they did so in order to avoid contusion between her and a naval cutta* °f the same name, then stationed at ike ISore. And if Cook's vessel was actually a full-ngged ship, why did those officials persistently style her a bark, ’ a word conveying onlv one meaning, then or now, to practical men? Cook himself, who was anything rather than a Silas Wcgg, judged ho was in command of a"barque. Sir •Joseph Banks and everyone else on bpard her harboured a similar belief, as did Hawkesworth 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 tho_ first to assail tho unanimous verdict thus recorded, which ho does by means of a production bearing more- than a passing re®f,’nblance to the model now in tho Vyrutby Museum of tho vessel in which, v-ook made Jus two later voyages, viz., the Resolution. That craft was admittedly a “ship)” and of a tonnage greatly exceeding that of the Endeavour. Both vessels were originally North bea colliers, and positively nobody, dead or living, ever set eyes on a vessel of the Endeavour’s build and size (2(50 tons register), which was rigged in the way Mr Lindsay lias rigged his model NORMAN 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 fascastic hypothesis that the Endeavour was a ship. But when that particular entry is collated with the entries appearing in other logs undei tho same date, it becomes evident that Mr Lindsay has jumped to a conclusion finite unwarranted. There are as many as ten journals of Cook’s officers and men deposited in the Record Office, in London, and in making deductions from the published copies of these, care must be taken to avoid conclusions that may seem plausible at first sight, and yet on a closer investigation ‘prove to’ be utterly fallacious. Errors abound in each and all of these journals, and Mr Lindsay has brought his model to grief because he seems to have ignored the admirable maxim. “Be sure, be sure,' but not too sure.” In addition to its cardinal defect, the production under criticism falls short in other respects, of being, as it is claimed to be, a faithful representation of tho original vessel. Tho Endeavour was a bluff-bowed Geordie, and would therefore .have the upright stem, which all vessels of that type certainly had, but Mr Lindsay’s model does not possess this essentia! feature of the Geordie; nor does its hull, taking it altogether, show much resemblance to tho hull of the Endeavour, as sketched by the artist Buchan, who sailed in her. and might, therefore. be expected to have a tolerably accurate idea of the vessel’s general, appearance. ~ A CHALLENGE. Again, she had exactly a hundred persons on board when she left the shores of England, yet Mr Lindsay equips iris moael with only two boats, which is paying but a poor compliment to the foresight and humane feelings of Cook and the British Admiralty. Tho fact is, however, that the vessel had three boats—a yawl, a pinnace, and a long boat—in constant use as she nosed her way from Point Hicks, the! present Capo Conran, to Torres Straits, ! and probably there would have been| other boats available in case of emergency. It is likewise a fact beyond dispute that the vessel was sheathed in wood, but Mr Lindsay has seen fit to sheath his alleged recreation in copper. It also shows the bine ensign hanging from its gaff-end, whereas it is a moral certainty that the Endeavour displayed the white ensign of the Bn tish Navy. \\ e are explicitly told that tho Resolution flew that ensign, so why not the Endeavour ? There aro stiil other 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 history. Our annals already furnish numerous illustrations of how difficult it is to overtake errors, however preposterous they may be, once they have obtained a good lead, so it is highly desirable that they should be nipped in the bud—like Boyle Roche’s rat. That being admitted, it would seem that the gentlemen responsible for the acquisition and public exhibition of this model—the Felton I3cquest Committee—are called upon to adduce reasons in justification of their action.