Issue No. 6, September 2000
Latest News
Subscriptions: The executive in the UK have signalled that it will be necessary to raise subscriptions in the near future, probably for 2001. Ian Boreham is faced with a dilemma whereby he either has to reduce the number of pages in each copy of Cook’s Log or the subscription is raised to cover postage. The problem is greater, of course, for members outside the UK, especially here in New Zealand with the falling exchange rate of our dollar.
Bill Whelen has returned from the United Kingdom where he gave a paper at a Samuel Taylor Coleridge Conference. His paper concerned the connection between Coleridge and William Wales, who had been one of the astronomers on Cook’s Second Voyage. Wales later taught at Christ’s Hospital School where one of his pupils was Coleridge and, it is believed, Wales would have told tales of exploits in the Pacific, thus providing one of the key sources and influences for The Ryme of the Ancient Mariner. This connection has previously been ignored or dismissed by Coleridge scholars but Bill reports that his paper was received positively, so much so that he has been asked by a publisher to develop his ideas into a book. Bill is presently transcribing Wales’ journal of the Second Voyage from microfilm, another daunting task.
Livingstone Productions, a New Zealand television company has been given the go-ahead to make a documentary series about the maritime history of New Zealand. The four programs, funded by TV on Air to the tune of NZ$850,000 will be screened in October 2001 by TV One. Each episode will have a Cook theme and will follow approximately the route of the Endeavour in its circumnavigation of New Zealand. The presenters will sail on a variety of vessels depicting the maritime history of the country.
In late August, Random House New Zealand published John Robson's book "Captain Cook's world: maps of the life and voyages of James Cook R.N." The book was launched with a function at Bennetts' bookshop in Hamilton and it is hoped to hold similar events in Wellington and Auckland in the near future.
The Resolution’s figurehead: a speculative theory
by Tony Houghton-Brown (ahbrown@nznet.gen.nz) Sept. 2000
I read with great interest the research undertaken by Mr. Boyd regarding the Resolution’s figurehead but I would like to put forward an alternative theory.
There does appear to me to be a serious conflict in the evidence between the figurehead in the paintings, which are said to be that of a horse, and the object at the museum which is without any doubt a hound of some sort - and not a very pleasant looking one at that! It occurred to me however that the description of the horse figureheads in the paintings having some sort of protrusion on the head could well mean that it was not a horse but a UNICORN!
If the reader will bear with me, I hope to show in the following argument WHY the figurehead may have been a unicorn.
It appears to be generally accepted that it was Capt. William Hammond who sold the two ‘Marquesses’ to the Navy, and the claim made by Lt. John Elliott in his Memoirs that his uncle John Wilkinson was the principal owner has been largely ignored. C.Holmes, who edited John Elliott’s Memoirs in her book "The Journals of Lts Elliott and Pickersgill", thought that there seemed no reason to doubt the fact that John Wilkinson was indeed part-owner of the two ships and I think that anyone who reads the introduction and first chapter of this book would come to the same conclusion.
John Elliott’s Memoirs were written when he was in his fifties at the request of his wife and for the benefit of his family. They were not at the time intended for publication. He was not much more than 13 when he was given the opportunity to sail on the Resolution under Cook. Such a position was ‘a feather in one’s cap’ as he put it, and he owed the chance solely to the social and business connections of his maternal uncle, John Wilkinson, who had no son of his own.
In that day and age, there was absolutely no way that Elliott could have been offered this opportunity without the backing of someone who had much influence with the Navy Board. Elliott states that "It required much Intrest to get out with him (Cook); my Uncle therefore determined to send me in the Resolution. For this, he took me to Sir Hugh Palliser, then Controller of the Navy, and begs his patronage for me, in the Service. Sir Hugh received me very kindly, ...... I was then introduced to Capt. Cook who promised to take care of me, and desired me to go on board the Resolution as soon as I could". A nice little vignette which I quote to illustrate the ‘intrest’ that John Wilkinson quite clearly had with the Navy hierarchy.
Indeed the muster book shows that Elliott was recruited at a very early date, preceded only by Cook and three lieutenants which, as Holmes says, could well suggest an influential early connection (of Wilkinson) with the fitting out of the expedition.
Who was this John Wilkinson? Elliott states that he was a "wealthy and powerful shipping merchant in London", "an intimate commercial adviser to the Prime Minister North"..."dining and breakfasting with Sir Hugh Palliser, Controller of the Navy, and Lord Sandwich, First Lord of the Admiralty, as well as Captain Cook". He was said to "unite the character of a great Ship Owner and general merchant, that of what is called a ship Broker" - and was the greatest-part owner of the old Batsons Coffee House, a meeting place in the City for Turkish, Swedish and Russian merchants, for brokers and ship owners, indeed a forerunner of the Lloyds underwriting business.
My own research leads me to believe that he was one of six sons of Andrew Wilkinson, of Boroughbridge, Yorks, MP for Sheffield. One of his brothers would have been Andrew Wilkinson, Captain of the Niger 1767-71, mentioned by Beaglehole in connection with a canoe belonging to Joseph Banks. He was subsequently MP for Boroughbridge. In view of the family’s Yorkshire political connections, it is perhaps not at all surprising that the ships we have under discussion were named after the two most powerful political leaders in the county.
Why then should there be any doubt that he was indeed part-owner of the two ships?
The reason for this is possibly because Beaglehole mentioned Elliott’s claim only as a footnote and asserts that there was no other evidence to substantiate it. I have to say that I have no additional written evidence either but hope to show that circumstantial evidence indicates that John Wilkinson was indeed part owner and probably prime mover in the construction of the ships.
The precise part that John Wilkinson played in the sale of the two ships is not stated by Elliott, but one has to bear in mind that he was only about 13 years of age and would certainly not have been privy to all the facts. What he does record is that Lord Sandwich ordered Capt. Cook "to find two ships proper for the occasion, and He applied to my Uncle, who furnished him with two nearly new, of which he was the principal owner. As my Uncle had a partner in one or both, a Mr. Hammond of Hull, and as he was becoming much concerned with Ministers, he did not choose to have much to do about the Ships, and therefore introduced Mr.Hammond at the Admiralty, and he transacted all the business respecting the two Ships".
What we do know of the facts are recorded by Beaglehole as follows:
25 Sept 1771 Admiralty instructed the Navy Board to purchase two proper
ships of about 400 tons. Navy Board asks Cook what can be bought.
Early Nov 1771 Cook picks out three colliers or barks and the Navy Board bought
two - the Marquis of Granby (14 months old) and the Marquis of
Rockingham (18 months old). Both bought from Capt Wm Hammond of Hull.
The speed with which these boats were found and bought by the Navy Board does seem extraordinary, almost biblical -
‘And the Lord commanded that James go forth to the Pool of London and find two ships to travel to further most points of the world. And he went forth and within one month he had found two ships, and they were perfect’
Was one month really long enough to find the ships, carry out detailed inspections, sea trials, negotiate with owner, and everything else needed to feel confidence in having made the right decision? Cook was a very thorough man. He would have wanted the best ships available, and he would have gone to a heck of a lot of trouble to ensure that they were good enough to take him and his crew around the world and back again. How amazingly convenient, too, that he should find the ships he needed, in the ownership of one man, apparently willing to sell at a moments notice, and as he himself said were "as well adapted for their intended purposes as if they had been built for it". I think he may well have known more than he says.
Now what does one know about Capt Hammond. Very little it seem. Elliott said that the sale of the two ships was "the making of the fortunes of all the Hammonds since" which suggests that he was not previously a wealthy man. And so is it likely that he owned both ships outright? They had been built to the highest specifications at Whitby’s best ship builder which was not his own home port, which was Hull.
It was also usual for 64th shares of the value of a ship to be offered to the public and friends in order to spread the risk. Surely it was most unusual for a skipper not to have done so unless he was very wealthy and prepared to shoulder the entire risk himself, which was not very business like.
Although the precise details will probably never discovered, one is surely led to suspect that Hammond must have had a financial backer, and that John Wilkinson was indeed deeply involved. I believe that the ships were built for the express purpose of having them available for Cook’s second voyage, which clearly the Government wanted to be undertaken with the least possible delays. They would naturally wish to undertake the construction of the ships with complete secrecy and Wilkinson was the ideal coordinator with contacts in Hull, Scarborough and Whitby, which Elliott says he visited, having business and political interests and had great influence in these places. He also had a cousin and namesake resident in Whitby, John Wilkinson, in whose ship The Mary James Cook sailed in 1750. It is possible that he could have kept a watching brief whilst the construction of the ships was in progress.
Now one comes to the question of the figurehead - and also the decorative carvings on the stern. The decorative carving is said to have been limited to the tafferel but there appear to be two fairly substantial carved figures at the corners of the gallery on either side of the ship (that is, the Resolution - nothing seems to be known about decorations on the Adventure). The carvings are said to have consisted of various figures and shields.
At a time when lavish carving work was positively discouraged on navy ships, this is surely surprising and not easily explained. Moreover neither of the carvings nor the figurehead were apparently charged for by the Navy Board. So one must ask, who did have the work undertaken?
Had the Marquis of Granby been built merely for use as a humble collier it would certainly have been most unusual for anyone to go to the expense of having all these carvings as well as a figurehead. But if it was known in advance that the ship was expected to have a greater destiny, then perhaps it is not so surprising. The question that needs answering is - who would have had an interest in going to this expense.
The fact that there were shields used as part of the decoration is, I believe, significant. They were surely not blank shields but heraldic shields which represented some one’s armorial bearings. I think one can rule out the possibility that they represented the town of Whitby and also the Royal Arms which would surely not have been put on such a minor naval vessel.
I do not believe that Capt. Cook, at this stage in his career, had been granted arms, and neither was he the sort of person to have flaunted them in such a conspicuous manner. Hammond may or may not have been entitled to the use of arms but I think it unlikely. This leaves John Wilkinson.
It is likely that John Wilkinson had the right to display arms which had been granted to a Wilkinson as early as the 16thc. The arms had been confirmed, with slight variations on several lateral descendants and were certainly used by various branches of the family in the 18thc. The ‘blazon’ (n.1), or description, varied depending on the particular branch of the family but without exception would have included one or more UNICORNS.
I believe that John Wilkinson had every incentive to have his name associated with the Resolution in view of the part that he played - whether speculatively or by ‘arrangement’. He went to the trouble to ensure that his nephew was included in the crew and I think that there is every reason to suspect that he had his family arms carved on the tafferel and the unicorn figurehead made as an emblem of the family arms.
With flowing mane and magnificent pointed horn, the unicorn would have made a superb figurehead. The unicorn itself was in medieval times believed to have magical and medicinal attributes - what more could one ask of a figurehead?
Of course, all this is but a theory but one to which experts may like to give some consideration in order to achieve the greatest authenticity for the replica of the Resolution. Documentary evidence may come to light in the course of further research which I shall be undertaking.
Note 1. A typical blazon for a Wilkinson armorial shield is ‘Gules a fesse vair between three Unicorns passant, Or, all within a bordure sable, engrailed of the last pellettee’ (there were slight variations, but invariably the shields displayed one, two or three unicorns).
Forthcoming or recently published books
Collinridge, V. Captain Cook. London: Ebury Press, 2002. 0091879132.
Mccalman, F.T. Death of Captain Cook. Leicester, U.K.: Leicester University
Press, n.d. 071850187X (hdbk); 0718501888 (pbk).
Book Review
by John Robson of
Suthren, Victor. To go upon discovery: James Cook and Canada, from 1758 to 1779. Toronto: Dundurn Press, 2000. 1550023276.
James Cook spent a considerable part of his life in Canada and Newfoundland yet it remains one of the least known. This excellent book goes a long way to redress this situation providing, as it does, a record of Cook’s exploits during this very formative time.
It was while Cook was in what would later be called the Maritime Provinces that he learned many of the skills that would cause him to be selected for the Voyage to the Pacific. Suthren covers all the events already known to Cook scholars, such as meeting Samuel Holland after the siege of Louisbourg and Cook's role at Quebec. However, he also covers in more detail than previously available Cook's exploits in and around Halifax in Nova Scotia and the years spent in Newfoundland.
Until someone gets round to editing for publication Cook's log of the Grenville during his time in Newfoundland and other logs covering the ships on which Cook served during this era, this book will serve as a fine substitute. It is only spoiled by its lack of an index and examples of Cook's charts.
Please feel free to contribute to this newsletter and send articles, letters, news, etc for inclusion in future editions. Perhaps people would like to introduce themselves and give details about their interest in Cook.
John Robson
232 b Old Farm Road, Hamilton
ph home 07-856-4807 work 07-856-2889 x 6511
johnrobs@voyager.co.nz j.robson@waikato.ac.nz
John Robson
232 b Old Farm Road, Hamilton
ph home 07-856-4807 work 07-856-2889 x 6511
johnrobs@voyager.co.nz
j.robson@waikato.ac.nz