My hypothesis is that the British moved into claim the eastern coast of New Holland because they found out about the existence of the Torres Strait. The existance of the strait revealed that the single landmass consisting of what is now west Papua, Papua New Guinea, mainland Australia and Tasmania – was actually two landmasses. And the Dutch only had a treaty over the northernmost landmass – leaving mainland and Australia as a landmass over which the Dutch have not secured with a treaty.

Anyway – it seems fairly obvious that Alexander Darlymple must have found the Torres Strait in the naval archives during the British occupation of Manila from 1762 to 1764. So what documents did he find? This is an interesting question to ask – because the answer will further reveal what the British knew while plotting James Cook’s First Voyage to claim the east coast of New Holland.

Something I noticed recently, is a tweet by Margaret Cameron-Ash on the 9 October.

OTD in 1606 Spanish mariner Luis de #Torres sailed through #TorresStrait. His record of a navigable passage south of #NewGuinea hid in the archives ‘til #AlexanderDalrymple bought a copy of the #AriasMemorial in a #CoventGarden shop c.1766. He showed the Strait on his 1767 Chart

Cameron-Ash seems to be implying that Darlymple learnt of the Torres Strait not from combing through documents in Manila – but from finding a very rare document in bookshop in London. I think this is bit incredulous that Darlymple should search though a treasure trove of old Spanish documents in Manila and find nothing – but later stumble on such a rare document in a London shop. I think this propaganda to be honest – designed to downplay what the British knew and when they knew it.

But maybe I biased and butt-hurt – because if this were true – it would partly (but not completely) spoil my theory that James Cook’s voyage was initiated as a response to the discovery of the Torres Strait. This is because it pushes the date of Darlymples finding from 1762-ish to a later date of 1766. 1766 is already after the longitude sea trial to Barbados in 1763 – which I think was a technical test run for Cook’s voyage.

As for this document that Darlymple allegedly stumbled on in a London Bookshop – it is an Arias Memorial (of which there are several). I don’t know what it says, but I found a description of it on this sales-pitch;

Arias, a Franciscan, was appointed as an official “chronicler” of the Indies in 1591 and, after the death of Quirós in 1614, became one of the greatest promoters of Quirós’s vision to establish a Spanish empire in the western Pacific. Arias wrote his Memorial at the behest of another fervent supporter of Quirós, Juan de Silva, who had himself written a series of
direct appeals to King Philip III on the subject.
…..

For more than a century-and-a-half following Torres’s voyage the strait was considered by most geographers likely to be a mirage, which was why Dalrymple was so astonished by the evidence laid out by Arias, and why his important monograph An Account of the Discoveries made in the South Pacifick Ocean (“1767”, but issued in 1769) included a small
chart which roughly sketched the track of Torres. He was so excited that he rushed a pre-publication copy of the work to Joseph Banks before the latter sailed in 1768, and was bitterly upset when he felt his contribution had been overlooked in the official account of the Endeavour voyage written by John Hawkesworth, which finally appeared in mid-1773. He rushed into print immediately after, his A Letter from Mr. Dalrymple to Dr. Hawkesworth (1773) a pamphlet notorious for its intemperate language and sometimes wild accusations

A few things to note – the memorial/letter is by a associate of Quiros. Quiros wasn’t even on the Torres Strait portion on the voyage – so this memorial is at best a third-hand account. I don’t know why Darlymple would be so certain based purely on such a document.

This story above also ties in with a story of butt-hurt Dalrymple – the poor old sod who knew about the Torres Strait, but nobody listened to him. That puts distance between the huge geopolitical ramifications of the the discovery and the motivations of Cook’s voyage. It says – the British were too stupid or naïve to see that the Torres Strait greatly weakened Dutch claim over that “south land” (mainland Australia and Tasmania). But I’m not buying it – I don’t think the British are so naïve.

Also note that the date of Darlymple’s find has been pushed as late as plausibly possible here – because Darlymple has Torres’s track in his book in 1767 they can’t go later than that. Propagandists can only do so much.

So if I’m right and Darlymple found something in those Manilla archives – what did he find?

I think he found the full accounts of Prado y Tobar. I think Cook had a full copy with him during the Voyage. This is why Cook went into the bay near Yarrabah (near Cairns) because it looks like Prado y Tobar’s sketch of the Bay of Saint James and Saint Phillip (which is actually in Vanuatu – marked in image below as Espiritu Santo).

If Cook had Prado y Tobar’s map, then he would also have at least 4 other maps detailing a handful of places along the south coast of Papua. Maybe that’s why he headed up near False Cape – he was looking for the site of one of these other maps.

Another reason I think Darlymple found the full account is from reading his book, he seemed to know that Espiritu Santo was expected to be found much further east – ie. not on the New Holland coast. Cook also seemed to be under that general impression – but didn’t stop him totally discounting the possibility (eg. by checking out Yarrabah). I don’t know what’s in the Arias Memorial though, but I doubt that kind of information as to how west Espiritu Santo lies would have been in it.

I have seen some ‘historians’ say that Cook knew Espiritu Santo wasn’t on the coast because of Bougainville’s discovery – but that doesn’t make sense because Cook wouldn’t have known of Bouganville’s voyage until he arrived in Batavia.

But with the Prado y Tobar account alone – the British would also be under the impression that Prado y Tobar was the captain of this voyage – not Torres. If that were so – then Darlymple et al. would have named the strait Tobar Strait – not the Torres Strait.

So maybe Margaret Cameron-Ash is right after all. Perhaps… Darlymple found the full-monty Prado y Tobar’s account plus charts in Manila. But the British didn’t want to let-on they had that kind of information. The Arias Memorial was sitting around in London somewhere, someone dug it up on Darymple’s return, and the story was it being magically found it in Covent Gardens bookshop. The discovery was further downplayed with Darlymples butt-hurt and public whiny letters.

Just saying also – those account of Prado y Tobar were eventually published – and guess who publishd them? Yeah the British. They showed up in 1888 in the hands of a woman’s right activist – Anne Clough (random!) and eventually published by the Hakluyt Society.

Take Abel Tasman’s stated longitude of Fredrick Henry Bay (where he planted the Princes Flag):

167 degrees 55 minutes East of Teneriffe.

Convert this to east of Greenwich using James Cooks stated longitude difference given in his journal on 24th September 1768 – Teneriffe lies “Longitude 16 degrees 32 minutes from Greenwich”:

151 degrees 23 minutes East of Greenwich.

Convert from east of Greenwich to west of Greenwich:

208 degrees 37 minutes West of Greenwich.

Now look at Cook’s journal. What is his given longitude given for Botany Bay? It’s the exact same value as above!

208 degrees 37 minutes West of Greenwich

But that isn’t where Botany Bay actually is. See map below at point labeled “Cook’s stated position of Botany Bay”:

I think the British were trying to ‘bait’ the Dutch into a trap. Here is how the trap should work (hypothetically).

1. Dutch read/hear about the British planning a settlement at Botany Bay(Stingray Bay). They look at Cook’s journal to find where it is.
2. They are provoked – because they note that the British are sticking a settlement at the EXACT same longitude as the Prince Flag (where their formal possession claim was made), therefore right smack-bang on top of “the border”.
3. First Fleet arrives in Botany Bay(Stingray Bay) but secretly relocates and settles in the real Botany Bay (in Sydney Cove).
4. A informant leaks (correct) information to the Dutch that Stingray Bay (landing place on map above) which the Dutch should be misled to believe is the settlement site, actually lies 10 minutes in longitude west of where Cook states it is.
5. Dutch call for a survey of the location of the settlement – as they believe (due to the informant) it lies on the Dutch side of the line. By calling for a survey on that basis, they inadvertently validate the entire premise of having a Anglo-Dutch border along a certain longitude (rather than geographical contiguity principle)
6. British agree to resurvey (of course, as was the plan).
7. Survey is completed and Stingray Bay and it’s opening into the sea is discovered to be on the Dutch side of the line.
8. British then pull the ace out of their sleeve and call for a resurvey of the Peak of Teneriffe/Greenwich (and therefore Tasman’s Prince Flag longitude).
9. Resurvey of Teneriffe shifts the Prince Flag location and derived border-line (reckoned from Teneriffe which is now moved) 6 minutes further to the west (to the red line on the map above). The true location of Teneriffe Peak is 16 degrees 38 minutes west of Greenwich – not 16d 32min (which the British know because Cook sailed past it and checked).
10. This new line (with 6 minute shift) is marked on map above in red. As Cook claimed “bays, harbours and rivers” – Sydney harbour is now the southernmost bay/harbour/river that opens east of the red line.
11. British then pull out the other ace card…. and reveal that the “Botany Bay” settlement is in fact – further north in Sydney Cove not in Stingray Bay. They reveal the true location of the settlement, and perhaps also reveal 1770 charts of Sydney Cove. Note also – that the Stingray Bay landing site and Sydney Cove lie at the exact same longitiude – also handy for trying to trick the Dutch.

But La Perouse would have ruined the whole plan by telling everyone in Europe where the settlement was really located. The Dutch would have been tipped off, and would have known the settlement was not at Stingray Bay at latitude 34. It’s no wonder he disappeared with no survivors.

And yes – Cook went into Sydney Cove.

I’ve been digging a bit more into this, and found this rabbit holes goes deep.

You know you are onto something – when your hypothesis starts to explain questions that you know others have, but you weren’t actively trying to find the answers for.

Why did Cook name Port Jackson (port where Sydney is) after “Mr Jackson”? Who the heck is he? People used to speculate that there must have been someone on the ship named Mr Jackson, but Mr Jackson turned out to be a secretary of the Admiralty – George Jackson.

On the other side of the Tasman sea is “Point Jackson”, which lies on the north west of Queen Charlotte Sound. “Point Jackson” in New Zealand is – I think – what Cook believed to be adjacent to a candidate for Murderer’s Bay. This is also named after George Jackson. So George Jackson seems to pop out of nowhere into this story, with places named in these particular areas that fit in with my hypothesis.

But “Jackson” is not the only name that pops up. “Stephens” is the other name – Cape Stephens is the cape that lies at the top of Admiralty Bay, and is topped off with Stephens Island. On the “Australian” side, there is Port Stephens. They are both named after Philip Stephens – First secretary of the Admiralty.

Perhaps these places were named not by Cook while on the voyage, but in the gentlemen’s smoking room back in London on Cook’s return. The narcissistic men present – drawing up the fudged map, and dividing the un-named places, and then naming them after themselves.

Who is “Mr Jackson” and why did Cook name two places after him? My thoughts – Cook didn’t name it at sea with his sextant in-hand. A group of men negotiated the names back in London with whiskey and cigars in-hand.

There are two, moveable place names – that were like labels – they needed to be placed on the correct geographical feature. They are “Cape Farewell” which is a cape lying at the same longitude of Tasman’s Murderer’s Bay (wherever it is – Cook couldn’t find it on the voyage itself), and “Botany Bay” which needed to be attached to the future site of British settlement.

“Botany Bay” chosen as a name – possibly being a hangover from Alexander Darlymple’s hypothesis of Portuguese discovery. The Dieppe Maps had a “Costa des Herbaiges” on it – a name with a “Botanic” aura to it. The Portuguese discovery hypothesis is politically convenient for the British as it would help undermine Dutch First Discovery claims. So it makes sense for the British to pretend that their Botany Bay is part of the Costa des Herbaiges.

My hypothesis is that on the return of the First Voyage, Joseph Banks used his influence and money to get hold of Tasman’s journal (a copy of which was in his library after he died). From the journal, the smoking-room-Admiralty-men figured out that Murderer’s Bay is not Ship Cove, nor any cove in Admiralty Bay – but is what Cook named “Blind Bay”.

During the voyage, Cook had made allowances and cleverly left a margin-of-error to accommodate candidate bays between Queen Charlotte Sound and Admiralty Bay as being Murderer’s Bay – but Blind Bay was way outside this margin of error. This is why Cook’s chart of New Zealand had to be greatly distorted, and why there are large problems with some coordinates – some points being off by nearly 2 degrees in longitude (keep in mind Lunar distances should put them within about 30 minutes so 120 minute errors are very suss).

Where is Botany Bay?

As for Botany Bay – remember how the current Botany Bay was originally named by Cook as Stingray Bay?

Here’s another idea I have. When Cook left Stingray Bay – it was still called Stingray Bay. Another landing site was near Circular Quay inside Sydney Harbour. So there were two “Botany Bay” settlement candidates. One is in the bay that is today called Botany Bay (where the airport runway sticks out into). The other one is the Sydney Harbour “Botany Bay” at the Royal Botanic Garden behind the Opera House. I believe the Sydney bay was the site of the farm and governor house at the initial penal colony. Both are sacred Whiteman’s land, walked upon by the hero James Cook. Whiteman never built there to this day, they left both as botanical places. These two sites actually lie at the same longitude – they are in line with each other north/south.

Also note that the penal colony itself, located inside Sydney Harbour (and not the bay where the airport is) was colloquially called “Botany Bay” for a long time. Maybe that was no colloquialism… it really is Botany Bay. So to sing of going to Botany Bay was a kind-of “in-joke”.

And what happened to La Perouse? Did the British sabotage him because he actually SAW the First Fleet moving between the two Botany Bays? Was Perouse going to go spoil of plan of playing “guess the bay” with the Dutch? I think the British were actually counting on the Dutch making a lazy contestation of the penal settlement based on Cook’s given longitude of the site, and then doing a big reveal of the real Botany Bay as laying further north. La Perouse turned up at the exactly wrong moment – and he would have blown the entire thing had he gone back to Europe and blabbed. So the British topped him – sabotaged his ship.

Queen Elizabeth II has a time capsule for the people of Sydney to be opened in 2085. Is it a 1770 chart or drawing of Port Jackson?

Why did Margaret Cameron-Ash come up with the ridiculous story of Cook walking all alone, in secret, without any of his crew noticing, overland from Stingray Bay to Port Jackson using Aboriginal paths? I think because there is – somewhere – a 1770 drawing or chart of Port Jackson – and this is an attempt to explain it away before it is revealed to the public.

Where did Joseph Banks collect his botanical samples? Is it too late to do what the Gerard Baden-Clay prosecution did – (with their botanical expert proving the crime scene location) locating the collection place of Bank’s samples? Why was Banks (and others on the Endeavour) so full of praise for the landing site when Stingray Bay is a poor site? Maybe because they were actually in Sydney Cove – a sheltered deep harbour with a water-spring.

I’ve been trying to figure out what went wrong with the plan for Cook’s First Voyage.

Below is the sequence of events that I think happened and how the error played out. It might not have been Cook’s fault/miscalculation at all.

• In England, before the voyage starts, someone takes the four relevant positions from Rembrantse’s extract of Tasman’s 1964 voyage, and converts the longitudes from East of Teneriffe (as used by Tasman) to West of Greenwich (as Cook will use). The four positions are 1. Princes Flag, 2. Van Diemen’s Land departure point, 3. Murderer’s Bay and 4. Cape Maria Van Diemen.
• The conversion of the longitude of one of the points – Cape Maria Van Diemen is incorrect. The converted point is one degree too far east. It is pretty easy to make such a mistake – especially when manually converting longitudes from East to West. (I no longer think it was a subtraction “carry” error as I wrote previously, because of the way the one degree error popped up again later on 18th April with Cook failing to catch it at that time).
• Cook successfully locates Cape Maria Van Diemen. He calculates the offset between his value of Cape Maria Van Diemen and Tasman’s value as 49 minutes in latitude, when it is – in fact – 1 degree, 49 minutes. This error is due to the earlier mis-conversion of the Cape Maria Van Diemen point.
• Cook takes Tasman’s value of Murderer’s Bay, then calculates a point 49 minutes to the west. He searches this area for Murderer’s Bay. This is in Queen Charlotte Sound – around Ship Cove. Cook is searching one degree too far east due to the error.
• Cook spends several days in this area of Queen Charlotte Sound, taking his time – exploring and charting it well. His astronomer is busy determining the precise longitude by repeated astronomical observations during this time. However Cook has some doubts he is in the correct spot because the latitude is too far south.
• This hunting for the precise bay by pure longitude is – in a practical sense; a waste of time. Abel Tasman used dead-reckoning and an hour glass to measure his longitude of Murderer’s Bay. For Cook’s men to try to find this arbitrary longitude that was imprecisely measured in the first place is pointless – UNLESS the goal is to show off the technology Cook’s party is using. This is why I think ultimately – the goal was not to find the exact bay Tasman got attacked, it was to show off to the world that the British have solved the longitude problem.
• After leaving Queen Charlotte Sound, then doing a complete anti-clockwise round of the south island, Cook finds there is more land further to the west of Queen Charlotte Sound (at the top of the south island). He searches for Murderer’s Bay again – this time using it’s recorded latitude. This is when he goes into Admiralty Bay
• Cook (wrongly) realises that Murderer’s Bay must lie somewhere inside a large labyrinth of coves. He needs more information to correctly identify it. He has top-secret instructions to take his departure directly from Murderer’s Bay – but he doesn’t know where Murderer’s Bay is – so he has a problem. He solves this problem by inventing “Cape Farewell”. At time of departure, “Cape Farewell” is not a geographical feature – it is a “label” for a theoretical cape that lies at the same longitude of Murderer’s Bay (which he can’t find). At the time of departure – Cook gives the longitude of “Cape Farewell” as the same real-life longitude of Whareatea Bay (a cove inside Admiralty Bay). Whareartea Bay is a good candidate for Murderer’s Bay as it lies at the expected latitude of 40 degrees 50 minutes South. It’s clever to call the label “Cape Farewell” – as it is also a self-cue to Cook – “the place I was supposed to take my departure from”.
• On the 17th April, Cook is transiting the Tasman Sea and is close to New Holland. He indicates that some astronomical calculations have been done, and that there may be an error of up to 22 minutes in his ship log position. This 22 minutes error range – backtracked and superimposed on NZ, is enough to encompass Ship Cove as a possible location of Murderer’s Bay. He is allowing himself a possibility to shift “Cape Farewell” to the top of Queen Charlotte Sound at a latter date. He thinks Murderer’s Bay should lie within this 22 minute longitude range that encompasses both Admiralty Bay (Whareatea Bay) and Queen Charlotte Sound (Ship Cove).
• On the 18th April, Cook states “By our Longitude we are a degree to the Westward of the East side of Van Diemen’s Land”. Doing the sums here – it is clear he has used the erroneous 49 minute offset value, and added this to the value of Tasman’s departure point from Rembrantse – rather than use the correct value of 1 degree, 49 minutes.
• At the arrival in New Holland, Cook has a slight problem. He doesn’t know where he is supposed to land. He makes-do. His first successful landing is at Botany Bay. He gives the Longitude of Botany Bay as being “Latitude of 34 degrees 0 minutes South, Longitude 208 degrees 37 minutes West”. This is EXACTLY the longitude Rembrantse’s extract has given for the Prince Flag (167 degrees 55 minutes east of Teneriffe) – converted to west of Greenwich Observatory using Cook’s longitude for Teneriffe that he has in his journal on 24th September 1768 “<The Peak of Teneriff>… lies in the Latitude of 28 degrees 13 minutes North, and Longitude 16 degrees 32 minutes from Greenwich.”.
• Cook has actually landed 10 minutes to the east of this stated longitude. This lies within the expected 1/2 degree error range for using the lunar distances method. But it could also be that Cook has a chronometer at-hand, and has (secretly) adjusted for the true position of Teneriffe relative to Greenwich. The standard conversion number used at the time (Teneriffe to Greenwich) was off by about 6 minutes of longitude. If it is the case, and Cook has adjusted for this 6 minute error (he swung by Teneriffe earlier on this journey and had the opportunity to measure it’s position with a stealth chronometer) – then he has landed in Botany Bay within 3 minutes of longitude of this adjusted goal – very precise. The adjusted goal is the red line in the map below.

• It would not surprise me if Cook also sailed into Port Jackson/Sydney – firstly because it lies at the same longitude as the Botany Bay landing site, and secondly – it lies right on this red line. If Cook got the landing spot-on (without the 3 minute error), Port Jackson would have been the real target. If he was combining lunar distances and the chronometer, and also using lunar distances to periodically re-calibrate the chronometer, he may have been able to pinpoint to-the-minute precision. It certainly seems like he already achieved this INSANE level of precision at Cape Maria Van Diemen and at Ship Cove. I suspect there exists a drawing or chart of Port Jackson from 1770 that will be revealed sometime in the future – a drawing without depth sounding information (water depths taken by holding a string with a weight off the side of the boat to see how deep the water is). This is the reason Margaret Cameron-Ash has speculated that Cook walked overland from Botany Bay to Port Jackson – I think this story is to ‘prime’ people with an explanation when the drawing is eventually revealed. Cameron-Ash seems to already know there is no depth sounding data on this sketch/chart. It would make sense strategically to keep Sydney Harbour secret. Also Botany Bay lies at exactly latitude 34 degrees south – so it’s easy to find by low-tech methods, and makes a good ‘decoy’ for Sydney Harbour. Perhaps this is why La Perouse also found Botany Bay so easily in 1788.
• Back to the NZ situation. Short of taking a long detour for further exploration, I don’t think Cook could have much else during the voyage to ‘solve’ the problem of not finding Murderer’s Bay, and therefore salvage one of the key missions – to showcase British technical ingenuity in solving the longitude problem. But Cook was genius in leaving as many options open to later place Murderer’s Bay through his “Cape Farewell” idea. On return to England, more information was sourced – namely – Abel Tasman’s journal and charts. Through this – Blind Bay was revealed as the location of Murderer’s Bay. “Cape Farewell” was stuck on the top of Blind Bay.
• The rest of the chart of New Zealand was then moulded around this – into a creative fiction to place other key places at the “correct” location. This has no bearing on actual location of places. Cook had a habit of leaving spaces in his journal for latitudes and longitudes to be filled in afterwards (you can see this in the holograph scans). In practice, coordinates would have been kept track of inside tables in a dedicated navigation log (far more convenient). Cook filled in his journal coordinates based on the ‘creative’ chart that was made afterwards – not from the original navigation logs. It was probably filled-in after he got back to England and found where Murderer’s Bay really is. And at whatever time it was filled in, the original one degree error had still not been discovered – otherwise the chart would not have been distorted, as there would have been no need to.
• The problem with this – while a chart and a ship’s journal can lie, the actual coastline of New Zealand will never mould itself to conform to the chart. The British (and Cook) must keep their mouths shut about the achievement (and I acknowledge – the longitudinal precision achieved on this voyage was groundbreaking) and try again. If they use this voyage as proof of solving the longitude problem using fraudulent charts and an embarrassing high-school level math error, the fraud will be eventually revealed by the New Zealand coastline itself. Instead – Cook openly takes chronometers on his second voyage.