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.