Chapter XXI: Part I: , p. 157

[380] “Histoire Générale des Voyages,” Paris, 1859; p. 228.

I will now refer briefly to the voyagers who subsequently visited this group, after its identity had become established. In May 1790, Lieutenant Ball,[381] in the “Supply,” when on his voyage to England from Port Jackson _via_ Batavia, made the eastern extremity of the Solomon Islands. He sailed along the north side of the group until opposite the middle of Malaita, when he headed more to the eastward and clear of the land. He correctly surmised that he was sailing along the New Georgia of Shortland, but on the opposite side of it: though he looked upon the islands of Santa Anna, Santa Catalina, and Ulaua as his own discoveries, and he named them respectively Sirius’s Island, Massey’s Island, and Smith’s Island. In December 1791, Captain Bowen of the ship “Albemarle,” during his voyage from Port Jackson to Bombay, sailed along the coast of New Georgia, and reported that he had seen the floating wreck of one of the vessels of La Pérouse; but this report was discredited by Captain Dillon in the narrative of his search after the missing expedition.[382] In 1792, Captain Manning,[383] of the Honourable East India Company’s Service, during his voyage from Port Jackson to Batavia in the ship “Pitt,” made the south coast of the Solomon Group off Cape Sidney, which was the headland first sighted by Lieutenant Shortland. Sailing westward, he imagined St. Christoval and Guadalcanar were continuous, and he thus delineates their coasts in his track-chart much as Shortland did. The Russell Islands he named Macaulay’s Archipelago, a name which ought to be retained as a compliment to their discoverer. He then passed between Rubiana and Isabel, naming the high land of the latter island Keate’s Mountains. Passing through the strait between Choiseul and Isabel, which bears his name, Captain Manning proceeded northward on his voyage.

[381] _Vide_ “An Historical Journal,” &c., by Capt. John Hunter.
London, 1793; pp. 417-419.

[382] “Voyage in search of La Pérouse’s Expedition.” London, 1829.

[383] “Chart of the track and discoveries of the ship ‘Pitt,’ Capt.
Edward Manning, on the western coast of the Solomon Islands in
1792.”

At this time, a French expedition, under Admiral Dentrecasteaux, was cruising in the same part of the Pacific with the object of ascertaining the fate of La Pérouse. Amongst the instructions embodied in a “Mémoire du Roi,” which were given to the French admiral, was the following one referring to the Solomon Islands: . . “Qu’il s’occupe à détailler cet archipel, dont il est d’autant plus intéressant d’acquérir une connoissance parfaite, qu’on peut avec raison le regarder comme une découverte des François, puisqu’il étoit resté ignoré et inconnu pendant les deux siècles qui s’étoient écoulés depuis que les Espagnols en avoient fait la première decouverte.”[384] In July 1792, when on his way from New Caledonia to Carteret Harbour in New Ireland, in prosecution of his search for the missing expedition, Dentrecasteaux made the Eddystone Rock which had been thus named by Shortland, and passing by Treasury Island, he skirted the west coast of Bougainville and Bouka. In May of the following year, when on the passage from Santa Cruz to the Louisiade Archipelago, the expedition sailed along the south coast of the Solomon Islands as far as Rubiana. Passing between St. Christoval and Guadalcanar, Dentrecasteaux sailed close to the island of Contrarieté and communicated with the natives. Whilst one of his ships lay off the north-west part of St. Christoval, the natives of Gulf Island (Ugi) discharged a flight of arrows from their canoes and wounded one of the crew. It is satisfactory to learn that her commander contented himself with firing a musket and discharging a rocket at them without effect, and that no other retaliatory measures were taken to intercept them in their flight. Turning back on his course, the French admiral was almost tempted to explore the group of islands between Guadalcanar and Malaita, to which the work of Fleurieu had directed his attention, and had he done so, he would have cleared up the confusion with which the vague description of Figueroa has surrounded these islands; but his instructions and the object of his voyage led him along the south coast of Guadalcanar on his way to the Louisiade Archipelago.

[384] “Voyage de Dentrecasteaux,” rédigé par M. de Rossel. Paris,
1808; tom. i., p. xxxiii.

To the voyagers who visited this group during the first half of the present century, I can only briefly allude. The Solomon Islands were seldom visited during the early portion of it, except, perhaps, by occasional trading-ships whose experiences have rarely been made known, a loss which may not be a subject for our regret. However, in March, 1834, there sailed from New York the clipper “Margaret Oakley,” bound on a trading and exploring voyage in the South Pacific.[385] She was commanded by Captain Morrell, who was accompanied by a young American, named Jacobs, to whom we are indebted for a very singular narrative of the cruise, which, for private reasons, was not published till 1844. Into the extremely questionable proceedings of Captain Morrell,[386] in his dealings with the natives during his sojournings in the Western Pacific, I need not here enter. It will be sufficient for me to remark that they had better have been buried in the oblivion which is most fitting for such deeds of heartless cruelty. Mr. Jacobs, in his attempt to describe the discoveries of the voyage with which we are more particularly concerned, exercises an amusing freedom in dealing with the explorations of the famous early navigators in this region. Instead of adding to our knowledge of these seas, by his presumption, he has thrown discredit on the whole of his narrative; and it is only by the insertion in his account of a rude sketch-map of New Guinea and the islands south-east of it that he has rescued his narrative from utter confusion. There we see, that by Bidera he means New Britain; by Emeno, New Ireland; Bougainville is honoured by the retention of his name for the large island which he discovered; whilst the other large land-masses of the Solomon Group would have had their identities hopelessly lost in the narrative under the appellations of Baropee, Soterimba, and Cambendo, had it not been for the rude map attached. References to dates are systematically avoided by Mr. Jacobs; however, it would appear that probably, in 1835 or 1836, they extended their cruise to the islands of the Solomon Group. Coasting along the west side of Bougainville Island, they sailed through the straits of that name, and skirting the north coasts of Choiseul (Baropee) and Isabel (Soterimba), they turned Cape Prieto and steered S. by E. Sailing by a singular rock like a ship under sail (the Two Tree Islet of the chart), their course lay through beautiful verdant islands; and then passing a volcanic island with steam issuing from the crater on its summit (the Sesarga of the Spaniards and the Savo of the present day), the lofty lands of Cambendo (Guadalcanar) appeared in view. Coasting westward, along the north side of Guadalcanar, they were visited by Tarlaro, the King(?) of Cambendo, who was accompanied by a great number of natives. On the following day, they visited a large village, where they were friendly received; and shortly afterwards they left the group, steering southward and passing Rennell Island.

[385] “Scenes, Incidents, and Adventures in the Pacific Ocean.” By
T. J. Jacobs. New York, 1844.

[386] When Dumont D’Urville was in London, shortly before he started
on his last voyage, he was asked his opinion of Morrell with
reference to his cruises in the high southern latitudes. His reply
was that he was already acquainted with him as “un fabricateur du
contes.” (“Voyage au Pole Sud.” 1837-1840. Introduction, p. lxvii.)

In November, 1838, Dumont D’Urville,[387] the French navigator, sighted the Solomon Group, in his passage westward from Santa Cruz. Coasting along the north side of St. Christoval and the south side of Malaita, he recognised in Surville’s Terre des Arsacides the Malaita of the Spaniards. He then set himself to work to clear up the difficulty with reference to the position of the islands named by the Spaniards, Galera, Florida, Buena Vista, Sesarga, &c., islands which had never been since explored, but he ultimately contented himself with viewing these islands from off the north coast of Buena Vista. After endeavouring imperfectly to identify them with the description of their first discoverers, he anchored in Thousand Ships Bay, which was originally discovered by Gallego and Ortega; and he named his anchorage Astrolabe Harbour, after one of his ships. From the circumstance that the natives, who came off to the ships, made use of such expressions as “veri gout,” “captain,” “manoa” (man of war), D’Urville concluded that they had recently been visited by other voyagers.[388] Leaving Thousand Ships Bay, he sailed along the south coast of Isabel, and passing through Manning Strait, he skirted the north side of Choiseul and Bougainville Islands and then left the group.

[387] “Voyage au Pole Sud et dans l’Océanie.” 1837-40. Paris, 1841.

[388] According to his narrative, Jacobs, in the “Margaret Oakley,”
anchored in the vicinity of Thousand Ships Bay, two or three years
(?) before the visit of D’Urville.

Dumont D’Urville was the last of the French navigators to whom the re-discovery and exploration of the Solomon Islands are in the main due. A singular fatality seems to have attended the careers of nearly all the French commanders who visited these seas. With the exception of Bougainville, who lived to superintend, in 1804, the fitting out of the flotilla, at Boulogne, for the invasion of England, all died during the voyage or shortly after their return. Surville was drowned on his arrival at Peru. La Pérouse met with his untimely fate at Vanikoro, and neither of the two commanders of the expedition that was sent in search of him survived the voyage; Dentrecasteaux died from scurvy off New Britain, and Huon Kermadec died before the ships left New Caledonia. Lastly, D’Urville was killed in a railway accident at Paris, whilst engaged in the completion of the narrative of his expedition.

In July, 1840, Captain Sir Edward Belcher,[389] whilst on his voyage to New Ireland, in H.M.S. “Sulphur,” made the south coast of Guadalcanar; but after looking in vain for an anchorage, he continued his course. In 1844, Capt. Andrew Cheyne, in the trading-schooner “Naiad,” visited Simbo Island and the neighbouring islands. We are indebted to him for much information concerning this part of the group.[390] About 1847, Monsignor Epalle, a French Roman Catholic Bishop, was landed, with eighteen priests, on the island of Isabel, for the purpose of founding a mission. On first landing, the bishop strayed from the rest of the party and received his death-blow at the hands of the natives, who are supposed to have been tempted by his dress and ornaments. In April of 1847, three French missionaries, living at Makira, were murdered by the hill-tribes of St. Christoval; and in March of the following year, M. Dutaillis,[391] in command of the French corvette “L’Ariane,” anchored at Makira, and sent an expedition into the interior by which the villages of the murderers were destroyed and many of the natives killed and wounded.

[389] “Narrative of a Voyage round the World in H.M.S. ‘Sulphur:’”
vol. II., p. 70.

[390] “A Description of Islands in the Western Pacific Ocean.”
London, 1852.

[391] “Annales Hydrographiques;” tome I. 1848-49. “Last Cruise of
the ‘Wanderer,’” by John Webster, p. 73.

In September, 1851, the ill-fated yacht “Wanderer,”[392] with her owner, Mr. Benjamin Boyd, on board, visited the Solomon Group. Cruising along the south coast of St. Christoval, the yacht put into Makira, where she lay at anchor nearly three weeks. Friendly intercourse was established with the inhabitants and frequent shooting excursions were made into the interior. Mr. Boyd thought so highly of the advantages of Makira and its harbour, that he intended to return there with the intention of entering into a treaty with the principal natives of the locality for the purpose of acquiring it for future commercial purposes. However, the careers, both of the yacht and of its owner, were drawing to a close. From Makira, they proceeded to Guadalcanar. Leaving his vessel anchored in Wanderer Bay, as it has since been named, Mr. Boyd landed with his gun, accompanied by a native of Panapa. Neither of them were ever seen again; and they appear to have met with their deaths at the hands of the natives soon after landing. A great number of the natives attacked the yacht, but they were repulsed by the crew of the “Wanderer” with grape-shot and musketry. An ineffectual search was made for Mr. Boyd and his companion: and before the yacht left the locality, round and grape-shot were poured into the villages, canoes and houses were burned, and probably a large number of natives were killed and injured. The “Wanderer” now left the group; and in the following month she was totally lost on the bar of Port Macquarie on the Australian coast.

[392] “Last Cruise of the ‘Wanderer.’” By John Webster.

In 1854, there were rumours in Sydney, that Mr. Boyd was still alive and that his initials had been seen carved on trees in Guadalcanar. A skull, which had been bought from a chief by the captain of a trading-ship as that of Mr. Boyd, proved, on examination, to belong to a Papuan. However, in December of this year, Captain Denham, in H.M.S. “Herald,” visited the scene of the tragedy; and after making inquiry into the matter, he came to the opinion that the unfortunate owner of the “Wanderer” had been killed directly after he landed, and that the various stories current respecting his being alive were inventions of the natives.

I now bring to a close this short sketch of the history of the Solomon Group since its identity was established by the French geographers towards the end of the last century. During the last thirty years there has been greatly increased intercourse with the natives of these islands; the Melanesian Mission has firmly established itself; numerous traders have resided in the more friendly districts; and the visits of men-of-war and trading-ships have been very frequent. But this increased intercourse with the outer world of savage peoples, who can with difficulty distinguish between a stranger and a foe, has been accompanied, as we might naturally have expected, by many tragic episodes, some of which we can deplore, most of which we can only reflect upon with mingled feelings of shame and regret. The reprisals on the part of men-of-war have not been always satisfactory in their results; and the effect of the labour-traffic has been to undermine the confidence which the missionary and well-intentioned trader have been long endeavouring to create. The quiet heroism of the members of the Melanesian Mission, under circumstances often the most dispiriting and insecure, it would ill become me to praise. It will be sufficient, however, to remark that it has been the only redeeming feature in the intercourse of the white man with these islanders during the last twenty-five years.

GEOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX.

NOTE I.

THE ACCOUNTS OF GALLEGO AND FIGUEROA COMPARED.--On carefully
comparing these two accounts, I have no doubt that Figueroa derived
almost all his information from the journal of Gallego. He, to a
great extent, employs his own phraseology; but in the descriptions
of the islands and of the natives, the words and expressions
employed are often identical, and the mode and order of description
are evidently supplied by the journal of Gallego. An indirect proof
of the source, whence Figueroa drew his materials, is to be found in
the circumstance that, after the two vessels were separated during
the voyage back to Peru, he confines his account to the experiences
of the “Capitana,” which was Gallego’s vessel; and here his account
is substantially a condensed form of Gallego’s journal which is
occasionally quoted literally. Figueroa, however, does not inform us
of the source of his information; and he has evidently, in some
measure, endeavoured to infuse his own method of expression into the
account. There are not wanting proofs, however, that he was assisted
from other sources, but only in a small degree. For instance, he
occasionally intercalates a circumstance to which Gallego does not
allude; and he varies in the accounts of the conflicts with the
natives: thus he refers to some of the Spaniards having died at
Estrella Harbour, to there being a foot and a half of water in the
hold of one of the ships during the return voyage, to the ships
being heaved-down at St. Christoval, and to a few other similar
occurrences unrecorded by Gallego. The account of Figueroa differs
in the date of the year of the voyage. It contains only a bare
reference to the cruise of the brigantine to St. Christoval and its
adjacent islands, whilst the vessels lay at the Puerto de la Cruz on
the coast of Guadalcanar. It is from this cause that the names of
all the islands visited and named during this cruise of the
brigantine are not given in Figueroa’s account. Herrera, however, in
his short description of these islands, gives a full list of the
names of the islands, and, in this respect, his description is
superior to that of Figueroa.

NOTE II.

DISCREPANCIES IN THE DATES OF THE YEARS.--There is a strange
discrepancy in the dates of the years during which this expedition
was away from Peru. The year 1566, is given on the title-page of the
British Museum copy of Gallego’s Journal; and the author expressly
states that the expedition left Callao on November 19th, 1566; he
carries this year on, naming the following year, 1567; but in August
he gives the year as 1568, and makes the return to Peru to be in
1569. It is evident from the narrative that the ships were absent
from Peru about nineteen months, from November of one year to June
of the second ensuing year; and it is highly probable that the year
of their departure was 1566, and that of their return 1568. . . .
Figueroa differs strangely in the dates he gives.[393] In the first
line of his account he says that the ships were dispatched in 1567;
and in the succeeding paragraph he gives January 10, 1568, as the
date of their departure from Callao, thus being quite at variance
with Gallego, both as regards the day, the month, and the year. The
ships reached the coast of Mexico on their return voyage in January
1568, according to Figueroa. From this inconsistency it may be
inferred, that 1567 was intended as the date of the departure from
Peru. . . . Herrera,[394] in his description of these islands,
states that they were discovered in 1567, which accords with the
narrative of Gallego. . . . Arias[395] in a memorial addressed to
Philip III. of Spain, says that Mendana discovered San Christoval in
1565; but his account is both short and confused, and was evidently
not derived from original sources. . . . Notwithstanding the
conflicting character of the dates, the probable dates would appear
to be as follows.--The ships left Peru on November 19th, 1566,
discovered the Isles of Salomon on February 7th, 1567, and arrived
at Peru on June 19th, 1568.

[393] “Hechos de Don Garcia H. de Mendoza,” por el Doctor Christoval
S. de Figueroa. Madrid, 1613.

[394] “Descripcion de las Indias Occidentales.” (Madrid, about
1601.)

[395] “Early Voyages to Terra Australis,” by R. H. Major (p. 1).
Hakluyt Society, 1859.

NOTE III. (Page 199.)

THE ISLE OF JESUS.--Burney[396] estimated the longitude of this
island to be 172° 30′ East of Greenwich; Krusenstern,[397] on surer
grounds, fixed it at 171° 30′: but both estimates were based on an
erroneous longitude of the Candelaria Shoals. . . . I have shown in
note iv. that these shoals are probably identical, not with the
Roncador Reef as is implied in the present charts, but with the
islands of Ontong Java, to the northward; however, this correction
affects but little the question of longitude. Taking the longitude
of the centre of Ontong Java at about 159° 30′ E. (in lat. 5° 25′
S.), the longitude of the Isle of Jesus, 167 Spanish leagues to the
eastward (in lat. 6° 45′ S.), would be about 169° E. The only island
shown on the present charts in the vicinity of this position is
Kennedy Island, also called Motuiti, the existence of which is
stated to be doubtful. Its position, as determined by the “Nautilus”
in 1801, was 8° 36′ S. 167° 50′ E.[398] However, in 1883, the German
war-vessel “Carola” failed to find it in this position in the chart,
and the initials _E. D._ are there attached to the name. The
difficulty may, I think, be explained by the existence in this
region of some atoll of no great size, the position of which has
been never correctly determined. It would appear that a similar view
is held by Captain Wharton, the present Hydrographer, since in the
Sailing Directions for these seas issued in 1885, the island is
still given prominent mention.[399] Not improbably the missing
island will be found between the 6th and 7th parallels, and near the
position assigned to the Isle of Jesus.

[396] “Chronological History of Vovages and Discoveries in the South
Sea.” Vol. I. p. 289. London, 1803.

[397] “Recueil de Mémoires Hydrographiques.” St. Petersburg, 1824.

[398] Findlay’s “Directory of the Pacific Ocean.” Part II 999.
(London, 1851.)

[399] “Pacific Islands.” Vol. I. p. 50. (Western Groups.) 1885.

Herrera gives the name of another island, “El Nombre de Dios,” which
is said by him to lie in 7° S. lat., and to be 50 leagues distant
from Santa Anna; Gallego does not refer to any island with this
name; and since Herrera makes no reference to the Isle of Jesus, it
is possible that this isle may be here alluded to, as its latitude
corresponds somewhat with that of “El Nombre de Dios.” M.
Fleurieu[400] identifies this island, however, not with the Isle of
Jesus, but with an island off the north end of Malaita which was
named Gower I. by Captain Carteret in 1767, and Inattendue I. by M.
Surville, in 1769.

[400] “Discoveries of the French, 1768-1769, to the S. E. of New
Guinea,” p. 181. (London, 1791).

NOTE IV. (Page 199.)

THE CANDELARIA SHOALS.--The shoals were identified by Fleurieu with
the Roncador Reef discovered by Maurelle in 1781; and Krusenstern
subsequently confirmed this opinion. Gallego, however, describes
shoals trending N.E. and S.W. for more than fifteen leagues, which
cannot possibly be the Roncador Reef of the present chart, which is
not more than six miles across. These Candelaria Shoals, on the
other hand, correspond in their size with the large atoll of Ontong
Java lying about 35 miles to the north of the Roncador Reef, and
being about 50 miles in width. The apparent difference in latitude
between Ontong Java, which lies in about 5° 25′ S., and the
Candelaria Shoals of Gallego, which were placed by him in 6° 15′ S.,
may be explained by the circumstance that the majority of Gallego’s
observations of latitude in the Solomon Group were about two-thirds
of a degree in excess of the true latitude.[401] By making this
correction, the latitude of Ontong Java and of the Candelaria Shoals
will be found to closely approximate. The bearing and distance of
the Candelaria Shoals from the west end of Malaita (as given by
Gallego on p. 205) and from Estrella Harbour (as given on p. 202) go
to support my view that the Candelaria Shoals of Gallego and the
Ontong Java of Tasman are one and the same.

[401] _Vide_ Note V. of Geographical Appendix.

NOTE V.

THE LATITUDES OF GALLEGO IN THE SOLOMON GROUP.--On making fourteen
comparisons of the latitudes obtained by Gallego with the latitudes
of the same places in the most recent Admiralty charts, places about
which there can be no doubt as to their identity, I find that all
but two are in excess of the true latitude. The excess varies
between 11′ and 1° 7′ (about); and since seven of the twelve
latitudes vary between 38′ and 46′ in excess, we may take 40′ _plus_
as about the probable and average prevailing error of Gallego’s
observations of latitude in this group. A constant error points to
some constant defect of observation; whether it may be instrumental
or otherwise, I must leave to the judgment of my nautical readers.
. . . . It may be inferred from his journal that Gallego did not
endeavour to make his latitudes by observation accord with his
bearings, as they are so often at variance. This circumstance should
be borne in mind in order to explain the discrepancies that occur.

NOTE VI. (Page 206.)

THE ISLE OF RAMOS AND THE ISLAND OF MALAITA.--On referring to the
account of Figueroa in the original Spanish, I find that, like
Gallego, he applies the name of Ramos to Malaita. Pingré, who
published a translation of Figueroa’s account in 1767 at Paris,[402]
associates the two names together. Dalrymple[403] in his
translation, published in 1770, laid the ground for future
misconception, by so pointing the sentence that the name of Ramos
might be taken as intended for one of the “two islets” in the middle
of the passage between Malaita and Isabel. Fleurieu,[404] in his
translation of Figueroa published in Paris in 1790, applies the name
of Ramos to Malaita. Burney,[405] in his version (1803), apparently
applies this name to one of the islets above referred to. The
authority of Dalrymple and Burney would appear to supply an
explanation of the circumstance that in the present Admiralty charts
this name of Ramos is applied to an islet between Malaita and
Isabel; but Dalrymple’s version is susceptible of two meanings, and
may be urged with equal justice on either side. Gallego and Figueroa
both apply the two names to the same island; so that circumstance
alone is sufficient to justify the restoration to Malaita of the
Spanish name of “The Isle of Ramos.” The original cause of the
mistake is to be attributed to the first discoverers, who gave their
own name and were not content with the native name. Herrera[406] has
fallen into the opposite error, since, in distinguishing between
Malaita and Ramos, he gives the latter a circuit of 200 leagues.

[402] “Mémoire sur le choix et l’état des lieux où le passage de
Vénus du 3 Juin, 1769.” (Paris, 1767.)

[403] “Hist. Coll. of Voy. and Discov.,” London, 1770.

[404] “Discoveries of the French in 1768 and 1769.”

[405] “Chronol. Hist. Voy and Discov.,” vol. i.

[406] “Descripcion de las Indias Occidentales.”

NOTE VII. (Pages 207-209.)

THE ISLANDS BETWEEN CAPE PRIETO AND GUADALCANAR.--These islands
which occupied the attention of Fleurieu and Burney, and excited the
curiosity of Dentrecasteaux, and which D’Urville had intended to
have completely explored, have long baffled the efforts of
geographical writers, who have endeavoured to identify them with the
islands mentioned by Figueroa in his brief account of Mendana’s
discoveries in this region. His description is evidently derived
from that of Gallego, of which it is but an imperfect and erroneous
extract: and I will therefore disregard it. The island of Galera is
apparently a small island, not named in the present chart, which
lies close to the north-west coast of Buena Vista. The neighbouring
large island, a league distant, to which Gallego only applies the
native name of Pela,[407] is, as I apprehend, the Buena Vista of the
present chart: the Buena Vista of the Spaniards is apparently an
island, not named in the chart, which lies west of the present
Sandfly Passage. The remaining four of the five islands may be in
the future identified with the incompletely surveyed intersected
mass of land to which the general name of Florida is applied in the
present chart. The island of Sesarga is without doubt the volcanic
island of Savo: but I must refer the reader elsewhere for further
information on this subject of Sesarga.[408]

[407] At the present day the whole of the Florida sub-group is known
to the natives as Gela. (Codrington’s “Melanesian Languages,” p.
522.)

[408] The evidence is given in my volume of Geological
Observations.

NOTE VIII. (Page 220.)

THE EXCESSIVE DIMENSIONS OF GUADALCANAR.--How could such
misconceptions have arisen? They are totally inconsistent with the
rest of the journal; and to such statements must be attributed the
exaggerated reports which long prevailed with reference to the size
of this island. The lengths of the islands of Isabel, Malaita, and
St. Christoval, as given by Gallego, are greatly overstated; in the
case of the two former islands they are at least double the true
dimensions, and they completely disagree with the latitudes and
bearing, which are noted in the journal.

NOTE IX. (Page 233.)

THE CONSULTATION AS TO THE FUTURE COURSE OF THE EXPEDITION.--The
ignorance in which Mendana seems to have kept his officers with
regard to the character of his instructions considerably hampered
the captains and pilots in their consultation. We learn subsequently
(page 237) that it was originally intended to prosecute the voyage
westward in order to explore the extensive lands that lay in that
direction. However, the protest made by the crews seems to have
caused a change of plans. They were to steer northward for the Isle
of Jesus, where Gallego apparently expected to find more land, as
they provided themselves with natives as interpreters (page 233)
before quitting the group. This northerly course found favour, when
Gallego pointed out that it was on the track of their return voyage.

NOTE X. (Page 234.)

ISLANDS IN THE SOLOMON GROUP WHICH DO NOT AT PRESENT BEAR THE NAMES
GIVEN TO THEM BY THE SPANIARDS:--

Present name. Spanish name.

Ugi San Juan
Three Sisters Las Tres Marias
Ulaua (Contrarieté) La Treguada
Malaita Ramos (Isle of)
Savo Sesarga
Ontong Java Candelaria Shoals
Choiseul San Marcos
New Georgia (?) { San Nicolas
{ Arracises (Reefs).

NOTE XI. (Page 237.)

INIGO ORTEZ DE RETES AND BERNARDO DE LA TORRE.--We learn from
Galvano’s “Discoveries of the World,”[409] that in 1545 Captain
Inigo Ortez de Rotha was dispatched from Tidore to New Spain. He
sailed to the coast of Papua, and not knowing that Saavedra had
discovered it in 1528, he assumed the honour of the discovery. Mr.
Coutts Trotter in a recent article[410] refers to him as Ortiz de
Retez or Roda, and he informs us elsewhere[411] that Antonio de
Abreu was probably the first discoverer of New Guinea in 1511.
According to Galvano (page 234), a Spanish officer named Bernaldo de
la Torre started from the Philippines in 1543, on a voyage to New
Spain.

[409] Hakluyt Society’s Publication, 1862, p. 238.

[410] Encyclopædia Britannica (Article on “New Guinea.”)

[411] Proceedings, Royal Geographical Society, 1884, p. 196.

NOTE XII. (Page 238.)

THE ISLANDS OF SAN BARTOLOMEO.--The Musquillo Islands of the
Marshall Group, with which I have identified this discovery of the
Spaniards, were thus named by Captain Bond in 1792.[412] They form a
double atoll about 38 miles in length and trending N.W. and S.E.
The N.W. end is in latitude 8° 10′ N., and the S.E. end is in
latitude 7° 46′ N. Captain Bond ranged along the coasts of above 20
small islands. At the N.W. end and isolated from the rest are two
small islands about three miles apart. On comparing this description
with that given by Gallego, the reader will have little doubt as to
the identity of the Musquillo Islands with the Spanish discovery. It
is probable that Gallego considered this discovery to be near the
position of an island discovered in 1536 in 14° N lat. by Toribio
Alonzo de Salazar,[413] 328 Spanish leagues from the Mariana
Islands, and named by him San Bartolomeo. This discovery of Salazar
is marked in Krusenstern’s General Atlas of the Pacific.

[412] Purdy’s “Oriental Navigator,” p. 689.

[413] Krusenstern’s “Mémoires Hydrographiques,” St. Petersburgh,
1827: Part II, p. 49.

NOTE XIII. (Page 239.)

THE ISLE OF SAN FRANCISCO.--Wake’s Island, with which I have
identified the Isle of San Francisco, was discovered in 1796 by the
“Prince William Henry.” Commodore Wilkes, who fixed its position in
1840 (lat. 19° 10′ 54″ N.; long 166° 31′ 30″ E. of G), thus
describes it. “Wake’s Island is a low coral one, of triangular form
and eight feet above the surface. It has a large lagoon in the
centre, which was well filled with fish of a variety of species;
amongst these were some fine mullet. There is no fresh water on the
island, and neither pandanus nor cocoa-nut tree. It has upon it the
shrubs, which are usually found on the low Islands of the Pacific,
the most abundant of which was Tournefortia. The short-tailed
albatross is found here; birds quite tame though not as numerous as
in other uninhabited islands. The appearance of the coral blocks and
vegetation leads to this conclusion that the island is at times
submerged or that at times the sea makes a complete breach over
it.”[414] Wake’s Island is about the size of the island described by
Gallego. Its latitude, its isolated position, and the close
agreement of Wilkes’ description with that of Gallego, leave no room
to doubt that Wake’s Island and the Isle of San Francisco are one
and the same . . . Burney refers to a small island named San
Francisco which is placed in the chart of the Galleon in Anson’s
voyage in lat. 19½ north and 84° east of the Strait of San
Bernardino; but he adds that it is too far to the east to be
identified with the island discovered by Mendana.[415]

[414] “Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition,” vol V.
p. 267.

[415] “Chronol. History of Voy. and Disc.” vol I. p. 291.

NOTE XIV. (Page 251.)

THE LIST OF ISLANDS IN THE VICINITY OF TAUMACO WHICH WAS OBTAINED BY
QUIROS IN 1606 FROM ONE OF THE NATIVES.--They are as follows,
Chicayana, Guantopo, or Guaytopo, Taucalo, Pilen, Nupan, Pupam,
Fonfono or Fonofono, Mecaraylay, Manicolo, Tucopia, Pouro. More than
half of these islands can be identified with certainty, even after
an interval of nearly three centuries.

Chicayana may be without a doubt identified with Sikyana or
Sikai-ana, the present native name of the Stewart Isles which lie
about 250 miles to the north-west of Taumaco, or as the Taumaco
people reckoned, four days’ sail in their large canoes. In fact, the
native from whom Quiros obtained his information was originally from
Chicayana, having been carried by contrary winds to Taumaco whilst
endeavouring with a number of his fellow-islanders to reach the
island of Mecaraylay. The Chicayana natives were described to Quiros
as being very fair with long loose _red_ hair, some, however, being
darker like mulattoes, but with hair neither curled nor quite
straight. They possess much the same characters at the present
day.[416]

[416] These islands, as far as is known, were not visited by
Europeans until nearly two centuries after the visit of Quiros, when
Captain Hunter came upon them in 1791.

Guaytopo or Guantopo was a larger island than those of Taumaco and
Chicayana. Since it is placed three days’ sail (native reckoning)
from Taumaco and two days from Chicayana, it may have been one of
the eastern islands of the Solomon Group. The inhabitants were said
to have skins as fair as Europeans and red or black hair. They
punctured their bellies in a pattern of a circle around the navel;
and painted their bodies red down to the waist. The women were very
handsome and were clothed with some light material from head to
foot. The natives of Guaytopo, Taumaco, and Chicayana, were on very
friendly terms and spoke the same language.

The islands of Pilen and Nupan are evidently the Pileni and Nupani
of the adjacent Matema or Swallow Islands, which lie to the
northward of the large island of Santa Cruz. Fonofono or Fonfono,
which is stated to lie near Pilen and Nupan, may perhaps be the
Lomlom of the same small group. It was described to Quiros as being
“many islands, small and flat,” with a good port. The inhabitants
were said to be dun-coloured, and very tall.

Tucopia was subsequently visited by the Spanish navigator. In later
times it has obtained a melancholy interest in connection with the
fate of La Pérouse. Mécaraylay is apparently in the vicinity of
Guaytopo, but possessing a different language, its inhabitants being
noted for the use of tortoise-shell ornaments. Its name suggests
that of Makira, on the south coast of St. Christoval, in the
neighbouring Solomon Group. Taucalo may perhaps be the volcanic
island of Tinakula lying off the north coast of Santa Cruz Island.
It is stated to be near Taumaco.

The “large country” called Manicolo is to be identified with the
adjacent large island, named Vanikoro in the present Admiralty
charts, which lies about 100 miles to the southward of Taumaco. It
is referred by Captain Cook[417] to the Mallicolo of the New
Hebrides, lying 4° further south, which he visited in 1774; but this
view cannot be sustained. In the first place, it is stated to lie
two days’ sail from Tucopia. The following evidence, however, is
sufficient of itself to settle the point. When Captain Dillon[418]
was on his way to Vanikoro in 1827, to ascertain the fate of La
Pérouse, he learned from the natives of the neighbouring island of
Tucopia that the island he was going to was called _Malicolo_: but
he subsequently ascertained on visiting the island in question, that
it should be more correctly called _Mannicolo_ or _Vannicolo_. In
his chart of the island, Captain Dillon calls it Mannicolo. The
resemblance in name between these two islands in the New Hebrides,
and Santa Cruz Groups has been a frequent cause of misconception in
references to the narratives of the early navigators.

[417] “Voyage towards the South Pole and round the World,” vol. II.,
p. 146.

[418] “Discovery of the fate of La Pérouse,” London, 1829: vol. I.,
p. 33.

NOTE XV. (Pages 100, 251.)

THE POURO OF QUIROS.--A native of Chicayana, whom Quiros had
captured at Taumaco, told the Spanish navigator that there dwelt in
Taumaco “an Indian, a great pilot,” who had brought from “a large
country, named Pouro,” certain arrows, with points, in the form of a
knife, which, from the native’s description, Quiros concluded were
of silver. Pouro, he learned, was very populous, and its inhabitants
were dun-complexioned.

When I first came upon this reference to Pouro, I at once recognised
it as an allusion to the Bauro (St. Christoval) of the Solomon
Group, lying rather less than 300 miles to the westward of Taumaco.
Mr. Hale,[419] the philologist of the United States Exploring
Expedition, under Commodore Wilkes, endeavours to identify the Pouro
of the Taumaco natives with the Bouro in the Malay Archipelago, an
island lying more than 2,000 miles further westward: and he refers
to the circumstance of the silver arrows that were brought to
Taumaco as supporting his view. Regarding Bouro as the island
referred to in the traditions of the Fijians, Tongans, and Samoans,
relating to the origin of their race, Mr. Hale finds in the Pouro of
the Taumaco natives an allusion to this sacred island, and in the
circumstance of the silver arrows he finds evidence of communication
between these two regions. There can, however, be little doubt that
by this Pouro the Bauro of the Solomon Group was meant. The presence
of the silver arrows may be easily explained, when we remember that
about forty years before, the Spaniards were exploring this island
of Bauro, or Paubro as Gallego gives it (page 229).

[419] “Ethnography and Philology of the U. S. Exploring Expedition,”
p. 195.

NOTE XVI.

THE EDDYSTONE ROCK AND THE SIMBOO OF LIEUTENANT SHORTLAND.--For a
considerable time after the re-discovery of the Solomon Islands by
the French and English navigators, few islands were better known in
the group than Eddystone or Simbo Island. In thus naming this
island, however, there has been a singular misconception; and since
the name of Simbo has been omitted in the latest Admiralty chart
(August, 1884) of the group, some explanatory remarks may be of
interest.

In August, 1788, Lieutenant Shortland,[420] whilst sailing along the
south coasts of the Solomon Group on his voyage from Port Jackson to
England _via_ Batavia, approached “a rock which had exactly the
appearance of a ship under sail, with her top-gallant sails flying;”
and so striking was the resemblance that a signal was made to the
supposed vessel. The ships did not approach within three or four
miles of this rock. It was named the Eddystone and was placed in
lat. 8° 12′ S., bearing S.S.W. a league from two remarkable hills
which were named the Two Brothers. A point running south from these
two hills was named Cape Satisfaction. Whilst the English ships were
off the Eddystone, some natives came to them in their canoes, from
whom Shortland learned that they had come from “Simboo,” a place
which lay, as they indicated by their gestures, near Cape
Satisfaction. In the chart of his discoveries, this officer assigns
this name to some land lying east of the Two Brothers near the
position of the island at present called Gizo, but it is evident
both from his chart and from his narrative that he considered Simboo
as the general name for the land to the east of Cape Satisfaction;
and Fleurieu, when remarking on his discoveries, made the suggestion
that the Simboo of Shortland might prove to be the Choiseul of
Bougainville.[421]

[420] The narrative of Lieut. Shortland’s voyage is given in “The
Voyage of Governor Phillip to Botany Bay in 1787”: London, 1789.

[421] “Discoveries of the French, 1768-1769, to the S.E. of New
Guinea:” London, 1791, p. 196.

In what manner, we may now inquire, have the discoveries of
Shortland been identified with the islands that are laid down in the
latest charts of this group? For half a century and more the name of
Eddystone has been attached, not to a rock such as that to which it
was originally given, but to the adjacent volcanic island about four
miles in length and about 1100 feet in height; and the name of Cape
Satisfaction has been given to the south end of Ronongo which lies
ten miles N.N.E. of Eddystone Island. This cape is stated by
Shortland to run south from the two remarkable hills which he named
the Two Brothers. The island of Ronongo, however, has a long and
level summit destitute of peaks; and it is evident that we must look
elsewhere for the Cape Satisfaction of Shortland. In Eddystone
Island, there are two singular conical hills which might very fitly
have been named the Two Brothers, and it will be seen from the
sequel that it must have been to the south extremity of this island
that the name of Cape Satisfaction was in the first place given. I
shall also point out that the original Eddystone rock is represented
at the present day by a bare rock which rises out of the sea at a
distance of about a third of a mile from the south-west coast of
Eddystone Island, and that the Simboo, from which the natives came
to visit Shortland, was a diminutive island on the opposite or
south-east side of this same island.

When, in July 1792, the French expedition under Dentrecasteaux
arrived in this locality, the Eddystone rock was at once recognised
by the description of Shortland. . . . “nous aperçûmes”--thus wrote
Labillardière[422] the naturalist of the expedition--“le rocher
nommé Eddystone. De loin nous le prîmes, comme Shortland, pour un
vaisseau à la voile. L’illusion étoit d’autant plus grande, qu’il a
à peu près la couleur des voiles d’un vaisseau; quelques arbustes en
couronnoient la sommite.” In the Atlas of this voyage (carte 24),
this rock is placed off the south-west end of the island at present
named Eddystone Island, and exactly in the position of the bare rock
above alluded to, which will be found marked in the plan of this
island made by the surveying officers of H.M.S. “Lark” in 1882.
Lieutenant Malan tells me that this rock at the time of the survey
was quite bare of vegetation. It rises in two conical masses from
the water between which a boat can pass in calm weather. Although it
has a height of 30 feet, it is frequently washed over by the heavier
seas. The change in the appearance of this rock, since the visit of
Dentrecasteaux in 1792 when its summit was crowned with shrubs, has
been probably due to a movement of subsidence which has affected the
adjacent coast of Eddystone Island in recent years (_vide below_).
To such a change must be attributed the confusion which has arisen
with reference to the Eddystone rock; and cartographers, failing to
identify it, have applied its name to the adjacent volcanic island
on which they have also bestowed the name of Simbo. During his
survey of this island in 1882, Lieutenant Oldham ascertained that
this name of Simbo actually belonged to a small island bordering its
south-east coast with which it was connected by coral reefs. The
true native name of Eddystone Island, he found to be Narovo, and in
the latest Admiralty charts it is thus designated; the name of Simbo
is there attached to the small adjacent island which is, I have no
doubt, the Simboo from which the natives came, who visited
Shortland’s ships in 1788 as they lay off the Eddystone rock. At the
present day the larger island of Narovo is but thinly populated, and
its inhabitants are under the sway of a powerful chief who resides
on the small island of Simbo. There he rules over a warlike and
adventurous people who by their head-hunting raids have established
the fame of their diminutive island throughout a large portion of
the Solomon Group.

[422] “Voyage à la recherche De la Pérouse,” par Labillardière:
Paris, 1800: tom i, p. 215.

* * * * *

[In my volume of Geological Observations I have described the
movement of subsidence, to which is due the confusion concerning the
original Eddystone rock].