though he had understood it was intended he should write the history of the voyage, he found himself confined to the publication of his unconnected philosophical observations. G. Forster adds, it hurt him much to see the chief intent of his father's mission defeated, and the public disappointed in their expectations of a philosophical recital of facts; however, as he himself had been appointed his father's assistant, and was bound by no such agreement as that which restrained him, he thought it incumbent to attempt such a narrative as a duty to the public, and in justice to the ample materials he had collected during the voyage. "I was bound," he concludes, "by no agreement whatever; and that to which my father had signed, did not make him answerable for my actions, nor, in the most distant manner, preclude his giving me assistance. Therefore, in every important circumstance I had leave to consult his journals, and have been enabled to draw up my narrative with the most scrupulous attention to historical truth." Such is the defence which Mr G. Forster sets up in behalf of a conduct, which it is certain was very differently construed by the patrons of the expedition, whose indignant opinions were so far regarded by the public, as to render the residence of both father and son in England no longer pleasant or respectable. They left it and went to the continent; though it is likely they were the more induced to do so by certain family difficulties, and the ill effects of the father's turbulent temper, which speedily lost him the friends his uncommon abilities and erudition had procured. The reader who desires information respecting these two singular men, and the sentiments entertained in general as to their improper conduct in the matter of the publication, may turn to the Supplement to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It is, however, but justice to inform him, that the account there given, bears decisive indications of party bias in more senses than one; and that the strongest assertions it contains as to the share which Forster the father had in the publication, are not supported on evidence sufficient for the conviction of any unprejudiced mind. The writer of that article, as of several others in that very valuable publication, appears to have given up his imagination to the prevailing terrors of the times, and to have become, at last, almost incapable of discriminating betwixt personal delinquency and epidemic immorality--the misfortunes incident to individuals in every age or country, and the evils arising out of the erroneous creeds and systems of a particular time and place. A single quotation from the article now alluded to, may be conducive to the reader's favourable acceptance of that portion of the Forsters' labours from which it is proposed to supply many of the succeeding