These supposed Journalistic sources being frequently absent, the Doctor was treated by some as a mere romancer. It is singular that, while the assertion was repeated that he regulated his descriptions by the Journals, nothing is ever said as to what became of them, and the very names of the writers are not mentioned. Dalrymple, the great naval historian, declared at the first that Dr. Hawkesworth had not collated _all_ the Journals, "as these indubitably prove"; adding, "there are many Journals he never once looked into." Dalrymple evidently knew something of them, and challenged Hawkesworth to give a list of the Journals he had incorporated. The simple fact that the Doctor dwells so much upon _Botany Bay_ and _New South Wales_, places _never_ mentioned by the great majority of _Logs_ in our present possession, shows singular carelessness, or a doggedness in maintaining a personal conviction wanting confirmation. The _Monthly Review_ of August, 1773, admits the confusion of a composite style in having each Commander telling his own story, with the Doctor's reflections being intermixed, so that the result is a medley of seaman and philosopher, employing indiscriminately the "language of the _Log_ book and the _Portico_." COOK'S LOGS. These are of two ages, determined by their contents. Those which introduce _Stingray Bay_ instead of _Botany Bay_, and which mention neither _New South Wales_ nor _New Wales_ pertain to the primitive order, executed while on the voyage, like the logs of the Lieutenant, the Gunner, the Boatswain, the Master's-Mate, &c. Of this class there are two in the British Museum, one of which (a copy) was presented there by Cook's friend, Sir Joseph Banks, and the other, containing only a portion of the voyage, written in Cook's _own hand_ as seen in his own official letters. Outside the Museum only one _Log_ can be identified as genuine; being, though a copy, signed by Cook, and declared to be a present from the Captain himself to his friend and patron, Sir Hugh Palliser, and ever since remaining in the custody of the Palliser family. These three _Logs_ know nothing of _New South Wales_ nor _Botany Bay_. Several other _Logs_, purporting to have been sent home later by the Captain, have filled up spaces with the names of _New South Wales_, _Port Jackson_, and _Botany Bay_, all unknown to Captain Cook or Lieutenant Hickes. It does not yet appear that Dr. Hawkesworth, Editor of the Voyage of the _Endeavour_, had access to any _original_ Cook's Log or Journal. Sir Joseph Banks is said to have repudiated supplying the Doctor with any material. Cook and his Lieutenant were absent on another voyage, nor does any other person connected with the voyage, as Dr. Solander and James Matra, appear to have communicated information. The Editor was perforce driven to make use of other and less reliable sources for his story, framed, as it was, on the model of a personal narrative--the Adventures of Captain Cook.