I do not see (he says) why, after the death of Barendsz, the important ship’s log should have fallen into the hands of an inferior officer, even had he been a friend of the deceased. It would seem more probable, that after Barendsz’s death the skipper and supercargo, Jakob Heemskerck, would have taken all possible care of that interesting document, and, on his return to his native country, would have delivered it to Plancius, or others entitled to it. Admitting that the log came into the hands of Plancius, we are not at all surprised that he should allow the perusal of its contents by his friend Hessel Gerritsz, to assist him in his work of proving that the Dutch were the real discoverers of Spitsbergen. Dr. Beke’s chief argument against the authenticity of the extract above given, is that in it, instead of Greenland, the newly discovered land is spoken of as being Spitsbergen, a name, according to him, only given to that island years afterwards. But Barendsz’s opinion that they sailed along Greenland is no reason why they should not have given the name of Spitsbergen to a part of that coast. Mr. De Jonge, assistant-keeper of the Royal Archives at the Hague, and author of the “History of the Dutch East Indies Company”, sets at least this question at rest by making mention of evidence which he found in the Archives at the Hague, given by Barendsz’s companion, Captain Rijp, before the magistrates of Delft, in which it is said:—“And we gave to that land the name of Spitsbergen, for the great and high points that were on it.” De Veer, [7] it is true, does not make any mention of this name in his account, but the extract from the ship’s log of William Barendsz, as Hessel Gerritsz gives it, contains other peculiarities, which are not found in “De Veer”. Dr. Beke, moreover, brings a charge against Hessel Gerritsz of having intentionally invented wrong courses, but there is no reason why he should have done so. For, in order to prove the discovery of Spitsbergen by the Dutch, he had only to refer to the work of “De Veer”, and the invention of new courses would in no respect have strengthened his arguments. The difference in the statements of the courses, and here and there in the account of the circumstances, proves sufficiently that we have here to do with two quite distinct documents.