New-York tribune., 1897-01-10

nothing to recommend any food but Its not
being salt; that alone was sufficient to make II
q delicacy. A hawk or a crow was to us as dell
cate and perhaps better relished meal. than
partridge a pheasant to those who have
plenty Of daintes. Shags, sea-gus, and all that
tribe OF sea-fowl which are reokoned bad from
their trainy or fshy taste, were to us an agree
able food; We did not at all taste the rankness'
which no doubt has been and possibly will again
be highly narseOus TO us whenever we nave
plenty of beef and mutton" In short, nothing
that the islanders ate came amss to him except
human flesh-here his objections. characteristic
ally enough We're scientific and moral rather
than gustatorial-and certain seafood which the
natives preferred to keep until 1t became too
high for his sense Of smell. almost every
thing which comes out Of the sea is eaten and
esteemed by these people," he wrote Of the South
Sea Islanders Even sea insects and what the
seamen call blubbers Of many kinds conduce to
their support. Some OF the latter. indeed, which
are of tough nature. prepared by suffering
them TO stink. Custom will make almost any
meat palatabe, and the women, especially. are
fond of this, though after they had eaten it, I
confess was not extremely fond Of their COM
pany"
man who could partake Of native dishes
a
language in haste was certain to he a favorite
with the good-tempered South Sea islanders
that is. with the very people who killed Cook
afterward when Banks was no longer in his
company. When the ease of Banks's intercourse
with the savages is considered the question
rises whether or not the tragedy would have
occurred had he some one like him been
member Of the expedition. He certainly gave up
with great regret the hope of seeing the peo-
pies OF the Pacific Ocean and the South Sea
second time. When Cooks second voyage was
planned Banks eagerly accepted the invitation
OF Lord Sandwich to accompany 1t as naturalist
His preparations were made a princey scale
But 1t was all in vain. Cook 1t has been said
objected to giving up the space on his ship that
would have been required by Banks. Sir Joseph
Hooker insists, however, that there the
best Of feeling between the two men, and traces
the whole difficulty to the naval authorities,
who, without direct refusal. thwarted Banks
at every turn. For example, Banks had
gagged Dr. Priestey as chemist But the Board
of Longitude, which proba bly, knew more about
religion then than it has ever pretended to
know since objected to Priestley's heterodoxy.
Banks gave up the voyage at last and con-
tented himself with journey to Iceland. In
this also he showed his indifference to the
publicity of print. His manuscript journal was
laid aside until Sir William Hooker undertook
a similar expedition, and then appeared in ex
tracts, duly acknowledged in Sir Williams
book The failure Of Banks, and particularly
of his assistant Solander, to make the voyage
to the South Sea not looked upon as an
unmixed evil by the veteran naturalist. Lin
naeus. He thought his young friends were too
eager in exploration and too negligent in ar
ranging and recording the results. While they
were away on voyage that must take years.
the magnificent collections already secured would
be going TO destruction. He imagined all that
might happen, and earnestly demanded the
publication Of the discoveries at once, ex-
claiming that II was his ardent wish to see this
done before his death interviewed. His
hopes blasted. The botanical collection
was for the most part described. and 1t needed
little to prepare the manuscript for the press
Seven hundred COpperpates for a work in folio
were prepared at Bankss expense These
plates and mass Of neatly copied manuscript
remain in the British Museum proof of
what the naturalists meant to do More than a
decade after the voyage ended Banks men
toned all these preparat atiOns for a forthcoming
book. Two months later Soander died suddenly.
almost the only hasty thing he did.