BY A. MAULT. 123 



ments tlie Governor had made, and the orders he had given 

 in consequence of the abandonment of the Investigator. This 

 is proved as clearly as such a fact can be by the conduct of 

 both Flinders and De Caen. - Flinders would not willingly 

 have taken general despatches, much, less such an one as this 

 particular one ofGovernor King's isdescribed tobe,for he would 

 not carry any from the ships at Madeira and the Cape. And 

 lie blames the captain of Le Geographe for taking some from 

 Mauritius, which, had he been guilty of the same offence, he 

 could hardly have done at the time he was claiming the 

 benefit of his passport on the ground of not having broken its 

 conditions. While the despatches were in De Caen's hands. 

 Flinders writes to Admiral Linois, asking for his intervention, 

 and says :—" I should willingly undergo an examination by 

 the captains of your squadron, and my papers would either* 

 prove or disprove my assertions. If it be found that I have 

 committed any act of hostility against the French nation or 

 its allies, my passport will become forfeited, and I expect no 

 favour , but if my conduct hatli been altogether consistent 

 with the passport, I hope to be set at liberty, or at least to -be 

 sent to France for the decision of the Government." Is it 

 likely Flinders would have challenged this enquiry if he knew 

 ^hat De Caen had written proof that his conduct had not 

 been " consistent with the passport ? " 



But it may be said that Governor King may have sent the 

 despatch without letting Flinders know its contents. That 

 is true. But if it had been among Flinders' papers De Caen 

 would have found it, and it is certain, notwithstanding all 

 that the author of the summary of the Brabourne Paj)ers 

 says about De Caen's finding it and acting upon it, he never 

 did find anything of the sort. It was exactly the kind of 

 thing he wanted to find, and had he found it, it would have 

 afforded the only possible justification of De Caen's after 

 conduct, and he would not have been driven to make th& 

 paltry excuses he was reduced to. But not finding any such 

 thing he had to fall back on a passage in Flinders' journal, 

 in which, after giving his main reasons for running into Port 

 Louis rather than to the Cape, he adds, as a subordinate one, 

 that it will give him an opportunity of making meteorological 

 and other observations on the Mauritius. If De Caen had 

 the despatch which would have constituted a real proof that 

 the passport had been forfeited, would he have withheld it 

 and put forward the fictitiously hollow reason that by the 

 passport Flinders " was certainly not authorised to put in at 

 the Isle of France to be able to observe the pei-iodic winds, 

 the port, the actual state of the colony, etc., that thus by this 

 conduct he had violated the neutrality under which he had 

 heen indirectly permitted to land in this island." Such is 

 the only excuse De Caen offers, not only to Flinders m his. 



H 



