Flinders was without a rival in his
generation for the beauty, completeness, and accuracy of his
hydrographical work, and Captain Baudin's excuses probably sprang from
pride. The reason he gave was that his charts were to be finished in
Paris. But there was nothing to prevent his showing the preliminary
drawings to Flinders, and as a fact he had shown them to King. If
Flinders had had a sight of them he would have detected at a glance the
absence of any indication of Port Phillip. But we learn from the Moniteur
of 27 Thermidor, Revolutionary Year 11 (August 15, 1803), which published
a progress report of the expedition, that the charts sent home by Baudin
were very rough. Part of the coast was described as being "figuree assez
grossierement et sans details."
Flinders, it should be explained, did not publish the chart which he made
when he entered Port Phillip with the Investigator, because by the time
when he was preparing his work for publication, a copy of the complete
survey chart made by Grimes had been supplied to him by the Admiralty. He
used Grimes's drawing in preference to his own - acknowledging the
authorship, of course - because when he found Port Phillip he was not in a
position to examine it thoroughly. His supplies, after his long voyage,
had become depleted, and he could not delay.
It is most likely that the French learnt of the existence of Port Phillip
from Flinders, though not at all likely that they were able to obtain a
copy of his drawing. If Baudin got one at all, it must have been
Murray's.
Freycinet did not acknowledge on any of his charts the source whence he
obtained his Port Phillip drawing. Obviously, it would have been honest
to do so. All he did was to insert two lines at the bottom of the page in
that part of volume 3 dealing with navigation details, where very few
readers would observe the reference.
There remains the question: Why did General Decaen keep Flinders' third
log-book when restoring to him all his other papers? The reason suggested
by Flinders himself is probably the right one: that the governor retained
it in order that he might be better able to justify himself to Napoleon
in case he was blamed for disregarding the passport. He "did not choose
to have his accusations disproved by the production either of the
original or of an authenticated copy." It is difficult to see what other
motive Decaen can have had. The sheer cantankerous desire to annoy and
injure a man who had angered him can hardly have been so strong within
him as even to cause a disregard of the common proprietary rights of his
prisoner.
