world had not hitherto seen executed.  His father, accordingly, he says, having performed the voyage, and collected his observations, in conformity to such opinion and expectations, proceeded, on his return home, to accomplish the remaining task allotted to him—­writing the history of the voyage.  It was first proposed, we are told, that a single narrative should be composed from his and Cook’s papers, the important observations of each being inserted, and ascertained by appropriate marks.  Forster, in consequence, received a part of Cook’s journal, and drew up several sheets as a specimen; but this plan was soon desisted from, as it was thought more expedient that the two journals should be kept separate.  In fartherance, then, of this design, it is said, an agreement was drawn up on the 13th of April, 1776, between Captain Cook and Mr Forster, in the presence, and with the signature, of the Earl of Sandwich, which specified the particular parts of the relations to be prepared by each, and confirmed to both, jointly, the gift of the valuable plates engraved at the expence of the Admiralty, and generously bestowed on these two gentlemen in equal shares.  Mr F. soon afterwards presented a second specimen of his narrative to the Earl of Sandwich, but was surprised to find that it was quite disapproved of, though at last he was convinced that, as the word “narrative” had been omitted in the above-mentioned agreement, he was not entitled to compose a connected account of the voyage.  He was, moreover, informed, that if he chose to preserve his claim to half of the profits arising from the plates, he must conform to the letter of that agreement.  In this he acquiesced for the benefit of his family; and accordingly, though he had understood it was intended he should write the history of the voyage, he found himself confined to the publication of his unconnected philosophical observations.  G. Forster adds, it hurt him much to see the chief intent of his father’s mission defeated, and the public disappointed in their expectations of a philosophical recital of facts; however, as he himself had been appointed his father’s assistant, and was bound by no such agreement as that which restrained him, he thought it incumbent to attempt such a narrative as a duty to the public, and in justice to the ample materials he had collected during the voyage.  “I was bound,” he concludes, “by no agreement whatever; and that to which my father had signed, did not make him answerable for my actions, nor, in the most distant manner, preclude his giving me assistance.  Therefore, in every important circumstance I had leave to consult his journals, and have been enabled to draw up my narrative with the most scrupulous attention to historical truth.”  Such is the defence which Mr G. Forster sets up in behalf of a conduct, which it is certain was very differently construed by the patrons of the expedition, whose indignant opinions were so far regarded by the public, as to render the residence of both father and