Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 14.djvu/12

 ships parted company; that Alexander Selkirk, the master of the Cinque Ports, was ‘marooned’ at Juan Fernandez; that a French ship, which they met near Juan Fernandez, beat them off; and that they made a fruitless attack on the Manila ship (6 Dec. 1704), which repelled them with much loss. The failure of this, the chief object of the expedition, completed the break-up of the party, and, after much recrimination, Dampier, with about thirty men, was left in the St. George, the rest going on board a captured bark, crossing the Pacific to Amboyna, where they were thrown into prison as pirates, but afterwards released and permitted to return to England. Funnell, the historian of the expedition, was of this party, and from the time of his leaving the St. George the indications of her voyage are very scanty. It appears, however, that the ship, being too large for their diminished numbers, and also very crazy, was left on the coast of Peru, Dampier and his men embarking in a Spanish prize, in which they also crossed the Pacific to one of the Dutch settlements, where they in turn were imprisoned. It was not till the close of 1707 that Dampier returned to England, no richer in material wealth, and considerably poorer in reputation. Funnell's account had been already published, and Dampier now replied to it in an angry and badly written pamphlet, or, as he called it, ‘Vindication,’ denying some of Funnell's statements, and explaining away others; and this ‘Vindication’ has been frankly accepted by most of Dampier's biographers, who have spoken of Dampier's assertions as disproving Funnell's. Proof on either side is utterly wanting, and we are left to weigh the probabilities of statements, in themselves plausible, put forward by Funnell and insisted on by Welbe, against the contradiction published by Dampier.

The shipowners of the day, at any rate, seem to have pronounced against Dampier, and to have declined entrusting him with the command of another expedition. He therefore engaged himself as pilot on board the Duke privateer, commanded by Captain Woodes Rogers [q. v.], which, in company with the Duchess, sailed from England in August 1708, passed round Cape Horn into the Pacific, rescued Selkirk from his solitary imprisonment on Juan Fernandez, captured one of the Manila ships, crossed the Pacific, and, coming home by the Cape of Good Hope, arrived in the Thames on 14 Oct. 1711, bringing with them specie and merchandise to the value of nearly 200,000l. Dampier's share of this would have been a competence in his old age, but the prize money was not paid till 1719. He died early in March 1714–15, in the parish of St. Stephen, Coleman Street, London, as is shown by the endorsement of his will, still preserved in Somerset House; but his name does not appear in the St. Stephen's register. The will is dated 29 Nov. 1714, and was proved 23 March 1714–15. It describes ‘Captain William Dampier, Mariner,’ as ‘diseased and weak of body, but of sound and perfect mind,’ and leaves his ‘goods or household stuff’ and nine-tenths of all property to his cousin, Grace Mercer of London, spinster, who also is sole executrix; the remaining tenth is left to his brother, ‘ George Dampier of Porton, near Breadport, in the county of Dorset, Gentln.’ No mention is made of his wife. The value of the property is not stated; but the common story that he died unknown and in penury is without foundation. His portrait, by Thomas Murray, formerly in the possession of Sir Hans Sloane, is now in the National Portrait Gallery.

Dampier was an excellent hydrographer, and possessed an almost unique talent for observing and recording natural phenomena. His ‘Discourse on the Winds’ may be even now justly regarded, so far as it goes, as a text-book of that branch of physical geography; and his treatment of the many other subjects which fell within his experience is perhaps equally good. In their clear, easy, homely, common-sense style, his writings are almost classical; his surveys and charts, making allowance for the imperfections of the age, are most highly commendable, and his dogged determination to keep and preserve his journal through all hardships, dangers, and adverse circumstances, is beyond all praise. But it does not, therefore, follow that he was the incarnation of all the virtues. The report of his dismissal from the navy by sentence of court-martial has been doubted or boldly denied. He has, again, been described as a leading man even among the buccaneers and pirates. His own account, and still more the accounts of his shipmates, show that in reality he held no position, and was but lightly esteemed. His appointment to command the Jolly Prize or Roebuck was given solely on account of his literary and scientific merits, and proved unfortunate; for he showed himself an incompetent commander, whose sobriety, honesty, and courage even were impugned, and whose highest idea of discipline was calling his subordinate officers ‘rogues, rascals, or sons of bitches.’

[The first and principal authority for Dampier's Life is in his own writings. Very little, if anything, is known of his private life beyond