curiously exact. The facilities for procuring game were assisted by the
use of improved weapons; and besides, as Sir Leopold McClintock has
justly shown, it was merely a tradition, not an ascertained fact, that
these sub-arctic regions were destitute of animal life. The method by
which the official position of the bodies was determined is
indisputably open to objection. "Watches and silver relics," writes
Vice-admiral Sir George Richards, "do not necessarily indicate a
corresponding number of officers. Such light valuable articles would
naturally be taken by the survivors."

But the point which has provoked more criticism than all the rest is
the native evidence that the distressed crews were in the last resort
reduced to cannibalism. This is set down just as it was heard, being
worth neither more nor less than any testimony on an event which
happened so many years ago. Between the risk of giving pain to living
relatives, and the reproach of having suppressed essential parts of the
story, no traveller should hesitate for an instant. Dr. John Rae, the
veteran of Franklin search parties, writes to the author in the
following words: "As my name is mentioned in connection with the
subject of cannibalism, I must state that when I came home in 1854 I
felt bound to report in as condensed a form as possible all the
information given us by the Esquimaux, including the most painful part.
I would have felt it my duty to do this even had my dearest friends
been among the lost ones, for had I withheld any part of the sad story,
it would have come to light through my men, and I should have been
accused, with some show of justice, of garbling my report. I consider
it no reproach, when suffering the agony to which extreme hunger
subjects some men, for them to do what the Esquimaux tell us was done.
Men so placed are no more responsible for their actions than a madman
who commits a great crime. Thank God, when starving for days, and