The hidden crime of Dr Richardson

Since the 1970s, a number of writers have endorsed the belief that Dr John Richardson very probably committed discreditable, and possibly even criminal, acts during the first Franklin expedition (1819–1822). These acts, they allege, were concealed from the public by Franklin and Richardson, who inse...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Polar Record
Main Author: Cavell, Janice
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Cambridge University Press (CUP) 2007
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0032247407006183
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0032247407006183
id crcambridgeupr:10.1017/s0032247407006183
record_format openpolar
spelling crcambridgeupr:10.1017/s0032247407006183 2024-03-03T08:48:19+00:00 The hidden crime of Dr Richardson Cavell, Janice 2007 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0032247407006183 https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0032247407006183 en eng Cambridge University Press (CUP) https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms Polar Record volume 43, issue 2, page 155-164 ISSN 0032-2474 1475-3057 General Earth and Planetary Sciences Ecology Geography, Planning and Development journal-article 2007 crcambridgeupr https://doi.org/10.1017/s0032247407006183 2024-02-08T08:38:44Z Since the 1970s, a number of writers have endorsed the belief that Dr John Richardson very probably committed discreditable, and possibly even criminal, acts during the first Franklin expedition (1819–1822). These acts, they allege, were concealed from the public by Franklin and Richardson, who inserted a fabricated account into Franklin's 1823 narrative. This paper examines the evidence and arguments put forward by the originator of this theory, the historian Richard Glover. It concludes that Glover was motivated primarily by a desire to vindicate the good name of another explorer, Samuel Hearne. Richardson had suggested that Hearne's narrative was not an entirely reliable account of his travels, and in Glover's view, these remarks had seriously damaged Hearne's reputation. Glover therefore sought to characterise Richardson as a deceitful man of exceptionally poor judgement, upon whose claims no reliance could be placed. Later writers, engaged in a re-evaluation of Britain's imperial activities in the Canadian north, have accepted and expanded on Glover's theories. However, an examination of the primary sources cited by Glover and others demonstrates that there is no solid basis for the revisionist version of the 1819–1822 expedition. Article in Journal/Newspaper Polar Record Cambridge University Press Polar Record 43 2 155 164
institution Open Polar
collection Cambridge University Press
op_collection_id crcambridgeupr
language English
topic General Earth and Planetary Sciences
Ecology
Geography, Planning and Development
spellingShingle General Earth and Planetary Sciences
Ecology
Geography, Planning and Development
Cavell, Janice
The hidden crime of Dr Richardson
topic_facet General Earth and Planetary Sciences
Ecology
Geography, Planning and Development
description Since the 1970s, a number of writers have endorsed the belief that Dr John Richardson very probably committed discreditable, and possibly even criminal, acts during the first Franklin expedition (1819–1822). These acts, they allege, were concealed from the public by Franklin and Richardson, who inserted a fabricated account into Franklin's 1823 narrative. This paper examines the evidence and arguments put forward by the originator of this theory, the historian Richard Glover. It concludes that Glover was motivated primarily by a desire to vindicate the good name of another explorer, Samuel Hearne. Richardson had suggested that Hearne's narrative was not an entirely reliable account of his travels, and in Glover's view, these remarks had seriously damaged Hearne's reputation. Glover therefore sought to characterise Richardson as a deceitful man of exceptionally poor judgement, upon whose claims no reliance could be placed. Later writers, engaged in a re-evaluation of Britain's imperial activities in the Canadian north, have accepted and expanded on Glover's theories. However, an examination of the primary sources cited by Glover and others demonstrates that there is no solid basis for the revisionist version of the 1819–1822 expedition.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Cavell, Janice
author_facet Cavell, Janice
author_sort Cavell, Janice
title The hidden crime of Dr Richardson
title_short The hidden crime of Dr Richardson
title_full The hidden crime of Dr Richardson
title_fullStr The hidden crime of Dr Richardson
title_full_unstemmed The hidden crime of Dr Richardson
title_sort hidden crime of dr richardson
publisher Cambridge University Press (CUP)
publishDate 2007
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0032247407006183
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0032247407006183
genre Polar Record
genre_facet Polar Record
op_source Polar Record
volume 43, issue 2, page 155-164
ISSN 0032-2474 1475-3057
op_rights https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1017/s0032247407006183
container_title Polar Record
container_volume 43
container_issue 2
container_start_page 155
op_container_end_page 164
_version_ 1792505076487553024