tiie ncared (liore ^.6] n., diftaiit 3 leagues, and a point to the nori'i ward of, and inteixeptin!^ our vic^v- of cape St. Lueas leagues, beyond which the cape foon appeared, and was loiuid to lie from that point s. 47 e., diflant 2 leagues. In the afternoon wo pafled this point, or promontory, which gradually, though not v<'ry regulailv, defcends from the range of mountains before mentioned, and tcrniinair-. at its fouth extremity in a hummock of low. or verv modoMtely elevnud land, that had the fam^ rocky ftorii jippcarance as that v.r. had been onpofite to in the morning.
The weather had been verv favorable to t]ieob;e';-i I had had ir, v i-n,/ in thus directing our co'.irfe to the fouihwaid. According lo(jU' obl'cr vations cape St. Lucas is fituated in latitude 22", "52', longiiuile 2-0" 16' 18". The very (liarp turn which the coafl takes from that point tou ards the gulph of California, enabled us in a very precife manner to afc(>rt lin the moft projefting part of the cape, which according to the Spanilli charts, and the infonnation I had procured from the Spaniards thcm- felves, is fituated under the fame meridian as their eftabliflimeni of St. Jofeph, and which agreeably to the Spanifh printed chart compiled by Miguel CoRanfo in 1770, is ftatcd to be in latitude 23" 3' .42", longitude 250" 17' 30". On the confirmation of our calculations by this authority I derived much gratification, as 1 had now great reafon to prefume, that the pofition of the wellern coafi of America between cape St. Lucas in California, and cape Douglas in Cook's inlet, as heretofore flated bA' me, would be found tolerably correft. The very trivial variation that had occurred in the rate of Arnold's No. 1 4 for the preceding two or three months, induced me to place my principal reliance upon it, and bv which the longitude of cape St. Lucas differed from the above, only 1' 12". By Arnolds No. 82 on board the Chatham, the longitude of" the cape was 250° 9'; Arnold's No, 176, gave 250° 37'; and Kendall's, 25^" 21' 30". Fromthefe feveral refults it (hould feem, that Arnold's No. 176 varied mofl: from tlie truth : and as I have had occafion before to ob- I'crve, this deviation may polfibly have arifen by the motion it received on its being taken on fhore, for the purpofe of difcovcring its rate of going. As
