[42] Some doubt may be entertained of the propriety with which Captain King
    has occupied so large a portion of his volume as two chapters, or
    sections, with a subject, respecting which it is most certain, his
    knowledge must have resulted from almost any thing else than his own
    personal observation.  There is force in the objection.  But it must be
    allowed on the other hand, that there was no inconsiderable inducement
    to supply the public with a tolerable share of information concerning
    a country which, distant and uncultivated as it was, seemed
    notwithstanding to be entitled to more regard than had usually been
    paid to it.  Steller’s work, of which he has properly availed himself,
    had been but recently published, viz. in 1774, and in all probability
    had not hitherto occupied much attention.  The earlier accounts,
    whether published separately as that of Krascheninnikof, an English
    translation of which appeared at Gloucester in 1764, or contained in
    other works, as an article in Pallas’s New Memoirs of the North, were
    perhaps still less consulted.  Captain King’s description, therefore,
    supposing the subject in any degree entitled to notice, was neither
    unnecessary nor unprofitable.  It has been generally employed as the
    basis of the subsequent accounts which have been inserted in
    gazetteers and treatises of geography.  But there have been several
    works, entitled to the consideration of being original, published
    since its appearance, from which some additions might be obtained, or
    which point out reasons for correction,—­not so much however, it is
    proper to remark, because of errors committed by Captain K., as
    because of alterations occurred in the country since his time.  A few
    of these, unfortunately not much for the better, have been stated, or
    will be so, on the authority of one of the last visitors to
    Kamtschatka, Captain Krusenstern.  This gentleman, however, it ought to
    be understood, admits the general accuracy of the previous accounts
    given by Krascheninnikof, Steller, and King, and therefore, avoiding
    repetition, restricts himself almost entirely to the mention of the
    most material changes which have taken place during the last thirty
    years.  This will readily be allowed enough for our present purpose,
    exclusive of any attention to the other productions which have treated
    of Kamtschatka, in the intermediate period.—­E.

[43] It is in the vicinity of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, Krusenstern
    allows, that the climate is so unfavourable, and the soil, in
    consequence, so ungrateful.  But he specifies reasons for believing that
    the middle provinces of Kamtschatska are equal, if not superior, to
    many in European Russia, in respect of natural advantages, though