Jacob Baxter—Cavendish

Jacob Baxter and Cavendish are connected by the suspected plot to sink the Volunteer for financial gain. Their relationship is presented as an inference assembled from separate pieces of evidence: Baxter’s negotiations over a large prospective return, Cavendish’s talk of sinking a ship when circumstances make the loss look convincing, and Patrick Sumner’s later accusation that Baxter had put Cavendish to that task. The novel does not depict Baxter and Cavendish meeting or directly agreeing on the plan, leaving the link consequential but contested.

Baxter’s Financial Arrangement

Before the voyage north, Baxter shows Arthur Brownlee two sheets of parchment and emphasizes that twelve thousand pounds, divided three ways, would exceed what Brownlee could expect to earn from whaling. Brownlee nods, then insists that Campbell must be present when needed, threatening to turn the ship around if he is not. The exchange establishes a scheme whose promised return competes with the ordinary proceeds of the voyage, and places Brownlee and Campbell within its immediate orbit. It does not identify the three beneficiaries or establish that Cavendish is among them.

Baxter casts the money as a force that cannot be controlled: it finds another way forward when one route is blocked. That fatalistic account sits beside his practical participation in a venture with a specified sum and required personnel. The contrast helps frame the suspected sinking not as an isolated act by Cavendish, but as part of a wider commercial arrangement in which the prospect of money shapes decisions about the ship.

Cavendish and the Planned Loss

Cavendish’s statements provide evidence for deliberate sinking, though not for Baxter’s involvement in it. In a discussion about timing, Campbell warns that the whales are a minor part of the larger scheme and stresses that the ship must be sunk in a way that will not prompt the underwriters to investigate. The conversation makes appearance central: the loss must resemble a credible accident, and the timing must avoid trapping the people arranging it.

Later, as drift ice moves toward the ship, Cavendish orders the crew to cut an ice dock for protection. The work is substantial: the men use long steel saws to cut through six-foot ice and divide a section into four large pieces. Cavendish subsequently says that if the ship does not sink then, he can sink it later; Henry Drax observes that a later sinking would not look as convincing, since they have already built the dock. The exchange indicates that Cavendish is prepared to cause the loss and that the appearance of the ship’s circumstances matters. It does not, by itself, show who commissioned him.

Sumner’s Accusation and Baxter’s Reply

When Patrick Sumner confronts Baxter, he supplies the direct link between Baxter and Cavendish: he alleges that Baxter had Cavendish sink the Volunteer, while Henry Drax and Sumner were the only people who might have known or suspected the arrangement. Sumner describes a further intended sequence in which Drax would shoot him and Stevens would then shoot Drax, leaving the matter apparently resolved. In his account, the plan failed because events did not follow that neat sequence.

Baxter does not accept Sumner’s explanation. He calls it incorrect, then redirects attention to the immediate danger facing Sumner: two men are dead in the timber yard, and Sumner has killed one of them. Earlier, after reading Sumner’s letter about the killings, Baxter reacts with horror and names Cavendish, Brownlee, and a cabin boy among the people implicated in what he has read. That reaction records Baxter’s response, not proof that he was unaware of the sinking scheme or uninvolved in it.

What the Relationship Establishes

The evidence supports a distinction between shared purpose and demonstrated contact. Baxter’s financial discussions show a profit-oriented arrangement involving Brownlee and a need for Campbell’s presence; the conversations about the ship’s loss show that Cavendish is prepared to sink it and that its appearance to underwriters is a concern. Sumner’s accusation joins those strands by identifying Baxter as the person who had Cavendish carry out the sinking. No supplied scene independently confirms a direct agreement between the two men, and Baxter disputes Sumner’s account.

Their suspected association makes the ship itself the meeting point of commerce and deception. Whaling proceeds are discussed as a lesser return, while the proposed loss depends on timing, ice, and a credible account for the underwriters. The relationship therefore remains partly unresolved in the evidence: Cavendish’s role in a deliberate sinking is strongly indicated, but Baxter’s responsibility for arranging it is presented through Sumner’s accusation and Baxter’s denial.