Section IT., 1899. [ 427 ] Trans. R. S C 



y. — Cabofs Landfall and Chart : Some Criticisivs Ansioered. 

 By Most Eev. Archbishop O'Brien. 



(Read 26th May, 1899.) 



In the Presidential Address which I had the honour of delivering 

 at the session of the Eoyal Society on June 24:th, 1897, and which is 

 inserted in the Transactions of that year, I advanced a new argument 

 for locating the landfall, and hroaohed a new theory regarding Cabot's 

 Chart. In both cases I submitted j^roofs based on historic evidence 

 as well as on recognized canons of interpretation. 



Whilst some have found the proofs satisfactory, others have' ques- 

 tioned their strength, and have refused to accept them as conclusive. 

 This is not a cause for surprise or wonder. Minds are variously con- 

 stituted : dearly hugged theories die hard ; and certain, often uncon- 

 scious, prejudices are difficult to shake off. When the calendar was 

 reformed by Gregory XIII, some nations could see in it only a cruel 

 device to cheat them out of ten days of life. There were men, too, 

 who saw its reasonableness, but preferred astronomic darkness to light 

 from such a source. Small wonder that a geographical conclusion of 

 mine, at variance Avitli received ideas, should be looked at askance. 

 In the end, however, it will prevail. 



The objections by Dr. S. E. Dawson in his paper printed in the 

 same volume of the Transactions as the address, are the only ones I 

 shall now consider. They are the strongest that have fallen under my 

 notice ; to rebut them will therefore suffice. These objections, chiefly 

 found in Appendices E and F, may be reduced to three heads, viz : — 



1. That the argument from a passage in Da Soncino's letter is 

 valueless, 



2. That the Gulf of St. Lawrence was unknown before Cartier's 

 first voyage. 



3. That Cavo de Inglaterra on La Cosa's map is not Cape Chidley 

 but Cape Eace. 



As briefly as possible eacli objection shall be answered, for not- 

 withstanding Dr. Dawson's contention, I still maintain the question is 

 to be decided by evidence, not by "conjectural lines" of variation of 

 the compass, nor by loading the pages of the Transactions with maps 

 and diagrams which have their use and value in many ways, but which, 

 in deciding the site of the landfall, have only an "academic interest, 

 and are not germane to the question." Evidence is to be sought in 



