îs. B. DAWSON] THE VOYAGES OF THE CABOTS 24B 



•coast, searching- from Cape Eace to Florida for a westward passage ; and 

 in the account^f Oviedo and the map of Eibero, we can trace his course 

 from point to point along the coast and see where, from the l^urgeo 

 islands, he crossed to Cape North and thence to Cape J5reton. Jt was a 

 broad ocean they were all expecting, and such openings as these were 

 taken to be bays. 



But, after all, what can be more conclusive than the ma])S ? There 

 they are in the books, and many of them were reproduced in my ])reced- 

 iug pa]iers. They speak for themselves and declare that, until (laspar 

 Viegas's map of 1534, there was no gulf marked on the coast to rejn-esent 

 in the faintest way the Gulf of St. Lawrence. This fact cannot be waived 

 aside by generalities. Let some one produce a map before 15o4, or cite 

 ^n author before Jacques Cartier in the same year ; but until that is done 

 of what avail is it to multiply adjectives? Archbishop O'Brien wheels up 

 the whole coast of La Cosa's map fi'om what he assumes to be Cape 

 Henry at an angle of ninety degrees, but he does not thereby open up the 

 great inland sea of Canada, 500 miles long and 243 miles wide. The coast 

 is still closed, and it remained closed to the outer world, until the Breton 

 sailor opened it up. Again, we are told that the evidence is only negative. 

 It is the only evidence possible. The makers of maps never positively 

 fitate that such or such a bay or island does not exist. That would prove 

 they had heard of it. They draw the coast to their utmost knowledge, 

 and if a map of the gulf does not contain this or that island, it is con- 

 <;lusive proof that, for that cartographer, the island was non-existent. 

 One wearies of a discussion where phrases like "absurd," "senseless," 

 " ridiculous," "childish wilfulness," "puerile wilfulness," "bolstering up 

 ^' preconceived opinions," do duty for maps, or citations from acknowl- 

 «dged authorities. One map, one reference, is worth more in this, or in 

 any similar controversy, than many pages of unsupported assertions or 

 of contradictions without evidence to sustain them. 



But, again, let us suppose the "Matthew" did first touch land at 

 Mount Squirrel on the morning of June 24, it is most unlikely that Cabot 

 left again two hours later, at 8 o'clock, to sail westwards. The difficul- 

 ties multiply. He was shorl of provisions, and he started again west- 

 wards over an unknown ocean without knowing he would drop upon 

 Prince Edward Island. The winds and tides swept the vessel through 

 Northumberland strait and round Anticosti at the rate of 100 miles a 

 •day — but the west winds would not have helped him, nor the calm mid- 

 summer daj^s, nor the tides, for they ebb as well as flow. The archbishop 

 -does not think with Mr. Harrisse. that vessels in those days anchored at 

 night, but thinks that soundings were taken, and depth of water and 

 nature of bottom carefully recorded. Nor did they, he thinks, sail from 

 headland to headland, but crept along hugging the shore at a distance of 

 from two cables to hall' a league with lead in hand. 



Cabot, by this theory, was passing throvigh narrow seas, and although 

 we know from Cartier's narrative that Indians were numerous then and, 

 at that season, were probably fishing in their canoes, it is expressly re- 

 corded that he saw no man in all that inland na^'igation, nor is there any 

 record of his landing on any ])art of that attractive coast. 



Everyone who essays to form an intelligent opinion on this question 

 must study the works of Mr. Henry Harrisse. If he finds in them, as he 

 will in abundance, extracts from maps or rare books or documents of any 

 kind, he may rest assured that they are faithfully reproduced, Mr. 



