Section II., 1903 [ 205 ] Tkans. R. S. C. 



XI. — Latest Lights on the Cabot Controversy. 

 By Rt. Rev. Bishop M. F. Howley. 



(Read May 19, 1903.) 



Mr. Harrisse in his latest work " John and Sebastian Cabot," essays 

 at great length to prove two points: One negative, viz., that "June 

 could not he the date of Cabot's landfall." The other positive, viz., 

 that the site of the landfall was somewhere on the coast of 

 Labrador. 



I will attack the former position first, and I think he can be 

 easily routed from it. The arguments by which he endeavours to sup- 

 port it, are all based on a mistaken foundation. He argues thus 

 (p, 63) : Cabot left England somewhere about the beginning of May 

 (1497). From a Bristol MS., we learn that the expedition started on 

 the 2nd of May. Harrise says " unfortunately Bristollian MSS. are 

 not always to be trusted. He allows, however, from other sources, 

 Pasqualigo, etc., that the expedition sailed sometime early in May. 

 We know for certain that Cabot had returned and was in London at 

 least as early as the 10th day of August following, "' which implies 

 that he reached Bristol about five days before. This leaves only forty- 

 two days between the arrival of Cabot in sight of the New World (sup- 

 posing him to have sighted it on June 24th) and his return to England." 

 He then goes on to argue that " since it took him fifty-two days (from 

 2nd of May to 24th of June) to make the outward voyage, and since they 

 must have devoted some time to refit or repair their diminutive craft, 

 as well as to take in wood and water and renew the stock of victuals, 

 which could only be done by hunting and salting game " ; and again 

 " since Pasqualigo asserts that they coasted three hundred leagues, which 

 is corroborated by Ayala who saw the map which John Cabot made, 

 of the lands newly discovered. . . . How can all this have been 

 accomplisbed in the limited space of time which the alleged landfall 

 on June 24th, leaves Cabot before returning to England? If we sup- 

 pose that owing to the westerly winds and gulf stream, he effected the 

 homeward voyage in one-third less time than was required for the 

 same passage when outward bound, that is thirty-four days instead of 

 fifty-two, as he was already back in Bristol on the 5th of August, he 

 would have taken necessary rest, made the indispensable rep-airs, 

 effected landings, renewed his provisions, and coasted nine hundred 

 miles, all within eight days ! '' (p. 64) If such argumentation had a 

 shadow of exactitude in it, it would merit the note of admiration with 



