FABYAN'S OHRUNICLE-ALLUSION TO THE VOYAGE OF CABOT. FABYAN died, according to Stow, in 1511. Five years after, his Chronicle was published by Pynson, but it then reached only to the tenth year of Henry VII.'s reign, that is 1495. A new edition of the work was published by Rastall, in 1533, with the Continuation. It is here, of course, that we look for the paragraphs referred to by Stow; yet, there is not to be found the slightest allusion to the expedition or to either of the Cabots. Mr Ellis, who gave to the public, some years ago, an edition of Fabyan with notes, and has even furnished a copy of Fabyan's Will occupying seven folio pages, does not seem to have been aware of the importance of inquiry on this point. Stow, in the collections which he made for his Survey, speaks of a Continuation by Fabyan himself, as low as the third year of Henry VIII. which book, he adds, "I have in written hand” (Harleian MS. 538). Mr Ellis, in his Preface to Fabyan (p. xvii.), supposes that the MS. thus referred to may be the one now in the Cotton Manuscripts (Nero C, no. xi.), but this comes down only to the beginning of the reign of Henry VII., and though some of the last pages have been destroyed, yet it would seem from an examination of the copious Index which fortunately precedes it, and is evidently contemporary with the body of the work, that it did not reach the period in question. Assuming, however, the correctness of Mr Ellis's conjecture, the question would still remain open as to the authenticity of the ordinary version. Mr E. refers (ib.) to another MS. copy which he had heard of, but had not, as it would seem, consulted. The point is worthy of attentive examination. Stow, of course, in making the assertion, knew of the printed work of Fabyan. The Stow MS. could be instantly recognised by its allusion, under the year 1502, to the exhibition of the savages. We must strike out the reference to Fabyan in Stow, Speed, and Purchas, or deny that any part of the Continuation can be by him, for it is difficult to believe that he would prepare two works relative to the incidents of the same reign differing essentially from each other. It forms a presumption in favour of the Stow MS., and against the Continuation by Rastall, that while the worthy Alderman, noting from time to time what fell under his observation, would be likely to advert to the incident in question, it might readily escape a compiler endeavouring to recall the leading events of the era after curiosity about the Newfoundland had passed away. It is remarkable, that the original edition of Fabyan, published by Pynson, is accompanied by a single leaf, on which are noted the death of Henry VII. and the accession of his son. As Mr Ellis republishes this (see his edition, p. 678) without any attempt to account for the disappearance of the intermediate matter, a conjecture may be hazarded. Bale, in his "Scriptorum Illustrium Magni Brytanniæ, &c." (Bas. Ed. of 1557, fol. 642), states that Cardinal Wolsey had caused some copies of Fabyan's work to be burned, because it exposed the enormous revenues of the priesthood, "Ejus Chronicorum exemplaria nonnulla Cardinalis Wolsius in suo furore comburi fecit quod cleri proventus pingues plus satis detexerit." Mr Ellis is of opinion (Preface, xviii.) that the obnoxious passage "must" have been that in which an abstract is given of the Bill projected by the House of Commons in the 11th Henry IV.; but this seems to furnish a very inadequate motive for the vehement indignation of the Cardinal. A more perilous epoch to the Chronicler was that in which he had to record the death (in 1500) of Cardinal and Chancellor Morton. Of this personage, Bacon says, in his History of Henry VII., "This year also died John Morton, Archbishop of Canterbury, Chancellor of England and Cardinal. He was a wise man, and an eloquent, but in his nature harsh and haughty; much accepted by the King, but envied by the nobility, and hated of the people." "He (Henry VII.) kept a strait hand on his nobility, and chose rather to advance clergymen and lawyers which were more obsequious to him, but had less interest in the people." It is highly probable, that the popular sentiment would be reflected from the page of Fabyan, and give umbrage to Wolsey, who may be supposed anxious that Henry VIII. should pursue the very policy attributed by Bacon to his Father. At this precise point, then, occurs a chasm in the copies extant of Pynson's edition. Was not this part sacrificed to the resentment of Wolsey, or suppressed from a dread of his displeasure, and was it not afterwards supplied by Rastall? The MS. which had, meanwhile, been lost sight of, could not elude so indefatigable a collector as Stow. The single leaf referred to, of Pynson's edition, may be either part of the original work, or a hasty substitute, got up on the withdrawal of the obnoxious matter, so as to give to the work the appearance of being brought down to the latest period. (B.) (See page 95.) ENGLISH EXPEDITION SAID TO HAVE BEEN FOUND BY HOJEDA AT CAQUI BACOA. THE claims of Truth are so paramount to those of any Hypothesis, however convenient and apparently well sustained, that a caution must here be interposed. It might be presumed that Navarette (tom. iii. p. 41) would not lightly hazard the unqualified assertion alluded to; yet this consideration will, perhaps, occur with most force to those who have not examined his volumes. He adduces no authority in support of the position, and the Document which seems, at a hasty glance, to countenance it, will be found, on examination, to suggest an opposite conclusion. Cabot had discovered a vast Continent along the coast of which he proceeded to the South as far as Florida without reaching its termination. Of this fact the Spanish Government was, of course, fully aware in July 1500, the date of the agreement with Hojeda in which allusion is made to the English, for we find (Navarette, tom. iii. p. 77) a Letter from the Sovereigns dated 6th May, 1500, which Navarette himself (ib. p. 42) connects with an intention to follow up the discoveries of Cabot. The conduct of England was of course regarded by the Court of Spain with indignation and alarm, as involving a violation of the Papal Bull. Cabot followed the main land no further only because his provisions were exhausted. When the Spaniards, then, subsequently discovered Terra Firma, nothing was more natural, or correct, than to suppose it connected with the Great Continent coasted by the English, and in resolving to take possess |