set out on his voyage for two years." Dr Robertson makes no express reference to the second commission, and having followed Hakluyt in referring that of the eleventh Henry VII. to 1495, he doubtless regarded the order of the thirteenth year of Henry VII. as merely a final permission for the departure of the expedition, made out in 1497 on the eve of its sailing.

In "The Naval History of England in all its Branches," by Lediard, it is said (p. 85) after giving the first patent

"Hakluyt, from whom I have taken this commission, places in the margin, A.D. 1495. But, according to Rymer's Fœdera, it was dated March 5, 1496. To the ship granted by the king, of which, however, this commission makes no mention, some merchants of London added three more, laden with such slight commodities as were thought proper for commerce with barbarous people. By an extract from a record of the rolls, it appears, that though Cabot's commission was signed in March, 1495, or 1496, he did not go to sea on this expedition till the beginning of the year 1497. This record is in the following words." He then gives Hakluyt's notice of the patent of February 3, 1498.

The same notion that the second patent preceded discovery has found its way across the Atlantic, but with an observance of the historical computation as to dates. Thus, in the valuable Introduction to Marshall's Life of Washington, the first patent is correctly referred to March 5, 1496; and it is said, "The Expedition contemplated at the date of the commission appears not then to have been made, but in May (1498) Cabot, with his second son," &c.

Forster (p. 266) says, "In the 13th year of this king's reign, John Cabot obtained permission to sail with six ships of 200 tons burthen and under, on new discoveries. He did not sail, however, till the beginning of May, 1497 (!) and then, by his own account, had but two ships fitted out and stocked with provisions at the king's expense, &c."

In Harris's Voyages, &c. (Ed. of 1744-8, vol. ii. p. 190),

K

and in Pinkerton (vol. xii. p. 158), after stating, not conjecturally, but as an unquestionable fact, that the first voyage was in 1494, it is added,

"The next voyage made for discovery was by Sebastian Cabot, the son of John, concerning which all our writers have fallen into great mistakes, for want of comparing the several accounts we have of this voyage, and making proper allowances for the manner in which they were written; since I cannot find there was ever any distinct and clear account of this voyage published, though it was of so great consequence. On the contrary, I believe that Cabot himself kept no journal of it by him; since, in a letter he wrote on this subject, he speaks doubtfully of the very year in which it was undertaken, though, from the circumstances he relates, that may be very certainly fixed. On the 3d of February, in the 13th year of the reign of King Henry VII. a new grant was made to John Cabot, by which he had leave given him to take ships out of any of the Ports of England, of the burthen of 200 tons, to sail upon discoveries; but before this could be effected, John Cabot died, and Sebastian, his son, applied himself to the king, proposing to discover a North-West Passage, as he himself tells us; and for this purpose, he had a ship manned and victualled at the king's expense, at Bristol, and three or four other ships were fitted out, at the expense of some merchants of that city, particularly Mr Thorne, and Mr Hugh Elliot. But whereas Sebastian Cabot himself says that he made this voyage in the summer of 1496, he must be mistaken; and he very well might, speaking from his memory only: and to prove this, I need only observe, that this date will not at all agree, even with his own account of the voyage; for he says expressly, it was undertaken after his father's death, who, as we have shown, was alive in the February following; so that it was the summer of the year 1497 in which he made this voyage, and what he after. wards relates of his return proves this likewise."

It is scarcely necessary to remark, that aside from all other considerations, the whole of their statement is in direct collision with the fact, that the discovery of the 24th June, 1497, is referred, on evidence which these writers do not undertake to question, to the joint agency of father and son. That, therefore, which should decisively control speculation, is blindly sacrificed to an effort to get over some minor difficulties which, in reality, have their origin only in the kindred misconceptions of preceding compilers.

All this obscurity will now disappear. After a tedious search there has been found, at the Rolls Chapel, the original patent of 3d February, 1498. The following is an exact

copy:

"Memorandum quod tertio die Februarii anno regni Regis Henrici Septimi xiii.

ista Billa delibata fuit Domino Cancellario Angliæ apud Westmonasterium exequenda.

"To the Kinge.

"Please it your Highnesse of your most noble and habundaunt grace to graunte to John Kabotto, Venecian, your gracious Lettres Patents in due fourme to be made accordyng to the tenor hereafter ensuyng, and he shall continually praye to God for the preservacion of your moste Noble and Roiall astate longe to endure.

"H. R.

"Rex.

"To all men to whom theis Presenteis shall come send Gretyng: Knowe ye that We of our Grace especiall, and for dyvers causis us movying, We Have geven and graunten, and by theis Presentis geve and graunte to our welbeloved John Kabotto, Venecian, sufficiente auctorite and power, that he, by him his Deputie or Deputies sufficient, may take at his pleasure VI Englisshe Shippes in any Porte or Portes or other place within this our Realme of England or obeisance, so that and if the said Shippes be of the bourdeyn of CC. tonnes or under, with their apparail requisite and necessarie for the safe conduct of the said Shippes, and them convey and lede to the Londe and Isles of late founde by the seid John in oure name and by our commaundemente. Paying for theym and every of theym as and if we should in or for our owen cause paye and noon otherwise. And that the said John, by hym his Deputie or Deputies sufficiente, maye take and receyve into the said Shippes, and every of theym all such maisters, maryners, Pages, and other subjects as of their owen free wille woll goo and passe with him in the same Shippes to the seid Londe or Iles, withoute anye impedymente, lett or perturbance of any of our officers or ministres or subjects whatsoever they be by theym to the seyd John, his Deputie, or Deputies, and all other our seid subjects or any of theym passinge with the seyd John in the said Shippes to the seid Londe or Iles to be doon, or suffer to be doon or attempted. Geving in commaundement to all and every our officers, ministres and subjects seying or herying thies our Lettres Patents, without any ferther commaundement by Us to theym or any of theym to be geven to perfourme and socour the said John, his Deputie and all our said Subjects so passyng with hym according to the tenor of theis our Lettres Patentis. Any Statute, Acte, or Ordennance to the contrarye made or to be made in any wise notwithstanding."

Surely the importance of this document cannot be exaggerated. It establishes conclusively, and for ever, that the American continent was first discovered by an expedition commissioned to "set up the banner" of England. It were

idle to offer an argument to connect this recital of 3d February, 1498, with the discovery of the 24th June, 1497, noted on the old map hung up at Whitehall. Will it not be deemed almost incredible that the very Document in the Records of England, which recites the great discovery, and plainly contemplates a scheme of colonization, should, up to this moment, have been treated by her own writers as the one which first gave the permission to go forth and explore?

Nay, this very instrument has been used as an argument against the pretensions of England; for it has been asked by foreigners who have made the computation, and seen through the mistake of Pinkerton and the rest, why the patent of 3d February, 1498, took no notice of discoveries pretended to have been made the year before. The question is now triumphantly answered.

The importance of negativing a notion that the English discoveries were subsequent to the patent of the 13th Henry VII., will strikingly appear, on reference to the claim of Americus Vespucius. The truth, as now established, places beyond all question-even crediting the doubtful assertions of Vespucius-the priority of Cabot's discovery over that of the lucky Florentine. The map in Queen Elizabeth's gallery made no false boast in declaring that on the 24th June 1497, the English expedition discovered that land " prius adire ausus fuit."*

quam nullus

• The manner in which the precious Document referred to, and others of a similar kind, are kept, cannot be adverted to without an expression of regret. They are thrown loosely together, without reference even to the appropriate year, and are unnoticed in any Index or Calendar. It required a search of more than two weeks to find this patent of 3d February 1498, although the year and day of its date were furnished at the outset. Another document which appears in the present volume-the patent of Henry VII. to three Portuguese and others, dated 19 March, 1501, authorising them to follow up the discoveries of Cabot-has never before been published. This also was discovered, after a long search, not even folded up, but lying with one-half of the written part exposed, and, in consequence, so soiled and discoloured that it was with the greatest difficulty it could be decyphered, and some words finally eluded the most anxious scrutiny. And

this of two documents indispensable to the history of Maritime Discovery, and for the want of which, the account of these voyages has been completely unintelligible! An extraordinary compensation is claimed at the Rolls Chapel on account of the trouble attending a search amidst such a confused mass. For finding the documents, two guineas were demanded in addition to the cost of copies. The applicant is informed, that the charge must be paid, whether the document be discovered or not; so that the officer has no motive to continue perseveringly the irksome pursuit,