The letters patent were accorded on March 5 (14th N.S.), 1496,[286] and give Cabot and his sons the right under the English flag

As the south is not mentioned among the regions which might be explored, and as the new countries might not be known to Christians, it is clear that Cabot is here enjoined not to frequent those waters where the Spaniards and Portuguese had just made their most important discoveries, and thus run the risk of bringing England into conflict with the Spanish or Portuguese Crown.

As the letters patent bear the same date (March 5) and are to some extent couched in the same terms as Cabot’s petition, they must have been granted as the result of previous negotiation and agreement between Cabot and the King, and must therefore contain Cabot’s plans for the new voyage, which were thus already formed in March 1496, when he had doubtless made at all events some preparations for the expedition.

That Cabot’s plans had been spoken of at the English Court as early as January of that year appears from an existing letter from Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain to the Spanish Ambassador in England, Dr. Ruy Gonzales de Puebla. The letter is dated March 28 (April 6, N.S.), 1496, and is an answer to a letter, now lost, of January 21 (30, N.S.) from the Ambassador. The answer is as follows:

It will be understood from this that Cabot’s plans had attracted attention in London, and that great importance was attached to them; consequently they must have been discussed for some time before the granting of letters patent. For this reason also, we must suppose that Cabot was prepared for his expedition in March 1496. It seems therefore unlikely that this was the expedition which did not leave until the year following that in which he applied for the letters patent, all the more so as the expedition of 1497 consisted of only one ship.[288] If we may interpret Ayala’s words of 1498 literally, that Bristol had sent out ships yearly for the seven previous years to search for the island of Brazil, etc., then we must suppose that Cabot actually set out in 1496 with the projected expedition of five ships, but for some reason or other turned back without having accomplished his object. After having been unfortunate in so large an undertaking, Cabot may have found it less easy to enlist support for a fresh attempt in 1497, and was thus obliged to content himself with one small ship and a scanty crew (eighteen men).[289] It may also be supposed that as the earlier expeditions consisting of several ships had failed to find the land they were looking for, Cabot as a practical seaman wished to make a pioneer expedition with a small swift-sailing craft and a picked crew, before again embarking on a large and costly undertaking. He was more independent, and could sail farther and more rapidly to the west, than when he was tied by having to keep a fleet of several ships together.

Cabot’s sons, who are mentioned in the letters patent, may have taken part in the voyage of 1496; on the other hand, it is less probable that they were among the eighteen men in 1497.[290] It is true that his son Sebastian claimed to have been present as one of the leaders of the expedition, but he also claimed to have made the voyage alone, so that no weight can be attached to his words. In any case, he must have been very young at that time, and he cannot have played any important part. Nor is a word said about him in a single one of the letters from contemporary foreign ambassadors in London, and in Pasqualigo’s letter of August 23, 1497, we are told of John Cabot after his return that “in the meantime [i.e., until his next voyage] he is staying with his Venetian wife and his sons in Bristol.” This does not seem to show that any of the sons had been with him; and the protest of the Wardens of the Drapers’ Company of London (see later) against Sebastian as a navigator points in the same direction.

Not a line have we from Cabot’s own hand either about this important voyage of 1497 or any other. We hear that he made maps of his discoveries; but these too have been lost, like so many other maps that must have been drawn during this period before 1500.[291] We can, therefore, only draw our conclusions from the statements of others, some contemporary and some later.

The most important documents giving trustworthy information about John Cabot’s voyage in 1497 are the following:

(1) The three letters from his two compatriots in London: one from the Venetian, Lorenzo Pasqualigo, to his two brothers in Venice, dated August 23 (September 1, N.S.), 1497; and two letters from the Milanese Minister, Raimondo di Soncino, to the Duke of Milan, dated August 24 (September 2, N.S.) and December 18 (27), 1497.

(2) An entry in the accounts of the King of England’s privy purse, from which we see that Cabot was back in London by August 10 (19, N.S.), 1497.

(3) The map of the world, drawn in 1500, by the well-known Spanish pilot, Juan de la Cosa.

(4) A Bristol chronicle by Maurice Toby, written in 1565, but from older sources.

Besides these may be mentioned a legend on the map of the world of 1544 which, according to what is written on it, was the work of Sebastian Cabot. But even if this be correct, the legend is of no great value, as he cannot be regarded as a trustworthy authority.[292]

Lorenzo Pasqualigo writes on August 23 (September 1, N.S.), 1497, to his two brothers in Venice, amongst other things:

The Minister, Raimondo di Soncino, writes on August 24 (September 2, N.S.), 1497, to the Duke of Milan, amongst other things:

On December 18 (27), 1497, Soncino again writes to the Duke more fully about Cabot’s voyage:

As confirming and to some extent supplementing what is said in these letters, we have various statements in the letters of the two Spanish Ambassadors about the voyage in the following year (see later); they both say that the newly discovered country lay not more than four hundred Spanish leagues distant.

In Maurice Toby’s Bristol chronicle of 1565, we read of the year 1497:

Of course this chronicle was written long after the voyage took place; but it is extremely probable that it was taken from older sources; for it agrees in every way (both as to the length of the voyage and the time of the return) with the contemporary statements of the Italian Ministers, with whose letters the author of the chronicle cannot possibly have been acquainted. I can, therefore, see no reason why this statement should not be correct. But the most important authorities are the letters referred to.

If we compare all this we shall get a fairly complete idea of the voyage of 1497. After sailing round the south of Ireland, probably in the middle of May according to our calendar, Cabot would at first have held a somewhat northerly course. If this is correct, he may have done so for several reasons: unfavourable winds, which in May are prevalent from the south-west; the idea that great-circle sailing would prove the shortest way;[298] fear of encroaching on the waters of the Spaniards and Portuguese to the south; finally, perhaps, an idea that the course to Asia was shorter in northern latitudes (?). But we cannot tell what reasons decided him, nor whether he steered very far to the north at all; for it must be remembered that in speaking to a foreign Minister he may have had good reason for making his course appear somewhat northerly, lest it might be said that the lands he had arrived at were those discovered by the Spaniards. In any case, it was not long before he made for the west as rapidly as possible towards his goal, and we cannot, therefore, suppose that he went very far north. And it is expressly stated in Soncino’s first letter that the lands lay to the west of England, and in the letters of the Spanish Ambassadors in the following year we read that, after having seen the direction taken by Cabot, they thought that the land he had found was that belonging to Spain, or was “at the end of that land.” This again does not point to any northerly course.

Many writers have thought that from Soncino’s statements about the courses a conclusion might be drawn as to where on the American coast Cabot made the land; but this is impossible. In the first place Soncino’s words are anything but definite; besides which, of course, Cabot could not steer in a straight line across the Atlantic, but with the frequent contrary winds of May and June was obliged to shape many courses, and often had to beat; in fact, we are told as much in Soncino’s words, “havendo assai errato.” Every one who has had experience of the navigation of sailing ships knows how difficult it is under such conditions to make way in the precise direction one wishes, however good one’s reckoning may be; currents and lee-way set one far out of the reckoned course, and on a voyage so long as across the Atlantic the lee-way may be considerable. Whether Cabot was able to correct his reckoning by the aid of astronomical observations (with a Jacob’s staff or an astrolabe) we do not know, but we hear nothing of latitudes, so that it is not very probable (cf. also Columbus’s gross error in latitude). Especially during the first part of the voyage currents and prevailing winds may have set Cabot to the north-east; but he may also have encountered, particularly during the latter part of the voyage in June, heavy north-westerly gales which set him still farther to the south, and he may thus have had a southerly lee-way. In addition, as Dawson has so strongly insisted, the error of the compass must have set him to the south. Whether Cabot was aware of the error, and remarked its variation during the westward voyage, we do not know; it is possible, since we know that Columbus remarked this variation during his first voyage; but in any case, Cabot doubtless paid as little attention to it as Columbus in his navigation. Unfortunately we do not know the amount of the error at that time, but by examining the relation between the true direction of the coast-lines and those we find on the most trustworthy compass-charts (especially the Cantino chart) of a little later than 1500 (which are drawn in ignorance of the error), I have attempted to reconstruct the distribution of the error in the Atlantic Ocean at that time (cf. chart below); of course, this is purely hypothetical. According to this, during Cabot’s voyage westwards the error would have varied from about 6° east at Bristol to about 30° west off the coast of America. If we suppose that he was able to follow a magnetic western course the whole way from the south coast of Ireland, then he must have passed quite to the south of Cape Race in Newfoundland. But we are told that he first held somewhat to the north, though we do not know how much, and, on the other hand, his lee-way may have set him at least as far to the south. The assertion that the course mentioned by Soncino must have brought Cabot to land in Labrador or Newfoundland is thus untenable. Nor does it agree with Soncino’s allusion to the country as excellent and temperate, and one where dye-wood and silk might be expected to grow. If this be explained away as due to the usual propensity of discoverers at that time to exhibit the newly found countries in the most favourable light, which is very possible, it is not so easy to explain why we do not hear a word about their having encountered ice on the voyage. If on his western voyage Cabot came to Labrador or the north-east coast of Newfoundland some time in June, it is improbable that he should not have seen icebergs, and it is equally unlikely that the Italian Ministers should not have mentioned this, which to them would be a great curiosity, if they had heard of it; we see, too, that later, in descriptions of Sebastian Cabot’s alleged voyage, the ice is mentioned above all else. Even if John Cabot might have kept quiet about the ice, lest it should cool the hopes raised by his narrative, it is not likely that his crew would have done so, if they had met with it. But although other statements of the crew are reported, we do not hear a single word about ice, nor even of icebergs, which are common enough on the Newfoundland Banks at that time of the year, and would be an entirely new experience even to Bristol sailors who were accustomed to the voyage to Iceland. From this we must suppose that in the course of his beating to the west Cabot was set so far to the south of the Newfoundland Banks that he did not encounter icebergs, and that he first made land somewhere farther west.[299]

Hypothetical chart of the variation of the compass in the Atlantic, circa 1500

According to the Bristol chronicle already quoted (Toby, 1565), and according to a legend on the map of 1544, which is ascribed to the collaboration of Sebastian Cabot, it was on St. John’s Day (July 3, N.S.) that the first land was discovered. In spite of Harrisse’s objections[300] it does not appear to me unlikely that this may be correct. If he sailed on May 2 (11), he was fifty-three days at sea. Supposing that he landed at Cape Breton, the distance in a straight line on the course indicated is about 2200 nautical miles. Consequently he would have made an average of forty-two miles a day in the desired direction. This is doubtless not very fast sailing, but agrees with just what we should expect, since he often had to beat, and “wandered a good deal,” in the words of Soncino.

For determining the question, what part of North America it was that Cabot discovered, it appears to me there is no trustworthy document but La Cosa’s map of the world of 1500.[301] The Basque cartographer, Juan de la Cosa, who owned and navigated Columbus’s ship in 1492, and who was afterwards entrusted with many public undertakings, enjoyed a reputation in Spain as a map-maker and sailor. He was commissioned by the Spanish Crown to produce a map of the world, and we must suppose that for this work he was provided with all the maps and geographical information that were available in Spain. From a letter of July 25, 1498, to Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, from Ayala, the Spanish Minister in London, we know that the latter had obtained a copy of “the chart or mapa mundi” that John Cabot had made in order to set forth his discoveries of 1497; and there can be no doubt that a copy of this was also sent to Spain, as Ayala says he believes their Majesties already had the map. It may, therefore, be regarded as a matter of course that La Cosa was in possession of this map when, less than two years later, he was about to make his own, and that it is from this source and no other that he derived his information about the English discoveries. We do not know of any other map being sent from England to Spain during these two years, and there is no ground whatever for assuming that La Cosa’s information may be derived from Cabot’s voyage of 1498, which in any case must have been a failure.

North-western portion of Juan de la Cosa’s map of 1500. Only a few of the names are given; the network of compass-lines is omitted

For the understanding of La Cosa’s map it must be remarked first of all that it is a compass-chart, and that it takes no notice of the magnetic variation on the American coast. This explains the fact that, for instance, lines of coast which in reality run from west to south-west, are made to appear on the chart as running from west to east. Furthermore, the latitude of the coast of North America is made too northerly, through coasts which, for instance, lie magnetic west of Ireland, being placed on the chart true west of it. In this way Cape Breton (or Cape Race in Newfoundland ?) can be brought to about the same latitude as the south of Ireland, whereas in reality it lies nearly 5° farther south.

The coast marked with five English flags is, of course, the land discovered by Cabot. That La Cosa had a map of this district is further shown by the details, which distinguish it from his delineation of the remainder of the North American coast, but which give it a resemblance to that part of South America which is marked with Spanish flags and of which he had a map. Curiously enough only part of the English district has names; we must suppose that this is the coast that Cabot is said to have sailed along. La Cosa’s representation of the rest of the North American coast is doubtless guesswork, although it has features which bear a remarkable resemblance to reality; but it is not altogether impossible that he may have had oral or written reports of later voyages (?), which are unknown to us.

La Cosa’s map is in complete agreement with the statements in the letters of Pasqualigo, Soncino, and the two Spanish Ambassadors. Soncino says that the country lies four hundred Italian leagues to the west of England, while both Puebla and Ayala say that they believe the distance to be no more than four hundred Spanish leagues. On the other hand, according to Pasqualigo, Cabot said that at a distance of seven hundred Italian leagues he had discovered the mainland of the kingdom of the Great Khan, and that he had sailed [i.e., after having sailed ?] three hundred leagues along the coast. It has been thought that there is here a disagreement between the four hundred leagues of the three first-named and the seven hundred of Pasqualigo, but if we interpret it, in what must be the most reasonable way, as meaning that the distance of seven hundred leagues does not refer to the nearest land, but to the most distant, where Cabot thought that he had at last come within the boundaries of the kingdom of the Great Khan (China) and did not venture to go farther, then we have complete agreement, since the three hundred leagues he must first have sailed along the coast must be deducted in order to get the distance from England to the nearest land. The length of a Venetian “lega,” or a Spanish “legua,” cannot be precisely determined. If we assume [cf. Kretschmer, 1909, pp. 63, ff.] that between 20 and 17½ went to a degree of latitude, each league would correspond to between 3 and 3.43 geographical miles (minutes), or between 5.6 and 6.3 kilometres. According to the former estimate (three miles), four hundred leagues will be about equal to 1200 miles, and seven hundred leagues to about 2100 miles.[302] The first distance is, at any rate, a good deal too small, while the second is too great. This may easily be explained by Cabot, or his crew, having naturally wished to make the voyage to the newly discovered country appear as little deterrent as possible, and, therefore, having underestimated the distance, while, desiring to make the country itself as large as possible, they greatly over-estimated the length of their sail along the coast. That the voyagers really supposed the distance to the newly discovered land to be four hundred leagues from Ireland agrees also with Soncino’s statement that the Bristol sailors thought the voyage would not occupy more than fifteen days from Ireland.

La Cosa’s map is drawn as an equidistant compass-chart, and we can therefore make ourselves a scale of miles by using the distance between the Equator and the Tropic. In this way we find that the easternmost headland, “Cauo de Ynglaterra” (Cape England), on the coast discovered by Cabot lies four hundred leagues from Ireland, while the distance from it to the most western headland with a name, “Cauo descubierto” (the discovered cape), is about three hundred leagues.[303] Furthermore this coast lies on the map due west of Bristol and southern England, as it should according to Soncino’s first letter.

There is thus full agreement between this map and all the contemporary information we have of the voyage, and there is no room for doubt that its names represent John Cabot’s discoveries of 1497, which thus extended from Cauo de Ynglaterra on the east (with two islands, Y. verde and S. Grigor, to the east of it) to Cauo descubierto on the west. But it seems to me that this tract must be either the south coast of Newfoundland or the south-east coast of Nova Scotia, and Cauo de Ynglaterra must be either Cape Race or Cape Breton; the latter is more probable;[304] this also agrees best with all the documents we possess and involves fewest difficulties. It might then seem probable that Cabot first arrived off the land at Cauo de Ynglaterra or Cape Breton,[305] and that he sailed westward (magnetic) from there to explore the newly discovered country. The main direction of the coast of Nova Scotia is about W.S.W., and if we suppose that the compass error at Cape Breton was then about 28° W., which I have found in another way[306] (cf. above, p. 308; it is now 25° W.), this will mean that the coast extended a little to the north of west by compass, which exactly agrees with La Cosa’s map. On account of contrary winds, and of the care necessary in sailing along an unknown coast, the voyage may have proceeded slowly, and Cabot greatly over-estimated his distances, which is not an uncommon thing with explorers in unknown waters, ever since the days of Pytheas. Finally, about three hundred miles on, Cabot came to the south-western point of Nova Scotia, which at first he must have taken for the end of the land. But as he certainly would be bent upon deciding this, he may have continued to sail across the mouth of the Bay of Fundy until he again sighted land, the fertile coast of smiling Maine, stretching westward as far as the eye could reach, and he would then have thought that he had surely arrived at the coast of the mainland of the vast kingdom of the Great Khan. Here it must have been that he landed, as related by Pasqualigo and Soncino,[307] and saw signs of inhabitants, but met with none. He may, of course, have landed earlier at Cape Breton or in Nova Scotia without finding trace of inhabitants, and said nothing about it; for he was not looking for an uninhabited country, but the wealthy Eastern Asia. It may also very well be the spot where he first found signs of men that is called Cauo descubierto; for it is striking that on La Cosa’s map this name is not placed on any projecting headland of the coast, but in front of a comparatively deep gulf, which in that case might be the mouth of the Bay of Fundy. And it is in the sea to the west of this bay, across which Cabot sailed, that La Cosa has placed his “mar descubierta por jnglese” (sea discovered by the English). La Cosa’s “mar” will then be probably the whole gulf between Cape Sable and Cape Cod.[308]

Cabot now thought he had found what he so eagerly sought. He was not provisioned for any long stay, and with his small crew he could not expose himself to possible attacks of the inhabitants of the country. Consequently he had good reason for turning back. To provide himself with the necessary water, and perhaps wood, for the homeward voyage would not take long. Food was a greater difficulty, and we are told that he was so short of it that on the way back he would not stop at new islands; it is true that we hear of abundance of fish, but this cannot have been sufficient. He then returned to Cauo de Ynglaterra, and thence homewards as quickly as possible.[309] The distance from Cape Breton past the southern point of Nova Scotia to the coast of Maine is 420 geographical miles. There and back, with a cruise in the open sea towards Cape Cod, it might be 1200 miles. If we suppose Cabot to have taken twenty days to do it, including the time occupied in going ashore, this will be sixty miles a day, which may seem a good deal; but if on the way back he had a favourable wind and was able to sail a somewhat straight course, it is possible; and, in that case, he may have been back at Cape Breton or Cauo de Ynglaterra about July 14 (23), and then have laid his course for home east by compass out to sea. This course took him off Newfoundland, and he had the island of Grand Miquelon, with Burin Peninsula to the east of it [“S. Grigor” on La Cosa’s map ?], in sight on his starboard bow, or on his right hand, as Pasqualigo says. As he was afraid of more land in that direction, which would be awkward to come near, especially when sailing at night, he bore off to the south-east, where he knew from the outward voyage that there was open water. After a time, thinking himself safe, he again set his course east by compass, but then had fresh land, Avalon Peninsula, ahead or on his starboard bow, and again had to bear off. He took this for another large island [“Y. verde”], but would not land, both on account of shortness of provisions, and because he wanted to be home as soon as possible with the news of his discovery, and to prepare a larger expedition to take possession of the new country.[310] To be quite sure of encountering no more land, Cabot may then have borne off well to the south-east, thus reaching the Newfoundland Banks on the south, and keeping quite clear of the icebergs which are found farther north. For his eastern voyage he was well served by the wind, since nearly all the winds in this part of the Atlantic are between south and west or north-west in July and the beginning of August. He was further helped by the current to some extent, and may, therefore, very easily have made the homeward voyage in twenty-three days, and sailed back into the port of Bristol about the 6th (15th) of August, 1497. That Cabot cannot have taken much more than twenty days on the return voyage also appears from the statement already quoted of the Bristol sailors, that they could make the voyage in fifteen days.[311]

The view of John Cabot’s voyage of 1497 set forth above agrees also with the map of the world of 1544, which is attributed to the collaboration of Sebastian Cabot, but which the latter in any case cannot have seen or corrected after it was engraved, probably in the Netherlands, and by an engraver who did not understand Spanish, the language of the map [cf. Harrisse, 1892, 1896; Dawson, 1894]. Its delineation of the northern east coast of North America is for the most part borrowed from the representation on French maps of Cartier’s discoveries in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (cf. Deslien’s map of 1541). Cape Breton is called “Prima tierra vista,” and in the inscription referring to the northern part of the American coast,[312] the import of which must apparently be derived from Sebastian Cabot, we read:

The remainder of this legend—that the natives wear the skins of animals, that the country is unfertile, that there are many white bears, vast quantities of fish, mostly called bacallaos, etc. etc.—cannot refer, as Harrisse appears to think, to this land (Cape Breton) which was first discovered, but to the northern regions of the new continent as a whole. It is characteristic of this map, as of the earlier French ones, that Newfoundland is cut up into a number of small islands. If the view is correct that Y. Verde and S. Grigor on La Cosa’s map are also parts of Newfoundland, it may explain the fact of Sebastian Cabot having no difficulty in bringing this map, or his father’s, into agreement with the French ones, since he must have thought that a number of “islands,” discovered later, had been added.

Northern portion of the map of the world of 1544, attributed to Sebastian Cabot

No island of St. John is to be found on La Cosa’s map, but there is a Cauo S. Johan not far from Cauo de Ynglaterra and close to the island that is called Illa de la trinidat. That the name is attached to a cape instead of to an island may be due to a transposition in the course of repeated copyings. On the Portuguese map of Pedro Reinel, of the beginning of the sixteenth century (that is, only a few years after 1497), Cape Breton is marked without a name, but an island lies off it, called “Sam Johã” [St. John]; on Maggiolo’s map of 1527 there is “C. de bertonz,” with an island, “Ja de S. Ioan,” in the same place; and on Michael Lok’s map, in Hakluyt’s “Divers Voyages,” 1582, we have “C. Breton” with the island of “S. Johan,” lying off it, and on Cape Breton Island (or Nova Scotia), called Norombega, is written “J. Cabot, 1497” (see p. 323). There seems thus to have been a definite tradition that it was here that John Cabot made the land, and St. John may then be the little Scatari Island which lies on the outside of Cape Breton Island [cf. Dawson, 1897, pp. 210, ff.]. That the “I. de S. Juan” on the map of 1544 lies on the inside of “Prima tierra vista” and answers to the Magdalen Islands is of minor importance; we do not even know whether Sebastian Cabot can be made responsible for it, as it may be due to a confusion on the part of the draughtsman. More importance must be attached on this point to the agreement between the earlier maps of 1500, 1527, and that of Reinel (compared with Lok’s map in Hakluyt), than to the map of 1544.[314]

Portion of Pedro Reinel’s map, beginning of the sixteenth century

John Cabot returned to Bristol at the beginning of August, probably about the 6th (15th, N.S.). He naturally hastened to London to tell the King of his discovery, and we know that he must have been there on the 10th (20th) August, for there is an entry in the accounts of the King’s privy purse:

This cannot be called an exaggerated regal payment for discovering a new continent, even though £10 in the money of that time corresponds to about £120 now. Later in the same autumn Cabot was granted a pension from the King of £20 a year.

Meanwhile, as the letters already quoted show, his discovery attracted much attention in England, and gave rise to great expectations.

Portion of Michael Lok’s map, London, 1582

What Cabot accomplished by his voyage of 1497 was in the first place to prove the existence of a great country beyond the ocean to the west of Ireland, which country he himself assumed to belong to Asia and to be part of China. Besides this he discovered great quantities of fish off the newly discovered coast; a discovery which was soon to create a great fishery, carried on by several nations, off Newfoundland, and one which surpassed the Iceland fishery, hitherto the most important. But John Cabot evidently had little idea of the importance of this last discovery. He had, as Soncino says, “set his mind on higher things,” for he thought that by following the coast of the mainland farther to the west he would be able to reach the wealthy Cipango (Japan) and the Spice Islands in the equatorial regions.