“Following beyond the cape of the Brettons there is a land contiguous to the said cape, the coast whereof extends west by southwest as far as the land of Florida and it runs full 500 leagues, (which coast was discovered fifteen years ago, by Messer Giovanni da Verrazzano, in the name of king Francis, and Madame the regent,) and this land is called by many la Francese, and likewise by the Portuguese themselves and its end towards Florida is at 78 Degrees west longitude and 30 Degrees north latitude.  The inhabitants of this land are tractable peoples, friendly and pleasant.  The land is most abundant in all fruit.  There grow oranges, almonds, wild grapes and many other kinds of odoriferous trees.  The land is called by its people Nurumbega, and between this land and that of Brazil is a great gulf which extends westwardly to 92 Degrees west longitude, which is more than a quarter of the circuit of the globe; and in the gulf are the islands and West Indies discovered by the Spaniards.” [Footnote:  Ramusio, III. fol. 423-4 (ed. 1556).]

This account emphatically contradicts the Verrazzano letter which claims the discovery of the coast from Cape Breton in 46 Degrees N, as far east and north, as 50 Degrees N. latitude, embracing a distance of two hundred leagues, both according to the letter and the discourse.  It distinctly affirms this long stretch of coast to have been discovered long before the Verrazzano voyage by the Portuguese and the Bretons and Normands, assigning to the Portuguese and French specific portions of it.  This is in perfect harmony with the truth as established by the authorities to which occasion has already been had to refer.  This account therefore unequivocally repudiates the Verrazzano claim to the discovery of that part of the country, and thus derogates from the pretensions of the letter instead of supporting them.

The letter contains a distinct and specific claim for the discovery of the coast as far north as 50 Degrees N. The writer of the discourse, if he had any knowledge on the subject, must have known of the extent of this claim.  In attributing to others the discovery of that large portion of the coast, east and north of Cape Breton, he must have considered the claim to that extent as unfounded.  It is difficult therefore to account for his admitting its validity as regards the country south of Cape Breton as he apparently does; as it is a manifest inconsistency to reject so important a part as false, and affirm the rest of it to be true, when the whole depends upon the same evidence.