[Trevor3]

This looks like an area suited to a person with a history degree, such as myself.

Just a couple points of interest on the discovery by John Cabot:

-We can confirm that at no point in his life was he ever referred to as Giovanni Caboto. This was likey the creation of Italian scholars who wanted to accentuate the role of Italy in the discovery of the new world.

-I HIGHLY suggest checking out "The Cabot Project" being carried out by Dr. Evan Jones at the University of Bristol. He is trying to reconstruct the research of one, Dr. Alwyn Ruddock. Ruddock was the quintessential oddball historian, though highly respected. She was researching for a book which she planned to publish in time for the Cabot 500 in 1997. However, her research seems to have spiralled out of control, perhaps stumbling across before unseen documents. She included notes of her discoveries in reports/updates to the would be publisher. Unfortunately, she died before her work could be finished and she ordered all of her work destroyed, including any historical documents that may have been hidden insider the many boxes of paper she had for the project. A lot of people have heard of this by now, and whether or not it's true, it could offer a whole different perspective on the history of discovery which relates directly to Newfoundland and St. John's

One of the most intriguing mentions of her findings which were not destroyed (as they were possessed by the publisher) was that Cabot may have planned to over-winter in Newfoundland on the return leg of his second trip in 1499, at Carbonara, an Augustinian monastery established by monks who would have accompanied Cabot across either on the first or second trips.

The other part of the theory is that there is no coincidence to Cabot embarking for the voyage from Bristol, rather than a Channel port or even Dorset or Plymouth where most new world settlers came from. This one says that Britol fishers had been "secretly" fishing off the Newfoundland coast since the 1300's. They knew the route, thus, the reason Cabot sailed from Bristol - with men who knew the route.

The often viewed claim that Britain discouraged settlement in Newfoundland is not true. The British actually would have encouraged some settlement in prominent fishing areas in order to secure them and prevent the French from accessing the best harbours. The French often did the same, leaving a man or two behind to protect huts and wharves.

There were also numerous attempts to colonize the island early on, particularly in the 1620s with John Guy at Cupids, and later Lord Baltimore at Ferryland (which ended with starvation, scurvy and complete social collapse). The British were more concerned with uncontrolled settlement. They wanted to control their people and ensure the law, which they could not if people ran off to every nook and cranny of the island... which is exactly what happened. Settlement of St. John's was much more civil. There is evidence that the British did not support settlement of St. John's, which I concede, however, it should be noted that many of the people trying to settle there and along the coast between St. John's and Bonavista were Irish. England did not want the Irish Catholics on their island, but English merchants often hired Irish labour because it was cheaper.

St. John's itself owes its growth not just to being a sheltered harbour but also being at the center of English territory which stretched from Trepassey to Bonavista. Eventually, the English came to control more area as English people spread along the coast, including into French territory along the south coast.

The fact that St. John's never grew the way Boston, or other New England colonies did, probably owes to the lack of agriculture possible and the resulting lack of hinterland markets for goods that would be manufactured and produced in St. John's.