jealousy implied in the sentence quoted at p. vi of this introduction, from Pierre Crignon’s Prologue, would not only have made the French most ready to lay claim to all they could in the shape of discovery, but would have prevented any gratuitous insertion of Portuguese names on such remote countries, had they themselves discovered them. But, further, as an important part of the argument, the reader must not overlook that jealousy of the Portuguese, to which allusion has already been made (p. v), in forbidding the communication of all hydrographical information respecting their discoveries in these seas. As regards the surmises of M. Barbié du Bocage respecting the probable causes of the suppression or concealment of such documents, his carefulness and ingenuity entitle them to the best consideration; and if those documents really exist in France, or Rome, or elsewhere, it is much to be hoped that they may ere long be brought to light. His Excellency the Count de Lavradio, ambassador from Portugal to the Court of St. James’s, has obligingly set on foot inquiries at Rome for the purpose of elucidating this subject, which have not, however, produced any successful result. But although we have no evidence to show that the French made any original discoveries in the South Seas in the first half of the sixteenth century, we have the evidence that they were good hydrographers. Crignon describes Parmentier as “bon cosmographe et géographe,” and says, “par luy ont esté composez plusieurs mapemondes en globe et en plat, et maintes cartes marines sus les quelles plusieurs ont navigué seurement.” It is dangerous to draw conclusions from negatives; but it is both legitimate and desirable that we should give due weight to evidence of high probability when such fall within our notice. If all the French maps we have quoted are, as has been shown, derived from one source, since they all contain the same errors; and if Parmentier, who was a good hydrographer, was the only French navigator we find mentioned as having gone so far as Sumatra before the period of the earliest of these maps; and further, if these maps exhibit Portuguese names laid down in these maps on a country beyond Parmentier’s furthest point of exploration, we think the inference not unreasonable that Parmentier may have laid down, from Portuguese maps, the information which has been copied into those we have quoted, and that the descriptions round the coast, which are all (as may be plainly seen), with the exception of those which bear the stamp of Portuguese, convertible into French, have been naturally written by French mapmakers, in that language. We can but throw out this suggestion for _quantum valeat_. All positive evidence, in spite of laborious research, is wanting. The Portuguese names are but few, but there they are, and bear their stubborn evidence. The earliest Portuguese portolani which have met the editor’s eye are those of Joham Freire, of 1546, and of Diego Homem, of 1558.