Verrazzano, who had not been at Lyons, nor could it have been transmitted to him by the navigator, who had not yet presented himself before the king, and could have had no authority to communicate it to any person.  It was an official report, addressed to the king, and intended for his eye alone, until the monarch himself chose to make it public.  It related to an enterprise of the crown, and eminently concerned its interests and prerogatives, in the magnitude and importance of the new countries; and could not have been sent by Verrazzano, without permission, to a private person, and especially a foreigner, without subjecting himself to the charge of disloyalty, if not of treason, which there is no other evidence to sustain.  On the other hand it could not have been delivered by the king to this Carli.  It is not probable, even if such a letter could have come into the hands of Francis, absent from his capital in the midst of warlike preparations, engaged in forming his army and en route for the scene of the invasion, that he could have given it any consideration.  But if he had received it and considered its import, there was no official or other relation between him and Carli, or any motive for him to send it forward in advance of his coming to Lyons, to this young and obscure alien.  There was no possibility, therefore, of Carli obtaining possession of a private copy of the letter through Verrazzano or the king.

The only way open to him, under the most favorable circumstances, would have been through some publicity, by proclamation or printing, by order of the king; in which case, it would have been given for the benefit of all his subjects.  It is impossible that it could have been seen and copied by this young foreigner alone and in the city of Lyons, and that no other copies would have been preserved in all France.  The idea of a publication is thus forbidden.

No alternative remains except to pronounce the whole story a fabrication.  The Carli letter is untrue.  It did not inclose any letter of Verrazzano of the character pretended.  And as it is the only authority for the existence of any such letter, that falls with it.

III.

The letter untrue.  I. No voyage or discovery made for the king of France, as it states.

All the circumstances relating to the existence of the Verrazzano letter thus prove that it was not the production of Verrazzano at the time and place it purports to have been written by him.  We pass now to the question of its authenticity, embracing the consideration of its own statements and the external evidence which exists upon the subject.