July 15, 1620–May 6, 1621
Chiefly from Original Sources

By AZEL AMES, M.D.
Member of Pilgrim Society, etc.

“Next to the fugitives whom Moses led out of Egypt, the
little shipload of outcasts who landed at Plymouth are
destined to influence the future of the world.”
JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL

INTRODUCTORY

O civilized humanity, world-wide, and especially to the descendants of
the Pilgrims who, in 1620, laid on New England shores the foundations of that civil and religious freedom upon which has been built a refuge for the oppressed of every land, the story of the Pilgrim “Exodus” has an ever-increasing value and zest. The little we know of the inception, development, and vicissitudes of their bold scheme of colonization in the American wilderness only serves to sharpen the appetite for more.

Every detail and circumstance which relates to their preparations; to the ships which carried them; to the personnel of the Merchant Adventurers
associated with them, and to that of the colonists themselves; to what
befell them; to their final embarkation on their lone ship,–the immortal
MAY-FLOWER; and to the voyage itself and to its issues, is vested to-day
with, a supreme interest, and over them all rests a glamour peculiarly
their own.

For every grain of added knowledge that can be gleaned concerning the
Pilgrim sires from any field, their children are ever grateful, and
whoever can add a well-attested line to their all-too-meagre annals is
regarded by them, indeed by all, a benefactor.

Of those all-important factors in the chronicles of the “Exodus,”–the
Pilgrim ships, of which the MAY-FLOWER alone crossed the seas,–and of
the voyage itself, there is still but far too little known. Of even this
little, the larger part has not hitherto been readily accessible, or in
form available for ready reference to the many who eagerly seize upon
every crumb of new-found data concerning these pious and intrepid
Argonauts.

To such there can be no need to recite here the principal and familiar
facts of the organization of the English “Separatist” congregation under
John Robinson; of its emigration to Holland under persecution of the
Bishops; of its residence and unique history at Leyden; of the broad
outlook of its members upon the future, and their resultant determination
to cross the sea to secure larger life and liberty; and of their initial
labors to that end. We find these Leyden Pilgrims in the early summer of
1620, their plans fairly matured and their agreements between themselves
and with their merchant associates practically concluded, urging forward
their preparations for departure; impatient of the delays and
disappointments which befell, and anxiously seeking shipping for their
long and hazardous voyage.

It is to what concerns their ships, and especially that one which has
passed into history as “the Pilgrim bark,” the MAY-FLOWER, and to her
pregnant voyage, that the succeeding chapters chiefly relate. In them the
effort has been made to bring together in sequential relation, from many
and widely scattered sources, everything germane that diligent and
faithful research could discover, or the careful study and re-analysis of
known data determine. No new and relevant item of fact discovered,
however trivial in itself, has failed of mention, if it might serve to
correct, to better interpret, or to amplify the scanty though priceless
records left us, of conditions, circumstances, and events which have
meant so much to the world.

As properly antecedent to the story of the voyage of the MAY-FLOWER as
told by her putative “Log,” albeit written up long after her boned lay
bleaching on some unknown shore, some pertinent account has been given of
the ship herself and of her “consort,” the SPEEDWELL; of the difficulties
attendant on securing them; of the preparations for the voyage; of the
Merchant Adventurers who had large share in sending them to sea; of their
officers and crews; of their passengers and lading; of the troubles that
assailed before they had “shaken off the land,” and of the final
consolidation of the passengers and lading of both ships upon the
MAY-FLOWER, for the belated ocean passage. The wholly negative results of
careful search render it altogether probable that the original journal or
“Log” of the MAY-FLOWER (a misnomer lately applied by the British press,
and unhappily continued in that of the United States, to the recovered
original manuscript of Bradford’s “History of Plimoth Plantation “), if
such journal ever existed, is now hopelessly lost.

So far as known, no previous effort has been made to bring together in
the consecutive relation of such a journal, duly attested and in their
entirety, the ascertained daily happenings of that destiny-freighted
voyage. Hence, this later volume may perhaps rightly claim to present
–and in part to be, though necessarily imperfect–the sole and a true “Log
of the MAY-FLOWER.” No effort has been made, however, to reduce the
collated data to the shape and style of the ship’s “Log” of recent times,
whose matter and form are largely prescribed by maritime law. While it is
not possible to give, as the original–if it existed–would have done,
the results of the navigators’ observations day by day; the “Lat.” and
“Long.”; the variations of the wind and of the magnetic needle; the
tallies of the “lead” and “log” lines; “the daily run,” etc.–in all
else the record may confidently be assumed to vary little from that
presumably kept, in some form, by Captain Jones, the competent Master of
the Pilgrim bark, and his mates, Masters Clarke and Coppin.

As the charter was for the “round voyage,” all the features and incidents
of that voyage until complete, whether at sea or in port, properly find
entry in its journal, and are therefore included in this compilation,
which it is hoped may hence prove of reference value to such as take
interest in Pilgrim studies. Although the least pleasant to the author,
not the least valuable feature of the work to the reader–especially if
student or writer of Pilgrim history–will be found, it is believed, in
the numerous corrections of previously published errors which it
contains, some of which are radical and of much historical importance.
It is true that new facts and items of information which have been coming
to light, in long neglected or newly discovered documents, etc., are
correctives of earlier and natural misconceptions, and a certain
percentage of error is inevitable, but many radical and reckless errors
have been made in Pilgrim history which due study and care must have
prevented. Such errors have so great and rapidly extending power for
harm, and, when built upon, so certainly bring the superstructure
tumbling to the ground, that the competent and careful workman can render
no better service than to point out and correct them wherever found,
undeterred by the association of great names, or the consciousness of his
own liability to blunder. A sound and conscientious writer will welcome
the courteous correction of his error, in the interest of historical
accuracy; the opinion of any other need not be regarded.

Some of the new contributions (or original demonstrations), of more or
less historical importance, made to the history of the Pilgrims, as the
author believes, by this volume, are as follows:–

(a) A closely approximate list of the passengers who left Delfshaven on
the SPEEDWELL for Southampton; in other words, the names–those of Carver
and Cushman and of the latter’s family being added–of the Leyden
contingent of the MAY-FLOWER Pilgrims.

(b) A closely approximate list of the passengers who left London in the
MAY-FLOWER for Southampton; in other words, the names (with the deduction
of Cushman and family, of Carver, who was at Southampton, and of an
unknown few who abandoned the voyage at Plymouth) of the English
contingent of the MAY-FLOWER Pilgrims.

(c) The establishment as correct, beyond reasonable doubt, of the date,
Sunday, June 11/21, 1620, affixed by Robert Cushman to his letter to the
Leyden leaders (announcing the “turning of the tide” in Pilgrim affairs,
the hiring of the “pilott” Clarke, etc.), contrary to the conclusions of
Prince, Arber, and others, that the letter could not have been written on
Sunday.

(d) The demonstration of the fact that on Saturday, June 10/20, 1620,
Cushman’s efforts alone apparently turned the tide in Pilgrim affairs;
brought Weston to renewed and decisive cooperation; secured the
employment of a “pilot,” and definite action toward hiring a ship,
marking it as one of the most notable and important of Pilgrim
“red-letter days.”

(e) The demonstration of the fact that the ship of which Weston and
Cushman took “the refusal,” on Saturday, June 10/20, 1620, was not the
MAY-FLOWER, as Young, Deane, Goodwin, and other historians allege.

(f) The demonstration of the fact (overthrowing the author’s own earlier
views) that the estimates and criticisms of Robinson, Carver, Brown,
Goodwin, and others upon Robert Cushman were unwarranted, unjust, and
cruel, and that he was, in fact, second to none in efficient service to
the Pilgrims; and hence so ranks in title to grateful appreciation and
memory.

(g) The demonstration of the fact that the MAY-FLOWER was not chartered
later than June 19/29, 1620, and was probably chartered in the week of
June 12/22–June 19/29 of that year.

(h) The addition of several new names to the list of the Merchant
Adventurers, hitherto unpublished as such, with considerable new data
concerning the list in general.

(i) The demonstration of the fact that Martin and Mullens, of the
MAY-FLOWER colonists, were also Merchant Adventurers, while William
White was probably such.

(j) The demonstration of the fact that “Master Williamson,” the
much-mooted incognito of Bradford’s “Mourt’s Relation” (whose existence
even has often been denied by Pilgrim writers), was none other than the
“ship’s-merchant,” or “purser” of the MAY-FLOWER,–hitherto unknown as
one of her officers, and historically wholly unidentified.

(k) The general description of; and many particulars concerning, the
MAY-FLOWER herself; her accommodations (especially as to her cabins),
her crew, etc., hitherto unknown.

(1) The demonstration of the fact that the witnesses to the nuncupative
will of William Mullens were two of the MAY-FLOWER’S crew (one being
possibly the ship’s surgeon), thus furnishing the names of two more of
the ship’s company, and the only names–except those of her chief
officers–ever ascertained.

(m) The indication of the strong probability that the entire company of
the Merchant Adventurers signed, on the one part, the charter-party of
the MAY-FLOWER.

(n) An (approximate) list of the ages of the MAY-FLOWER’S passengers and
the respective occupations of the adults.

(o) The demonstration of the fact that no less than five of the Merchant
Adventurers cast in their lots and lives with the Plymouth Pilgrims as
colonists.

(p) The indication of the strong probability that Thomas Goffe, Esquire,
one of the Merchant Adventurers, owned the “MAY-FLOWER” when she was
chartered for the Pilgrim voyage,–as also on her voyages to New England
in 1629 and 1630.

(q) The demonstration of the fact that the Master of the MAY-FLOWER was
Thomas Jones, and that there was an intrigue with Master Jones to land
the Pilgrims at some point north of the 41st parallel of north latitude,
the other parties to which were, not the Dutch, as heretofore claimed,
but none other than Sir Ferdinando Gorges and the Earl of Warwick, chiefs
of the “Council for New England,” in furtherance of a successful scheme
of Gorges to steal the Pilgrim colony from the London Virginia Company,
for the more “northern Plantations” of the conspirators.

(r) The demonstration of the fact that a second attempt at stealing the
colony–by which John Pierce, one of the Adventurers, endeavored to
possess himself of the demesne and rights of the colonists, and to make
them his tenants–was defeated only by the intervention of the “Council”
and the Crown, the matter being finally settled by compromise and the
transfer of the patent by Pierce (hitherto questioned) to the colony.

(s) The demonstration of the actual relations of the Merchant Adventurers
and the Pilgrim colonists–their respective bodies being associated as
but two partners in an equal copartnership, the interests of the
respective partners being (probably) held upon differing bases–contrary
to the commonly published and accepted view.

(t) The demonstration of the fact that the MAY-FLOWER–contrary to the
popular impression–did not enter Plymouth harbor, as a “lone vessel,”
slowly “feeling her way” by chart and lead-line, but was undoubtedly
piloted to her anchorage–previously “sounded” for her–by the Pilgrim
shallop, which doubtless accompanied her from Cape Cod harbor, on both
her efforts to make this haven, under her own sails.

(u) The indication of the strong probability that Thomas English was
helmsman of the MAY-FLOWER’S shallop (and so savior of her sovereign
company, at the entrance of Plymouth harbor on the stormy night of the
landing on Clarke’s Island), and that hence to him the salvation of the
Pilgrim colony is probably due; and

(v) Many facts not hitherto published, or generally known, as to the
antecedents, relationships, etc., of individual Pilgrims of both the
Leyden and the English contingents, and of certain of the Merchant
Adventurers.

For convenience’ sake, both the Old Style and the New Style dates of many
events are annexed to their mention, and double-dating is followed
throughout the narrative journal or “Log” of the Pilgrim ship.

As the Gregorian and other corrections of the calendar are now generally
well understood, and have been so often stated in detail in print, it is
thought sufficient to note here their concrete results as affecting dates
occurring in Pilgrim and later literature.

From 1582 to 1700 the difference between O.S. and N.S. was ten (10) days
(the leap-year being passed in 1600). From 1700 to 1800 it was eleven
(11) days, because 1700 in O.S. was leap-year. From 1800 to 1900 the
difference is twelve (12) days, and from 1900 to 2000 it will be thirteen
(13) days. All the Dutch dates were New Style, while English dates were
yet of the Old Style.

There are three editions of Bradford’s “History of Plimoth Plantation”
referred to herein; each duly specified, as occasion requires. (There
is, beside, a magnificent edition in photo-facsimile.) They are:–

(a) The original manuscript itself, now in possession of the State of
Massachusetts, having been returned from England in 1897, called herein
“orig. MS.”

(b) The Deane Edition (so-called) of 1856, being that edited by the late
Charles Deane for the Massachusetts Historical Society and published in
“Massachusetts Historical Collections,” vol. iii.; called herein “Deane’s
ed.”

(c) The Edition recently published by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
and designated as the “Mass. ed.”

Of “Mourt’s Relation” there are several editions, but the one usually
referred to herein is that edited by Rev. Henry M. Dexter, D. D., by far
the best. Where reference is made to any other edition, it is indicated,
and “Dexter’s ed.” is sometimes named.

AZEL AMES.

WAKEFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS,
March 1, 1901.

THE MAYFLOWER AND HER LOG

“Hail to thee, poor little ship MAY-FLOWER–of Delft Haven
–poor, common-looking ship, hired by common charter-party for
coined dollars,–caulked with mere oakum and tar, provisioned
with vulgarest biscuit and bacon,–yet what ship Argo or
miraculous epic ship, built by the sea gods, was other than a
foolish bumbarge in comparison!”

THOMAS CARLYLE

CHAPTER I

THE NAME–“MAY-FLOWER”

“Curiously enough,” observes Professor Arber, “these names [MAY-FLOWER
and SPEEDWELL] do not occur either in the Bradford manuscript or in
‘Mourt’s Relation.’”

[A Relation, or Journal, of the Beginning and Proceedings of the
English Plantation settled at Plymouth in New England, etc. G.
Mourt, London, 1622. Undoubtedly the joint product of Bradford and
Winslow, and sent to George Morton at London for publication.
Bradford says (op, cit. p. 120): “Many other smaler maters I omite,
sundrie of them having been already published, in a Jurnall made by
one of ye company,” etc. From this it would appear that Mourt’s
Relation was his work, which it doubtless principally was, though
Winslow performed an honorable part, as “Mourt’s” introduction and
other data prove.]

He might have truthfully added that they nowhere appear in any of the
letters of the “exodus” period, whether from Carver, Robinson, Cushman,
or Weston; or in the later publications of Window; or in fact of any
contemporaneous writer. It is not strange, therefore, that the Rev. Mr.
Blaxland, the able author of the “Mayflower Essays,” should have asked
for the authority for the names assigned to the two Pilgrim ships of
1620.

It seems to be the fact, as noted by Arber, that the earliest authentic
evidence that the bark which bore the Pilgrims across the North Atlantic
in the late autumn of 1620 was the MAY-FLOWER, is the “heading” of the
“Allotment of Lands”–happily an “official” document–made at New
Plymouth, New England, in March, 1623–It is not a little remarkable
that, with the constantly recurring references to “the ship,”–the
all-important factor in Pilgrim history,–her name should nowhere have
found mention in the earliest Pilgrim literature. Bradford uses the
terms, the “biger ship,” or the “larger ship,” and Winslow, Cushman,
Captain John Smith, and others mention simply the “vessel,” or the
“ship,” when speaking of the MAY-FLOWER, but in no case give her a name.

It is somewhat startling to find so thorough-paced an Englishman as
Thomas Carlyle calling her the MAY-FLOWER “of Delft-Haven,” as in the
quotation from him on a preceding page. That he knew better cannot be
doubted, and it must be accounted one of those ‘lapsus calami’ readily
forgiven to genius,–proverbially indifferent to detail.

Sir Ferdinando Gorges makes the curious misstatement that the Pilgrims
had three ships, and says of them: “Of the three ships (such as their
weak fortunes were able to provide), whereof two proved unserviceable and
so were left behind, the third with great difficulty reached the coast of
New England,” etc.

CHAPTER II

THE MAY-FLOWER’S CONSORT THE SPEEDWELL

The SPEEDWELL was the first vessel procured by the Leyden Pilgrims for
the emigration, and was bought by themselves; as she was the ship of
their historic embarkation at Delfshaven, and that which carried the
originators of the enterprise to Southampton, to join the MAY-FLOWER,
–whose consort she was to be; and as she became a determining factor
in the latter’s belated departure for New England, she may justly claim
mention here as indeed an inseparable “part and parcel” of the
MAY-FLOWER’S voyage.

The name of this vessel of associate historic renown with the MAY-FLOWER
was even longer in finding record in the early literature of the Pilgrim
hegira than that of the larger It first appeared, so far as discovered,
in 1669–nearly fifty years after her memorable service to the Pilgrims
on the fifth page of Nathaniel Morton’s “New England’s Memorial.”

Davis, in his “Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth,” makes a singular error for
so competent a writer, when he says: “The agents of the company in
England had hired the SPEEDWELL, of sixty tons, and sent her to
Delfthaven, to convey the colonists to Southampton.” In this, however,
he but follows Mather and the “Modern Universal History,” though both are
notably unreliable; but he lacks their excuse, for they were without his
access to Bradford’s “Historie.” That the consort-pinnace was neither
“hired” nor “sent to Delfthaven” duly appears.

Bradford states the fact,–that “a smale ship (of some 60 tune), was
bought and fitted in Holand, which was intended to serve to help to
transport them, so to stay in ye countrie and atend ye fishing and such
other affairs as might be for ye good and benefite of ye colonie when
they come ther.” The statements of Bradford and others indicate that she
was bought and refitted with moneys raised in Holland, but it is not easy
to understand the transaction, in view of the understood terms of the
business compact between the Adventurers and the Planters, as hereinafter
outlined. The Merchant Adventurers–who were organized (but not
incorporated) chiefly through the activity of Thomas Weston, a merchant
of London, to “finance” the Pilgrim undertaking–were bound, as part of
their engagement, to provide the necessary shipping,’ etc., for the
voyage. The “joint-stock or partnership,” as it was called in the
agreement of the Adventurers and Planters, was an equal partnership
between but two parties, the Adventurers, as a body, being one of the
co-partners; the Planter colonists, as a body, the other. It was a
partnership to run for seven years, to whose capital stock the
first-named partner (the Adventurers) was bound to contribute whatever
moneys, or their equivalents,–some subscriptions were paid in goods,
–were necessary to transport, equip, and maintain the colony and provide
it the means of traffic, etc., for the term named. The second-named
partner (the Planter body) was to furnish the men, women, and children,
–the colonists themselves, and their best endeavors, essential to the
enterprise,–and such further contributions of money or provisions, on
an agreed basis, as might be practicable for them. At the expiration of
the seven years, all properties of every kind were to be divided into
two equal parts, of which the Adventurers were to take one and the
Planters the other, in full satisfaction of their respective investments
and claims. The Adventurers’ half would of course be divided among
themselves, in such proportion as their individual contributions bore to
the sum total invested. The Planters would divide their half among
their number, according to their respective contributions of persons,
money, or provisions, as per the agreed basis, which was:

[Bradford’s Historie, Deane’s ed.; Arber, op. cit. p. 305.
The fact that Lyford (Bradford, Historie, Mass. ed. p. 217)
recommended that every “particular” (i.e. non-partnership colonist)
sent out by the Adventurers–and they had come to be mostly of that
class–“should come over as an Adventurer, even if only a ser vant,”
and the fact that he recognized that some one would have to pay in
L10 to make each one an Adventurer, would seem to indicate that any
one was eligible and that either L10 was the price of the Merchant
Adventurer’s share, or that this was the smallest subscription which
would admit to membership. Such “particular,” even although an
Adventurer, had no partnership share in the Planters’ half-interest;
had no voice in the government, and no claim for maintenance. He
was, however, amenable to the government, subject to military duty
and to tax. The advantage of being an Adventurer without a voice in
colony affairs would be purely a moral one.]

that every person joining the enterprise, whether man, woman, youth,
maid, or servant, if sixteen years old, should count as a share; that a
share should be reckoned at L10, and hence that L10 worth of money or
provisions should also count as a share. Every man, therefore, would be
entitled to one share for each person (if sixteen years of age) he
contributed, and for each L10 of money or provisions he added thereto,
another share. Two children between ten and sixteen would count as one
and be allowed a share in the division, but children under ten were to
have only fifty acres of wild land. The scheme was admirable for its
equity, simplicity, and elasticity, and was equally so for either
capitalist or colonist.

Goodwin notes, that, “in an edition of Cushman’s ‘Discourse,’ Judge Davis
of Boston advanced the idea that at first the Pilgrims put all their
possessions into a common stock, and until 1623 had no individual
property. In his edition of Morton’s ‘Memorial’ he honorably admits his
error.” The same mistake was made by Robertson and Chief Justice
Marshall, and is occasionally repeated in this day. “There was no
community of goods, though there was labor in common, with public
supplies of food and clothing.” Neither is there warrant for the
conclusion of Goodwin, that because the holdings of the Planters’ half
interest in the undertaking were divided into L10 shares, those of the
Adventurers were also. It is not impossible, but it does not necessarily
follow, and certain known facts indicate the contrary.

Rev. Edward Everett Hale, in “The Pilgrims’ Life in Common,” says:
“Carver, Winslow, Bradford, Brewster, Standish, Fuller, and Allerton.
were the persons of largest means in the Leyden group of the emigrants.
It seems as if their quota of subscription to the common stock were paid
in ‘provisions’ for the voyage and the colony, and that by ‘provisions’
is meant such articles of food as could be best bought in Holland.” The
good Doctor is clearly in error, in the above. Allerton was probably as
“well off” as any of the Leyden contingent, while Francis Cooke and
Degory Priest were probably “better off” than either Brewster or
Standish, who apparently had little of this world’s goods. Neither is
there any evidence that any considerable amount of “provision” was bought
in Holland. Quite a large sum of money, which came, apparently, from the
pockets of the Leyden Adventurers (Pickering, Greene, etc.), and some of
the Pilgrims, was requisite to pay for the SPEEDWELL and her refitting,
etc.; but how much came from either is conjectural at best. But aside
from “Hollands cheese,” “strong-waters” (schnapps), some few things that
Cushman names; and probably a few others, obtained in Holland, most of
the “provisioning,” as repeatedly appears, was done at the English
Southampton. In fact, after clothing and generally “outfitting”
themselves, it is pretty certain that but few of the Leyden party had
much left. There was evidently an understanding between the partners that
there should be four principal agents charged with the preparations for,
and carrying out of, the enterprise,–Thomas Weston and Christopher
Martin representing the Adventurers and the colonists who were recruited
in England (Martin being made treasurer), while Carver and Cushman acted
for the Leyden company. John Pierce seems to have been the especial
representative of the Adventurers in the matter of the obtaining of the
Patent from the (London) Virginia Company, and later from the Council for
New England. Bradford says: “For besides these two formerly mentioned,
sent from Leyden, viz., Master Carver and Robert Cushman, there was one
chosen in England to be joyned with them, to make the provisions for the
Voyage. His name was Master Martin. He came from Billerike in Essexe;
from which parts came sundry others to go with them; as also from London
and other places, and therefore it was thought meet and convenient by
them in Holand, that these strangers that were to goe with them, should
appointe one thus to be joyned with them; not so much from any great need
of their help as to avoid all susspition, or jealosie, of any
partialitie.” But neither Weston, Martin, Carver, nor Cushman seems to
have been directly concerned in the purchase of the SPEEDWELL. The most
probable conjecture concerning it is, that in furtherance of the purpose
of the Leyden leaders, stated by Bradford, that there should be a small
vessel for their service in fishing, traffic, etc., wherever they might
plant the colony, they were permitted by the Adventurers to purchase the
SPEEDWELL for that service, and as a consort, “on general account.”

It is evident, however, from John Robinson’s letter of June 14, 1620, to
John Carver, that Weston ridiculed the transaction, probably on selfish
grounds, but, as events proved, not without some justification.

Robinson says: “Master Weston makes himself merry with our endeavors
about buying a ship,” [the SPEEDWELL] “but we have done nothing in this
but with good reason, as I am persuaded.” Although bought with funds
raised in Holland,

[Arber (The Story of the Pilgrim Fathers, p. 341) arrives at the
conclusion that “The SPEEDWELL had been bought with Leyden money.
The proceeds of her sale, after her return to London, would, of
course, go to the credit of the common joint-Stock there.” This
inference seems warranted by Robinson’s letter of June 16/26 to
Carver, in which he clearly indicates that the Leyden brethren
collected the “Adventurers” subscriptions of Pickering and his
partner (Greene), which were evidently considerable.]

it was evidently upon “joint-account,” and she was doubtless so sold, as
alleged, on her arrival in September, at London, having proved
unseaworthy. In fact, the only view of this transaction that harmonizes
with the known facts and the respective rights and relations of the
parties is, that permission was obtained (perhaps through Edward
Pickering, one of the Adventurers, a merchant of Leyden, and others) that
the Leyden leaders should buy and refit the consort, and in so doing
might expend the funds which certain of the Leyden Pilgrims were to pay
into the enterprise, which it appears they did,–and for which they would
receive, as shown, extra shares in the Planters’ half-interest. It was
very possibly further permitted by the Adventurers, that Mr. Pickering’s
and his partners’ subscriptions to their capital stock should be applied
to the purchase of the SPEEDWELL, as they were collected by the Leyden
leaders, as Pastor Robinson’s letter of June 14/24 to John Carver,
previously noted, clearly shows.

She was obviously bought some little time before May 31, 1620,–probably
in the early part of the month,–from the fact that in their letter of
May 31st to Carver and Cushman, then in London, Messrs. Fuller, Winslow,
Bradford, and Allerton state that “we received divers letters at the
coming of Master Nash and our Pilott,” etc. From this it is clear that
time enough had elapsed, since their purchase of the pinnace, for their
messenger (Master Nash) to go to London,–evidently with a request to
Carver and Cushman that they would send over a competent “pilott” to
refit her, and for Nash to return with him, while the letter announcing
their arrival does not seem to have been immediately written.

The writers of the above-mentioned letter use the words “we received,”
–using the past tense, as if some days before, instead of “we have your
letters,” or “we have just received your letters,” which would rather
indicate present, or recent, time. Probably some days elapsed after the
“pilott’s” arrival, before this letter of acknowledgment was sent. It is
hence fair to assume that the pinnace was bought early in May, and that
no time was lost by the Leyden party in preparing for the exodus, after
their negotiations with the Dutch were “broken off” and they had “struck
hands” with Weston, sometime between February 2/12, 1619/20, and April
1/11, 1620,–probably in March.

The consort was a pinnace–as vessels of her class were then and for many
years called–of sixty tons burden, as already stated, having two masts,
which were put in–as we are informed by Bradford, and are not allowed by
Professor Arber to forget–as apart of her refitting in Holland. That
she was “square-rigged,” and generally of the then prevalent style of
vessels of her size and class, is altogether probable. The name pinnace
was applied to vessels having a wide range in tonnage, etc., from a craft
of hardly more than ten or fifteen tons to one of sixty or eighty. It
was a term of pretty loose and indefinite adaptation and covered most of
the smaller craft above a shallop or ketch, from such as could be
propelled by oars, and were so fitted, to a small ship of the SPEEDWELL’S
class, carrying an armament.

None of the many representations of the SPEEDWELL which appear in
historical pictures are authentic, though some doubtless give correct
ideas of her type. Weir’s painting of the “Embarkation of the Pilgrims,”
in the Capitol at Washington (and Parker’s copy of the same in Pilgrim
Hall, Plymouth); Lucy’s painting of the “Departure of the Pilgrims,” in
Pilgrim Hall; Copes great painting in the corridor of the British Houses
of Parliament, and others of lesser note, all depict the vessel on much
the same lines, but nothing can be claimed for any of them, except
fidelity to a type of vessel of that day and class. Perhaps the best
illustration now known of a craft of this type is given in the painting
by the Cuyps, father and son, of the “Departure of the Pilgrims from
Delfshaven,” as reproduced by Dr. W. E. Griffis, as the frontispiece to
his little monograph, “The Pilgrims in their Three Homes.” No reliable
description of the pinnace herself is known to exist, and but few facts
concerning her have been gleaned. That she was fairly “roomy” for a
small number of passengers, and had decent accommodations, is inferable
from the fact that so many as thirty were assigned to her at Southampton,
for the Atlantic voyage (while the MAY-FLOWER, three times her tonnage,
but of greater proportionate capacity, had but ninety), as also from the
fact that “the chief [i.e. principal people] of them that came from
Leyden went in this ship, to give Master Reynolds content.” That she
mounted at least “three pieces of ordnance” appears by the testimony of
Edward Winslow, and they probably comprised her armament.

We have seen that Bradford notes the purchase and refitting of this
“smale ship of 60 tune” in Holland. The story of her several sailings,
her “leakiness,” her final return, and her abandonment as unseaworthy,
is familiar. We find, too, that Bradford also states in his “Historie,”
that “the leakiness of this ship was partly by her being overmasted and
too much pressed with sails.” It will, however, amaze the readers of
Professor Arber’s generally excellent “Story of the Pilgrim Fathers,” so
often referred to herein, to find him sharply arraigning “those members
of the Leyden church who were responsible for the fitting of the
SPEEDWELL,” alleging that “they were the proximate causes of most of the
troubles on the voyage [of the MAY-FLOWER] out; and of many of the deaths
at Plymouth in New England in the course of the following Spring; for
they overmasted the vessel, and by so doing strained her hull while
sailing.” To this straining, Arber wholly ascribes the “leakiness” of
the SPEEDWELL and the delay in the final departure of the MAYFLOWER, to
which last he attributes the disastrous results he specifies. It would
seem that the historian, unduly elated at what he thought the discovery
of another “turning-point of modern history,” endeavors to establish it
by such assertions and such partial references to Bradford as would
support the imaginary “find.” Briefly stated, this alleged discovery,
which he so zealously announces, is that if the SPEEDWELL had not been
overmasted, both she and the MAY-FLOWER would have arrived early in the
fall at the mouth of the Hudson River, and the whole course of New
England history would have been entirely different. Ergo, the
“overmasting” of the SPEEDWELL was a “pivotal point in modern history.”
With the idea apparently of giving eclat to this announcement and of
attracting attention to it, he surprisingly charges the responsibility
for the “overmasting” and its alleged dire results upon the leaders of
the Leyden church, “who were,” he repeatedly asserts, “alone
responsible.” As a matter of fact, however, Bradford expressly states
(in the same paragraph as that upon which Professor Arber must wholly
base his sweeping assertions) that the “overmasting” was but “partly”
responsible for the SPEEDWELL’S leakiness, and directly shows that the
“stratagem” of her master and crew, “afterwards,” he adds, “known, and by
some confessed,” was the chief cause of her leakiness.

Cushman also shows, by his letter,–written after the ships had put back
into Dartmouth,–a part of which Professor Arber uses, but the most
important part suppresses, that what he evidently considers the principal
leak was caused by a very “loose board” (plank), which was clearly not
the result of the straining due to “crowding sail,” or of “overmasting.”
(See Appendix.)

Moreover, as the Leyden chiefs were careful to employ a presumably
competent man (“pilott,” afterwards “Master” Reynolds) to take charge of
refitting the consort, they were hence clearly, both legally and morally,
exempt from responsibility as to any alterations made. Even though the
“overmasting” had been the sole cause of the SPEEDWELL’S leakiness, and
the delays and vicissitudes which resulted to the MAY-FLOWER and her
company, the leaders of the Leyden church–whom Professor Arber arraigns
–(themselves chiefly the sufferers) were in no wise at fault! It is
clear, however, that the “overmasting” cut but small figure in the case;
“confessed” rascality in making a leak otherwise, being the chief
trouble, and this, as well as the “overmasting,” lay at the door of
Master Reynolds.

Even if the MAY-FLOWER had not been delayed by the SPEEDWELL’S condition,
and both had sailed for “Hudson’s River” in midsummer, it is by no means
certain that they would have reached there, as Arber so confidently
asserts. The treachery of Captain Jones, in league with Gorges, would as
readily have landed them, by some pretext, on Cape Cod in October, as in
December. But even though they had landed at the mouth of the Hudson,
there is no good reason why the Pilgrim influence should not have worked
north and east, as well as it did west and south, and with the
Massachusetts Bay Puritans there, Roger Williams in Rhode Island, and the
younger Winthrop in Connecticut, would doubtless have made New England
history very much what it has been, and not, as Professor Arber asserts,
“entirely different.”

The cruel indictment fails, and the imaginary “turning point in modern
history,” to announce which Professor Arber seems to have sacrificed so
much, falls with it.

The Rev. Dr. Griffis (“The Pilgrims in their Three Homes,” p. 158) seems
to give ear to Professor Arber’s untenable allegations as to the Pilgrim
leaders’ responsibility for any error made in the “overmasting” of the
SPEEDWELL, although he destroys his case by saying of the “overmasting:”
“Whether it was done in England or Holland is not certain.” He says,
unhappily chiming in with Arber’s indictment: “In their eagerness to get
away promptly, they [the Leyden men] made the mistake of ordering for the
SPEEDWELL heavier and taller masts and larger spars than her hull had
been built to receive, thus altering most unwisely and disastrously her
trim.” He adds still more unhappily: “We do not hear of these inveterate
landsmen and townsfolk [of whom he says, ‘possibly there was not one man
familiar with ships or sea life’] who were about to venture on the
Atlantic, taking counsel of Dutch builders or mariners as to the
proportion of their craft.” Why so discredit the capacity and
intelligence of these nation-builders? Was their sagacity ever found
unequal to the problems they met? Were the men who commanded confidence
and respect in every avenue of affairs they entered; who talked with
kings and dealt with statesmen; these diplomats, merchants, students,
artisans, and manufacturers; these men who learned law, politics, state
craft, town building, navigation, husbandry, boat-building, and medicine,
likely to deal negligently or presumptuously with matters upon which they
were not informed? Their first act, after buying the SPEEDWELL, was to
send to England for an “expert” to take charge of all technical matters
of her “outfitting,” which was done, beyond all question, in Holland.
What need had they, having done this (very probably upon the advice of
those experienced ship-merchants, their own “Adventurers” and townsmen,
Edward Pickering and William Greene), to consult Dutch ship-builders or
mariners? She was to be an English ship, under the English flag, with
English owners, and an English captain; why: should they defer to Dutch
seamen or put other than an English “expert” in charge of her
alterations, especially when England rightfully boasted the best? But
not only were these Leyden leaders not guilty of any laches as indicted
by Arber and too readily convicted by Griffis, but the “overmasting” was
of small account as compared with the deliberate rascality of captain and
crew, in the disabling of the consort, as expressly certified by
Bradford, who certainly, as an eye-witness, knew whereof he affirmed.

Having bought a vessel, it was necessary to fit her for the severe
service in which she was to be employed; to provision her for the voyage,
etc.; and this could be done properly only by experienced hands. The
Pilgrim leaders at Leyden seem, therefore, as noted, to have sent to
their agents at London for a competent man to take charge of this work,
and were sent a “pilott” (or “mate”), doubtless presumed to be equal to
the task. Goodwin mistakenly says: “As Spring waned, Thomas Nash went
from Leyden to confer with the agents at London. He soon returned with a
pilot (doubtless [sic] Robert Coppin), who was to conduct the Continental
party to England.” This is both wild and remarkable “guessing” for the
usually careful compiler of the “Pilgrim Republic.” There is no warrant
whatever for this assumption, and everything contra-indicates it,
although two such excellent authorities as Dr. Dexter and Goodwin
coincide–the latter undoubtedly copying the former–concerning Coppin;
both being doubtless in error, as hereafter shown. Dexter says “My
impression is that Coppin was originally hired to go in the SPEEDWELL,
and that he was the ‘pilott’ whose coming was ‘a great incouragement’ to
the Leyden expectants, in the last of May, or first of June, 1620 [before
May 31, as shown]; that he sailed with them in the SPEEDWELL, but on her
final putting back was transferred to the MAY-FLOWER.” All the direct
light any one has upon the matter comes from the letter of the Leyden
brethren of May 31 [O.S.], 1620, previously cited, to Carver and Cushman,
and the reply of the latter thereto, of Sunday, June 11, 1620. The
former as noted, say: “We received diverse letters at the coming of
Master Nash [probably Thomas] and our pilott, which is a great
incouragement unto us . . . and indeed had you not sente him [the
‘pilott,’ presumably] many would have been ready to fainte and goe
backe.” Neither here nor in any other relation is there the faintest
suggestion of Coppin, except as what he was, “the second mate,” or
“pilott,” of the MAY-FLOWER. It is not reasonable to suppose that, for
so small a craft but just purchased, and with the expedition yet
uncertain, the Leyden leaders or their London agents had by June 11,
employed both a “Master” and a “pilott” for the SPEEDWELL, as must have
been the case if this “pilott” was, as Goodwin so confidently assumes,
“doubtless Robert Coppin.” For in Robert Cushman’s letter of Sunday,
June 11, as if proposing (now that the larger vessel would be at once
obtained, and would, as he thought, be “ready in fourteen days”) that the
“pilott” sent over to “refit” the SPEEDWELL should be further utilized,
he says: “Let Master Reynolds tarrie there [inferentially, not return
here when his work is done, as we originally arranged] and bring the ship
[the SPEEDWELL], to Southampton.” The latter service we know he
performed.

The side lights upon the matter show, beyond doubt:–

(a) That a “pilott” had been sent to Holland, with Master Nash, before
May 31, 1620;

(b) That unless two had been sent (of which there is no suggestion, and
which is entirely improbable, for obvious reasons), Master Reynolds was
the “pilott” who was thus sent;

(c) That it is clear, from Cushman’s letter of June 11/21, that Reynolds
was then in Holland, for Cushman directs that “Master Reynolds tarrie
there and bring the ship to Southampton;”

(d) That Master Reynolds was not originally intended to “tarrie there,”
and “bring the ship,” etc., as, if he had been, there would have been no
need of giving such an order; and

(e) That he had been sent there for some other purpose than to bring the
SPEEDWELL to Southampton. Duly considering all the facts together, there
can be no doubt that only one “pilott” was sent from England; that he was
expected to return when the work was done for which he went (apparently
the refitting of the SPEEDWELL); that he was ordered to remain for a new
duty, and that the man who performed that duty and brought the ship to
Southampton (who, we know was Master Reynolds) must have been the
“pilott”, sent over.

We are told too, by Bradford,

[Bradford’s Historie, as already cited; Arber, The Story of the
Pilgrim Fathers, p. 341. John Brown, in his Pilgrim Fathers of New
England, p. 198, says: “She [the SPEEDWELL] was to remain with the
colony for a year.” Evidently a mistake, arising from the length of
time for which her crew were shipped. The pinnace herself was
intended, as we have seen, for the permanent use of they colonists,
and was to remain indefinitely.]

that the crew of the SPEEDWELL “were hired for a year,” and we know, in a
general way, that most of them went with her to London when she abandoned
the voyage. This there is ample evidence Coppin did not do, going as he
did to New England as “second mate” or “pilott” of the MAY-FLOWER, which
there is no reason to doubt he was when she left London. Neither is
there anywhere any suggestion that there was at Southampton any change in
the second mate of the larger ship, as there must have been to make good
the suggestion of Dr. Dexter.

Where the SPEEDWELL lay while being “refitted” has not been ascertained,
though presumably at Delfshaven, whence she sailed, though possibly at
one of the neighboring larger ports, where her new masts and cordage
could be “set up” to best advantage.

We know that Reynolds–“pilott” and “Master” went from London to
superintend the “making-ready” for sea. Nothing is known, however, of
his antecedents, and nothing of his history after he left the service of
the Pilgrims in disgrace, except that he appears to have come again to
New England some years later, in command of a vessel, in the service of
the reckless adventurer Weston (a traitor to the Pilgrims), through whom,
it is probable, he was originally selected for their service in Holland.
Bradford and others entitled to judge have given their opinions of this
cowardly scoundrel (Reynolds) in unmistakable terms.

What other officers and crew the pinnace had does not appear, and we know
nothing certainly of them, except the time for which they shipped; that
some of them were fellow-conspirators with the Master (self-confessed),
in the “strategem” to compel the SPEEDWELL’S abandonment of the voyage;
and that a few were transferred to the MAYFLOWER. From the fact that the
sailors Trevore and Ely returned from New Plymouth on the FORTUNE in
1621, “their time having expired,” as Bradford notes, it may be fairly
assumed that they were originally of the SPEEDWELL’S crew.

That the fears of the SPEEDWELL’S men had been worked upon, and their
cooperation thus secured by the artful Reynolds, is clearly indicated by
the statement of Bradford: “For they apprehended that the greater ship
being of force and in which most of the provisions were stored, she would
retain enough for herself, whatever became of them or the passengers, and
indeed such speeches had been cast out by some of them.”

Of the list of passengers who embarked at Delfshaven, July 22, 1620,
“bound for Southampton on the English coast, and thence for the northern
parts of Virginia,” we fortunately have a pretty accurate knowledge.
All of the Leyden congregation who were to emigrate, with the exception
of Robert Cushman and family, and (probably) John Carver, were doubtless
passengers upon the SPEEDWELL from Delfshaven to Southampton, though the
presence of Elder Brewster has been questioned. The evidence that he was
there is well-nigh as conclusive as that Robert Cushman sailed on the
MAY-FLOWER from London, and that Carver, who had been for some months in
England,–chiefly at Southampton, making preparations for the voyage, was
there to meet the ships on their arrival. It is possible, of course,
that Cushman’s wife and son came on the SPEEDWELL from Delfshaven; but is
not probable. Among the passengers, however, were some who, like Thomas
Blossom and his son, William Ring, and others, abandoned the voyage to
America at Plymouth, and returned in the pinnace to London and thence
went back to Holland. Deducting from the passenger list of the MAYFLOWER
those known to have been of the English contingent, with Robert Cushman
and family, and John Carver, we have a very close approximate to the
SPEEDWELL’S company on her “departure from Delfshaven.” It has not been
found possible to determine with absolute certainty the correct relation
of a few persons. They may have been of the Leyden contingent and so
have come with their brethren on the SPEEDWELL, or they may have been of
the English colonists, and first embarked either at London or at
Southampton, or even at Plymouth,–though none are supposed to have
joined the emigrants there or at Dartmouth.

The list of those embarking at Delfshaven on the SPEEDWELL, and so of the
participants in that historic event,–a list now published for the first
time, so far as known,–is undoubtedly accurate, within the limitations
stated, as follows, being for convenience’ sake arranged by families:

The Family of Deacon John Carver (probably in charge of John Howland),
embracing:–
Mrs. Katherine Carver,
John Howland (perhaps kinsman of Carver), “servant” or “employee,”
Desire Minter, or Minther (probably companion of Mrs. Carver,
perhaps kinswoman),
Roger Wilder, “servant,”
“Mrs. Carver’s maid” (whose name has never transpired).

Master William Bradford and
Mrs. Dorothy (May) Bradford.

Master Edward Winslow and
Mrs. Elizabeth (Barker) Winslow,
George Soule a “servant” (or employee),
Elias Story, “servant.”

Elder William Brewster and
Mrs. Mary Brewster,
Love Brewster, a son,
Wrestling Brewster, a son.

Master Isaac Allerton and
Mrs. Mary (Morris) Allerton,
Bartholomew Allerton, a son,
Remember Allerton, a daughter,
Mary Allerton, a daughter,
John Hooke, “servant-boy.”

Dr. Samuel Fuller and
William Butten, “servant”-assistant.

Captain Myles Standish and
Mrs. Rose Standish.

Master William White and
Mrs. Susanna (Fuller) White,
Resolved White, a son,
William Holbeck, “servant,”
Edward Thompson, “servant.”

Deacon Thomas Blossom and
—– Blossom, a son.

Master Edward Tilley and
Mrs. Ann Tilley.

Master John Tilley and
Mrs. Bridget (Van der Velde?) Tilley (2d wife),
Elizabeth Tilley, a daughter of Mr. Tilley by a former wife(?)

John Crackstone and
John Crackstone (Jr.), a son.

Francis Cooke and
John Cooke, a son.

John Turner and
—- Turner, a son,
—- Turner, a son.

Degory Priest.

Thomas Rogers and
Joseph Rogers, a son.

Moses Fletcher.

Thomas Williams.

Thomas Tinker and
Mrs. —- Tinker,
—- Tinker, a son.

Edward Fuller and
Mrs. —- Fuller,
Samuel Fuller, a son.

John Rigdale and
Mrs. Alice Rigdale.

Francis Eaton and
Mrs. —- Eaton,
Samuel Eaton, an infant son.

Peter Browne.

William Ring.

Richard Clarke.

John Goodman.

Edward Margeson.

Richard Britteridge.

Mrs. Katherine Carver and her family, it is altogether probable, came
over in charge of Howland, who was probably a kinsman, both he and
Deacon Carver coming from Essex in England,–as they could hardly
have been in England with Carver during the time of his exacting
work of preparation. He, it is quite certain, was not a passenger
on the Speedwell, for Pastor Robinson would hardly have sent him
such a letter as that received by him at Southampton, previously
mentioned (Bradford’s “Historie,” Deane’s ed. p. 63), if he had been
with him at Delfshaven at the “departure,” a few days before. Nor
if he had handed it to him at Delfshaven, would he have told him in
it, “I have written a large letter to the whole company.”

John Howland was clearly a “secretary” or “steward,” rather than a
“servant,” and a man of standing and influence from the outset.
That he was in Leyden and hence a SPEEDWELL passenger appears
altogether probable, but is not absolutely certain.

Desire Minter (or Minther) was undoubtedly the daughter of Sarah, who,
the “Troth Book” (or “marriage-in-tention” records) for 1616, at the
Stadtbuis of Leyden, shows, was probably wife or widow of one
William Minther–evidently of Pastor Robinson’s congregation–when
she appeared on May 13 as a “voucher” for Elizabeth Claes, who then
pledged herself to Heraut Wilson, a pump-maker, John Carver being
one of Wilson’s “vouchers.” In 1618 Sarah Minther (then recorded as
the widow of William) reappeared, to plight her troth to Roger
Simons, brick-maker, from Amsterdam. These two records and the
rarity of the name warrant an inference that Desire Minter (or
Minther) was the daughter of William and Sarah (Willet) Minter (or
Minther), of Robinson’s flock; that her father had died prior to
1618 (perhaps before 1616); that the Carvers were near friends,
perhaps kinsfolk; that her father being dead, her mother, a poor
widow (there were clearly no rich ones in the Leyden congregation),
placed this daughter with the Carvers, and, marrying herself, and
removing to Amsterdam the year before the exodus, was glad to leave
her daughter in so good a home and such hands as Deacon and Mistress
Carver’s. The record shows that the father and mother of Mrs. Sarah
Minther, Thomas and Alice Willet, the probable grandparents of
Desire Minter, appear as “vouchers” for their daughter at her Leyden
betrothal. Of them we know nothing further, but it is a reasonable
conjecture that they may have returned to England after the
remarriage of their daughter and her removal to Amsterdam, and the
removal of the Carvers and their granddaughter to America, and that
it was to them that Desire went, when, as Bradford records, “she
returned to her friends in England, and proved not very well and
died there.”

“Mrs. Carver’s maid” we know but little about, but the presumption is
naturally strong that she came from; Leyden with her mistress. Her
early marriage and; death are duly recorded.

Roger Wilder, Carver’s “servant;” was apparently in his service at Leyden
and accompanied the family from thence. Bradford calls him “his
[Carver’s] man Roger,” as if an old, familiar household servant,
which (as Wilder died soon after the arrival at Plymouth) Bradford
would not have been as likely to do–writing in 1650, thirty years
after–if he had been only a short-time English addition to Carver’s
household, known to Bradford only during the voyage. The fact that
he speaks of him as a “man” also indicates something as to his age,
and renders it certain that he was not an “indentured” lad. It is
fair to presume he was a passenger on the SPEEDWELL to Southampton.
(It is probable that Carver’s “servant-boy,” William Latham, and
Jasper More, his “bound-boy,” were obtained in England, as more
fully appears.)

Master William Bradford and his wife were certainly of the party in the
SPEEDWELL, as shown by his own recorded account of the embarkation.
(Bradford’s “Historie,” etc.)

Master Edward Winslow’s very full (published) account of the embarkation
(“Hypocrisie Unmasked,” pp. 10-13, etc.) makes it certain that
himself and family were SPEEDWELL passengers.

George Soule, who seems to have been a sort of “upper servant” or
“steward,” it is not certain was with Winslow in Holland, though it
is probable.

Elias Story, his “under-servant,” was probably also with him in Holland,
though not surely so. Both servants might possibly have been
procured from London or at Southampton, but probably sailed from
Delfshaven with Winslow in the SPEEDWELL.

Elder William Brewster and his family, his wife and two boys, were
passengers on the SPEEDWELL, beyond reasonable doubt. He was, in
fact, the ranking man of the Leyden brethren till they reached
Southampton and the respective ships’ “governors” were chosen. The
Church to that point was dominant. (The Elder’s two “bound-boys,”
being from London, do not appear as SPEEDWELL passengers.) There is,
on careful study, no warrant to be found for the remarkable
statements of Goodwin (“Pilgrim Republic,” p. 33), that, during the
hunt for Brewster in Holland in 1619, by the emissaries of James I.
of England (in the endeavor to apprehend and punish him for printing
and publishing certain religious works alleged to be seditious),
“William Brewster was in London . . . and there he remained until
the sailing of the MAYFLOWER, which he helped to fit out;” and that
during that time “he visited Scrooby.” That he had no hand whatever
in fitting out the MAYFLOWER is certain, and the Scrooby statement
equally lacks foundation. Professor Arber, who is certainly a
better authority upon the “hidden press” of the Separatists in
Holland, and the official correspondence relating to its proprietors
and their movements, says (“The Story of the Pilgrim Fathers,”
p.196): “The Ruling Elder of the Pilgrim Church was, for more than a
year before he left Delfshaven on the SPEEDWELL, on the 22 July-
1 August, 1620, a hunted man.” Again (p. 334), he says: “Here let
us consider the excellent management and strategy of this Exodus.
If the Pilgrims had gone to London to embark for America, many, if
not most of them, would have been put in prison [and this is the
opinion of a British historian, knowing the temper of those times,
especially William Brewster.] So only those embarked in London
against whom the Bishops could take no action.” We can understand,
in light, why Carver–a more objectionable person than Cushman to
the prelates, because of his office in the Separatist Church–was
chiefly employed out of their sight, at Southampton, etc., while the
diplomatic and urbane Cushman did effective work at London, under
the Bishops’ eyes. It is not improbable that the personal
friendship of Sir Robert Naunton (Principal Secretary of State to
King James) for Sir Edward Sandys and the Leyden brethren (though
officially seemingly active under his masters’ orders in pushing Sir
Dudley Carleton, the English ambassador at the Hague, to an
unrelenting search for Brewster) may have been of material aid to
the Pilgrims in gaining their departure unmolested. The only basis
known for the positive expression of Goodwin resides in the
suggestions of several letters’ of Sir Dudley Carleton to Sir Robert
Naunton, during the quest for Brewster; the later seeming clearly to
nullify the earlier.

Under date of July 22, 1619, Carleton says: “One William Brewster,
a Brownist, who has been for some years an inhabitant and printer at
Leyden, but is now within these three weeks removed from thence and
gone back to dwell in London,” etc.

On August 16, 1619 (N.S.), he writes: “I am told William Brewster is
come again for Leyden,” but on the 30th adds: “I have made good
enquiry after William Brewster and am well assured he is not
returned thither, neither is it likely he will; having removed from
thence both his family and goods,” etc.

On September 7, 1619 (N.S.), he writes: “Touching Brewster, I am now
informed that he is on this side the seas [not in London, as before
alleged]; and that he was seen yesterday, at Leyden, but, as yet, is
not there settled,” etc.

On September 13, 1619 (N.S.), he says: “I have used all diligence to
enquire after Brewster; and find he keeps most at Amsterdam; but
being ‘incerti laris’, he is not yet to be lighted upon. I
understand he prepares to settle himself at a village called
Leerdorp, not far from Leyden, thinking there to be able to print
prohibited books without discovery, but I shall lay wait for him,
both there and in other places, so as I doubt but either he must
leave this country; or I shall, sooner or later, find him out.”

On September 20, 1619 (N.S.), he says: “I have at length found out
Brewster at Leyden,” etc. It was a mistake, and Brewster’s partner
(Thomas Brewer), one of the Merchant Adventurers, was arrested
instead.

On September 28, 1619 (N.S.), he states, writing from Amsterdam:
“If he lurk here for fear of apprehension, it will be hard to find
him,” etc.

As late as February 8, 1619/20, there was still a desire and hope
for his arrest, but by June the matter had become to the King–and
all others–something of an old story. While, as appears by a
letter of Robert Cushman, written in London, in May, 1619, Brewster
was then undoubtedly there, one cannot agree, in the light of the
official correspondence just quoted, with the conclusion of Dr.
Alexander Young (“Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers,” vol. i.
p. 462), that “it is probable he [Brewster] did not return to
Leyden, but kept close till the MAYFLOWER sailed.”

Everything indicates that he was at Leyden long after this; that he
did not again return to London, as supposed; and that he was in
hiding with his family (after their escape from the pursuit at
Leyden), somewhere among friends in the Low Countries. Although by
July, 1620, the King had, as usual, considerably “cooled off,” we
may be sure that with full knowledge of the harsh treatment meted
out to his partner (Brewer) when caught, though unusually mild (by
agreement with the authorities of the University and Province of
Holland), Brewster did not deliberately put himself “under the
lion’s paw” at London, or take any chances of arrest there, even in
disguise. Dr. Griffis has lent his assent (“The Pilgrims in their
Homes,” p, 167), though probably without careful analysis of all the
facts, to the untenable opinion expressed by Goodwin, that Brewster
was “hiding in England” when the SPEEDWELL sailed from Delfshaven.
There can be no doubt that, with his ever ready welcome of sound
amendment, he will, on examination, revise his opinion, as would the
clear-sighted Goodwin, if living and cognizant of the facts as
marshalled against his evident error. As the leader and guide of
the outgoing part of the Leyden church we may, with good warrant,
believe–as all would wish–that Elder Brewster was the chief figure
the departing Pilgrims gathered on the SPEEDWELL deck, as she took
her departure from Delfshaven.

Master Isaac Allerton and his family, his wife and three children, two
sons and a daughter, were of the Leyden company and passengers in
the SPEEDWELL. We know he was active there as a leader, and was
undoubtedly one of those who bought the SPEEDWELL. He was one of
the signers of the joint-letter from Leyden, to Carver and Cushman,
May 31 (O.S.) 1620.

John Hooke, Allerton’s “servant-lad,” may have been detained at London or
Southampton, but it is hardly probable, as Allerton was a man of
means, consulted his comfort, and would have hardly started so large
a family on such a journey without a servant.

Dr. Samuel Fuller was, as is well known, one of the Leyden chiefs,
connected by blood and marriage with many of the leading families of
Robinson’s congregation. He was active in the preparations for the
voyage the first signer of the joint-letter of May 31, and doubtless
one of the negotiators for the SPEEDWELL. His wife and child were
left behind, to follow later as they did.

William Butten, the first of the Pilgrim party to die, was, in all
probability, a student-“servant” of Doctor Fuller at Leyden, and
doubtless embarked with him at Delfshaven. Bradford calls him
(writing of his death) “Wm. Butten, a youth, servant to Samuel
Fuller.” Captain Myles Standish and his wife Rose, we know from
Bradford, were with the Pilgrims in Leyden and doubtless shipped
with them. Arber calls him (“The Story of the Pilgrim Fathers,”
p. 378) a “chief of the Pilgrim Fathers” in the sense of a father
and leader in their Israel; but there is no warrant for this
assumption, though he became their “sword-hand” in the New World.
By some writers, though apparently with insufficient warrant,
Standish has been declared a Roman Catholic. It does not appear
that he was ever a communicant of the Pilgrim Church. His family,
moreover, was not of the Roman Catholic faith, and all his conduct
in the colony is inconsistent with the idea that he was of that
belief. Master William White, his wife and son, were of the Leyden
congregation, both husband and wife being among its principal
people, and nearly related to several of the Pilgrim band. The
marriage of Mr. and Mrs. White is duly recorded in Leyden. William
Holbeck and Edward Thompson, Master White’s two servants, he
probably took with him from Leyden, as his was a family of means and
position, though they might possibly have been procured at
Southampton. They were apparently passengers in the SPEEDWELL.
Deacon Thomas Blossom and his son were well known as of Pastor
Robinson’s flock at Leyden. They returned, moreover, to Holland
from Plymouth, England (where they gave up the voyage), via London.
The father went to New Plymouth ten years later, the son dying
before that time. (See Blossom’s letter to Governor Bradford.
Bradford’s Letter Book, “Plymouth Church Records,” i. 42.) In his
letter dated at Leyden, December 15, 1625, he says: “God hath taken
away my son that was with me in the ship MAYFLOWER when I went back
again.”

Edward Tilley (sometimes given the prefix of Master) his wife Ann are
known to have been of the Leyden company. (Bradford’s “Historie,”
p. 83.) It is doubtful if their “cousins,” Henry Sampson and
Humility Cooper, were of Leyden. They apparently were English
kinsfolk, taken to New England with the Tilleys, very likely joined
them at Southampton and hence were not of the SPEEDWELL’S
passengers. Humility Cooper returned to England after the death of
Tilley and his wife. That Mrs. Tilley’s “given name” was Ann is not
positively established, but rests on Bradford’s evidence.

John Tilley (who is also sometimes called Master) is reputed a brother of
Edward, and is known to have been–as also his wife–of the Leyden
church (Bradford, Deane’s ed. p. 83.) His second wife Bridget Van
der Velde, was evidently of Holland blood, and their marriage is
recorded in Leyden. Elizabeth Tilley was clearly a daughter by an
earlier wife. He is said by Goodwin (“Pilgrim Republic,” p. 32) to
have been a “silk worker” Leyden, but earlier authority for this
occupation is not found.

John Crackstone is of record as of the Leyden congregation. His daughter
remained there, and came later to America.

John Crackstone, Jr., son of above. Both were SPEEDWELL passengers.

Francis Cooke has been supposed a very early member of Robinson’s flock
in England, who escaped with them to Holland, in 1608. He and his
son perhaps embarked at Delfshaven, leaving his wife and three other
children to follow later. (See Robinson’s letter to Governor
Bradford, “Mass. Hist. Coll.,” vol. iii. p. 45, also Appendix for
account of Cooke’s marriage.)

John Cooke, the son, was supposed to have lived to be the last male
survivor of the MAY-FLOWER, but Richard More proves to have survived
him. He was a prominent man in the colony, like his father, and the
founder of Dartmouth (Mass.).

John Turner and his sons are also known to have been of the Leyden party,
as he was undoubtedly the messenger sent to London with the letter
(of May 31) of the leaders to Carver and Cushman, arriving there
June 10, 1620. They were beyond doubt of the SPEEDWELL’S list.

Degory Priest–or “Digerie,” as Bradford calls him–was a prominent
member of the Leyden body. His marriage is recorded there, and he
left his family in the care of his pastor and friends, to follow him
later. He died early.

Thomas Rogers and his son are reputed of the Leyden company. He left
(according to Bradford) some of his family there–as did Cooke and
Priest–to follow later. It has been suggested that Rogers might
have been of the Essex (England) lineage, but no evidence of this
appears. The Rogers family of Essex were distinctively Puritans,
both in England and in the Massachusetts colony.

Moses Fletcher was a “smith” at Leyden, and of Robinson’s church. He was
married there, in 1613, to his second wife. He was perhaps of the
English Amsterdam family of Separatists, of that name. As the only
blacksmith of the colonists, his early death was a great loss.

Thomas Williams, there seems no good reason to doubt, was the Thomas
Williams known to have been of Leyden congregation. Hon. H. C.
Murphy and Arber include him–apparently through oversight alone
–in the list of those of Leyden who did not go, unless there were
two of the name, one of whom remained in Holland.

Thomas Tinker, wife, and son are not certainly known to have been of the
Leyden company, or to have embarked at Delfshaven, but their
constant association in close relation with others who were and who
so embarked warrants the inference that they were of the SPEEDWELL’S
passengers. It is, however, remotely possible, that they were of
the English contingent.

Edward Fuller and his wife and little son were of the Leyden company, and
on the SPEEDWELL. He is reputed to have been a brother of Dr.
Fuller, and is occasionally so claimed by early writers, but by what
warrant is not clear.

John Rigdale and his wife have always been placed by tradition and
association with the Leyden emigrants but there is a possibility
that they were of the English party. Probability assigns them to
the SPEEDWELL, and they are needed to make her accredited number.

Francis Eaton, wife, and babe were doubtless of the Leyden list. He is
said to have been a carpenter there (Goodwin, “Pilgrim Republic,” p.
32), and was married there, as the record attests.

Peter Browne has always been classed with the Leyden party. There is no
established authority for this except tradition, and he might
possibly have been of the English emigrants, though probably a
SPEEDWELL passenger; he is needed to make good her putative number.

William Ring is in the same category as are Eaton and Browne. Cushman
speaks of him, in his Dartmouth letter to Edward Southworth (of
August 17), in terms of intimacy, though this, while suggestive, of
course proves nothing, and he gave up the voyage and returned from
Plymouth to London with Cushman. He was certainly from Leyden.

Richard Clarke is on the doubtful list, as are also John Goodman, Edward
Margeson, and Richard Britteridge. They have always been
traditionally classed with the Leyden colonists, yet some of them
were possibly among the English emigrants. They are all needed,
however, to make up the number usually assigned to Leyden, as are
all the above “doubtfuls,” which is of itself somewhat confirmatory
of the substantial correctness of the list.

Thomas English, Bradford records, “was hired to goe master of a [the]
shallopp” of the colonists, in New England waters. He was probably
hired in Holland and was almost certainly of the SPEEDWELL.

John Alderton (sometimes written Allerton) was, Bradford states, “a hired
man, reputed [reckoned] one of the company, but was to go back
(being a seaman) and so making no account of the voyages for the
help of others behind” [probably at Leyden]. It is probable that he
was hired in Holland, and came to Southampton on the SPEEDWELL.
Both English and Alderton seem to have stood on a different footing
from Trevore and Ely, the other two seamen in the employ of the
colonists.

William Trevore was, we are told by Bradford, “a seaman hired to stay a
year in the countrie,” but whether or not as part of the SPEEDWELL’S
Crew (who, he tells us, were all hired for a year) does not appear.
As the Master (Reynolds) and others of her crew undoubtedly returned
to London in her from Plymouth, and her voyage was cancelled, the
presumption is that Trevore and Ely were either hired anew or–more
probably–retained under their former agreement, to proceed by the
MAY-FLOWER to America, apparently (practically) as passengers.
Whether of the consort’s crew or not, there can be little doubt that
he left Delfshaven on the SPEEDWELL.

— Ely, the other seaman in the Planters’ employ, also hired to “remain
a year in the countrie,” appears to have been drafted, like Trevore,
from the SPEEDWELL before she returned to London, having, no doubt,
made passage from Holland in her. Both Trevore and Ely survived
“the general sickness” at New Plimoth, and at the expiration of the
time for which they were employed returned on the FORTUNE to England

Of course the initial embarkation, on Friday, July 21/31 1620, was at
Leyden, doubtless upon the Dutch canal-boats which undoubtedly brought
them from a point closely adjacent to Pastor Robinson’s house in the
Klock-Steeg (Bell, Belfry, Alley), in the garden of which were the houses
of many, to Delfshaven.

Rev. John Brown, D.D., says: “The barges needed for the journey were
most likely moored near the Nuns’ Bridge which spans the Rapenburg
immediately opposite the Klok-Steeg, where Robinsons house was. This,
being their usual meeting-place, would naturally be the place of
rendezvous on the morning of departure. From thence it was but a stone’s
throw to the boats, and quickly after starting they would enter the
Vliet, as the section of the canal between Leyden and Delft is named, and
which for a little distance runs within the city bounds, its quays
forming the streets. In those days the point where the canal leaves the
city was guarded by a water-gate, which has long since been removed, as
have also the town walls, the only remaining portions of which are the
Morsch-gate and the Zylgate. So, gliding along the quiet waters of the
Vliet, past the Water-gate, and looking up at the frowning turrets of the
Cow-gate, ‘they left that goodly and pleasant city which had been their
resting-place near twelve years.’ . . . Nine miles from Leyden a
branch canal connects the Vliet with the Hague, and immediately beyond
their junction a sharp turn is made to the left, as the canal passes
beneath the Hoom-bridge; from this point, for the remaining five miles,
the high road from the Hague to Delft, lined with noble trees, runs side
by side with the canal. In our time the canal-boats make a circuit of
the town to the right, but in those days the traffic went by canal
through the heart of the city . . . . Passing out of the gates of
Delft and leaving the town behind, they had still a good ten miles of
canal journey before them ere they reached their vessel and came to the
final parting, for, as Mr. Van Pelt has clearly shown, it is a mistake to
confound Delft with Delfshaven, as the point of embarkation in the
SPEEDWELL. Below Delft the canal, which from Leyden thither is the
Vliet, then becomes the Schie, and at the village of Overschie the
travellers entered the Delfshaven Canal, which between perfectly straight
dykes flows at a considerable height above the surrounding pastures.
Then finally passing through one set of sluice gates after another, the
Pilgrims were lifted from the canal into a broad receptacle for vessels,
then into the outer haven, and so to the side of the SPEEDWELL as she lay
at the quay awaiting their arrival.”

Dr. Holmes has prettily pictured the “Departure” in his “Robinson of
Leyden,” even if not altogether correctly, geographically.

“He spake; with lingering, long embrace,
With tears of love and partings fond,
They floated down the creeping Maas,
Along the isle of Ysselmond.

“They passed the frowning towers of Briel,
The ‘Hook of Holland’s’ shelf of sand,
And grated soon with lifting keel
The sullen shores of Fatherland.

“No home for these! too well they knew
The mitred king behind the throne;
The sails were set, the pennons flew,
And westward ho! for worlds unknown.”

Winslow informs us that they of the Leyden congregation who volunteered
for the American enterprise were rather the smaller fraction of the whole
body, though he adds, as noted “that the difference was not great.”
A careful analysis of the approximate list of the Leyden colonists,
–including, of course, Carver, and Cushman and his family,–whose total
number seems to have been seventy-two, indicates that of this number,
forty-two, or considerably more than half (the rest being children,
seamen, or servants), were probably members of the Leyden church. Of
these, thirty, probably, were males and twelve females. The exact
proportion this number bore to the numerical strength of Robinson’s
church at that time cannot be determined, because while something less
than half as we know, gave their votes for the American undertaking, it
cannot be known whether or not the women of church had a vote in the
matter. Presumably they did not, the primitive church gave good heed to
the words of Paul (i Corinthians xiv. 34), “Let your women keep silence
in the churches.” Neither can it be known–if they had a voice–whether
the wives and daughters of some of the embarking Pilgrims, who did not go
themselves at this time, voted with their husbands and fathers for the
removal. The total number, seventy-two, coincides very nearly with the
estimate made by Goodwin, who says: “Only eighty or ninety could go in
this party from Leyden,” and again: “Not more than eighty of the
MAY-FLOWER company were from Leyden. Allowing for [i.e. leaving out]
the younger children and servants, it is evident that not half the
company can have been from Robinson’s congregation.” As the total
number of passengers on the MAYFLOWER was one hundred and two when she
took her final departure from England, it is clear that Goodwin’s
estimate is substantially correct, and that the number representing the
Leyden church as given above, viz., forty-two, is very close to the
fact.

“When they came to the place” [Delfshaven], says Bradford, “they found
the ship and all things ready; and such of their friends as could not
come with them [from Leyden] followed after them; and sundry also came
from Amsterdam (about fifty miles) to see them shipped, and to take their
leave of them.”

Saturday, July 22/Aug. 1, 1620, the Pilgrim company took their farewells,
and Winslow records: “We only going aboard, the ship lying to the key
[quay] and ready to sail; the wind being fair, we gave them [their
friends] a volley of small shot [musketry] and three pieces of ordnance
and so lifting up our hands to each other and our hearts for each other
to the Lord our God, we departed.”

Goodwin says of the parting: “The hull was wrapped in smoke, through
which was seen at the stern the white flag of England doubly bisected by
the great red cross of St. George, a token that the emigrants had at last
resumed their dearly-loved nationality. Far above them at the main was
seen the Union Jack of new device.”

And so after more than eleven years of banishment for conscience’ sake
from their native shores, this little band of English exiles, as true to
their mother-land–despite persecutions–as to their God, raised the
flag of England, above their own little vessel, and under its folds set
sail to plant themselves for a larger life in a New World.

And thus opens the “Log” of the SPEEDWELL, and the “Westward-Ho” of the
Pilgrim Fathers.

THE SPEEDWELL’S LOG

Sunday, July 23/Aug. 2.
On the German Ocean. Wind fair. General
course D.W., toward Southampton. sails
set, running free.

Monday, July 24/Aug. 3.
Fair. Wind moderate. Dover Straits
English Channel. In sight Dover Cliffs.

Tuesday, July 25/Aug. 5
Hugging English shore. Enters Southampton
Water.

Wednesday, July 26/Aug. 5.
Came to anchor in Port of Southampton near
ship MAYFLOWER of Yarmouth, from London (to
which this pinnace is consort), off the
north of the West Quay.’

Thursday, July 27/Aug. 6.
At anchor in port of Southampton.

Friday, July 28/Aug. 7.
Lying at anchor at Southampton.

Saturday, July 29/Aug. 8.
Lying at Southampton. MAY-FLOWER ready for
sea, but pinnace leaking and requires
re-trimming.

Sunday, July 30/Aug. 9.
Lying at Southampton.

Monday, July 31/Aug. 10.
Ditto.

Tuesday, Aug. 1/11.
Ditto.

Wednesday, Aug. 2/22.
Ditto. Pinnace leaking. Re-trimmed again.

Thursday, Aug 3/13.
Ditto. Receiving passengers, etc. Some of
principal Leyden men assigned to SPEEDWELL.

Friday, Aug. 4/14
Southampton. Making ready to leave.

Saturday, Aug. 5/55.
Dropped down Southampton Water and beat
down Channel. Wind dead ahead. Laid general
course W.S.W.

Sunday, Aug. 6/16.
Wind baffling. Beating down Channel.

Monday, Aug. 7/17.
Ditto.

Tuesday, Aug. 8/18.
Ditto. Ship leaking.

Wednesday, Aug. 9/19.
Ship leaking badly. Wind still ahead.

Thursday, Aug. 10/20.
Ship still leaking badly. Gaining on
pumps. Hove to. Signalled MAY-FLOWER, in
company. Consultation with Captain Jones
and principal passengers. Decided vessels
shall put back, Dartmouth, being nearest
convenient port. Wore ship and laid course
for Dartmouth with good wind.

Friday, Aug. 11/21.
Wind fair. Ship leaking badly.

Saturday, Aug. 12/22.
Made port at Dartmouth MAY-FLOWER in
company. Came to anchor near MAY-FLOWER.

Sunday, Aug. 13/23.
Lying at anchor, Dartmouth harbor.

Monday, Aug. 14/24.
Moving cargo and overhauling and retrimming
ship.

Tuesday, Aug. 15/25.
Lying at Dartmouth. At on ship.

Wednesday, Aug. 16/26.
Ditto. Found a plank feet long loose and
admitting water freely, as at a mole hole.
Seams opened some.

Thursday, Aug. 17/27.
Lying at Dartmouth. Some dissension among
chief of passengers. Ship’s “Governor”
unsatisfactory.

Friday, Aug. 18/28.
Lying at Dartmouth. Still at work on ship.

Saturday, Aug. 19/29.
Still lying at Dartmouth.

Sunday, Aug. 20/30.
Lying at Dartmouth.

Monday, Aug. 21/31
Still at Dartmouth. Overhauling completed.
Cargo relaced. Making ready to go to sea.

Tuesday, Aug. 22/Sept. 1.
Still at Dartmouth. Lying at anchor ready
for sea.

Wednesday, Aug. 23/Sept. 2.
Weighed anchor,’ as did also MAY-FLOWER,
and set sail. Laid general course W.S.W.
Wind fair

Thursday, Aug. 24/Sept.3.
Fair wind, but ship leaking.

Friday, Aug. 25/Sept. 4.
Wind fair. Ship leaking dangerously.
MAY-FLOWER in company.

Saturday, Aug. 26/Sept. 5.
About 100 leagues [300 miles] from Land’s
End. Ship leaking badly. Hove to.
Signalled MAY-FLOWER, in company.
Consultation between masters, carpenters,
and principal passengers. Decided to put
back into Plymouth and determine whether
pinnace is seaworthy. Put about and laid
course for Plymouth.

Sunday, Aug. 27/Sept. 6.
Wind on starboard quarter. Made Plymouth
harbor and came to anchor. MAY-FLOWER in
company.

Monday, Aug. 28/Sept. 7.
At anchor in Plymouth harbor. Conference
of chief of Colonists and officers of
MAY-FLOWER and SPEEDWELL. No special leak
could be found, but it was judged to be the
general weakness of the ship, and that she
would not prove sufficient for the voyage.
It was resolved to dismiss her the
SPEEDWELL, and part of the company, and
proceed with the other ship.

Tuesday, Aug. 29/Sept. 8
Lying at Plymouth. Transferring cargo.

Wednesday, Aug. 30/Sept. 9
Lying at Plymouth. Transferring cargo.

Saturday, Sept. 2/12
Ditto. Reassignment of passengers. Master
Cushman and family, Master Blossom and son,
Wm. Ring and others to return in pinnace to
London.

Sunday, Sept. 3/13
At anchor in Plymouth roadstead.

Monday, Sept. 4/14
Weighed anchor and took departure for
London, leaving MAY-FLOWER at anchor in
roadstead.

Saturday, Sept. 9/19
Off Gravesend. Came to anchor in Thames.

THE END OF THE VOYAGE AND
OF THE LOG OF THE
MAY-FLOWER’S
CONSORT

From Bradford we learn that the SPEEDWELL was sold at London, and was
“refitted”, her old trip being restored, and that she afterwards made for
her new owners many and very prosperous voyages.

CHAPTER III

THE MAY-FLOWER’S CHARTER AND THE ADVENTURERS

The ship MAY-FLOWER was evidently chartered about the middle of June,
1620 at London, by Masters Thomas West Robert Cushman acting together in
behalf of the Merchant Adventurers (chiefly of London) and the English
congregation of “Separatists” (the “Pilgrims”), at Leyden in Holland who,
with certain of England associated, proposed to colony in America.

Professor Arber, when he says, in speaking of Cushman and Weston, “the
hiring of the MAY-FLOWER, when they did do it, was their act alone, and
the Leyden church nothing to do with it,” seems to forget that Cushman
and his associate Carver had no other function or authority in their
conjunction with Weston and Martin, except to represent the Leyden
congregation. Furthermore, it was the avowed wish of Robinson (see his
letter dated June 14, 1620, to John Carver), that Weston “may [should]
presently succeed in hiring” [a ship], which was equivalent to hoping
that Carver and Cushman–Weston’s associates representing Leyden–would
aid in so doing. Moreover, Bradford expressly states that: “Articles of
Agreement, drawn by themselves were, by their [the Leyden congregation’s]
said messenger [Carver] sent into England, who together with Robert
Cushman were to receive moneys and make provisions, both for shipping,
and other things for the voyage.”

Up to Saturday, June 10, nothing had been effected in the way of
providing shipping for the migrating planters though the undertaking had
been four months afoot–beyond the purchase and refitting, in Holland, by
the Leyden people themselves, of a pinnace of sixty tons (the SPEEDWELL)
intended as consort to a larger ship–and the hiring of a “pilott” to
refit her, as we have seen.

The Leyden leaders had apparently favored purchasing also the larger
vessel still needed for the voyage, hoping, perhaps, to interest therein
at least one of their friends, Master Edward Pickering, a merchant of
Holland, himself one of the Adventurers, while Master Weston had, as
appears, inclined to hire. From this disagreement and other causes,
perhaps certain sinister reasons, Weston had become disaffected, the
enterprise drooped, the outlook was dubious, and several formerly
interested drew back, until shipping should be provided and the good
faith of the enterprise be thus assured.

It transpires from Robinson’s letter dated June 14., before quoted (in
which he says: “For shipping, Master Weston, it should seem is set upon
hiring”), that Robinson’s own idea was to purchase, and he seems to have
dominated the rest. There is perhaps a hint of his reason for this in
the following clause of the same letter, where he writes: “I do not think
Master Pickering [the friend previously named] will ingage, except in the
course of buying [‘ships?’–Arber interpolates] as in former letters
specified.” If he had not then “ingaged” (as Robinson intimates), as an
Adventurer, he surely did later, contrary to the pastor’s prediction, and
the above may have been a bit of special pleading. Robinson naturally
wished to keep their, affairs, so far as possible, in known and
supposedly friendly hands, and had possibly some assurances that, as a
merchant, Pickering would be willing to invest in a ship for which he
could get a good charter for an American voyage. He proved rather an
unstable friend.

Robinson is emphatic, in the letter cited, as to the imperative necessity
that shipping should be immediately provided if the enterprise was to be
held together and the funds subscribed were to be secured. He evidently
considered this the only guaranty of good faith and of an honest
intention to immediately transport the colony over sea, that would be
accepted. After saying, as already noted, that those behind-hand with
their payments refuse to pay in “till they see shipping provided or a
course taken for it,” he adds, referring to Master Weston: “That he
should not have had either shipping ready before this time, or at least
certain [i.e. definite] means and course, and the same known to us, for
it; or have taken other order otherwise; cannot in [according to] my
conscience be excused.”

Bradford also states that one Master Thomas Weston a merchant of London,
came to Leyden about the same time [apparently while negotiations for
emigration under their auspices were pending with the Dutch, in February
or March, 1620], who was “well acquainted with some of them and a
furtherer of them in their former proceedings…. and persuaded them….
not to meddle with the Dutch,” etc. This Robinson confirms in his letter
to Carver before referred to, saying: “You know right well we depend on
Master Weston alone,…. and when we had in hand another course with the
Dutchman, broke it off at his motion.”

On the morning of the 10th of June, 1620, Robert Cushman, one of the
Leyden agents at London, after writing to his associate, Master John
Carver, then at Southampton; and to the Leyden leaders–in reply to
certain censorious letters received by him from both these sources
–although disheartened by the difficulties and prospects before him,
sought Master Weston, and by an urgent appeal so effectively wrought upon
him, that, two hours later, coming to Cushman, he promised “he would not
yet give it [the undertaking] up.” Cushman’s patience and endurance were
evidently nearly “at the breaking point,” for he says in his letter of
Sunday, June 11, when success had begun to crown his last grand effort:
“And, indeed, the many discouragements I find here [in London] together
with the demurs and retirings there [at Leyden] had made me to say, ‘I
would give up my accounts to John Carver and at his coming from
Southampton acquaint him fully with all courses [proceedings] and so
leave it quite, with only the poor clothes on my back: But gathering up
myself by further consideration, I resolved yet to make one trial more,”
etc. It was this “one trial more” which meant so much to the Pilgrims;
to the cause of Religion; to America; and to Humanity. It will rank with
the last heroic and successful efforts of Robert the Bruce and others,
which have become historic. The effect of Cushman’s appeal upon Weston
cannot be doubted. It not only apparently influenced him at the time,
but, after reflection and the lapse of hours, it brought him to his
associate to promise further loyalty, and, what was much better, to act.
The real animus of Weston’s backwardness, it is quite probable, lay in
the designs of Gorges, which were probably not yet fully matured, or, if
so, involved delay as an essential part. “And so,” Cushman states,
“advising together, we resolved to hire a ship.” They evidently found one
that afternoon, “of sixty last” (120 tons) which was called “a fine
ship,” and which they “took liking of [Old English for trial (Dryden),
equivalent to refusal] till Monday.” The same afternoon they “hired
another pilot . . . one Master Clarke.”–of whom further.

It seems certain that by the expression, “we have hired another pilot
here, one Master Clarke,” etc.; that Cushman was reckoning the “pilott”
Reynolds whom he had hired and sent over to them in Holland, as shown–as
at the first, and now Clarke as “another.” It nowhere appears that up to
this date, any other than these two had been hired, nor had there been
until then, any occasion for more than one.

If Cushman had been engaged in such important negotiations as these
before he wrote his letters to Carver and the Leyden friends, on Saturday
morning, he would certainly have mentioned them. As he named neither, it
is clear that they had not then occurred. It is equally certain that
Cushman’s appeal to Weston was not made, and his renewed activity
aroused, until after these letters had been dispatched and nothing of the
kind could have been done without Weston.

His letter-writing of June 10 was obviously in the morning, as proven by
the great day’s work Cushman performed subsequently. He must have
written his letters early and have taken them to such place as his
messenger had suggested (Who his messenger was does not appear, but it
was not John Turner, as suggested by Arber, for he did not arrive till
that night.) Cushman must then have looked up Weston and had an hour or
more of earnest argument with him, for he says: “at the last [as if some
time was occupied] he gathered himself up a little more” [i.e. yielded
somewhat.] Then came an interval of “two hours,” at the end of which
Weston came to him,

[It would be highly interesting to know whether, in the two hours
which intervened between Cushman’s call on Weston and the latter’s
return call, Weston consulted Gorges and got his instructions. It
is certain that he came prepared to act, and that vigorously, which
he had not previously been.]

and they “advised together,”–which took time. It was by this evidently
somewhat past noon, a four or five hours having been consumed. They then
went to look for a ship and found one, which, from Cushman’s remark, “but
a fine ship it is,” they must (at least superficially) have examined.
While hunting for the ship they seem to have come across, and to have
hired, John Clarke the “pilot,” with whom they necessarily, as with the
ship’s people, spent some time. It is not improbable that the approach
of dusk cut short their examination of the ship, which they hence “took
liking of [refusal of] till Monday.” It is therefore evident that the
“refusal” of the “sixty last” ship was taken, and the “pilot” Clarke was
“hired,” on Saturday afternoon, June 10, as on Sunday, June 11, Cushman
informed the Leyden leaders of these facts by letter, as above indicated,
and gave instructions as to the SPEEDWELL’S “pilott,” Master Reynolds.

We are therefore able to fix, nearly to an hour, the “turning of the
tide” in the affairs of the Pilgrim movement to America.

It is also altogether probable that the Pilgrims and humanity at large
are still further (indirectly) indebted to Cushman’s “one more trial” and
resultant Saturday afternoon’s work, for the MAY-FLOWER (though not found
that day), and her able commander Jones, who, whatever his faults, safely
brought the Pilgrims through stormy seas to their “promised land.”

Obligations of considerable and rapidly cumulative cost had now been
incurred, making it imperative to go forward to embarkation with all
speed, and primarily, to secure the requisite larger ship. Evidently
Weston and Cushman believed they had found one that would serve, when on
Saturday, they “took liking,” as we have seen, of the “fine ship” of 120
tons, “till Monday.” No less able authorities than Charles Deane, Goodwin,
and Brown, with others, have mistakenly concluded that this ship was the
MAY-FLOWER, and have so stated in terms. As editor of Bradford’s history
“Of Plimoth Plantation,” Mr. Deane (in a footnote to the letter of
Cushman written Sunday, June 11), after quoting the remark, “But it is a
fine ship,” mistakenly adds, “The renowned MAYFLOWER.–Ed.,” thus
committing himself to the common error in this regard. John Brown, in
his “Pilgrim Fathers of New England,” confuses the vessels, stating
that, “when all was ready for the start, a pilot came over to conduct the
emigrants to England, bringing also a letter from Cushman announcing that
the MAYFLOWER, a vessel of one hundred and eighty tons, Thomas Jones,
Master, would start from London to Southampton in a week or two,” etc.
As we have seen, these statements are out of their relation. No pilot
went for that purpose and none carried such a letter (certainly none from
Cushman), as alleged. Cushman’s letter, sent as we know by John Turner,
announced the finding of an entirely different vessel, which was neither
of 180 tons burden, nor had any relation to the MAY-FLOWER or her future
historic freight. Neither was there in his letter any time of starting
mentioned, or of the port of Southampton as the destination of any vessel
to go from London, or of Jones as captain. Such loose statements are the
bane of history. Goodwin, usually so accurate, stumbles unaccountably in
this matter–which has been so strangely misleading to other competent
men–and makes the sadly perverted statement that, “In June, John Turner
was sent, and he soon returned with a petulant (sic) letter from Cushman,
which, however, announced that the ship MAYFLOWER had been selected and
in two weeks would probably leave London for Southampton.” He adds, with
inexcusable carelessness in the presence of the words “sixty last” (which
his dictionary would have told him, at a glance, was 120 tons), that:
“This vessel (Thomas Jones, master) was rated at a hundred and eighty
tons . . . . Yet she was called a fine ship,” etc. It is evident
that, like Brown, he confused the two vessels, with Cushman’s letter
before his eyes, from failure to compute the “sixty last.” He moreover
quotes Cushman incorrectly. The great disparity in size, however, should
alone render this confusion impossible, and Cushman is clear as to the
tonnage (“sixty last”), regretting that the ship found is not larger,
while Bradford and all other chroniclers agree that the MAY-FLOWER was of
“9 score” tons burden.

It is also evident that for some reason this smaller ship (found on
Saturday afternoon) was not taken, probably because the larger one, the
MAY-FLOWER, was immediately offered to and secured by Masters Weston and
Cushman, and very probably with general approval. Just how the
MAY-FLOWER was obtained may never be certainly known. It was only on
Saturday, June 10, as we have seen, that Master Weston had seriously set
to work to look for a ship; and although the refusal of one–not wholly
satisfactory–had been prudently taken that day, it was both natural and
politic that as early as possible in the following week he should make
first inquiry of his fellow-merchants among the Adventurers, whether any
of them had available such a ship as was requisite, seeking to find, if
possible, one more nearly of the desired capacity than that of which he
had “taken the refusal” on Saturday. It appears altogether probable that,
in reply to this inquiry, Thomas Goffe, Esq., a fellow Adventurer and
shipping-merchant of London, offered the MAY-FLOWER, which, there is
ample reason to believe, then and for ten years thereafter, belonged to
him.

It is quite likely that Clarke, the newly engaged “pilot,” learning that
his employers required a competent commander for their ship, brought to
their notice the master of the ship (the FALCON) in which he had made his
recent voyage to Virginia, Captain Jones, who, having powerful friends at
his back in both Virginia Companies (as later appears), and large
experience, was able to approve himself to the Adventurers. It is also
probable that Thomas Weston engaged him himself, on the recommendation of
the Earl of Warwick, at the instance of Sir Ferdinando Gorges.

As several weeks would be required to fit the ship for her long voyage on
such service, and as she sailed from London July 15, her charter-party
must certainly have been signed by June 20, 1620. The SPEEDWELL, as
appears from various sources (Bradford, Winslow et al.), sailed from
Delfshaven, Saturday, July 22. She is said to have been four days on the
passage to Southampton, reaching there Wednesday, July 26. Cushman, in
his letter of Thursday, August 17, from Dartmouth to Edward Southworth,
says, “We lay at Southampton seven days waiting for her” (the SPEEDWELL),
from which it is evident, both that Cushman came on the MAY-FLOWER from
London, and that the MAY-FLOWER must have left London at least ten days
before the 26th of July, the date of the SPEEDWELL’S arrival. As given
traditionally, it was on the 15th, or eleven days before the SPEEDWELL’S
arrival at Southampton.

By whom the charter-party of the MAY-FLOWER was signed will probably
remain matter of conjecture, though we are not without intimations of
some value regarding it. Captain John Smith tells us that the Merchant
Adventurers (presumably one of the contracting parties) “were about
seventy, . . . not a Corporation, but knit together by a voluntary
combination in a Society without constraint or penalty. They have a
President and Treasurer every year newly chosen by the most voices, who
ordereth the affairs of their Courts and meetings; and with the assent of
most of them, undertaketh all the ordinary business, but in more weighty
affairs, the assent of the whole Company is required.” It would seem
from the foregoing–which, from so intelligent a source at a date so
contemporaneous, ought to be reliable–that, not being an incorporated
body, it would be essential that all the Adventurers (which Smith
expressly states was their rule) should “assent” by their signatures,
which alone could bind them to so important a business document as this
charter-party. It was certainly one of their “more weighty affairs,” and
it may well be doubted, also, if the owner of the vessel (even though one
of their number) would accept less than the signatures of all, when there
was no legal status by incorporation or co-partnership to hold them
collectively.

If the facts were indeed as stated by Smith,–whose knowledge of what he
affirmed there is no reason to doubt,–there can be little question that
the contract for the service of the MAY-FLOWER was signed by the entire
number of the Adventurers on the one part. If so, its covenants would be
equally binding upon each of them except as otherwise therein stipulated,
or provided by the law of the realm. In such case, the charter-party of
the MAY-FLOWER, with the autograph of each Merchant Adventurer appended,
would constitute, if it could be found, one of the most interesting and
valuable of historical documents. That it was not signed by any of the
Leyden congregation–in any representative capacity–is well-nigh
certain. Their contracts were with the Adventurers alone, and hence they
were not directly concerned in the contracts of the latter, their
“agents” being but co-workers with the Adventurers (under their
partnership agreements), in finding shipping, collecting moneys,
purchasing supplies, and in generally promoting the enterprise. That
they were not signing-parties to this contract, in particular, is made
very certain by the suggestion of Cushman’s letter of Sunday, June 11,
to the effect that he hoped that “our friends there [at Leyden] if they
be quitted of the ship-hire [as then seemed certain, as the Adventurers
would hire on general account] will be induced to venture [invest] the
more.” There had evidently been a grave fear on the part of the Leyden
people that if they were ever to get away, they would have to hire the
necessary ship themselves.

There is just the shadow of a doubt thrown upon the accuracy of Smith’s
statement as to the non-corporate status of the Adventurers, by the loose
and unwieldy features which must thereby attach to their business
transactions, to which it seems probable that merchants like Weston,
Andrews, Beauchamp, Shirley, Pickering, Goffe, and others would object,
unless the law at that time expressly limited and defined the rights and
liabilities of members in such voluntary associations. Neither evidences
of (primary) incorporation, or of such legal limitation, have, however,
rewarded diligent search. There was evidently some more definite and
corporate form of ownership in the properties and values of the
Adventurers, arrived at later. A considerable reduction in the number of
proprietors was effected before 1624–in most cases by the purchase of
the interests of certain ones by their associates–for we find their
holdings spoken of in that year as “sixteenths,” and these shares to have
sometimes been attached for their owners’ debts. A letter of Shirley,
Brewer et als., to Bradford, Allerton et als., dated London, April 7,
1624, says: “If it had not been apparently sold, Mr. Beauchamp, who is of
the company also, unto whom he [Weston] oweth a great deal more, had long
ago attached it (as he did other’s 16ths),” etc. It is exceedingly
difficult to reconcile these unquestionable facts with the equal
certainty that, at the “Composition” of the Adventurers with the Planters
in 1626, there were forty-two who signed as of the Adventurers. The
weight, however, of evidence and of probability must be held to support
the conclusion that in June, 1620, the organization was voluntary, and
that the charter-party of the MAY-FLOWER was signed–” on the one part
“–by each of the enrolled Adventurers engaged in the Leyden
congregation’s colonization scheme. Goodwin’ alone pretends to any
certain knowledge of the matter, but although a veracious usually
reliable writer, he is not infallible, as already shown, and could hardly
have had access to the original documents,–which alone, in this case,
could be relied on to prove his assertion that “Shortly articles were
signed by both parties, Weston acting for the Adventurers.” Not a
particle of confirmatory evidence has anywhere been found in Pilgrim or
contemporaneous literature to warrant this statement, after exhaustive
search, and it must hence, until sustained by proof, be regarded as a
personal inference rather than a verity. If the facts were as appears,
they permit the hope that a document of so much prima facie importance
may have escaped destruction, and will yet be found among the private
papers of some of the last survivors of the Adventurers, though with the
acquisition of all their interests by the Pilgrim leaders such documents
would seem, of right, to have become the property of the purchasers, and
to have been transferred to the Plymouth planters.

This all-important and historic body–the company of Merchant
Adventurers–is entitled to more than passing notice. Associated to
“finance” the projected transplantation of the Leyden congregation of
“Independents” to the “northern parts of Virginia,” under such patronage
and protection of the English government and its chartered Companies as
they might be able to secure, they were no doubt primarily brought
together by the efforts of one of their number, Thomas Weston, Esq., the
London merchant previously named, though for some obscure reason Master
John Pierce (also one of them) was their “recognized” representative in
dealing with the (London) Virginia Company and the Council for the
Affairs of New England, in regard to their Patents.

Bradford states that Weston “was well acquainted with some of them the
Leyden leaders and a furtherer of them in their former proceedings,”
and this fact is more than once referred to as ground for their gratitude
and generosity toward him, though where, or in what way, his friendship
had been exercised, cannot be learned,–perhaps in the difficulties
attending their escape from “the north country” to Holland. It was
doubtless largely on this account, that his confident assurances of all
needed aid in their plans for America were so relied upon; that he was so
long and so fully trusted; and that his abominable treachery and later
abuse were so patiently borne.

We are indebted to the celebrated navigator, Captain John Smith, of
Virginia fame, always the friend of the New England colonists, for most
of what we know of the organization and purposes of this Company. His
ample statement, worthy of repetition here, recites, that
“the Adventurers which raised the stock to begin and supply this
Plantation, were about seventy: some, Gentlemen; some, Merchants; some,
handicraftsmen; some adventuring great sums, some, small; as their
estates and affections served . . . . These dwell most about London.
They are not a corporation but knit together, by a voluntary combination,
in a Society, with out constraint or penalty; aiming to do good and to
plant Religion.” Their organization, officers, and rules of conduct, as
given by Smith, have already been quoted. It is to be feared from the
conduct of such men as Weston, Pierce, Andrews, Shirley, Thornell,
Greene, Pickering, Alden, and others, that profitable investment, rather
than desire “to do good and to plant Religion,” was their chief interest.
That the higher motives mentioned by Smith governed such tried and
steadfast souls as Bass, Brewer, Collier, Fletcher, Goffe, Hatherly,
Ling, Mullens, Pocock, Thomas, and a few others, there can be no doubt.

[Weston wrote Bradford, April 10, 1622, “I perceive and know as well
as another ye disposition of your adventurers, whom ye hope of gaine
hath drawne on to this they have done; and yet I fear ye hope will
not draw them much further.” While Weston’s character was utterly
bad, and he had then alienated his interest in both Pilgrims and
Adventurers, his judgment of men was evidently good.]

No complete list of the original “seventy” has ever been found, and we
are indebted for the names of forty-two, of the fifty who are now known,
to the final “Composition” made with the Pilgrim colonists, through the
latter’s representatives, November 15/25, 1626, as given by Bradford,
and to private research for the rest. The list of original members of the
company of Merchant Adventurers, as ascertained to date, is as follows.
More extended mention of them appears in the notes appended to this list.

Robert Allden, Thomas Fletcher, Emanuel Altham, Thomas Goffe, Richard
Andrews, Peter Gudburn, Thomas Andrews, William Greene, Lawrence Anthony,
Timothy Hatherly, Edward Bass, Thomas Heath, John Beauchamp, William
Hobson, Thomas Brewer, Robert Holland, Henry Browning, Thomas Hudson,
William Collier, Robert Keayne, Thomas Coventry, Eliza Knight,
John Knight, John Revell, Miles Knowles, Newman Rookes, John Ling, Samuel
Sharpe, Christopher Martin(Treasurer pro tem.), James Shirley
(Treasurer), Thomas Millsop, William Thomas, Thomas Mott, John Thornell
William Mullens, Fria Newbald, Matthew Thornell William Pennington,
William Penrin. Joseph Tilden, Edward Pickering, Thomas Ward, John
Pierce, John White, John Pocock, John Wincob, Daniel Poynton, Thomas
Weston, William Quarles, Richard Wright.

Shirley, in a letter to Governor Bradford, mentions a Mr. Fogge and a Mr.
Coalson, in a way to indicate that they might have been, like himself,
Collier, Thomas, Hatherly, Beauchamp, and Andrews, also of the original
Merchant Adventurers, but no proof that they were such has yet been
discovered. It has been suggested that Sir Edwin Sandys was one of the
number, at the inception of the enterprise, but–though there is evidence
to indicate that he stood the friend of the Pilgrims in many ways,
possibly lending them money, etc.–there is no proof that he was ever
one of the Adventurers. It is more probable that certain promoters of
Higginson’s and Winthrop’s companies, some ten years later, were early
financial sponsers of the MAY-FLOWER Pilgrims. Some of them were
certainly so, and it is likely that others not known as such, in reality,
were. Bradford suggests, in a connection to indicate the possibility of
his having been an “Adventurer,” the name of a “Mr. Denison,” of whom
nothing more is known. George Morton of London, merchant, and friend of
the leaders from the inception, and later a colonist, is sometimes
mentioned as probably of the list, but no evidence of the fact as yet
appears. Sir George Farrer and his brother were among the first of the
Adventurers, but withdrew themselves and their subscriptions very early,
on account of some dissatisfaction.

It is impossible, in the space at command, to give more than briefest
mention of each of these individual Adventurers.

Allden. Was at one time unfriendly to the Pilgrims,–Bradford calls him
“one of our powerfullest opposers,”–but later their ally. Little
is known of him. He appears to have been of London.

Altham. Was Master of the pinnace LITTLE JAMES, belonging chiefly to
Fletcher, and apparently expected to command her on her voyage to
New Plymouth in 1623, as consort of the ANNE, but for some reason
did not go, and William Bridge went as her Master, in his stead.

Andrews (Richard). Was one of the wealthiest and most liberal of the
Adventurers. He was a haberdasher of Cheapside, London, and an
Alderman of the city. He became an early proprietor and liberal
benefactor of the Massachusetts Bay Company, but most illogically
gave the debt due him from Plymouth Colony (L540) to the stronger
and richer Bay Colony. He had been, however, unjustly prejudiced
against the Pilgrims, probably through the deceit of Pierce, Weston,
Shirley, and Allerton.

Andrews (Thomas). A Lord Mayor of London, reputed a brother of the
last-named. Never very active in the Adventurers’ affairs, but
friendly, so far as appears.

Anthony. Little or nothing is known concerning him.

Bass. Was one of the enduring friends of the struggling Colony and
loaned them money when they were in dire straits and the prospect of
recovery was not good. He was of London, and considerable is known
concerning him.

Beauchamp. Was one of the most active of the Company for many years.
Generally to be relied upon as the Colony’s friend, but not without
some sordid self seeking. Apparently a wealthy citizen and “salter”
of London.

Brewer. Is too well-known as long the partner of Brewster in the conduct
of the “hidden press” at Leyden, and as a sufferer for conscience’
sake, to require identification. He was a wealthy man, a scholar,
writer, printer, and publisher. Was of the University of Leyden,
but removed to London after the departure of the chief of the
Pilgrims. Was their stanch friend, a loyal defender of the faith,
and spent most of his later life in prison, under persecution of the
Bishops.

Browning. Does not appear to have been active, and little is known of
him.

Collier. Was a stanch and steadfast friend. Finally cast in his lot
with the Pilgrims at New Plymouth and became a leading man in the
government there. His life is well known. He was a “brewer.”

Coventry. Appears only as a signer, and nothing is known of him.

Fletcher. Was a well-to-do merchant of London, a warm friend and a
reliance of the Pilgrims. The loss of the LITTLE JAMES was a severe
blow to him financially.

Greene. Appears to have been a merchant and a partner in Holland (and
perhaps at London) of Edward Pickering. They were well acquainted
personally with the Pilgrims, and should have been among their most
liberal and surest friends. Facts indicate, however, that they were
sordid in their interest and not entirely just.

Goffe. Was a London merchant and ship-owner, as else where appears.
He was not only a Merchant Adventurer, but a patentee and
deputy-governor of the Massachusetts Company, and an intimate
friend of Winthrop. He lost heavily by his New England ventures.
There is, as shown elsewhere, good reason to believe that he was
the owner of the MAY-FLOWER on her historic voyage, as also when
she came over in Higginson’s and Winthrop’s fleets, ten years
later.

Gudburn. Appears only as a signer, so far as known.

Hatherly. Was a well-to-do friend of the Pilgrims, and after many
complaints had been made against them among the “Purchasers”
–arising out of the rascality of Shirley and Allerton–went to New
England on a mission of inquiry. He was perfectly convinced of the
Pilgrims’ integrity and charmed with the country. He made another
visit, and removed thither in 1633, to remain. He became at once
prominent in the government of New Plimoth Colony.

Heath. Does not appear to have been active, and naught is known of him.

Hobson. Is known only as a signer of the “Composition.”

Holland. Was a friend and ally of the Pilgrims, and one of their
correspondents. He is supposed to have been of the ancient house of
that name and to have lived in London.

Hudson. Was not active, and appears as a signer only.

Keayne. Was a well-to-do citizen of the vicinity of London, a friend, in
a general way, of the Pilgrims. He came to Boston with Winthrop.
Was prominent in the Massachusetts Colony. Was the founder and
first commander of the early Artillery Company of Boston, the oldest
military organization of the United States, and died at Boston,
leaving a large estate and a very remarkable will, of which he made
Governor Winslow an “overseer.” He was an erratic,–but valuable,
citizen.

Knight (Eliza). Seems to have been the only woman of the Adventurers, so
far as they are known, but no thing is known of her. It has been
suggested that the given name has been wrongly spelled and should be
“Eleazar,”–a man’s name,–but the “Composition” gives the signature
as Eliza, clearly, as published.

Knight (John). Finds no especial mention. He was probably a relative of
Eliza.

Knowles. Appears only as a signer of the “Composition.”

Ling. Was a wealthy friend of the colonists and always true to them. He
lost his property and was in poverty when the Pilgrims (though not
yet well on their feet), in grateful remembrance of his fidelity,
sent him a generous gift.

Martin. Was the first treasurer of the colonists and also a MAY-FLOWER
Pilgrim. Mention of him appears later. He was no credit to the
Company, and his early death probably prevented much vexation.

Millsop. Appears only as a signer of the “Composition.”

Mott. Has no especial mention, but is believed to have sent some of his
people to Plymouth Colony at an early day.

Mullens. Was, as appears elsewhere, a well-conditioned tradesman of
Surrey, England, who was both an Adventurer and a MAY-FLOWER
Pilgrim, and Martin and himself appear to have been the only ones
who enjoyed that distinction. He died, however, soon after the
arrival at Plymouth. That he was an Adventurer is but recently
discovered by the author, but there appears no room for doubt as to
the fact. His record was brief, but satisfactory, in its relation to
the Pilgrims.

Newbald. Finds no especial mention.

Pennington. Appears only as a signer. It is a London name.

Penrin. Appears only as a signer of the “Composition.”

Pickering. Is introduced to us first as a Leyden merchant, through John
Robinson’s letters. He appears to have been a shrewd, cold-blooded
calculator, like his partner-Adventurer, Greene, not interested
especially in the Pilgrims, except for gain, and soon deserting the
Adventurers. His family seem to have been in favor with Charles II.
(See Pepys’ “Diary.”)

Pierce (John). Although recognized by the Virginia Companies and Council
for New England, as the representative of the Adventurers, he has
only been recently generally reckoned a chief man of the
Adventurers. A Protean friend of the Pilgrims, never reliable, ever
pretentious, always self-seeking, and of no help. He was finally
ruined by the disasters to his ship, the PARAGON, which cost him all
his interests. Having attempted treacherously to secure to himself
the Patent granted in the Colony’s interest, he was compelled by the
Council to surrender its advantages to the Adventurers and
colonists.

Pocock. Was a stanch and firm supporter of the Pilgrims and their
interests, at all times, and to the end. He was also a financial
supporter and deputy-governor the Massachusetts Company, under
Winthrop. A correspondent of Bradford. A good man.

Poyton. Finds no especial mention. He appears as a signer only.

Quarles. Appears only as a signer of the “Composition.”

Revell. Was a very wealthy citizen, merchant, and ship owner of London,
and a good man. He became also ardently interested in Winthrop’s
Company. Was an “assistant” and one of the five “undertakers”
chosen to go to New England to reside. He went to New England on
the JEWELL of Winthrop’s fleet, and was part owner of the LADY
ARBELLA. He evidently, however, did not like the life, and returned
after a few weeks’ stay.

Rookes. Appears only as a signer.

Sharpe. Was also a friend of both Pilgrim and Puritan. He came to New
England in 1629, and settled first at Salem, in the Massachusetts
Company. He died in 1658, having long been a ruling elder of the
church there. He met with many enemies, but was a valuable man and
an able one. He was Governor Cradock’s New England agent.

Shirley. Requires little mention here. The perfidious friend of the
Pilgrims,–perhaps originally true to them,–he sunk everything for
hope of gain. He was treasurer of the Adventurers, one of their
most active and intelligent men, but proved a rascal and a canting
hypocrite. He was a “citizen and gold-smith” of London.

Thomas. Has nowhere been enumerated in any list of the Adventurers
(though occasionally mentioned as such by recent writers), which is
strange, as repeated letters of his to Bradford, and other data,
show him to have been one of the best and truest of them all. He
sold his interests before the “Composition” and became a colonist
after 1630. He was the fifth of the Adventurers to come to New
England to remain, and cast in his lot with the Pilgrims at New
Plimoth–Martin, Mullens, Collier, and Hatherly preceding him. A
wealthy and well-informed man, he became a power in the government.
Probably Welsh by birth, he was a London merchant when the
Adventurers were organized. His home at Marshfield, Massachusetts,
has since become additionally famous as the home of Daniel Webster.

Thornell (John). Is sometimes confounded with another Adventurer,
Matthew Thornhill, as his name is some times so spelled. There is
reason to believe they were related. He was not a friend to the
Pilgrims.

Thornhill (or Thornell), (Matthew). Little is known concerning him.

Tilden. Was of an old family in Kent, “a citizen and girdler of London,”
as his will declares, his brother (Nathaniel) later coming to New
England and settling near Hatherly at Scituate. Nathaniel’s son
Joseph–named for his uncle–was made his executor and heir. The
uncle was always a firm friend of the Pilgrims. Mr. Tilden’s will
is given by Waters (“Genealogical Gleanings,” vol. i. p. 71), and
is of much interest.

Ward. Appears only as a signer.

White. Probably the Rev. John White, a stanch friend of the Pilgrims,
although not a “Separatist,” and intimately connected with the
upbuilding of New England. His record was a broad and noble one.
Goodwin says: “Haven thinks White was that Dorchester clergyman
reputed to be the author of the Planters’ Plea.” Probably, but
not certainly, William White of the Pilgrims was also an Adventurer.

Wincob (?). Was a gentleman of the family of the Countess of Lincoln,
and the one in whose name the first patent in behalf of the
Adventurers and Pilgrims (which, however, was never used) was taken.
It is only recently that evidences which, though not conclusive, are
yet quite indicative, have caused his name to be added to the list,
though there is still a measure of doubt whether it belongs there.

Weston. Requires little mention here. Once a friend of the Pilgrims and
unmistakably the organizer of the Adventurers, he became a graceless
ingrate and rascal. An instrument of good at first, he became a
heartless and designing enemy of the Planters. He was a “citizen
and merchant [ironmonger] of London.” It is altogether probable
that he was originally a tool of Sir Ferdinando Gorges and was led
by him to influence the Leyden brethren to break off negotiations
with the Dutch. He died poor, at Bristol, England.

Wright. Perhaps came to New Plimoth and married a daughter of the
MAY-FLOWER Pilgrim, Francis Cooke. If so, he settled at Rehoboth and
became its leading citizen. He may possibly have been the settler
of that name in the Bay-Colony, and the weight of evidence rather
favors the latter supposition.

Of the Adventurers, Collier, Hatherly, Keayne, Mullens, Revell, Pierce,
Sharpe, Thomas, and Weston, probably Wright and White, possibly others,
came to America for longer or shorter periods. Several of them were back
and forth more than once. The records show that Andrews, Goffe, Pocock,
Revell, Sharpe, and White were subsequently members of the Massachusetts
(Winthrop’s) Company.

Professor Arberl finds but six of the Pilgrim Merchant Adventurers who
later were among the Adventurers with Winthrop’s Company of Massachusetts
Bay, viz.:–Thomas Andrews, John Pocock, Samuel Sharpe, Thomas Goffe,
John Revell, John White.

He should have added at least, the names of Richard Andrews and Robert
Keayne, and probably that of Richard Wright.

Of their number, Collier, Hatherly, Martin, Mullens, Thomas, and
(possibly) Wright were Plymouth colonists Martin and Mullens, as noted,
being MAY-FLOWER Pilgrims. Nathaniel Tilden, a brother of Joseph Tilden
of the Adventurers, came, as previously mentioned, to the Colony from
Kent, settling at Scituate. Joseph, being apparently unmarried, made his
nephew, Joseph of Scituate, his residuary legatee, and his property
mostly came over to the Colony.

Collier, Hatherly, and Thomas all located within a few miles of one
another, were all wealthy and prominent men in the government of the
Colony, were intimate friends,–the first and last especially,–and lent
not a little dignity and character to this new dependency of King James
the First. The remaining twenty or thereabouts whose names are not
surely known–though a few of them are pretty safely conjectured, some
being presumably of the Holland Pilgrims and their friends–were probably
chiefly small contributors, whose rights were acquired from time to time
by others of larger faith in the enterprise, or greater sympathy or
means. Not all, however, who had ceased to hold their interests when the
“Composition” was made with Allerton in behalf of the colonists, in 1626,
were of these small holders. Weston was forced out by stress of
circumstances; Thomas moved to New England; Pierce was ruined by his
ventures by sea; Martin and Mullens died in 1621; Pickering and Greene
got out early, from distrust as to profits; Wincob alone, of this class,
was a small investor, if he was one at all.

By far the greater portion of the sums invested by the Adventurers in
behalf of the Colony is represented by those whose names are known, those
still unknown representing, doubtless, numbers rather than amounts. It
is, however, interesting to note, that more than four sevenths of the
original number, as given by Captain John Smith, continued to retain
their interests till the “Composition” of 1626. It is to be hoped that
it may yet be possible to increase considerably, if not to perfect, the
list of these coadjutors of the Pilgrims–the Merchant Adventurers–the
contracting “party of the second part,” to the charter-party of the
MAY-FLOWER.

Who the Owner of the MAY-FLOWER was, or who his representative, the
“party of the first part,” to the charter party of the Pilgrim ship,
cannot be declared with absolute certainty, though naturally a matter of
absorbing interest. There is, however, the strongest probability, as
before intimated, that Thomas Goffe, Esq., one of the Merchant
Adventurers, and always a stanch friend of the Pilgrims, was the owner of
the historic vessel,–and as such has interwoven his name and hers with
the histories of both the Pilgrim and Puritan hegiras from Old to New
England. He was, as previously stated, a wealthy “merchant and ship
owner of London,” and not only an Adventurer with the Leyden Pilgrims,
but–nearly ten years later–a patentee of the Massachusetts Company and
one of its charter officers.

We are told in the journal of Governor Winthrop of that Company–then on
board the LADY ARBELLA, the, “Admiral” or flagship of his fleet, riding
at Cowes, ready to set sail for New England–that on “Easter Monday
(March 29), 1630, the CHARLES, the MAY-FLOWER, the WILLIAM AND FRANCIS,
the HOPEWELL, the WHALE, the SUCCESS, and the TRIAL,” of his fleet, were
“still at Hampton [Southampton] and are not ready.” Of these seven ships
it is certain that Mr. Goffe owned at least two, as Governor Winthrop–in
writing, some days later, of the detention of his son Henry and his
friend Mr. Pelham, who, going ashore, failed to return to the governor’s
ship before she sailed from Cowes, and so went to the fleet at
Southampton for passage–says: “So we have left them behind and suppose
they will come after in one of Mr. Goffe’s ships.” It is clear,
therefore, that Mr. Goffe, who was an intimate friend and business
associate of Governor Winthrop, as the latter’s correspondence amply
attests, and was a charter deputy-governor of the Massachusetts Company,
and at this time “an assistant,” was the owner of at least two (probably
not more) of these seven belated ships of the governor’s fleet, riding at
Southampton. Bearing in mind that the MAY-FLOWER and the WHALE were two
of those ships, it becomes of much importance to find that these two
ships, evidently sailing in company (as if of one owner), arrived
together in the harbor of Charlestown, New England, on Thursday, July 1,
having on board one of them the governor’s missing son, Henry Winthrop.
If he came–as his father expected and as appears certain–“in one of Mr.
Goffe’s ships,” then evidently, either the MAY-FLOWER or the WHALE, or
both, belonged to Mr. Goffe. That both were Goffe’s is rendered probable
by the fact that Governor Winthrop–writing of the vessels as if
associated and a single interest–states that “most of their cattle [on
these ships] were dead, whereof a mare and horse of mine.” This
probability is increased, too, by the facts that the ships evidently kept
close company across the Atlantic (as if under orders of a common owner,
and as was the custom, for mutual defence and assistance, if occasion
required), and that Winthrop who, as we above noted, had large dealings
with Goffe, seems to have practically freighted both these ships for
himself and friends, as his freight bills attest. They would hence, so
far as possible, naturally keep together and would discharge their
cargoes and have their accountings to a single consignee, taken as nearly
together as practicable. Both these ships came to Charlestown,–as only
one other did,–and both were freighted, as noted, by one party.

Sadly enough, the young man, Henry Winthrop, was drowned at Salem the
very day after his arrival, and before that of either of the other
vessels: the HOPEWELL, or WILLIAM AND FRANCIS (which arrived at Salem the
3d); or the TRIAL or CHARLES (which arrived–the first at Charlestown, of
the last at Salem–the 5th); or the SUCCESS (which arrived the 6th);
making it certain that he must have come in either the MAY-FLOWER or the
WHALE. If, as appears, Goffe owned them both, then his ownership of the
MAY-FLOWER in 1630 is assured, while all authorities agree without cavil
that the MAY-FLOWER of Winthrop’s fleet in that year (1630) and the
MAY-FLOWER of the Pilgrims were the same. In the second “General Letter
of Instructions” from the Massachusetts Company in England–dated London,
May 28, 1629–to Governor Endicott and his Council, a duplicate of which
is preserved in the First Book of the Suffolk Registry of Deeds at
Boston, the historic vessel is described as “The MAY-FLOWER, of Yarmouth
–William Pierse, Master,” and Higginson, in his “Journal of a Voyage to
New England,” says, “The fifth ship is called the MAY-FLOWER carrying
passengers and provisions.” Yarmouth was hence undoubtedly the place of
register, and the hailing port of the MAY-FLOWER,–she was very likely
built there,–and this would remain the same, except by legal change of
register, wherever she was owned, or from what ever port she might sail.
Weston and Cushman, according to Bradford, found and hired her at London,
and her probable owner, Thomas Goffe, Esq., was a merchant of that city.
Dr. Young remarks: “The MAYFLOWER Of Higginson’s fleet is the renowned
vessel that brought the Pilgrim Fathers to Plymouth in 1620.” Hon.
James Savage says “The MAYFLOWER had been a name of renown without
forming part of this fleet [Winthrop’s, 1630], because in her came the
devoted planters of Plimouth [1620] and she had also brought in the year
preceding [1629] some of Higginson’s company to Salem.” Goodwin’ says:
“In 1629 she [the Pilgrim MAY-FLOWER] came to Salem with a company of the
Leyden people for Plymouth, and in 1630 was one of the large fleet that
attended John Winthrop, discharging her passengers at Charlestown.” Dr.
Young remarks in a footnote: “Thirty-five of the Leyden congregation with
their families came over to Plymouth via Salem, in the MAY-FLOWER and
TALBOT.”

In view of such positive statements as these, from such eminent
authorities and others, and of the collateral facts as to the probable
ownership of the MAY-FLOWER in 1630, and on her earlier voyages herein
presented, the doubt expressed by the Rev. Mr. Blaxland in his “Mayflower
Essays,” whether the ship bearing her name was the same, on these three
several voyages, certainly does not seem justified.

Captain William Pierce, who commanded the MAY-FLOWER in 1629, when she
brought over part of the Leyden company, was the very early and intimate
friend of the Pilgrims–having brought over the ANNE with Leyden
passengers in 1623–and sailed exclusively in the employ of the Merchant
Adventurers, or some of their number, for many years, which is of itself
suggestive.

To accept, as beyond serious doubt, Mr. Goffe’s ownership of the
MAY-FLOWER, when she made her memorable voyage to New Plimoth, one need
only to compare, and to interpret logically, the significant facts;
–that he was a ship-owner of London and one of the body of Merchant
Adventurers who set her forth on her Pilgrim voyage in 1620; and that he
stood, as her evident owner, in similar relation to the Puritan company
which chartered her for New England, similarly carrying colonists,
self-exiled for religion’s sake, in 1629 and again in 1630. This
conviction is greatly strengthened by the fact that Mr. Goffe continued
one of the Pilgrim Merchant Adventurers, until their interests were
transferred to the colonists by the “Composition” of 1626, and three
years later (1629) sent by the MAY-FLOWER, on her second New England
voyage, although under a Puritan charter, another company from the
Leyden congregation. The (cipher) letter of the “Governor and deputies
of the New-England Company for a plantation in Massachusetts Bay” to
Captain John Endicott, written at Gravesend, England, the 17th of April,
1629, says: “If you want any Swyne wee have agreed with those of Ne[w]
Plimouth that they deliver you six Sowes with pigg for which they a[re]
to bee allowed 9 lb. in accompt of what they the Plymouth people owe
unto Mr. Goffe [our] deputie [Governor].” It appears from the foregoing
that the Pilgrims at New Plymouth were in debt to Mr. Goffe in 1629,
presumably for advances and passage money on account of the contingent
of the Leyden congregation, brought over with Higginson’s company to
Salem, on the second trip of the MAY-FLOWER. Mr. Goffe’s intimate
connection with the Pilgrims was certainly unbroken from the
organization of their Merchant Adventurers in 1619/20, through the
entire period of ten years, to 1630. There is every reason to believe,
and none to doubt, that his ownership of the MAY-FLOWER of imperishable
renown remained equally unbroken throughout these years, and that his
signature as her owner was appended to her Pilgrim charter-party in
1620. Whoever the signatories of her charter-party may have been, there
can be no doubt that the good ship MAY-FLOWER, in charge of her
competent, if treacherous, Master, Captain Thomas Jones, and her first
“pilot,” John Clarke, lay in the Thames near London through the latter
part of June and the early part of July, in the summer of
1620, undergoing a thorough overhauling, under contract as a
colonist-transport, for a voyage to the far-off shores of “the
northern parts of Virginia.”

In whatever of old English verbiage, with quaint terms and cumbersome
repetition, the stipulations of this contract of were concealed, there
can be no doubt that they purported and designed to “ingage” that “the
Good ship MAY-FLOWER of Yarmouth, of 9 score tuns burthen, whereof for
the present viage Thomas Joanes is Master,” should make the “viage” as a
colonist-transport, “from the city of London in His Majesty’s Kingdom of
Great Britain,” etc., “to the neighborhood of the mouth of Hudson’s
River, in the northern parts of Virginia and return, calling at the Port
of Southampton, outward bound, to complete her lading, the same of all
kinds, to convey to, and well and safely deliver at, such port or place,
at or about the mouth of Hudson’s River, so-called, in Virginia
aforesaid, as those in authority of her passengers shall direct,” etc.,
with provision as to her return lading, through her supercargo, etc.

It is probable that the exact stipulations of the contract will never
transpire, and we can only roughly guess at them, by somewhat difficult
comparison with the terms on which the LADY ARBELLA, the “Admiral,” or
flagship, of Winthrop’s fleet, was chartered in 1630, for substantially
the like voyage (of course, without expectation or probability, of so
long a stay on the New England coast), though the latter was much the
larger ship. The contract probably named an “upset” or total sum for the
“round voyage,” as was the of the case with the LADY ARBELLA, though it
is to be hoped there was no “demurrage” clause, exacting damage, as is
usual, for each day of detention beyond the “lay days” allowed, for the
long and unexpected tarries in Cape Cod and Plymouth harbors must have
rolled up an appalling “demurrage” claim. Winthrop enters among his
memoranda, “The agreement for the ARBELLA L750, whereof is to be paid in
hand [i e. cash down] the rest upon certificate of our safe arrival.”
The sum was doubtless considerably in excess of that paid for the
MAY-FLOWER, both because she was a much larger, heavier-armed, and
better-manned ship, of finer accommodations, and because ships were, in
1630, in far greater demand for the New England trade than in 1620,
Winthrop’s own fleet including no less than ten. The adjustments of
freight and passage moneys between the Adventurers and colonists are
matter of much doubt and perplexity, and are not likely to be fully
ascertained. The only light thrown upon them is by the tariffs for such
service on Winthrop’s fleet, and for passage, etc., on different ships,
at a little later day. It is altogether probable that transportation of
all those accepted as colonists, by the agents of the Adventurers and
“Planters,” was without direct charge to any individual, but was debited
against the whole. But as some had better quarters than others, some
much more and heavier furniture, etc., while some had bulky and heavy
goods for their personal benefit (such as William Mullen’s cases of
“boots and shoes,” etc.), it is fair to assume that some schedule of
rates for “tonnage,” if not for individuals, became necessary, to
prevent complaints and to facilitate accounts. Winthrop credits Mr.
Goffe–owner of two of the ships in 1630–as follows:–

“For ninety-six passengers at L4, L384.
For thirty-two tons of goods at L3 (per ton).
For passage for a man, his wife and servant, (3 persons)
L16/10, L5/10 each.”

Goodwin shows the cost of transportation at different times and under
varying conditions. “The expense of securing and shipping Thos. Morton
of ‘Merry Mount’ to England, was L12 7 0,” but just what proportion the
passage money bore to the rest of the account, cannot now be told. The
expense of Mr. Rogers, the young insane clergyman brought over by Isaac
Allerton, without authority, was, for the voyage out: “For passage L1.
For diet for eleven weeks at 4s. 8d. per week, total L3 11 4”
[A rather longer passage than usual.] Constant Southworth came in the
same ship and paid the same, L3 11 4, which may hence be assumed as the
average charge, at that date, for a first-class passage. This does not
vary greatly from the tariff of to-day, (1900) as, reduced to United
States currency, it would be about $18; and allowing the value of
sterling to be about four times this, in purchase ratio, it would mean
about $73. The expenses of the thirty-five of the Leyden congregation
who came over in the MAY-FLOWER in 1620, and of the others brought in the
LION in 1630, were slightly higher than these figures, but the cost of
the trip from Leyden to England was included, with that of some clothing.
In 1650, Judge Sewall, who as a wealthy man would be likely to indulge in
some luxury, gives his outlay one way, as, “Fare, L2 3 0; cabin expenses,
L4 11 4; total, L6 14 4.”

CHAPTER IV

THE MAY-FLOWER–THE SHIP HERSELF

Unhappily the early chroniclers familiar with the MAY-FLOWER have left us
neither representation nor general description of her, and but few data
from which we may reconstruct her outlines and details for ourselves.
Tradition chiefly determines her place in one of the few classes into
which the merchant craft of her day were divided, her tonnage and service
being almost the only other authentic indices to this class.

Bradford helps us to little more than the statement, that a vessel, which
could have been no other, “was hired at London, being of burden about 9
score” [tons], while the same extraordinary silence, which we have
noticed as to her name, exists as to her description, with Smith,
Bradford, Winslow, Morton, and the other contemporaneous or early writers
of Pilgrim history. Her hundred and eighty tons register indicates in
general her size, and to some extent her probable model and rig.

Long search for a reliable, coetaneous picture of one of the larger ships
of the merchant service of England, in the Pilgrim period, has been
rewarded by the discovery of the excel lent “cut” of such a craft, taken
from M. Blundeville’s “New and Necessarie Treatise of Navigation,”
published early in the seventeenth century. Appearing in a work of so
high character, published by so competent a navigator and critic, and
(approximately) in the very time of the Pilgrim “exodus,” there can be no
doubt that it quite correctly, if roughly and insufficiently, depicts the
outlines, rig, and general cast of a vessel of the MAY-FLOWER type and
time, as she appeared to those of that day, familiar therewith.

It gives us a ship corresponding, in the chief essentials, to that which
careful study of the detail and minutiae of the meagre MAY-FLOWER history
and its collaterals had already permitted the author and others to
construct mentally, and one which confirms in general the conceptions
wrought out by the best artists and students who have attempted to
portray the historic ship herself.

Captain J. W. Collins, whose experience and labors in this relation are
further alluded to, and whose opinion is entitled to respect, writes the
author in this connection, as follows “The cut from Blundeville’s
treatise, which was published more or less contemporaneously with the
MAYFLOWER, is, in my judgment, misleading, since it doubtless represents
a ship of an earlier date, and is evidently [sic] reproduced from a
representation on tapestry, of which examples are still to be seen (with
similar ships) in England. The actual builder’s plans, reproduced by
Admiral Paris, from drawings still preserved, of ships of the MAYFLOWER’S
time, seem to me to offer more correct and conclusive data for accurately
determining what the famous ship of the Pilgrim Fathers was like.”

Decidedly one of the larger and better vessels of the merchant class of
her day, she presumably followed the prevalent lines of that class, no
doubt correctly represented, in the main, by the few coeval pictures of
such craft which have come down to us. No one can state with absolute
authority, her exact rig, model, or dimensions; but there can be no
question that all these are very closely determined from even the meagre
data and the prints we possess, so nearly did the ships of each class
correspond in their respective features in those days. There is a
notable similarity in certain points of the MAY-FLOWER, as she has been
represented by these different artists, which is evidence upon two
points: first, that all delineators have been obliged to study the type
of vessel to which she belonged from such representations of it as each
could find, as neither picture nor description of the vessel herself was
to be had; and second, that as the result of such independent study
nearly all are substantially agreed as to what the salient features of
her type and class were. A model of a ship [3 masts] of the MAY-FLOWER
type, and called in the Society’s catalogue “A Model of the MAY FLOWER,
after De Bry,” but itself labelled “Model of one of Sir Walter Raleigh’s
Ships,” is (mistakenly) exhibited by the Pilgrim Society at Plymouth.
It is by no means to be taken as a correct representation of the Pilgrim
bark. Few of the putative pictures of the MAY-FLOWER herself are at all
satisfactory,–apart from the environment or relation in which she is
usually depicted,–whether considered from an historical, a nautical,
or an artistic point of view. The only one of these found by the author
which has commanded (general, if qualified) approval is that entitled
“The MAY-FLOWER at Sea,” a reproduction of which, by permission, is the
frontispiece of this volume. It is from an engraving by the master hand
of W. J. Linton, from a drawing by Granville Perkins, and appeared in the
“New England Magazine” for April, 1898, as it has elsewhere. Its
comparative fidelity to fact, and its spirited treatment, alike commend
it to those familiar with the subject, as par excellence the modern
artistic picture of the MAY-FLOWER, although somewhat fanciful, and its
rig, as Captain Collies observes, “is that of a ship a century later than
the MAY-FLOWER; a square topsail on the mizzen,” he notes, “being unknown
in the early part of the seventeenth century, and a jib on a ship equally
rare.” Halsall’s picture of “The Arrival of the MAY-FLOWER in Plymouth
Harbor,” owned by the Pilgrim Society, of Plymouth, and hung in the
Society’s Hall, while presenting several historical inaccuracies,
undoubtedly more correctly portrays the ship herself, in model, rig,
etc., than do most of the well-known paintings which represent her.
It is much to be regretted that the artist, in woeful ignorance, or
disregard, of the recorded fact that the ship was not troubled with
either ice or snow on her entrance (at her successful second attempt) to
Plymouth harbor, should have covered and environed her with both.

Answering, as the MAY-FLOWER doubtless did, to her type, she was
certainly of rather “blocky,” though not unshapely, build, with high poop
and forecastle, broad of beam, short in the waist, low “between decks,”
and modelled far more upon the lines of the great nautical prototype, the
water-fowl, than the requirements of speed have permitted in the carrying
trade of more recent years. That she was of the “square rig” of her
time–when apparently no use was made of the “fore-and-aft” sails which
have so wholly banished the former from all vessels of her size–goes
without saying. She was too large for the lateen rig, so prevalent in
the Mediterranean, except upon her mizzenmast, where it was no doubt
employed.

The chief differences which appear in the several “counterfeit
presentments” of the historic ship are in the number of her masts and
the height of her poop and her forecastle. A few make her a brig or
“snow” of the oldest pattern, while others depict her as a full-rigged
ship, sometimes having the auxiliary rig of a small “jigger” or
“dandy-mast,” with square or lateen sail, on peak of stern, or on the
bow sprit, or both, though usually her mizzenmast is set well aft upon
the poop. There is no reason for thinking that the former of these
auxiliaries existed upon the MAY-FLOWER, though quite possible. Her 180
tons measurement indicates, by the general rule of the nautical
construction of that period, a length of from 90 to 100 feet, “from
taffrail to knighthead,” with about 24 feet beam, and with such a hull
as this, three masts would be far more likely than two. The fact that
she is always called a “ship”–to which name, as indicating a class,
three masts technically attach–is also somewhat significant, though the
term is often generically used. Mrs. Jane G. Austin calls the
MAY-FLOWER a “brig,” but there does not appear anywhere any warrant
for so doing.

At the Smithsonian Institution (National Museum) at Washington, D. C.,
there is exhibited a model of the MAY-FLOWER, constructed from the ratio
of measurements given in connection with the sketch and working plans of
a British ship of the merchant MAY-FLOWER class of the seventeenth
century, as laid down by Admiral Francois Edmond Paris, of France, in his
“Souvenirs de Marine.” The hull and rigging of this model were carefully
worked out by, and under the supervision of Captain Joseph W. Collins
(long in the service of the Smithsonian Institution, in nautical and
kindred matters, and now a member of the Massachusetts Commission of
Inland Fisheries and Game), but were calculated on the erroneous basis of
a ship of 120 instead of 180 tons measurement. This model, which is upon
a scale of 1/2 inch to 1 foot, bears a label designating it as “The
‘MAYFLOWER’ of the Puritans” [sic], and giving the following description
(written by Captain Collins) of such a vessel as the Pilgrim ship, if of
120 tons burthen, as figured from such data as that given by Admiral
Paris, must, approximately, have been. (See photographs of the model
presented herewith.) “A wooden, carvel-built, keel vessel, with full
bluff bow, strongly raking below water line; raking curved stem; large
open head; long round (nearly log-shaped) bottom; tumble in top side;
short run; very large and high square stern; quarter galleries; high
forecastle, square on forward end, with open rails on each side; open
bulwarks to main [spar] and quarter-decks; a succession of three
quarter-decks or poops, the after one being nearly 9 feet above main
[spar] deck; two boats stowed on deck; ship-rigged, with pole masts
[i.e. masts in one piece]; without jibs; square sprit sail (or water
sail under bowsprit); two square sails on fore and main masts, and
lateen sail on mizzenmast.”

Dimensions of Vessel. Length, over all, knightheads to taffrail, 82
feet; beam, 22 feet; depth, 14 feet; tonnage, 120; bowsprit, outboard, 40
feet 6 inches; spritsail yard, 34 feet 6 inches; foremast, main deck to
top, 39 feet; total length, main [spar] deck to truck, 67 feet 6 inches;
fore-yard, 47 feet 6 inches; foretopsail yard, 34 feet 1 2 inches;
mainmast, deck to top, 46 feet; total, deck to truck, 81 feet; main yard,
53 feet; maintopsail yard, 38 feet 6 inches; mizzen mast, deck to top, 34
feet; total, deck to truck, 60 feet 6 inches; spanker yard, 54 feet 6
inches; boats, one on port side of deck, 17 feet long by 5 feet 2 inches
wide; one on starboard side, 13 feet 6 inches long by 4 feet 9 inches
wide. The above description “worked out” by Captain Collins, and in
conformity to which his putative model of the “MAY FLOWER” was
constructed, rests, of course, for its correctness, primarily, upon the
assumptions (which there is no reason to question) that the “plates” of
Admiral Paris, his sketches, working plans, dimensions, etc., are
reliable, and that Captain Collins’s mathematics are correct, in reducing
and applying the Admiral’s data to a ship of 120 tons. That there would
be some considerable variance from the description given, in applying
these data to a ship of 60 tons greater measurement (i.e. of 180 tons),
goes without saying, though the changes would appear more largely in the
hull dimensions than in the rigging. That the description given, and its
expression in the model depicted, present, with considerable fidelity, a
ship of the MAY-FLOWER’S class and type, in her day,–though of sixty
tons less register, and amenable to changes otherwise,–is altogether
probable, and taken together, they afford a fairly accurate idea of the
general appearance of such a craft.

In addition to mention of the enlargements which the increased tonnage
certainly entails, the following features of the description seem to call
for remark.

It is doubtful whether the vessels of this class had “open bulwarks to
the main [spar] deck,” or “a succession of three quarter-decks or poops.”
Many models and prints of ships of that period and class show but two.
It is probable that if the jib was absent, as Captain Collins believes
(though it was evidently in use upon some of the pinnaces and shallops of
the time, and its utility therefore appreciated), there was a small
squaresail on a “dandy” mast on the bowsprit, and very possibly the
“sprit” or “water-sail” he describes. The length of the vessel as given
by Captain Collins, as well as her beam, being based on a measurement of
but 120 tons, are both doubtless less than they should be, the depth
probably also varying slightly, though there would very likely be but few
and slight departures otherwise from his proximate figures. The
long-boat would be more likely to be lashed across the hatch amidships
than stowed on the port side of the deck, unless in use for stowage
purposes, as previously suggested. Captain Collins very interestingly
notes in a letter to the author, concerning the measurements indicated
by his model: “Here we meet with a difficulty, even if it is not
insurmountable. This is found in the discrepancy which exists between
the dimensions–length, breadth, and depth–requisite to produce a
certain tonnage, as given by Admiral Paris and the British Admiralty.
Whether this is due to a difference in estimating tonnage between France
(or other countries) and Great Britain, I am unable to say, but it is a
somewhat remarkable fact that the National Museum model, which was made
for a vessel of 120 tons, as given by Admiral Paris who was a Frenchman,
has almost exactly the proportions of length, depth, and breadth that an
English ship of 180 tons would have, if we can accept as correct the
lists of measurements from the Admiralty records published by Charnock
. . . In the third volume of Charnock’s ‘History of Marine
Architecture,’ p. 274., I find that a supply transport of 175 tons,
built in 1759, and evidently a merchant ship originally, or at least a
vessel of that class, was 79.4 feet long (tonnage measure), 22.6 feet
beam, and 11.61 feet deep.” The correspondence is noticeable and of
much interest, but as the writer comments, all depends upon whether or
not “the measurement of the middle of the eighteenth century materially
differed in Great Britain from what it was in the early part of the
previous century.”

Like all vessels having high stems and sterns, she was unquestionably “a
wet ship,”–upon this voyage especially so, as Bradford shows, from being
overloaded, and hence lower than usual in the water. Captain John Smith
says: “But being pestered [vexed] nine weeks in this leaking,
unwholesome ship, lying wet in their cabins; most of them grew very weak
and weary of the sea.” Bradford says, quoting the master of the
MAY-FLOWER and others: “As for the decks and upper works they would caulk
them as well as they could, . . . though with the working of the ship,
they would not long keep staunch.” She was probably not an old craft, as
her captain and others declared they “knew her to be strong and firm
under water;” and the weakness of her upper works was doubtless due to
the strain of her overload, in the heavy weather of the autumnal gales.
Bradford says: “They met with many contrary winds and fierce storms with
which their ship was shrewdly shaken and her upper works made very
leaky.” That the confidence of her master in her soundness below the
water-line was well placed, is additionally proven by her excellent
voyages to America, already noted, in 1629, and 1630, when she was ten
years older.

That she was somewhat “blocky” above water was doubtless true of her, as
of most of her class; but that she was not unshapely below the water-line
is quite certain, for the re markable return passage she made to England
(in ballast) shows that her lower lines must have been good. She made
the run from Plymouth to London on her return voyage in just thirty-one
days, a passage that even with the “clipper ships” of later days would
have been respectable, and for a vessel of her model and rig was
exceptionally good. She was “light” (in ballast), as we know from the
correspondence of Weston and Bradford, the letter of the former to
Governor Carver–who died before it was received–upbraiding him for
sending her home “empty.” The terrible sickness and mortality of the
whole company, afloat and ashore, had, of course, made it impossible to
freight her as intended with “clapboards” [stave-stock], sassafras roots,
peltry, etc. No vessels of her class of that day were without the high
poop and its cabin possibilities,–admirably adapting them to passenger
service,–and the larger had the high and roomy topgallant forecastles so
necessary for their larger crews. The breadth of beam was always
considerably greater in that day than earlier, or until much later,
necessitated by the proportionately greater height (“topsides”), above
water, at stem and stern. The encroachments of her high poop and
forecastle left but short waist-room; her waist-ribs limited the height
of her “between decks;” while the “perked up” lines of her bow and stern
produced the resemblance noted, to the croup and neck of the wild duck.
That she was low “between decks” is demonstrated by the fact that it was
necessary to “cut down” the Pilgrims’ shallop–an open sloop, of
certainly not over 30 feet in length, some 10 tons burden, and not very
high “freeboard”–“to stow” her under the MAY-FLOWER’S spar deck. That
she was “square-rigged” follows, as noted, from the fact that it was the
only rig in use for ships of her class and size, and that she had
“topsails” is shown by the fact that the “top-saile halliards” were
pitched over board with John Howland, and saved his life. Bradford says:
“A lustie yonge man (called John Howland) coming upon some occasion above
ye grattings, was with a seele of ye shipe throwne into ye sea: but it
pleased God yt he caught hould of ye top-saile halliards which hunge over
board & rane out at length yet he held his hould . . . till he was
haled up,” etc. Howland had evidently just come from below upon the
poop-deck (as there would be no “grattings” open in the waist to receive
the heavy seas shipped). The ship was clearly experiencing “heavy
weather” and a great lurch (“seele”) which at the stern, and on the
high, swinging, tilting poop-deck would be most severely felt,
undoubtedly tossed him over the rail. The topsail halliards were
probably trailing alongside and saved him, as they have others under
like circumstances.

Whether or not the MAY-FLOWER had the “round house” under her poop-deck,
—a sort of circular-end deck-house, more especially the quarters, by
day, of the officers and favored passengers; common, but apparently not
universal, in vessels of her class,–we have no positive knowledge, but
the presumption is that she had, as passenger ships like the PARAGON (of
only 140 tons), and others of less tonnage, seem to have been so fitted!

It is plain that, in addition to the larger cabin space and the smaller
cabins,–“staterooms,” nowadays,–common to ships of the MAY-FLOWER’S
size and class, the large number of her passengers, and especially of
women and children, made it necessary to construct other cabins between
decks. Whether these were put up at London, or Southampton, or after the
SPEEDWELL’S additional passengers were taken aboard at Plymouth, does not
appear. The great majority of the men and boys were doubtless provided
with bunks only, “between decks,” but it seems that John Billington had a
cabin there. Bradford narrates of the gunpowder escapade of young
Francis Billington, that, “there being a fowling-piece, charged in his
father’s cabin [though why so inferior a person as Billington should have
a cabin when there could not have been enough for better men, is a query],
shot her off in the cabin, there being a little barrel of powder
half-full scattered in and about the cabin, the fire being within four
feet of the bed, between the decks, . . . and many people gathered
about the fire,” etc.

Whatever other deductions may be drawn from this very badly constructed
and ambiguous paragraph of Bradford, two things appear certain,–one,
that Billington had a “cabin” of his own “between decks;” and the other,
that there was a “fire between decks,” which “many people” were gathered
“about.” We can quite forgive the young scamp for the jeopardy in which
he placed the ship and her company, since it resulted in giving us so
much data concerning the MAY-FLOWER’S “interior.” Captain John Smith’s
remark, already quoted, as to the MAY-FLOWER’S people “lying wet in their
cabins,” is a hint of much value from an experienced navigator of that
time, as to the “interior” construction of ships and the bestowal of
passengers in them, in that day, doubtless applicable to the MAY-FLOWER.

While it was feasible, when lying quietly at anchor in a land-locked
harbor, with abundance of fire-wood at hand, to have a fire, about which
they could gather, even if only upon the “sand-hearth” of the early
navigators, when upon boisterous seas, in mid-ocean, “lying . . . in
their cabins” was the only means of keeping warm possible to voyagers.
In “Good Newes from New England,” we find the lines:–

“Close cabins being now prepared,
With bred, bief, beire, and fish,
The passengers prepare themselves,
That they might have their wish.”

Her magazine, carpenter’s and sailmaker’s lockers, etc., were doubtless
well forward under her forecastle, easily accessible from the spar-deck,
as was common to merchant vessels of her class and size. Dr. Young, in
his “Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers” (p. 86, note), says: “This vessel
was less than the average size of the fishing-smacks that go to the Grand
Banks. This seems a frail bark in which to cross a stormy ocean of three
thousand miles in extent. Yet it should be remembered that two of the
ships of Columbus on his first daring and perilous voyage of discovery,
were light vessels, without decks, little superior to the small craft
that ply on our rivers and along our coasts . . . . Frobisher’s fleet
consisted of two barks of twenty-five tons each and a pinnace of ten
tons, when he sailed in 1576 to discover a north-west passage to the
Indies. Sir Francis Drake, too, embarked on his voyage for
circumnavigating the globe, in 1577, with five vessels, of which the
largest was of one hundred, and the smallest fifteen tons. The bark in
which Sir Humphrey Gilbert perished was of ten tons only.” The LITTLE
JAMES, which the Company sent to Plymouth in July, 1623, was “a pinnace
of only forty-four tons,” and in a vessel of fifty tons (the SPEEDWELL),
Martin Pring, in 1603, coasted along the shores of New England. Goodwin
says: “In 1587 there were not in all England’s fleet more than five
merchant vessels exceeding two hundred tons.” The SPARROW-HAWK wrecked
on Cape Cod in 1626 was only 40 feet “over all.” The Dutch seem to have
built larger vessels. Winthrop records that as they came down the
Channel, on their way to New England (1630), they passed the wreck of
“a great Dutch merchantman of a thousand tons.”

The MAY-FLOWER’S galley, with its primitive conditions for cooking,
existed rather as a place for the preparation of food and the keeping of
utensils, than for the use of fire. The arrangements for the latter were
exceedingly crude, and were limited to the open “hearth-box” filled with
sand, the chief cooking appliance being the tripod-kettle of the early
navigators: This might indeed be set up in any part of the ship where the
“sand-hearth” could also go, and the smoke be cared for. It not
infrequently found space in the fore castle, between decks, and, when
fine weather prevailed, upon the open deck, as in the open caravels of
Columbus, a hundred years before. The bake-kettle and the frying-pan
held only less important places than the kettle for boiling. It must have
been rather a burst of the imagination that led Mrs. Austin, in “Standish
of Standish,” to make Peter Browne remind poor half-frozen Goodman–whom
he is urging to make an effort to reach home, when they had been lost,
but had got in sight of the MAY-FLOWER In the harbor–of “the good fires
aboard of her.” Moreover, on January 22, when Goodman was lost, the
company had occupied their “common-house” on shore. Her ordnance
doubtless comprised several heavy guns (as such were then reckoned),
mounted on the spar-deck amid ships, with lighter guns astern and on.
the rail, and a piece of longer range and larger calibre upon the
forecastle. Such was the general disposal of ordnance upon merchant
vessels of her size in that day, when an armament was a ‘sine qua non’.
Governor Winslow in his “Hypocrisie Unmasked,” 1646 (p. 91), says, in
writing of the departure of the Pilgrims from Delfshaven, upon the
SPEEDWELL: “The wind being fair we gave them a volley of small shot and
three pieces of ordnance,” by which it seems that the SPEEDWELL, of only
sixty tons, mounted at least “three pieces of ordnance” as, from the form
of expression, there seem to have been “three pieces,” rather than three
discharges of the same piece.

The inference is warranted that the MAY-FLOWER, being three times as
large, would carry a considerably heavier and proportionate armament.
The LADY ARBELLA, Winthrop’s ship, a vessel of 350 tons, carried
“twenty-eight pieces of ordnance;” but as “Admiral” of the fleet, at a
time when there was a state of war with others, and much piracy, she
would presumably mount more than a proportionate weight of metal,
especially as she convoyed smaller and lightly armed vessels, and
carried much value. There is no reason to suppose that the MAY-FLOWER,
in her excessively crowded condition, mounted more than eight or ten
guns, and these chiefly of small calibre. Her boats included her
“long-boat,” with which the experience of her company in “Cape Cod harbor”
have made us familiar, and perhaps other smaller boats,–besides the
Master’s “skiff” or “gig,” of whose existence and necessity there are
numerous proofs. “Monday the 27,” Bradford and Winslow state, “it
proved rough weather and cross winds, so as we were constrained, some in
the shallop and others in the long-boat,” etc. Bradford states, in
regard to the repeated springings-a-leak of the SPEEDWELL: “So the
Master of the bigger ship, called Master Jones, being consulted with;”
and again, “The Master of the small ship complained his ship was so
leaky . . . so they [Masters Jones and Reynolds] came to
consultation, again,” etc. It is evident that Jones was obliged to
visit the SPEEDWELL to inspect her and to consult with the leaders, who
were aboard her. For this purpose, as for others, a smaller boat than
the “long-boat” would often serve, while the number of passengers and
crew aboard would seem to demand still other boats. Winthrop notices
that their Captain (Melborne) frequently “had his skiff heaved out,” in
the course of their voyage. The Master’s small boat, called the “skiff”
or “gig,” was, no doubt, stowed (lashed) in the waist of the ship, while
the “long-boat” was probably lashed on deck forward, being hoisted out
and in, as the practice of those days was, by “whips,” from the
yardarms. It was early the habit to keep certain of the live-stock,
poultry, rabbits, etc., in the unused boats upon deck, and it is
possible that in the crowded state of the MAY-FLOWER this custom was
followed. Bradford remarks that their “goods or common store . . .
were long in unlading [at New Plimoth] for want of boats.” It seems
hardly possible that the Admiralty authorities,–though navigation laws
were then few, crude, and poorly enforced,–or that the Adventurers and
Pilgrim chiefs themselves, would permit a ship carrying some 130 souls
to cross the Atlantic in the stormy season, without a reasonable boat
provision. The capacity of the “long-boat” we know to have been about
twenty persons, as nearly that number is shown by Bradford and Winslow
to have gone in her on the early expeditions from the ship, at Cape Cod.
She would therefore accommodate only about one sixth of the ship’s
company. As the “gig” would carry only five or six persons,–while the
shallop was stowed between decks and could be of no service in case of
need upon the voyage,–the inference is warranted that other boats were
carried, which fail of specific mention, or that she was wofully
lacking. The want of boats for unlading, mentioned by Bradford, suggests
the possibility that some of the ship’s quota may have been lost or
destroyed on her boisterous voyage, though no such event appears of
record, or is suggested by any one. In the event of wreck, the Pilgrims
must have trusted, like the Apostle Paul and his associates when cast
away on the island of Melita, to get to shore, “some on boards and some
on broken pieces of the ship.” Her steering-gear, rigging, and the
mechanism for “getting her anchors,” “slinging,” “squaring,” and
“cockbilling” her yards; for “making” and “shortening” sail; “heaving
out” her boats and “handling” her cargo, were of course all of the crude
and simple patterns and construction of the time, usually so well
illustrating the ancient axiom in physics, that “what is lost [spent] in
power is gained in time.”

The compass-box and hanging-compass, invented by the English cleric,
William Barlow, but twelve years before the Pilgrim voyage, was almost
the only nautical appliance possessed by Captain Jones, of the
MAY-FLOWER, in which no radical improvement has since been made.
Few charts of much value–especially of western waters–had yet been
drafted, but the rough maps and diagrams of Cabot, Smith, Gosnold,
Pring, Champlain and Dermer, Jones was too good a navigator not to have
had. In speaking of the landing at Cape Cod, the expression is used by
Bradford in “Mourt’s Relation,” “We went round all points of the
compass,” proving that already the mariner’s compass had become familiar
to the speech even of those not using it professionally.

That the ship was “well-found” in anchors (with solid stocks), hemp
cables, “spare” spars, “boat-tackling” and the heavy “hoisting-gear” of
those days, we have the evidence of recorded use. “The MAY-FLOWER,”
writes Captain Collins, would have had a hemp cable about 9 inches in
circumference. Her anchors would probably weigh as follows: sheet anchor
(or best bower) 500 to 600 lbs.; stream anchor 350 to 400 lbs.; the spare
anchors same as the stream anchor.

“Charnock’s Illustrations” show that the anchors used in the MAY-FLOWER
period were shaped very much like the so called Cape Ann anchor now made
for our deep-sea fishing vessels. They had the conventional shaped
flukes, with broad pointed palms, and a long shank, the upper end passing
through a wooden stock. [Tory shows in his diagrams some of the anchors
of that period with the space between the shank and flukes nearly filled
up in the lower part with metal.] Such an anchor has the maximum of
holding powers, and bearing in mind the elasticity of the hemp cables
then used, would enable a vessel to ride safely even when exposed to
heavy winds and a racing sea: There is no doubt, according to the
British Admiralty Office,–which should be authority upon the matter,
–that the flag under which the MAY-FLOWER, and all other vessels of the
merchant marine of Great Britain, sailed, at the time she left England
(as noted concerning the SPEEDWELL), was what became known as the “Union
Jack,” as decreed by James the First, in 1606, supplanting the English
ensign, which had been the red cross of St. George upon a white field.
The new flag resulted from the “union” of the crowns and kingdoms of
England and Scotland, upon the accession of James VI. of Scotland to the
English throne, as James I. of England, upon the death of queen
Elizabeth. Its design was formed by superimposing the red cross of St.
George upon the white cross of St. Andrew, on a dark blue field; in other
words, by imposing the cross of St. George, taken from the English
ensign, upon the Scotch flag, and creating there by the new flag of Great
Britain.

In a little monograph on “The British Flag–Its Origin and History,” a
paper read by its author, Jona. F. Morris, Esq., before the Connecticut
Historical Society, June 7, 1881, and reprinted at Hartford (1889), Mr.
Morris, who has made much study of the matter, states (p. 4): “In 1603,
James VI. of Scotland was crowned James I. of England. The Scots, in
their pride that they had given a king to England, soon began to contend
that the cross of St. Andrew should take precedence of the cross of St.
George, that ships bearing the flag of the latter should salute that of
St. Andrew. To allay the contention, the King, on the 12th of April,
1606, ordered that all subjects of Great Britain travelling by sea shall
bear at the maintop the red cross of St. George and the white cross,
commonly called the cross of St. Andrew, joined together according to a
form made by his heralds besides this all vessels belonging to South
Britain or England might wear the cross of St. George at the peak or
fore, as they were wont, and all vessels belonging to North Britain or
Scotland might wear the cross of St. Andrew at the fore top, as they had
been accustomed; and all vessels were for bidden to wear any other flag
at their peril. The new flag thus designed by the heralds and proclaimed
by this order was called the ‘King’s Colors.’ For a long period the red
cross had been the colors of English navigators, as well as the badge of
English soldiery . . . . No permanent English settlement in America
was made until after the adoption of the ‘King’s Colors.’ Jamestown,
Plymouth, Salem, and Boston were settled under the new flag, though the
ships bringing over settlers, being English vessels, also carried the red
cross as permitted.” Mr. Barlow Cumberland, of Toronto, Canada, has also
given, in a little monograph entitled “The Union Jack” (published by
William Briggs of that city, 1898), an admirable account of the history
of the British jack, which confirms the foregoing conclusions. The early
English jack was later restored. Such, roughly sketched, was the Pilgrim
ship, the renowned MAY-FLOWER, as, drafted from the meagre but fairly
trustworthy and suggestive data available, she appears to us of to-day.

HER HISTORY:

In even the little we know of the later history of the ship, one cannot
always be quite sure of her identity in the records of vessels of her
name, of which there have been many. Dr. Nathaniel B. Shurtleff, of
Boston, says that “a vessel bearing this name was owned in England about
fifteen years or more before the voyage of our forefathers, but it would
be impossible to prove or disprove its identity with the renowned
MAY-FLOWER, however great such a probability might be. It is known,
nevertheless, that–the identical famous vessel afterwards hailed from
various English ports, such as London, Yarmouth, and Southampton, and
that it was much used in transporting immigrants to this country. What
eventually became of it and what was the end of its career, are equally
unknown to history.” Goodwin says: “It does not appear that the
MAY-FLOWER ever revisited Plymouth, but in 1629 she came to Salem,” with
a company of the Leyden people for Plymouth, under command of Captain
William Peirce, the warm friend of the Pilgrims, and in 1630 was one of
the large fleet that attended John Winthrop, under a different master,
discharging her passengers at Charlestown. Nothing is certainly known of
her after that time. In 1648 a ship [hereinafter mentioned by Hunter]
named the MAY-FLOWER was engaged in the slave trade, and the ill-informed
as well as the ill-disposed have sometimes sneeringly alleged that this
was our historic ship; but it is ascertained that the slaver was a vessel
of three hundred and fifty tons,–nearly twice the size of our ship of
happy memory. In 1588 the officials of Lynn (England) offered the
“MAY-FLOWER” (150 tons) to join the fleet against the dreaded Spanish
Armada. In 1657, Samuel Vassall, of London, complained that the
government had twice impressed his ship, MAY-FLOWER, which he had
“fitted out with sixty men, for the Straits.” Rev. Joseph Hunter,
author of “The Founders of New Plymouth,” one of the most eminent
antiquarians in England, and an indefatigable student of Pilgrim history
among British archives, says: “I have not observed the name of MAY
FLOWER [in which style he always writes it] before the year 1583 . . .
But the name soon became exceedingly popular among those to whom
belonged the giving of the names to vessels in the merchant-service.
Before the close of that century [the sixteenth] we have a MAY-FLOWER of
Hastings; a MAY-FLOWER of Rie; a MAY-FLOWER of Newcastle: a MAY FLOWER
of Lynn; and a MAY-FLOWER Of Yarmouth: both in 1589. Also a MAY-FLOWER
of Hull, 1599; a MAY FLOWER of London of eighty tons burden, 1587, and
1594, Of which Richard Ireland was the master, and another MAY-FLOWER of
the same port, of ninety tons burthen, of which Robert White was the
master in 1594, and a third MAY-FLOWER of London, unless it is the same
vessel with one of the two just spoken of, only with a different master,
William Morecock. In 1587 there was a MAY-FLOWER Of Dover, of which
John Tooke was the master. In 1593 there was a MAY-FLOWER of Yarmouth
of 120 tons, of which William Musgrove was the master. In 1608 there
was a MAY-FLOWER of Dartmouth, of which Nicholas Waterdonne was the
master; and in 1609 a MAY-FLOWER of Middleburgh entered an English
port.”

Later in the century we find a MAY-FLOWER of Ipswich, and another of
Newcastle in 1618; a MAY-FLOWER of York in 1621; a MAY-FLOWER of
Scarborough in 1630, Robert Hadock the master; a MAY-FLOWER of Sandwich
the same year, John Oliver the master; a MAY-FLOWER of Dover, 1633,
Walter Finnis, master, in which two sons of the Earl of Berkshire crossed
to Calais. “Which of these was the vessell which carried over the
precious [Pilgrim] freight cannot perhaps be told [apparently neither,
unless perhaps the MAY-FLOWER of Yarmouth of 1593, in which case her
tonnage is incorrectly given], but we learn from Mr. Sherley’s letter to
Governor Bradford’ that the same vessel was employed in 1629 in passing
between the two countries, a company of the church at Leyden, who had
joined in the first emigration, intending to pass in it to America; and
in the same author we find that the vessel arrived in the harbour of
Charlestown [N. E.] on July 1, 1630. There was a MAY-FLOWER which, in
1648, gained an unenviable notoriety as a slaver. But this was not the
MAY-FLOWER which had carried over the first settlers, it being a vessel
Of 350 tons, while the genuine MAY-FLOWER was of only 180 tons.” Of the
first of her two known visits, after her voyage with the Pilgrim company
from Leyden, Goodwin says: “In August, 1629, the renowned MAY-FLOWER came
from England to Salem under Plymouth’s old friend [William] Peirce, and
in her came thirty-five Leyden people, on their way to Plymouth.” The
number has been in dispute, but the large cost of bringing them, over
L500, would suggest that their families must have also come, as has been
alleged, but for the following from Governor Bradford’s Letter Book:
“These persons,” he says, “were in all thirty-five, which came at this
time unto us from Leyden, whose charge out of Holland into England, and
in England till the ship was ready, and then their transportation hither,
came to a great deal of money, for besides victuals and other expenses,
they were all newly apparelled.” Shirley, one of the Adventurers,
writing to Governor Bradford in 1629, says: “Here are now many of your
friends from Leyden coming over. With them also we have sent some
servants, or in the ship that went lately (I think called the TALBOT),
and this that these come in is the MAY-FLOWER.” All that Higginson’s
journal tells of her, as noted, is, that “she was of Yarmouth;” was
commanded by William Peirce, and carried provisions and passengers, but
the fact that she was under command of Captain Peirce of itself tells
much. On her next trip the MAY-FLOWER sailed from Southampton, in May,
1630, as part of Winthrop’s fleet, and arrived at Charlestown July 1.
She was, on this voyage, under command of a new master (perhaps a Captain
Weatherby), Captain Peirce having, at this time, command of the ship
LYON, apparently in the service of Plymouth Colony. A vessel of this
name [MAY-FLOWER] was sailing between England and Boston in 1656. Young
says: “The MAY-FLOWER is a ship of renown in the history of the
colonization of New England. She was one of the five vessels which, in
1629, conveyed Higginson’s company to Salem, and also one of the fleet
which, in 1630, brought over his colony to Massachusetts Bay.”

October 6, 1652, “Thomas Webber, Mr. of the good shipp called the
MAYFLOWER of the burden of Two hundred Tuns or there abouts . . . .
Rideing at Ancor in the Harber of Boston,” sold one-sixteenth of the ship
“for good & valluable Consideracons to Mr. John Pinchon of Springfield
Mrchant.” The next day, October 7, 1652, the same “Thomas Webber, Mr, of
the good Shipp called the MAY FLOWER of Boston in New England now bound
for the barbadoes and thence to London,” acknowledges an indebtedness to
Theodore Atkinson, a wealthy “hatter, felt-maker,” and merchant of
Boston, and the same day (October 7, 1652), the said “Thomas Webber, Mr.
of the good shipp called the MAY FLOWER of the burthen of Two hundred
tuns or thereabouts,” sold “unto Theodore Atkinson felt-maker
one-sixteenth part as well of said Shipp as of all & singular her masts
Sails Sail-yards Ancors Cables Ropes Cords Gunns Gunpowder Shott
Artillery Tackle Munition apparrell boate skiffe and furniture to the
same belonging.” It is of course possible that this was the historic
ship, though, if so, reappearing twenty two years after her last known
voyage to New England. If the same, she was apparently under both new
master and owner. From the facts that she is called “of Boston in New
England” and was trading between that port, “the Barbadoes” and London,
it is not impossible that she may have been built at Boston–a sort of
namesake descendant of the historic ship–and was that MAY-FLOWER
mentioned as belonging, in 1657, to Mr. Samuel Vassall; as he had large
interests alike in Boston, Barbadoes, and London. Masters of vessels
were often empowered to sell their ships or shares in them. Although we
know not where her keel was laid, by what master she was built, or where
she laid her timbers when her work was done, by virtue of her grand
service to humanity, her fame is secure, and her name written among the
few, the immortal names that were not born to die.

CHAPTER V

THE OFFICERS AND CREW OF THE MAYFLOWER

The officers and crew of the MAY-FLOWER were obviously important factors
in the success of the Pilgrim undertaking, and it is of interest to know
what we may concerning them. We have seen that the “pilot,” John Clarke,
was employed by Weston and Cushman, even before the vessel upon which he
was to serve had been found, and he had hence the distinction of being
the first man “shipped” of the MAY-FLOWER’S complement. It is evident
that he was promptly hired on its being known that he had recently
returned from a voyage to Virginia in the cattle-ship FALCON, as certain
to be of value in the colonists’ undertakings.

Knowing that the Adventurers’ agents were seeking both a ship and a
master for her, it was the natural thing for the latter, that he should
propose the Captain under whom he had last sailed, on much the same
voyage as that now contemplated. It is an interesting fact that
something of the uncertainty which for a time existed as to the names and
features of the Pilgrim barks attaches the names and identity of their
respective commanders. The “given” name of “Master” Reynolds, “pilott”
and “Master” of the SPEED WELL, does not appear, but the assertion of
Professor Arber, though positive enough, that “the Christian name of the
Captain of the MAY-FLOWER is not known,” is not accepted by other
authorities in Pilgrim history, though it is true that it does not find
mention in the contemporaneous accounts of the Pilgrim ship and her
voyage.

There is no room for doubt that the Captain of the FALCON–whose release
from arrest while under charge of piracy the Earl of Warwick procured,
that he might take command of the above-named cattle-ship on her voyage
to Virginia, as hereinafter shown–was Thomas Jones. The identity of
this man and “Master Jones” who assumed command of the MAY-FLOWER–with
the former mate of the FALCON, John Clarke, as his first officer–is
abundantly certified by circumstantial evidence of the strongest kind, as
is also the fact that he commanded the ship DISCOVERY a little later.

With the powerful backing of such interested friends as the Earl of
Warwick and Sir Ferdinando Gorges, undoubtedly already in league with
Thomas Weston, who probably made the contract with Jones,
as he had with Clarke, the suggestion of the latter as to the competency
and availability of his late commander would be sure of prompt approval,
and thus, in all probability, Captain Thomas Jones, who finds his chief
place in history–and a most important one–as Master of the MAY-FLOWER,
came to that service.

In 1619, as appears by Neill, the Virginia Company had one John Clarke in
Ireland, “buying cattle for Virginia.” We know that Captain Jones soon
sailed for Virginia with cattle, in the FALCON, of 150 tons, and as this
was the only cattle ship in a long period, we can very certainly identify
Clarke as the newly-hired mate of the MAY-FLOWER, who, Cush man says
(letter of June 11/21, 1620), “went last year to Virginia with a ship of
kine.” As 1620 did not begin until March 25, a ship sailing in February
would have gone out in 1619, and Jones and Clarke could easily have made
the voyage in time to engage for the MAY-FLOWER in the following June.
“Six months after Jones’s trip in the latter” (i.e. after his return
from the Pilgrim voyage), Neill says, “he took the DISCOVERY (60 tons) to
Virginia, and then northward, trading along the coast. The Council for
New England complained of him to the Virginia Company for robbing the
natives on this voyage. He stopped at Plymouth (1622), and, taking
advantage of the distress for food he found there, was extortionate in
his prices. In July, 1625, he appeared at Jamestown, Virginia, in
possession of a Spanish frigate, which he said had been captured by one
Powell, under a Dutch commission, but it was thought a resumption of his
old buccaneering practices. Before investigation he sickened and died.”

That Jones was a man of large experience, and fully competent in his
profession, is beyond dispute. His disposition, character, and deeds
have been the subject of much discussion. By most writers he is held to
have been a man of coarse, “unsympathetic” nature, “a rough sea-dog,”
capable of good feeling and kindly impulses at times, but neither
governed by them nor by principle. That he was a “highwayman of the
seas,” a buccaneer and pirate, guilty of blood for gold, there can be no
doubt. Certainly nothing could justify the estimate of him given by
Professor Arber, that “he was both fair-minded and friendly toward the
Pilgrim Fathers,” and he certainly stands alone among writers of
reputation in that opinion. Jones’s selfishness,

[Bradford himself–whose authority in the matter will not be
doubted–says (Historie, Mass. ed. p. 112): “As this calamitie,
the general sickness, fell among ye passengers that were to be left
here to plant, and were basted ashore and made to drinke water, that
the sea-men might have ye more bear [beer] and one in his sickness
desiring but a small can of beare it was answered that if he were
their own father he should have none.” Bradford also shows (op.
cit. p. 153) the rapacity of Jones, when in command of the
DISCOVERY, in his extortionate demands upon the Plymouth planters,
notwithstanding their necessities.]

threats, boorishness, and extortion, to say nothing of his exceedingly
bad record as a pirate, both in East and West Indian waters, compel a far
different estimate of him as a man, from that of Arber, however excellent
he was as a mariner. Professor Arber dissents from Goodwin’s conclusion
that Captain Jones of the DISCOVERY was the former Master of the
MAY-FLOWER, but the reasons of his dissent are by no means convincing. He
argues that Jones would not have accepted the command of a vessel so much
smaller than his last, the DISCOVERY being only one third the size of the
MAY-FLOWER. Master-mariners, particularly when just returned from long
and unsuccessful voyages, especially if in bad repute,–as was Jones,
–are obliged to take such employment as offers, and are often glad to get
a ship much smaller than their last, rather than remain idle. Moreover,
in Jones’s case, if, as appears, he was inclined to buccaneering, the
smaller ship would serve his purpose–as it seems it did satisfactorily.
Nor is the fact that Bradford speaks of him–although previously so well
acquainted–as “one Captain Jones,” to be taken as evidence, as Arber
thinks, that the Master of the DISCOVERY was some other of the name.
Bradford was writing history, and his thought just then was the especial
Providence of God in the timely relief afforded their necessities by the
arrival of the ships with food, without regard to the individuals who
brought it, or the fact that one was an acquaintance of former years.
On the other hand, Winslow–in his “Good Newes from New England”
–records the arrival of the two ships in August, 1622, and says, “the one
as I take [recollect] it, was called the DISCOVERY, Captain Jones having
command thereof,” which on the same line of argument as Arber’s might be
read, “our old acquaintance Captain Jones, you know”! If the expression
of Bradford makes against its being Captain Jones, formerly of the
MAY-FLOWER, Winslow’s certainly makes quite as much for it, while the fact
which Winslow recites, viz. that the DISCOVERY, under Jones, was sailing
as consort to the SPARROW, a ship of Thomas Weston,–who employed him for
the MAY-FLOWER, was linked with him in the Gorges conspiracy, and had
become nearly as degenerate as he,–is certainly significant. There are
still better grounds, as will appear in the closely connected relations
of Jones, for holding with Goodwin rather than with Arber in the matter.
The standard authority in the case is the late Rev. E. D. Neill, D. D.,
for some years United States consul at Dublin, who made very considerable
research into all matters pertaining to the Virginia Companies,
consulting their original records and “transactions,” the Dutch related
documents, the “Calendars of the East India Company,” etc. Upon him and
his exhaustive work all others have largely drawn,–notably Professor
Arber himself,–and his conclusions seem entitled to the same weight here
which Arber gives them in other relations. Dr. Neill is clearly of
opinion that the Captains of the MAY-FLOWER and the DISCOVERY were
identical, and this belief is shared by such authorities in Pilgrim
literature as Young, Prince, Goodwin, and Davis, and against this
formidable consensus of opinion, Arber, unless better supported, can
hardly hope to prevail.

The question of Jones’s duplicity and fraud, in bringing the Pilgrims to
land at Cape Cod instead of the “neighbor-hood of Hudson’s River,” has
been much mooted and with much diversity of opinion, but in the light of
the subjoined evidence and considerations it seems well-nigh impossible
to acquit him of the crime–for such it was, in inception, nature, and
results, however overruled for good.

The specific statements of Bradford and others leave no room for doubt
that the MAY-FLOWER Pilgrims fully intended to make their settlement
somewhere in the region of the mouth of “Hudson’s River.” Morton states
in terms that Captain Jones’s “engagement was to Hudson’s River.”
Presumably, as heretofore noted, the stipulation of his charter party
required that he should complete his outward voyage in that general
locality. The northern limits of the patents granted in the Pilgrim
interest, whether that of John Wincob (or Wincop) sealed June 9/ 19,
1619, but never used, or the first one to John Pierce, of February 2/12,
1620, were, of course, brought within the limits of the First (London)
Virginia Company’s charter, which embraced, as is well-known, the
territory between the parallels of 34 deg. and 41 deg. N. latitude.
The most northerly of these parallels runs but about twenty miles to the
north of the mouth of “Hudson’s River.” It is certain that the Pilgrims,
after the great expense, labor, and pains of three years, to secure the
protection of these Patents, would not willingly or deliberately, have
planted themselves outside that protection, upon territory where they had
none, and where, as interlopers, they might reasonably expect trouble
with the lawful proprietors. Nor was there any reason why, if they so
desired, they should not have gone to “Hudson’s River” or its vicinity,
unless it was that they had once seemed to recognize the States General
of Holland as the rightful owners of that territory, by making petition
to them, through the New Netherland Company, for their authority and
protection in settling there. But even this fact constituted no moral or
legal bar to such action, if desirable First, because it appears certain
that, whatever the cause, they “broke off” themselves their negotiations
with the Dutch,–whether on account of the inducements offered by Thomas
Weston, or a doubt of the ability of the Dutch to maintain their claim to
that region, and to protect there, or both, neither appears nor matters.
Second, because the States General–whether with knowledge that they of
Leyden had so “broken off” or from their own doubts of their ability to
maintain their claim on the Hudson region, does not appear–rejected the
petition made to them in the Pilgrims’ behalf. It is probable that the
latter was the real reason, from the fact that the petition was twice
rejected.

In view of the high opinion of the Leyden brethren, entertained, as we
know, by the Dutch, it is clear that the latter would have been pleased
to secure them as colonists; while if at all confident of their rights to
the territory, they must have been anxious to colonize it and thus
confirm their hold, increase their revenues as speedily as possible,
and

Third, because it appears upon the showing of the petition itself, made
by the New Netherland Company (to which the Leyden leaders had looked,
doubtless on account of its pretensions, for the authority and protection
of the States General, as they afterward did to the English Virginia
Company for British protection), that this Company had lost its own
charter by expiration, and hence had absolutely nothing to offer the
Leyden people beyond the personal and associate influence of its members,
and the prestige of a name that had once been potential. In fact, the
New Netherland Company was using the Leyden congregation as a leverage to
pry for itself from the States General new advantages, larger than it had
previously enjoyed.

Moreover it appears by the evidence of both the petition of the Directors
of the New Netherland Company to the Prince of Orange (February 2/12,
1619/20), and the letters of Sir Dudley Carleton, the British ambassador
at the Hague, to the English Privy Council, dated February 5/15, 1621/22,
that, up to this latter date the Dutch had established no colony

[British State Papers, Holland, Bundle 165. Sir Dudley Carleton’s
Letters. “They have certain Factors there, continually resident,
trading with savages . . . but I cannot learn of any colony,
either I already planted there by these people, or so much as
intended.” Sir Dudley Carleton’s Letters.]

on the territory claimed by them at the Hudson, and had no other
representation there than the trading-post of a commercial company whose
charter had expired. There can be no doubt that the Leyden leaders knew,
from their dealings with the New Netherland Company, and the study of the
whole problem which they evidently made, that this region was open to
them or any other parties for habitation and trade, so far as any prior
grants or charters under the Dutch were concerned, but they required more
than this.

To Englishmen, the English claim to the territory at “Hudson’s River”
was valid, by virtue of the discovery of the Cabots, under the law of
nations as then recognized, not withstanding Hudson’s more particular
explorations of those parts in 1609, in the service of Holland,
especially as no colony or permanent occupancy of the region by the
Dutch had been made.

Professor John Fiske shows that “it was not until the Protestant England
of Elizabeth had come to a life-and-death grapple with Spain, and not
until the discovery of America had advanced much nearer completion, so
that its value began to be more correctly understood, that political and
commercial motives combined in determining England to attack Spain
through America, and to deprive her of supremacy in the colonial and
maritime world. Then the voyages of the Cabots assumed an importance
entirely new, and could be quoted as the basis of a prior claim on the
part of the English Crown, to lands which it [through the Cabots] had
discovered.”

Having in mind the terrible history of slaughter and reprisal between the
Spanish and French (Huguenot) settlers in Florida in 1565-67,

[Bancroft, History of the United States, vol. i. p. 68; Fiske,
Discovery of America, vol. ii. p. 511 et seq. With the terrible
experience of the Florida plantations in memory, the far-sighted
leaders of the Leyden church proposed to plant under the shelter of
an arm strong enough to protect them, and we find the Directors of
the New Netherland Company stating that the Leyden party (the
Pilgrims) can be induced to settle under Dutch auspices, “provided,
they would be guarded and preserved from all violence on the part of
other potentates, by the authority, and under the protection of your
Princely Excellency and the High and Mighty States General.”
Petition of the Directors of the New Netherland Company to the
Prince of Orange.]

the Pilgrims recognized the need of a strong power behind them, under
whose aegis they might safely plant, and by virtue of whose might and
right they could hope to keep their lives and possessions. The King of
England had, in 1606, granted charters to the two Virginia Companies,
covering all the territory in dispute, and, there could be no doubt,
would protect these grants and British proprietorship therein, against
all comers. Indeed, the King (James I.) by letter to Sir Dudley
Carleton, his ambassador at the Hague, under date of December 15, 1621,
expressly claimed his rights in the New Netherland territory and
instructed him to impress upon the government of the States General his
Majesty’s claim,–“who, ‘jure prime occupation’ hath good and sufficient
title to these parts.” There can be no question that the overtures of
Sandys, Weston, and others to make interest for them with one of these
English Companies, agreed as well with both the preferences and
convictions of the Leyden Pilgrims, as they did with the hopes and
designs of Sir Ferdinando Gorges. In the light of these facts, there
appears to have been neither legal nor moral bar to the evident intention
of the Pilgrims to settle in the vicinity of “Hudson’s River,” if they so
elected. In their light, also, despite the positive allegations of the
truthful but not always reliable Morton, his charges of intrigue between
the Dutch and Master Jones of the MAY-FLOWER, to prevent the settlement
of his ship’s company at “Hudson’s River,” may well be doubted. Writing
in “New England’s Memorial” in 1669, Morton says: “But some of the Dutch,
having notice of their intentions, and having thoughts about the same
time of erecting a plantation there likewise, they fraudulently hired the
said Jones, by delays while they were in England, and now under pretence
of the shoals the dangers of the Monomoy Shoals off Cape Cod to
disappoint them in going thither.” He adds: “Of this plot between the
Dutch and Mr. Jones, I have had late and certain intelligence.” If this
intelligence was more reliable than his assertion concerning the
responsibility of Jones for the “delays while they were in England,” it
may well be discredited, as not the faintest evidence appears to make him
responsible for those delays, and they are amply accounted for without
him. Without questioning the veracity of Morton (while suggesting his
many known errors, and that the lapse of time made it easy to
misinterpret even apparently certain facts), it must be remembered that
he is the original sponsor for the charge of Dutch intrigue with Jones,
and was its sole support for many years. All other writers who have
accepted and indorsed his views are of later date, and but follow him,
while Bradford and Winslow, who were victims of this Dutch conspiracy
against them, if it ever existed, were entirely silent in their writings
upon the matter, which we may be sure they would not have been, had they
suspected the Dutch as prime movers in the treachery. That there was a
conspiracy to accomplish the landing of the MAY-FLOWER planters at a
point north of “the Hudson” (in fact, north of the bounds defined by the
(first) Pierce patent, upon which they relied), i.e. north of 41 deg. N.
latitude,–is very certain; but that it was of Dutch origin, or based
upon motives which are attributed to the Dutch, is clearly erroneous.
While the historical facts indicate an utter lack of motive for such an
intrigue on the part of the Dutch, either as a government or as
individuals, there was no lack of motive on the part of certain others,
who, we can but believe, were responsible for the conspiracy. Moreover,
the chief conspirators were such, that, even if the plot was ultimately
suspected by the Pilgrims, a wise policy–indeed, self-preservation
–would have dictated their silence. That the Dutch were without
sufficient motive or interest has been declared. That the States General
could have had no wish to reject so exceptionally excellent a body of
colonists as subjects, and as tenants to hold and develop their disputed
territory–if in position to receive them and guarantee them protection
–is clear. The sole objection that could be urged against them was their
English birth, and with English regiments garrisoning the Dutch home
cities, and foreigners of every nation in the States General’s employ, by
land and by sea, such an objection could have had no weight. Indeed, the
Leyden party proposed, if they effected satisfactory arrangements with
the States General (as stated by the Directors of the New Netherland
Company), “to plant there [at “Hudson’s River”] a new commonwealth, all
under the order and command of your Princely Excellency and their High
Mightinesses the States General:” The Leyden Pilgrims were men who kept
their agreements.

The Dutch trading-companies, who were the only parties in the Low
Countries who could possibly have had any motive for such a conspiracy,
were at this time themselves without charters, and the overtures of the
principal company, made to the government in behalf of themselves and the
Leyden brethren, had recently, as we have seen, been twice rejected.
They had apparently, therefore, little to hope for in the near future;
certainly not enough to warrant expenditure and the risk of disgraceful
exposure, in negotiations with a stranger–an obscure ship-master–to
change his course and land his passengers in violation of the terms of
his charter-party;–negotiations, moreover, in which neither of the
parties could well have had any guaranty of the other’s good faith.

But, as previously asserted, there was a party–to whom such knavery was
an ordinary affair–who had ample motive, and of whom Master Thomas Jones
was already the very willing and subservient ally and tool, and had been
such for years. Singularly enough, the motive governing this party was
exactly the reverse of that attributed–though illogically and without
reason–to the Dutch. In the case of the latter, the alleged animus was
a desire to keep the Pilgrim planters away from their “Hudson’s River”
domain. In the case of the real conspirators, the purpose was to secure
these planters as colonists for, and bring them to, the more northern
territory owned by them. It is well known that Sir Ferdinando Gorges was
the leading spirit of the “Second Virginia Company,” as he also became
(with the Earl of Warwick a close second) of “The Council for the Affairs
of New England,” of which both men were made “Governors,” in November of
1620, when the Council practically superseded the “Second Virginia
Company.” The Great Charter for “The Council of Affairs of New England,”
commonly known as “The Council for New England,” issued Tuesday, November
3/13, 1620, and it held in force till Sunday, June 7/17, 1635.

Although not its official head, and ranked at its board by dukes and
earls, Sir Ferdinando Gorges was–as he had been in the old Plymouth (or
Second) Virginia Company–the leading man. This was largely from his
superior acquaintance with, and long and varied experience in, New
England affairs. The “Council” was composed of forty patentees, and
Baxter truly states, that “Sir Ferdinando Gorges, at this time [1621]
stood at the head of the Council for New England, so far as influence
went; in fact, his hand shaped its affairs.” This company, holding–by
the division of territory made under the original charter-grants–a strip
of territory one hundred miles wide, on the North American coast, between
the parallels of 41 deg. and 45 deg. N. latitude, had not prospered, and
its efforts at colonization (on what is now the Maine coast), in 1607 and
later, had proved abortive, largely through the character of its
“settlers,” who had been, in good degree, a somewhat notable mixture of
two of the worst elements of society,–convicts and broken-down
“gentlemen.”

“In 1607,” says Goodwin, “Gorges and the cruel Judge Popham planted a
colony at Phillipsburg (or Sagadahoc, as is supposed), by the mouth of
the Kennebec. Two ships came, ‘THE GIFT OF GOD’ and the ‘MARY AND JOHN,’
bringing a hundred persons. Through August they found all delightful,
but when the ships went back in December, fifty five of the number
returned to England, weary of their experience and fearful of the cold
. . . . With spring the ships returned from England; “but by this time
the remainder were ready to leave,” so every soul returned with Gilbert
[the Admiral] . . . . For thirty years Gorges continued to push
exploration and emigration to that region, but his ambition and
liberality ever resulted in disappointment and loss.” The annals of the
time show that not a few of the Sagadahoc colonists were convicts,
released from the English jails to people this colony.

Hakluyt says: “In 1607 [this should read 1608], disheartened by the death
of Popham, they all embarked in a ship from Exeter and in the new
pynnace, the ‘VIRGINIA,’ built in the colony, and sett sail for England,
and this was the end of that northern colony upon the river Sachadehoc
[Kennebec].”

No one knew better than the shrewd Gorges the value of such a colony as
that of the Leyden brethren would be, to plant, populate, and develop his
Company’s great demesne. None were more facile than himself and the
buccaneering Earl of Warwick, to plan and execute the bold, but–as it
proved–easy coup, by which the Pilgrim colony was to be stolen bodily;
for the benefit of the “Second Virginia Company” and its successor,
“the Council for New England,” from the “First (or London) Company,”
under whose patent (to John Pierce) and patronage they sailed. They
apparently did not take their patent with them,–it would have been
worthless if they had,–and they were destined to have no small trouble
with Pierce, before they were established in their rights under the new
patent granted him (in the interest of the Adventurers and themselves),
by the “Council for New England.” Master John Wincob’s early and silent
withdrawal from his apparently active connection with the Pilgrim
movement, and the evident cancellation of the first patent issued to him
in its interest, by the (London) Virginia Company, have never been
satisfactorily explained. Wincob (or Wincop), we are told, “was a
religious Gentleman, then belonging to the household of the Countess of
Lincoln, who intended to go with them [the Pilgrims] but God so disposed
as he never went, nor they ever made use of this Patent, which had cost
them so much labor and charge.” Wincob, it appears by the minutes of the
(London) Virginia Company of Wednesday, May 26/June 5, 1619, was
commended to the Company, for the patent he sought, by the fourth Earl of
Lincoln, and it was doubtless through his influence that it was granted
and sealed, June 9/19, 1619. But while Wincob was a member of the
household of the Dowager Countess of Lincoln, mother of the fourth Earl
of Lincoln; John, the eldest son of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, had married
the Earl’s daughter (sister ?), and hence Gorges stood in a much nearer
relation to the Earl than did his mother’s friend and dependant (as
Wincob evidently was), as well as on a much more equal social footing.
By the minutes of the (London) Virginia Company of Wednesday, February 2/
12, 1619/20, it appears that a patent was “allowed and sealed to John
Pierce and his associates, heirs and assigns,” for practically the same
territory for which the patent to Wincob had been given but eight months
before. No explanation was offered, and none appears of record, but the
logical conclusion is, that the first patent had been cancelled, that
Master Wincob’s personal interest in the Pilgrim exodus had ceased, and
that the Lincoln patronage had been withdrawn. It is a rational
conjecture that Sir Ferdinando Gorges, through the relationship he
sustained to the Earl, procured the withdrawal of Wincob and his patent,
knowing that the success of his (Gorges’s) plot would render the Wincob
patent worthless, and that the theft of the colony, in his own interest,
would be likely to breed “unpleasantness” between himself and Wincob’s
sponsors and friends among the Adventurers, many of whom were friends of
the Earl of Lincoln.

The Earl of Warwick, the man of highest social and political rank in the
First (or London) Virginia Company, was, at about the same time, induced
by Gorges to abandon his (the London) Company and unite with himself in
securing from the Crown the charter of the “Council of Affairs for New
England.” The only inducements he could offer for the change must
apparently have resided in the promised large results of plottings
disclosed by him (Gorges), but he needed the influential and unscrupulous
Earl for the promotion of his schemes, and won him, by some means, to an
active partnership, which was doubtless congenial to both. The “fine
Italian hand” of Sir Ferdinando hence appears at every stage, and in
every phase, of the Leyden movement, from the mission of Weston to
Holland, to the landing at Cape Cod, and every movement clearly indicates
the crafty cunning, the skilful and brilliant manipulation, and the
dogged determination of the man.

That Weston was a most pliant and efficient tool in the hands of Gorges,
“from start to finish” of this undertaking, is certainly apparent.
Whether he was, from the outset, made fully aware of the sinister designs
of the chief conspirator, and a party to them, admits of some doubt,
though the conviction strengthens with study, that he was, from the
beginning, ‘particeps criminis’. If he was ever single-minded for the
welfare of the Leyden brethren and the Adventurers, it must have been for
a very brief time at the inception of the enterprise; and circumstances
seem to forbid crediting him with honesty of purpose, even then. The
weight of evidence indicates that he both knew, and was fully enlisted
in, the entire plot of Gorges from the outset. In all its early stages
he was its most efficient promoter, and seems to have given ample proof
of his compliant zeal in its execution. His visit to the Leyden brethren
in Holland was, apparently, wholly instigated by Gorges, as the latter
complacently claims and collateral evidence proves. In his endeavor to
induce the leaders to “break off with the Dutch,” their pending
negotiations for settlement at “Hudson’s River,” he evidently made
capital of, and traded upon, his former kindness to some of them when
they were in straits,–a most contemptible thing in itself, yet
characteristic of the man. He led the Pilgrims to “break off” their
dealings with the Dutch by the largest and most positive promises of
greater advantages through him, few of which he ever voluntarily kept (as
we see by John Robinson’s sharp arraignment of him), his whole object
being apparently to get the Leyden party into his control and that of his
friends,–the most subtle and able of whom was Gorges. Bradford recites
that Weston not only urged the Leyden leaders “not to meddle with ye
Dutch,” but also,–“not too much to depend on ye Virginia [London]
Company,” but to rely on himself and his friends. This strongly suggests
active cooperation with Gorges, on Weston’s part, at the outset, with the
intent (if he could win them by any means, from allegiance to the First
(London) Virginia Company), to lead the Leyden party, if possible, into
Gorges’s hands and under the control and patronage of the Second (or
Plymouth) Virginia Company. Whatever the date may have been, at which
(as Bradford states) the Leyden people “heard, both by Mr. Weston and
others, yt sundrie Honble: Lords had obtained a large grante from ye king
for ye more northerly parts of that countrie, derived out of ye Virginia
patents, and wholly secluded from theire Governmente, and to be called by
another name, viz. New England, unto which Mr. Weston and the chiefe of
them begane to incline;” Bradford leaves us in no doubt as to Weston’s
attitude toward the matter itself. It is certain that the governor,
writing from memory, long afterward, fixed the time at which the Honble:
Lords had obtained “their large grante” much earlier than it could
possibly have occurred, as we know the exact date of the patent for the,
“Council for New England,” and that the order for its issue was not given
till just as the Pilgrims left Leyden; so that they could not have known
of the actual “grante” till they reached Southampton. The essential
fact, stated on this best of authority, is, that “Mr. Weston and the
chiefe of them [their sponsors, i.e. Weston and Lord Warwick, both in
league with Gorges] begane to incline to Gorges’s new Council for New
England.” Such an attitude (evidently taken insidiously) meant, on
Weston’s part, of necessity, no less than treachery to his associates of
the Adventurers; to the (London) Virginia Company, and to the Leyden
company and their allied English colonists, in the interest of Sir
Ferdinando Gorges and his schemes and of the new “Council” that Gorges
was organizing. Weston’s refusal to advance “a penny” to clear the
departing Pilgrims from their port charges at Southampton; his almost
immediate severance of connection with both the colonists and the
Adventurers; and his early association with Gorges,–in open and
disgraceful violation of all the formers’ rights in New England,–to say
nothing of his exhibition of a malevolence rarely exercised except toward
those one has deeply wronged, all point to a complete and positive
surrender of himself and his energies to the plot of Gorges, as a full
participant, from its inception. In his review of the Anniversary Address
of Hon. Charles Francis Adams (of July 4, 1892, at Quincy), Daniel W.
Baker, Esq., of Boston, says: “The Pilgrim Fathers were influenced in
their decision to come to New England by Weston, who, if not the agent of
Gorges in this particular matter, was such in other matters and held
intimate relations with him.”

The known facts favor the belief that Gorges’s cogitations on colonial
matters–especially as stimulated by his plottings in relation to the
Leyden people–led to his project of the grant–and charter for the new
“Council for New England,” designed and constituted to supplant, or
override, all others. It is highly probable that this grand scheme
–duly embellished by the crafty Gorges,–being unfolded to Weston, with
suggestions of great opportunities for Weston himself therein, warmed and
drew him, and brought him to full and zealous cooperation in all Gorges’s
plans, and that from this time, as Bradford states, he “begane to
incline” toward, and to suggest to the Pilgrims, association with Gorges
and the new “Council.” Not daring openly to declare his change of
allegiance and his perfidy, he undertook, apparently, at first, by
suggestions, e.g. “not to place too much dependence on the London
Company, but to rely on himself and friends;” that “the fishing of New
England was good,” etc.; and making thus no headway, then, by a policy of
delay, fault finding, etc., to breed dissatisfaction, on the Pilgrims’
part, with the Adventurers, the patent of Wincob, etc., with the hope of
bringing about “a new deal” in the Gorges interest. The same “delays” in
sailing, that have been adduced as proof of Jones’s complicity with the
Dutch, would have been of equal advantage to these noble schemers, and if
he had any hand in them-which does not appear–it would have been far
more likely in the interest of his long-time patron, the Earl of Warwick,
and of his friends, than of any Dutch conspirators.

Once the colonists were landed upon the American soil, especially if late
in the season, they would not be likely, it doubtless was argued, to
remove; while by a liberal policy on the part of the “Council for New
England” toward them–when they discovered that they were upon its
territory–they could probably be retained. That just such a policy was,
at once and eagerly, adopted toward them, as soon as occasion permitted,
is good proof that the scheme was thoroughly matured from the start. The
record of the action of the “Council for New England”–which had become
the successor of the Second Virginia Company before intelligence was
received that the Pilgrims had landed on its domain–is not at hand,
but it appears by the record of the London Company, under date of Monday,
July 16/26, 1621, that the “Council for New England” had promptly made
itself agreeable to the colonists. The record reads: “It was moved,
seeing that Master John Pierce had taken a Patent of Sir Ferdinando
Gorges, and thereupon seated his Company [the Pilgrims] within the limits
of the Northern Plantations, as by some was supposed,”’ etc. From this
it is plain that, on receipt by Pierce of the news that the colony was
landed within the limits of the “Council for New England,” he had, as
instructed, applied for, and been given (June 1, 1621), the (first)
“Council” patent for the colony. For confirmation hereof one should see
also the minutes of the “Council for New England” of March 25/April 4.,
1623, and the fulsome letter of Robert Cushman returning thanks in behalf
of the Planters (through John Pierce), to Gorges, for his prompt response
to their request for a patent and for his general complacency toward them
Hon. James Phinney Baxter, Gorges’s able and faithful biographer, says:
“We can imagine with what alacrity he [Sir Ferdinando] hastened to give
to Pierce a patent in their behalf.” The same biographer, clearly
unconscious of the well-laid plot of Gorges and Warwick (as all other
writers but Neill and Davis have been), bears testimony (all the stronger
because the witness is unwitting of the intrigue), to the ardent interest
Gorges had in its success. He says: “The warm desire of Sir Ferdinando
Gorges to see a permanent colony founded within the domain of the
Plymouth [or Second] Virginia Company was to be realized in a manner of
which he had never dreamed [sic!] and by a people with whom he had but
little sympathized, although we know that he favored their settlement
within the territorial limits of the Plymouth [Second] Company.” He had
indeed “favored their settlement,” by all the craft of which he was
master, and greeted their expected and duly arranged advent with all the
jubilant open-handedness with which the hunter treats the wild horse he
has entrapped, and hopes to domesticate and turn to account. Everything
favored the conspirators. The deflection north-ward from the normal
course of the ship as she approached the coast, bound for the latitude of
the Hudson, required only to be so trifling that the best sailor of the
Pilgrim leaders would not be likely to note or criticise it, and it was
by no means uncommon to make Cape Cod as the first landfall on Virginia
voyages. The lateness of the arrival on the coast, and the difficulties
ever attendant on doubling Cape Cod, properly turned to account, would
increase the anxiety for almost any landing-place, and render it easy to
retain the sea-worn colonists when once on shore. The grand advantage,
however, over and above all else, was the entire ease and certainty with
which the cooperation of the one man essential to the success of the
undertaking could be secured, without need of the privity of any other,
viz. the Master of the MAY-FLOWER, Captain Thomas Jones.

Let us see upon what the assumption of this ready and certain accord on
the part of Captain Jones rests. Rev. Dr. Neill, whose thorough study of
the records of the Virginia Companies, and of the East India Company
Calendars and collateral data, entitles him to speak with authority,
recites that, “In 1617, Capt. Thomas Jones (sometimes spelled Joanes) had
been sent to the East Indies in command of the ship LION by the Earl of
Warwick (then Sir Robt. Rich), under a letter of protection from the Duke
of Savoy, a foreign prince, ostensibly ‘to take pirates,’ which [pretext]
had grown, as Sir Thomas Roe (the English ambassador with the Great
Mogul) states, ‘to be a common pretence for becoming pirate.’” Caught by
the famous Captain Martin Pring, in full pursuit of the junk of the Queen
Mother of the Great Mogul, Jones was attacked, his ship fired in the
fight, and burned,–with some of his crew,–and he was sent a prisoner to
England in the ship BULL, arriving in the Thames, January 1, 1618/19. No
action seems to have been taken against him for his offences, and
presumably his employer, Sir Robert, the coming Earl, obtained his
liberty on one pretext or another. On January 19, however, complaint was
made against Captain Jones, “late of the LION,” by the East India
Company, “for hiring divers men to serve the King of Denmark in the East
Indies.” A few days after his arrest for “hiring away the Company’s men,
Lord Warwick got him off” on the claim that he had employed him
“to go to Virginia with cattle.” From the “Transactions” of the Second
Virginia Company, of which–as we have seen–Sir Ferdinando Gorges was
the leading spirit, it appears that on “February 2, 1619/20, a commission
was allowed Captain Thomas Jones of the FALCON, a ship of 150 tons” [he
having been lately released from arrest by the Earl of Warwick’s
intercession], and that “before the close of the month, he sailed with
cattle for Virginia,” as previously noted. Dr. Neill, than whom there
can be no better authority, was himself satisfied, and unequivocally
states, that “Thomas Jones, Captain of the MAY-FLOWER, was without doubt
the old servant of Lord Warwick in the East Indies.” Having done Sir
Robert Rich’s (the Earl of Warwick’s) “dirty work” for years, and having
on all occasions been saved from harm by his noble patron (even when
piracy and similar practices had involved him in the meshes of the law),
it would be but a trifling matter, at the request of such powerful
friends as the Earl and Sir Ferdinando Gorges, to steal the Pilgrim
Colony from the London Virginia Company, and hand it over bodily to the
“Council for New England,”–the successor of the Second (Plymouth)
Virginia Company,–in which their interests were vested, Warwick having,
significantly, transferred his membership from the London Company to the
new “Council for New England,” as it was commonly called. Neill states,
and there is abundant proof, that “the Earl of Warwick and Gorges were in
sympathy,” and were active coadjutors, while it is self-evident that both
would be anxious to accomplish the permanent settlement of the “Northern
Plantations” held by their Company. That they would hesitate to utilize
so excellent an opportunity to secure so very desirable a colony, by any
means available, our knowledge of the men and their records makes it
impossible to believe,–while nothing could apparently have been easier
of accomplishment. It will readily be understood that if the
conspirators were these men,–upon whose grace the Pilgrims must depend
for permission to remain upon the territory to which they had been
inveigled, or even for permission to depart from it, without spoliation,
–men whose influence with the King (no friend to the Pilgrims) was
sufficient to make both of them, in the very month of the Pilgrims’
landing, “governors” of “The Council for New England,” under whose
authority the Planters must remain,–the latter were not likely to voice
their suspicions of the trick played upon them, if they discovered it,
or openly to resent it, when known. Dr. Dexter, in commenting on the
remark of Bradford, “We made Master Jones our leader, for we thought it
best herein to gratifie his kindness & forwardness,” sensibly says,
“This proves nothing either way, in regard to the charge which Secretary
Morton makes of treachery against Jones, in landing the company so far
north, because, if that were true, it was not known to any of the company
for years afterward, and of course could not now [at that time] impair
their feelings of confidence in, or kindness towards, him. Moreover,
the phraseology, “we thought it best to gratifie,” suggests rather
considerations of policy than cordial desire, and their acquaintance,
too, with the man was still young. There is, however, no evidence that
Jones’s duplicity was suspected till long afterward, though his
character was fully recognized. Gorges himself furnishes, in his
writings, the strongest confirmation we have of the already apparent
fact, that he was himself the prime conspirator. He says, in his own
“Narration,” “It was referred [evidently by himself] to their [the London
Virginia Company’s] consideration, how necessary it was that means might
be used to draw unto those their enterprises, some of those families that
had retired themselves into Holland for scruple of conscience, giving
them such freedom and liberty as might stand with their liking.” When
have we ever found Sir Ferdinando Gorges thus solicitous for the success
of the rival Virginia Company? Why, if he so esteemed the Leyden people
as excellent colonists, did he not endeavor to secure them himself
directly, for his own languishing company? Certainly the “scruple of
conscience” of the Leyden brethren did not hinder him, for he found it no
bar, though of the Established Church himself, to giving them instantly
all and more than was asked in their behalf, as soon as he had them upon
his territory and they had applied for a patent. He well knew that it
would be matter of some expense and difficulty to bring the Leyden
congregation into agreement to go to either of the Virginia grants, and
he doubtless, and with good reason, feared that his repute and the
character and reputation of his own Company, with its past history of
failure, convict settlers, and loose living, would be repellent to these
people of “conscience.” If they could be brought to the “going-point,”
by men more of their ilk, like Sir Edwin Sandys, Weston, and others, it
would then be time to see if he could not pluck the ripe fruit for
himself,–as he seems to have done.

“This advice,” he says, “being hearkened unto, there were [those] that
undertook the putting it in practice [Weston and others] and it was
accordingly brought to effect,” etc. Then, reciting (erroneously) the
difficulties with the SPEEDWELL, etc., he records the MAY-FLOWER’S
arrival at Cape Cod, saying, “The . . . ship with great difficulty
reached the coast of New England.” He then gives a glowing, though
absurd, account of the attractions the planters found–in midwinter
–especially naming the hospitable reception of the Indians, despite the
fact of the savage attack made upon them by the Nausets at Cape Cod, and
adds: “After they had well considered the state of their affairs and
found that the authority they had from the London Company of Virginia,
could not warrant their abode in that place,” which “they found so
prosperous and pleasing [sic] they hastened away their ship, with orders
to their Solicitor to deal with me to be a means they might have a grant
from the Council of New England Affairs, to settle in the place, which
was accordingly performed to their particular satisfaction and good
content of them all.” One can readily imagine the crafty smile with
which Sir Ferdinando thus guilelessly recorded the complete success of
his plot. It is of interest to note how like a needle to the pole the
grand conspirator’s mind flies to the fact which most appeals to him
–that they find “that the authority they had . . . could not warrant
their abode in that place.” It is of like interest to observe that in
that place which he called “pleasant and prosperous” one half their own
and of the ship’s company had died before they hastened the ship away,
and they had endured trial, hardships, and sorrows untellable,–although
from pluck and principle they would not abandon it. He tells us “they
hastened away their ship,” and implies that it was for the chief purpose
of obtaining through him a grant of the land they occupied. While we
know that the ship did not return till the following April,–and then at
her Captain’s rather than the Pilgrims’ pleasure,–it is evident that
Gorges could think of events only as incident to his designs and from his
point of view. His plot had succeeded. He had the “Holland families”
upon his soil, and his willing imagination converted their sober and
deliberate action into the eager haste with which he had planned that
they should fly to him for the patent, which his cunning had–as he
purposed–rendered necessary. Of course their request “was performed,”
and so readily and delightedly that, recognizing John Pierce as their
mouthpiece and the plantation as “Mr. Pierces Plantation,” Sir Ferdinando
and his associates–the “Council for New England,” including his
joint-conspirator, the Earl of Warwick–gave Pierce unhesitatingly
whatever he asked. The Hon. William T. Davis, who alone among Pilgrim
historians (except Dr. Neill, whom he follows) seems to have suspected
the hand of Gorges in the treachery of Captain Jones, here demonstrated,
has suggested that: “Whether Gorges might not have influenced Pierce, in
whose name the patent of the Pilgrims had been issued–and whether both
together might not have seduced Capt. Jones, are further considerations
to be weighed, in solving the problem of a deviation from the intended
voyage of the MAYFLOWER.” Although not aware of these suggestions,
either of Mr. Davis or of Dr. Neill, till his own labors had satisfied
him of Gorges’s guilt, and his conclusions were formed, the author
cheerfully recognizes the priority to his own demonstration, of the
suggestions of both these gentlemen. No thing appears of record,
however, to indicate that John Pierce was in any way a party to Gorges’s
plot. On the contrary, as his interest was wholly allied to his patent,
which Gorges’s scheme would render of little value to his associate
Adventurers and himself he would naturally have been, unless heavily
bribed to duplicity beyond his expectations from their intended venture,
the last man to whom to disclose such a conspiracy. Neither was he
necessary in any way to the success of the scheme. He did not hire
either the ship or her master; he does not appear to have had any
Pilgrim relations to Captain Jones, and certainly could have had no such
influence with him as Gorges could himself command, through Warwick and
his own ability–from his position at the head of the “New England
Council”–to reward the service he required. That Gorges was able
himself to exert all the influence requisite to secure Jones’s
cooperation, without the aid of Pierce, who probably could have given
none, is evident. Mr. Davis’s suggestion, while pertinent and potential
as to Gorges, is clearly wide of the mark as to Pierce. He represented
the Adventurers in the matter of patents only, but Weston was in
authority as to the pivotal matter of shipping. An evidently hasty
footnote of Dr. Neill, appended to the “Memorial” offered by him to the
Congress of the United States, in 1868, seems to have been the only
authority of Mr. William T. Davis for the foregoing suggestion as to the
complicity of Pierce in the treachery of Captain Jones, except the bare
suspicion, already alluded to, in the records of the London Company.
Neill says: “Captain Jones, the navigator of the MAY-FLOWER, and John
Pierce, probably had arranged as to destination without the knowledge of
the passengers.” While of course this is not impossible, there is, as
stated, absolutely nothing to indicate any knowledge, participation, or
need of Pierce in the matter, and of course the fewer there were in the
secret the better.

Unobservant that John Pierce was acting upon the old adage, “second thief
best owner,” when he asked, a little later, even so extraordinary a thing
as that the “Council for New England” would exchange the patent they had
so promptly granted him (as representing his associates, the Adventurers
and Planters) for a “deed-pole,” or title in fee, to himself alone, they
instantly complied, and thus unwittingly enabled him also to steal the
colony, and its demesne beside. It is evident, from the very servile
letter of Robert Cushman to John Pierce (written while the former was at
New Plymouth, in November-December, 1621, on behalf of the MAY-FLOWER
Adventurers), that up to that time at least, the Pilgrims had no
suspicion of the trick which had been played upon them. For, while too
adroit recklessly to open a quarrel with those who could–if they chose
–destroy them, the Pilgrims were far too high-minded to stoop to flattery
and dissimulation (especially with any one known to have been guilty of
treachery toward them), or to permit any one to do so in their stead.
In the letter referred to, Cush man acknowledges in the name of the
colonists the “bounty and grace of the President and Council of the
Affairs of New England [Gorges, Warwick, et als.] for their allowance and
approbation” of the “free possession and enjoyment” of the territory and
rights so promptly granted Pierce by the Council, in the colonists’
interest, upon application. If the degree of promptness with which the
wily Gorges and his associates granted the petition of Pierce, in the
colony’s behalf for authority to occupy the domain to which Gorges’s
henchman Jones had so treacherously conveyed them, was at all
proportionate to the fulsome and lavish acknowledgments of Cushman,
there must have been such eagerness of compliance as to provoke general
suspicion at the Council table. Gorges and Warwick must have “grinned
horribly behind their hands” upon receipt of the honest thanks of these
honest planters and the pious benedictions of their scribe, knowing
themselves guilty of detestable conspiracy and fraud, which had
frustrated an honest purpose, filched the results of others’ labors, and
had “done to death” good men and women not a few. Winslow, in
“Hypocrisie Unmasked,” says: “We met with many dangers and the mariners’
put back into the harbor of the Cape.” The original intent of the
Pilgrims to go to the neighborhood of the Hudson is unmistakable; that
this intention was still clear on the morning of November 10 (not 9th)
–after they had “made the land”–has been plainly shown; that there was
no need of so “standing in with the land” as to become entangled in the
“rips” and “shoals” off what is now known as Monomoy (in an effort to
pass around the Cape to the southward, when there was plenty of open
water to port), is clear and certain; that the dangers and difficulties
were magnified by Jones, and the abandonment of the effort was urged and
practically made by him, is also evident from Winslow’s language above
noted,–“and the mariners put back,” etc. No indication of the old-time
consultations with the chief men appears here as to the matter of the
return. Their advice was not desired. “The mariners put back” on their
own responsibility.

Goodwin forcibly remarks, “These waters had been navigated by Gosnold,
Smith, and various English and French explorers, whose descriptions and
charts must have been familiar to a veteran master like Jones. He
doubtless magnified the danger of the passage [of the shoals], and managed
to have only such efforts made as were sure to fail. Of course he knew
that by standing well out, and then southward in the clear sea, he would
be able to bear up for the Hudson. His professed inability to devise any
way for getting south of the Cape is strong proof of guilt.”

The sequential acts of the Gorges conspiracy were doubtless practically
as follows:–

(a) The Leyden leaders applied to the States General of Holland, through
the New Netherland Company, for their aid and protection in locating at
the mouth of “Hudson’s” River;

(b) Sir Dudley Carleton, the English ambassador at the Hague, doubtless
promptly reported these negotiations to the King, through Sir Robert
Naunton;

(c) The King, naturally enough, probably mentioned the matter to his
intimate and favorite, Sir Ferdinando Gorges, the leading man in American
colonization matters in the kingdom;

(d) Sir Ferdinando Gorges, recognizing the value of such colonists as the
Leyden congregation would make, anxious to secure them, instead of
permitting the Dutch to do so, and knowing that he and his Company would
be obnoxious to the Leyden leaders, suggested, as he admits, to Weston,
perhaps to Sandys, as the Leyden brethren’s friends, that they ought to
secure them as colonists for their (London) Company;

(e) Weston was dispatched to Holland to urge the Leyden leaders to drop
the Dutch negotiations, come under English auspices, which he guaranteed,
and they, placing faith in him, and possibly in Sandys’s assurances of
his (London) Virginia Company’s favor, were led to put themselves
completely into the hands of Weston and the Merchant Adventurers; the
Wincob patent was cancelled and Pierces substituted;

(f) Weston, failing to lead them to Gorges’s company, was next deputed,
perhaps by Gorges’s secret aid, to act with full powers for the
Adventurers, in securing shipping, etc.;

(g) Having made sure of the Leyden party, and being in charge of the
shipping, Weston was practically master of the situation. He and
Cushman, who was clearly entirely innocent of the conspiracy, had the
hiring of the ship and of her officers, and at this point he and his acts
were of vital importance to Gorges’s plans. To bring the plot to a
successful issue it remained only to effect the landing of the colony
upon territory north of the 41st parallel of north latitude, to take it
out of the London Company’s jurisdiction, and to do this it was only
necessary to make Jones Master of the ship and to instruct him
accordingly. This, with so willing a servant of his masters, was a
matter of minutes only, the instructions were evidently given, and the
success of the plot–the theft of the MAY-FLOWER colony–was assured.

To a careful and candid student of all the facts, the proofs are
seemingly unmistakable, and the conclusion is unavoidable, that the
MAY-FLOWER Pilgrims were designedly brought to Cape Cod by Captain
Jones, and their landing in that latitude was effected, in pursuance of
a conspiracy entered into by him, not with the Dutch, but with certain
of the nobility of England; not with the purpose of keeping the planters
out of Dutch territory, but with the deliberate intent of stealing the
colony from the London Virginia Company, under whose auspices it had
organized and set sail, in the interest, and to the advantage, of its
rival Company of the “Northern Plantations.”

It is noteworthy that Jones did not command the MAY-FLOWER for another
voyage, and never sailed afterward in the employ of Thomas Goffe, Esq.,
or (so far as appears) of any reputable shipowner. Weston was not such,
nor were the chiefs of the “Council for New England,” in whose employ he
remained till his death.

The records of the Court of the “Council” show, that “as soon as it would
do,” and when his absence would tend to lull suspicion as to the parts
played, Captain Jones’s noble patrons took steps to secure for him due
recognition and compensation for his services, from the parties who were
to benefit directly, with themselves, by his knavery. The records read:

“July 17, 1622. A motion was made in the behaffe of Captaine Thomas
Jones, Captaine of the DISCOVERY, nowe employed in Virginia for trade and
fishinge [it proved, apparently, rather to be piracy], that he may be
admitted a freeman in this Companie in reward of the good service he hath
there [Virginia in general] performed. The Court liked well of the
motion and condiscended thereunto.” The DISCOVERY left London at the
close of November, 1621. She arrived at Jamestown, Virginia, in April,
1622. She reached Plymouth, New England, in August, 1622. Her outward
voyage was not, so far as can be learned, eventful, or entitled to
especial consideration or recognition, and the good store of English
trading-goods she still had on hand–as Governor Bradford notices–on
her arrival at Plymouth indicates no notable success up to that time, in
the way of a trading-voyage, while “fishing” is not mentioned. For
piracy, in which she was later more successful, she had then had neither
time nor opportunity. The conclusion is irresistible, that “the good
service” recognized by the vote recorded was of the past (he had sailed
only the MAY-FLOWER voyage for the “Council” before), and that this
recognition was a part of the compensation previously agreed upon, if,
in the matter of the MAY-FLOWER voyage, Captain Jones did as he was
bidden. Thus much of the crafty Master of the MAY-FLOWER, Captain Thomas
Jones,–his Christian name and identity both apparently beyond dispute,
–whom we first know in the full tide of his piratical career, in the
corsair LION in Eastern seas; whom we next find as a prisoner in London
for his misconduct in the East, but soon Master of the cattle-ship FALCON
on her Virginia voyage; whom we greet next–and best–as Admiral of the
Pilgrim fleet, commander of the destiny freighted MAY-FLOWER, and though
a conspirator with nobles against the devoted band he steered, under the
overruling hand of their Lord God, their unwitting pilot to “imperial
labors” and mighty honors, to the founding of empire, and to eternal
Peace; whom we next meet–fallen, “like Lucifer, never to hope again”
–as Captain of the little buccaneer,–the DISCOVERY, disguised as a
trading-ship, on the Virginian and New England coasts; and lastly, in
charge of his leaking prize, a Spanish frigate in West Indian waters,
making his way–death-stricken–into the Virginia port of Jamestown,
where (July, 1625), he “cast anchor” for the last time, dying, as we
first found him, a pirate, to whom it had meantime been given to
“minister unto saints.”

Of JOHN CLARKE, the first mate of the MAY-FLOWER, we have already learned
that he had been in the employ of the First (or London) Virginia Company,
and had but just returned (in June, 1620) from a voyage to Virginia with
Captain Jones in the FALCON, when found and employed by Weston and
Cushman for the Pilgrim ship. Dr. Neill quotes from the “Minutes of the
London Virginia Company,” of Wednesday, February 13/23, 1621/2, the
following; which embodies considerable information concerning him:–

“February 13th, 1621. Master Deputy acquainted the Court, that one Master
John Clarke being taken from Virginia long since [Arber interpolates,
“in 1612”] by a Spanish ship that came to discover the Plantation, that
forasmuch as he hath since that time done the Company presumably the
First (or London) Virginia Company good service in many voyages to
Virginia; and, of late [1619] went into Ireland, for the transportation of
cattle to Virginia; he was a humble suitor to this Court that he might be
a Free brother of the Company, and have some shares of land bestowed upon
him.”

From the foregoing he seems to have begun his American experiences as
early as 1612, and to have frequently repeated them. That he was at once
hired by Weston and Cushman as a valuable man, as soon as found, was not
strange.

He seems to have had the ability to impress men favorably and secure
their confidence, and to have been a modest and reliable man. Although
of both experience and capacity, he continued an under-officer for some
years after the Pilgrim voyage, when, it is fair to suppose, he might
have had command of a ship. He seems to have lacked confidence in
himself, or else the breadth of education necessary to make him trust his
ability as a navigator.

He is not mentioned, in connection with the affairs of the Pilgrims,
after he was hired as “pilot,”–on Saturday afternoon the 10th of June,
1620, at London,–until after the arrival at Cape Cod, and evidently was
steadily occupied during all the experience of “getting away” and of the
voyage, in the faithful performance of his duty as first mate (or
“pilot”) of the MAY-FLOWER. It was not until the “third party” of
exploration from Cape Cod harbor was organized and set out, on Wednesday,
December 6, that he appeared as one of the company who put out in the
shallop, to seek the harbor which had been commended by Coppin, “the
second mate.” On this eventful voyage–when the party narrowly escaped
shipwreck at the mouth of Plymouth harbor–they found shelter under the
lee of an island, which (it being claimed traditionally that he was first
to land there on) was called, in his honor, “Clarke’s Island,” which name
it retains to this day. No other mention of him is made by name, in the
affairs of ship or shore, though it is known inferentially that he
survived the general illness which attacked and carried off half of the
ship’s company. In November, 1621,–the autumn following his return from
the Pilgrim voyage,–he seems to have gone to Virginia as “pilot” (or
“mate”) of the FLYING HART, with cattle of Daniel Gookin, and in 1623 to
have attained command of a ship, the PROVIDENCE, belonging to Mr. Gookin,
on a voyage to Virginia where he arrived April 10, 1623, but died in that
colony soon after his arrival. He seems to have been a competent and
faithful man, who filled well his part in life. He will always have
honorable mention as the first officer of the historic MAY-FLOWER, and as
sponsor at the English christening of the smiling islet in Plymouth
harbor which bears his name.

Of ROBERT COPPIN, the “second mate” (or “pilot”) of the MAY-FLOWER,
nothing is known before his voyage in the Pilgrim ship, except that he
seems to have made a former to the coast of New England and the vicinity
of Cape Cod, though under what auspices, or in what ship, does not
transpire. Bradford says: “Their Pilotte, one Mr. Coppin, who had been
in the countrie before.” Dr. Young a suggests that Coppin was perhaps on
the coast with Smith or Hunt. Mrs. Austin imaginatively makes him, of
“the whaling bark SCOTSMAN of Glasgow,” but no warrant whatever for such
a conception appears.

Dr. Dexter, as elsewhere noted, has said: “My impression is that Coppin
was originally hired to go in the SPEEDWELL, . . . that he sailed with
them [the Pilgrims] in the SPEED WELL, but on her final putting back was
transferred to the MAY-FLOWER.” As we have seen in another relation,
Dr. Dexter also believed Coppin to have been the “pilot” sent over by
Cushman to Leyden, in May, 1620, and we have found both views to be
untenable. It was doubtless because of this mistaken view that Dr.
Dexter believed that Coppin was “hired to go in the SPEEDWELL,” and, the
premise being wrong, the conclusion is sequentially incorrect. But there
are abundant reasons for thinking that Dexter’s “impression” is wholly
mistaken. It would be unreasonable to suppose (as both vessels were
expected to cross the ocean), that each had not–certainly on leaving
Southampton her full complement of officers. If so, each undoubtedly had
her second mate. The MAY-FLOWER’S officers and crew were, as we know,
hired for the voyage, and there is no good reason to suppose that the
second mate of the MAY-FLOWER was dismissed at Plymouth and Coppin put in
his place which would not be equally potent for such an exchange between
the first mate of the SPEEDWELL and Clarke of the MAY-FLOWER. The
assumption presumes too much. In fact, there can be no doubt that
Dexter’s misconception was enbased upon, and arose from, the unwarranted
impression that Coppin was the “pilot” sent over to Leyden. It is not
likely that, when the SPEEDWELL’S officers were so evidently anxious to
escape the voyage, they would seek transfer to the MAY-FLOWER.

Charles Deane, the editor of Bradford’s “Historie” (ed.1865), makes,
in indexing, the clerical error of referring to Coppin as the
“master-gunner,” an error doubtless occasioned by the fact that in the
text referred to, the words, “two of the masters-mates, Master Clarke
and Master Coppin, the master-gunner,” etc., were run so near together
that the mistake was readily made.

In “Mourt’s Relation” it appears that in the conferences that were held
aboard the ship in Cape Cod harbor, as to the most desirable place for
the colonists to locate, “Robert Coppin our pilot, made relation of a
great navigable river and great harbor in the headland of the Bay, almost
right over against Cape Cod, being a right line not much above eight
leagues distant,” etc. Mrs. Jane G. Austin asserts, though absolutely
without warrant of any reliable authority, known tradition, or
probability, that “Coppin’s harbor . . . afterward proved to be Cut
River and the site of Marshfield,” but in another place she contradicts
this by stating that it was “Jones River, Duxbury.” As Coppin described
his putative harbor, called “Thievish Harbor,” a “great navigable river
and good harbor” were in close relation, which was never true of either
the Jones River or “Cut River” localities, while any one familiar with
the region knows that what Mrs. Austin knew as “Cut River” had no
existence in the Pilgrims’ early days, but was the work of man,
superseding a small river-mouth (Green Harbor River), which was so
shallow as to have its exit closed by the sand-shift of a single storm.

Young, with almost equal recklessness, says: “The other headland of the
bay,” alluded to by Coppin, was Manomet Point, and the river was probably
the North River in Scituate; but there are no “great navigable river and
good harbor” in conjunction in the neighborhood of Manomet, or of the
North River,–the former having no river and the latter no harbor. If
Coppin had not declared that he had never seen the mouth of Plymouth
harbor before (“mine eyes never saw this place before”), it might readily
have been believed that Plymouth harbor was the “Thievish Harbor” of his
description, so well do they correspond.

Goodwin, the brother of Mrs. Austin, quite at variance with his sister’s
conclusions, states, with every probability confirming him, that the
harbor Coppin sought “may have been Boston, Ipswich, Newburyport, or
Portsmouth.”

As a result of his “relation” as to a desirable harbor, Coppin was made
the “pilot” of the “third expedition,” which left the ship in the
shallop, Wednesday, December 6, and, after varying disasters and a narrow
escape from shipwreck–through Coppin’s mistake–landed Friday night
after dark, in the storm, on the island previously mentioned, ever since
called “Clarke’s Island,” at the mouth of Plymouth harbor.

Nothing further is known of Coppin except that he returned to England
with the ship. He has passed into history only as Robert Coppin, “the
second mate” (or “pilot”) of the MAY-FLOWER.

But one other officer in merchant ships of the MAY-FLOWER class in her
day was dignified by the address of “Master” (or Mister), or had rank
with the Captain and Mates as a quarter-deck officer,–except in those
instances where a surgeon or a chaplain was carried. That the MAY-FLOWER
carried no special ship’s-surgeon has been supposed from the fact of Dr.
Fuller’s attendance alike on her passengers and crew, and the increased
mortality of the seamen–after his removal on shore.

[The author is greatly indebted to his esteemed friend, Mr. George
Ernest Bowman, Secretary-General of the Society of MAY-FLOWER
Descendants, for information of much value upon this point. He
believes that he has discovered trustworthy evidence of the
existence of a small volume bearing upon its title-page an
inscription that would certainly indicate that the MAY-FLOWER had
her own surgeon. A copy of the inscription, which Mr. Bowman
declares well attested (the book not being within reach), reads as
follows:–
“To Giles Heale Chirurgeon,
from Isaac Allerton
in Virginia.
Feb. 10, 1620.”

Giles Heale’s name will be recognized as that of one of the
witnesses to John Carver’s copy of William Mullens’s nuncupative
will, and, if he was the ship’s-surgeon, might very naturally appear
in that relation. If book and inscription exist and the latter is
genuine, it would be indubitable proof that Heale (who was surely
not a MAY-FLOWER passenger) was one of the ship’s company, and if a
“chirurgeon,” the surgeon of the ship, for no other Englishmen,
except those of the colonists and the ship’s company, could have
been at New Plymouth, at the date given, and New England was then
included in the term “Virginia.” It is much to be hoped that Mr.
Bowman’s belief may be established, and that in Giles Heale we shall
have another known officer, the surgeon, of the MAY-FLOWER.]

That she had no chaplain goes without saying. The Pilgrims had their
spiritual adviser with them in the person of Elder Brewster, and were not
likely to tolerate a priest of either the English or the Romish church on
a vessel carrying them. The officer referred to was the representative
of the business interests of the owner or chartering-party, on whose
account the ship made the voyage; and in that day was known as the
“ship’s-merchant,” later as the “purser,” and in some relations as the
“supercargo.” No mention of an officer thus designated, belonging to the
MAY-FLOWER, has ever been made by any writer, so far as known, and it
devolves upon the author to indicate his existence and to establish, so
far as possible, both this and his identity.

A certain “Master Williamson,” whose name and presence, though but once
mentioned by Governor Bradford, have greatly puzzled Pilgrim historians,
seems to have filled this berth on board the MAY-FLOWER. Bradford tells
us that on Thursday, March 22, 1620/21, “Master Williamson” was
designated to accompany Captain Standish–practically as an officer
of the guard–to receive and escort the Pokanoket chief, Massasoit,
to Governor Carver, on the occasion of the former’s first visit of state.
Prior to the recent discovery in London, by an American genealogist, of a
copy of the nuncupative will of Master William Mullens, one of the
MAY-FLOWER Pilgrims, clearly dictated to Governor John Carver on board
the ship, in the harbor of New Plymouth (probably) Wednesday, February
21, 1620 (though not written out by Carver till April 2, 1620), on which
day (as we learn from Bradford), Master Mullens died, no other mention
of “Master Williamson” than that above quoted was known, and his very
existence was seriously questioned. In this will, as elsewhere noted,
“Master Williamson” is named as one of the “Overseers.” By most early
writers it was held that Bradford had unwittingly substituted the name
“Williamson” for that of Allerton, and this view–apparently for no
better reasons than that both names had two terminal letters in common,
and that Allerton was associated next day with Standish on some military
duty–came to be generally accepted, and Allerton’s name to be even
frequently substituted without question.—Miss Marcia A. Thomas, in her
“Memorials of Marshfield” (p. 75), says: “In 1621, Master Williamson,
Captain Standish, and Edward Winslow made a journey to make a treaty
with Massasoit. He is called ‘Master George,’ meaning probably Master
George Williamson,” etc.

This is certainly most absurd, and by one not familiar with the
exceptional fidelity and the conscientious work of Miss Thomas would
rightly be denounced as reckless and reprehensible fabrication. Of
course Williamson, Standish, and Winslow made no such journey, and made
no treaty with Massasoit, but aided simply in conducting, with due
ceremonial, the first meeting between Governor John Carver and the Indian
sachem at Plymouth, at which a treaty was concluded. There is no
historical warrant whatever for the name of “George,” as appertaining to
“Master William son.” The fact, however,–made known by the fortunate
discovery mentioned,–that “Master Williamson” was named in his will by
Master Mullens as one of its “Overseers,” and undoubtedly probated the
will in England, puts the existence of such a person beyond reasonable
doubt. That he was a person of some dignity, and of very respectable
position, is shown by the facts that he was chosen as Standish’s
associate, as lieutenant of the guard, on an occasion of so much
importance, and was thought fit by Master Mullens, a careful and
clear-headed man as his will proves,–to be named an “Overseer” of that
will, charged with responsible duties to Mullens’s children and
property. It is practically certain that on either of the
above-mentioned dates (February 21, or March 22) there were no human
beings in the Colony of New Plymouth beside the passengers of the
MAY-FLOWER, her officers and crew, and the native savages. Visitors, by
way of the fishing vessels on the Maine coast, had not yet begun to
come, as they did a little later. It is certain that no one of the name
of “Williamson” was among the colonist passengers, or indeed for several
years in the colony, and we may at once dismiss both the passengers and
the savages from our consideration. This elimination renders it
inevitable that “Master Williamson” must have been of the ship’s
company. It remains to determine, if possible, what position upon the
MAY-FLOWER’S roster he presumably held. His selection by “Master”
Mullens as one of the “Over seers” of his will suggests the probability
that, having named Governor Carver as the one upon whom he would rely
for the care of his family and affairs in New England, Mr. Mullens
sought as the other a proper person, soon to return to England, and
hence able to exercise like personal interest in his two children and
his considerable property left there? Such a suggestion points to a
returning and competent officer of the ship. That “Master Williamson”
was above the grade of “petty officer,” and ranked at least with the
mates or “pilots,” is clear from the fact that he is invariably styled
“Master” (equivalent to Mister), and we know with certainty that he was
neither captain nor mate. That he was a man of address and courage
follows the fact that he was chosen by Standish as his lieutenant, while
the choice in and of itself is a strong bit of presumptive proof that he
held the position on the MAY-FLOWER to which he is here assigned.

The only officer commonly carried by a ship of the MAY-FLOWER class,
whose rank, capacities, and functions would comport with every fact and
feature of the case, was “the ship’s-merchant,” her accountant, factor,
and usually–when such was requisite–her “interpreter,” on every
considerable (trading) voyage.

It is altogether probable that it was in his capacity of “interpreter”
(as Samoset and Tisquantum knew but little English), and on account of
what knowledge of the Indian tongue he very probably possessed, that
Standish chose Williamson as his associate for the formal reception of
Massasoit. It is indeed altogether probable that it was this familiarity
with the “trade lingo” of the American coast tribes which influenced
–perhaps determined–his employment as “ship’s-merchant” of the
MAY-FLOWER for her Pilgrim voyage, especially as she was expected to
“load back” for England with the products of the country, only to be had
by barter with the Indians. It is evident that there must naturally
have been some provision made for communication with the natives, for
the purposes of that trade, etc., which the Planters hoped to establish.
Trading along the northern coast of Virginia (as the whole coast strip
was then called), principally for furs, had been carried on pretty
actively, since 1584, by such navigators as Raleigh’s captains, Gosnold,
Pring, Champlain, Smith, Dermer, Hunt, and the French and Dutch, and
much of the “trade lingo” of the native tribes had doubtless been
“picked up” by their different “ship’s-merchants.” It appears by
Bradford’ that Dermer, when coasting the shores of New England, in Sir
Ferdinando Gorges’s employ, brought the Indian Tisquantum with him, from
England, as his interpreter, and doubtless from him Dermer and other
ship’s officers “picked up” more or less Indian phrases, as Tisquantum
(Squanto) evidently did of English. Winslow, in his “Good Newes from
New England,” written in 1622, says of the Indian tongue, as spoken by
the tribes about them at Plymouth, “it is very copious, large, and
difficult. As yet we cannot attain to any great measure thereof, but
can understand them, and explain ourselves to their understanding, by
the help of those that daily converse with us.” This being the case,
after two years of constant communication, and noting how trivial
knowledge of English speech Samoset and Tisquantum had, it is easy to
understand that, if Williamson had any knowledge of the native tongue,
Standish would be most anxious to have the benefit of it, in this prime
and all-important effort at securing a permanent alliance with the
ruling sachem of the region. Bradford, in “Mourt’s Relation,” speaking
of the speech of Governor Carver to Massasoit, says: “He [Massasoit]
liked well of the speech and heard it attentively, though the
interpreters did not well express it.” Probably all three, Tisquantum,
Samoset, and Williamson, had a voice in it.

That “Master Williamson” was a veritable person at New Plymouth, in
February and March, 1620/21, is now beyond dispute; that he must have
been of the ship’s company of the MAY-FLOWER is logically certain; that
he was one of her officers, and a man of character, is proven by his
title of “Master” and his choice by Standish and Mullens for exceptional
and honorable service; that the position of “ship’s-merchant” alone
answers to the conditions precedent, is evident; and that such an officer
was commonly carried by ships of the MAY-FLOWER class on such voyages as
hers is indicated by the necessity, and proven by the facts known as to
other ships on similar New England voyages, both earlier and later. The
fact that he was called simply “Master Williamson,” in both cases where
he is mentioned, with out other designation or identification, is highly
significant, and clearly indicates that he was some one so familiarly
known to all concerned that no occasion for any further designation
apparently occurred to the minds of Mullens, Carver, or Bradford, when
referring to him. In the case of Master John Hampden, the only other
notable incognito of early Pilgrim literature, the description is full,
and the only question concerning him has been of his identity with John
Hampden, the English patriot of the Cromwellian era. It is, therefore,
not too much to assert that the MAY-FLOWER carried a “ship’s-merchant”
(or purser), and that “Master Williamson” was that officer. If
close-linked circumstantial evidence is ever to be relied upon, it
clearly establishes in this case the identity of the “Master Williamson”
who was Governor Bradford’s incognito, and the person of the same name
mentioned a month earlier in “Master” Mullens’s will; as also the fact
that in him we have a new officer of the MAY FLOWER, hitherto unknown as
such to Pilgrim literature. If Mr. Bowman’s belief as to Giles Heale
(see note) proves correct, we have yet another, the Surgeon.

The Carpenter, Gunner, Boatswain, Quartermaster, and “Masters-mates” are
the only “petty officers” of the Pilgrim ship of whom any record makes
mention. The carpenter is named several times, and was evidently, as
might be expected, one of the most useful men of the ship’s crew. Called
into requisition, doubtless, in the conferences as to the condition of
the SPEEDWELL, on both of her returns to port, at the inception of the
voyage, he was especially in evidence when, in mid-ocean, “the cracking
and bending of a great deck-beam,” and the “shaken” condition of “the
upper works” of the MAY-FLOWER, gave rise to much alarm, and it was by
his labors and devices, and the use of the now famous “jack-screw,” that
the bending beam and leaking deck were made secure. The repairs upon the
shallop in Cape Cod harbor also devolved upon him, and mention is made of
his illness and the dependence placed upon him. No doubt, in the
construction of the first dwellings and of the ordnance platform on the
hill, etc., he was the devising and principal workman. He undoubtedly
returned to England with the ship, and is known in history only by his
“billet,” as “the carpenter” of the MAY-FLOWER.

The Master Gunner seems to have been a man with a proclivity for Indian
barter, that led him to seek a place with the “third expedition” at Cape
Cod, thereby nearly accomplishing his death, which indeed occurred later,
in Plymouth harbor, not long before the return of the ship.

The Boatswain is known, by Bradford’s records, to have died in the
general sickness which attacked the crew while lying in Plymouth harbor.
The brief narrative of his sickness and death is all that we know of his
personality. The writer says: “He was a proud young man, and would often
curse and scoff at the passengers,” but being nursed when dying, by those
of them who remained aboard, after his shipmates had deserted him in
their craven fear of infection, “he bewailed his former conduct,” saying,
“Oh! you, I now see, show your love like Christians indeed, one to
another, but we let one another lie and die like dogs.”

Four Quartermasters are mentioned (probably helmsmen simply), of whom
three are known to have died in Plymouth harbor.

“Masters-mates” are several times mentioned, but it is pretty certain
that the “pilots” (or mates) are intended. Bradford and Winslow, in
“Mourt’s Relation,” say of the reappearance of the Indians: “So Captain
Standish, with another [Hopkins], with their muskets, went over to them,
with two of the masters-mates that follow them without [side?] arms,
having two muskets with them: Who these “masters-mates” were does not
appear.” The language, “two of the masters-mates,” would possibly suggest
that there were more of them. It hardly seems probable that both the
mates of the MAY-FLOWER would thus volunteer, or thrust themselves
forward in such a matter, and it seems doubtful if they would have been
permitted (even if both ashore at one time, which, though unusual, did
occur), to assume such duty. Whoever they were, they did not lack
courage.

The names of the petty officers and seamen of the MAY-FLOWER do not
appear as such, but the discovery of the (evidently) nuncupative will of
William Mullens–herein referred to–has perhaps given us two of them.
Attached to John Carver’s certificate of the particulars of this will,
filed at Somerset House, London, are the names, “Giles Heale” and
“Christopher Joanes.” As Mr Mullens died Wednesday, February 21, 1620,
on board the MAY-FLOWER in Plymouth harbor, on which day we know from
Bradford’ that “the Master [Jones, whose name was Thomas] came on shore
with many of his sailors,” to land and mount the cannon on the fort, and
as they had a full day’s work to draw up the hill and mount five guns,
and moreover brought the materials for, and stayed to eat, a considerable
dinner with the Pilgrims, they were doubtless ashore all day. It is
rational to interpret the known facts to indicate that in this absence of
the Captain and most of his crew ashore, Mr. Mullens, finding himself
failing fast, sent for Governor Carver and–unable to do more than speak
–dictated to him the disposition of his property which he desired to
make. Carver, noting this down from his dictation, undoubtedly called in
two of the ship’s company (Heale very likely being the ship’s-surgeon),
who were left aboard to “keep ship,” to hear his notes read to Mullens
and assented to by him, they thus becoming the witnesses to his will, to
the full copy of which, as made by Carver (April 2), they affixed their
names as such. As there were then at Plymouth (besides savages) only the
passengers and crew of the MAY-FLOWER, and these men were certainly not
among the passengers, it seems inevitable that they were of the crew.
That “Christopher Joanes” was not the Master of the ship is clear,
because Heale’s is the first signature, and no man of the crew would have
dared to sign before the Captain; because the Captain’s name was (as
demonstrated) Thomas; and because we know that he was ashore all that
day, with most of his men. It is by no means improbable that Captain
Jones had shipped one of his kinsmen in his crew, possibly as one of the
“masters mates” or quartermasters referred to (and it is by no means
certain that there were not more than two), though these witnesses may
have been quartermasters or other petty officers left on board as
“ship-keepers.” Certain it is that these two witnesses must have been
of the crew, and that “Christopher Joanes” was not the Captain, while it
is equally sure, from the collateral evidence, that Master Mullens died
on shipboard. Had he died on shore it is very certain that some of the
leaders, Brewster, Bradford, or others, would have been witnesses, with
such of the ship’s officers as could aid in proving the will in England.
It is equally evident that the officers of the ship were absent when
Master Mullens dictated his will, except perhaps the surgeon.

The number of seamen belonging to the ship is nowhere definitely stated.
At least four in the employ of the Pilgrims were among the passengers
and not enrolled upon the ships’ lists. From the size of the ship,
the amount of sail she probably carried, the weight of her anchors,
and certain other data which appear,–such as the number allowed to
leave the ship at a time, etc.,–it is probably not a wild estimate to
place their number at from twenty to twenty-five. This is perhaps a
somewhat larger number than would be essential to work the ship, and than
would have been shipped if the voyage had been to any port of a civilized
country; but on a voyage to a wild coast, the possibilities of long
absence and of the weakening of the crew by death, illness, etc.,
demanded consideration and a larger number. The wisdom and necessity
of carrying, on a voyage to an uninhabited country, some spare men,
is proven by the record of Bradford, who says: “The disease begane to
fall amongst them the seamen also, so as allmost halfe of their company
dyed before they went away and many of their officers and lustyest men;
as ye boatson, gunner, 3 quarter maisters, the cooke, and others.”

The LADY ARBELLA, the “Admiral” of Governor Winthrop’s fleet, a ship of
350 tons, carried 52 men, and it is a fair inference that the MAY-FLOWER,
of a little more than half her tonnage, would require at least half as
many. It is, therefore, not unlikely that the officers and crew of the
MAY-FLOWER, all told, mustered thirty men, irrespective of the sailors,
four in number (Alderton, English, Trevore, and Ely), in the Pilgrims’
employ.

CHAPTER VI

THE MAY-FLOWER’S PASSENGERS

The passenger list of the SPEEDWELL has given us the names of the Leyden
members of the company which, with the cooperation of the associated
Merchant Adventurers, was, in the summer of 1620, about to emigrate to
America.

Though it is not possible, with present knowledge, positively to
determine every one of those who were passengers in the MAY-FLOWER from
London to Southampton, most of them can be named with certainty.

Arranged for convenience, so far as possible, by families, they were:–

Master Robert Cushman, the London agent of the Leyden company,
Mrs. Mary (Clarke)-Singleton Cushman, 2d wife,
Thomas Cushman, son (by 1st wife).

Master Christopher Martin, treasurer-agent of the colonists,
Mrs. Martin, wife,
Solomon Prower, “servant,”
John Langemore, “servant.”

Master Richard Warren.

Master William Mullens,
Mrs. Alice Mullens, wife,
Joseph Mullens, 2d son,
Priscilla Mullens, 2d daughter,
Robert Carter, “servant.”

Master Stephen Hopkins,
Mrs. Elizabeth (Fisher?) Hopkins, 2d wife,
Giles Hopkins, son (by former wife),
Constance Hopkins, daughter (by former wife),
Damaris Hopkins, daughter,
Edward Dotey, “servant,”
Edward Leister, “servant.”

Gilbert Winslow.

James Chilton,
Mrs. Susanna (2) Chilton, wife,
Mary Chilton, daughter.

Richard Gardiner.

John Billington,
Mrs. Eleanor (or Helen) Billington, wife,
John Billington (Jr.), son,
Francis Billington, son.

William Latham, “servant-boy” to Deacon Carver.

Jasper More, “bound-boy” to Deacon Carver.

Ellen More, “little bound girl” to Master Edward Winslow.

Richard More, “bound-boy” to Elder Brewster.
——- More, “bound-boy” to Elder Brewster.

There is a possibility that Thomas Rogers and his son, Joseph, who are
usually accredited to the Leyden company, were of the London contingent,
and sailed from there, though this is contra-indicated by certain
collateral data.

It is possible, also, of course, that any one or more of the English
colonists (with a few exceptions–such as Cushman and family, Mullens and
family, the More children and others–known to have left London on the
MAY-FLOWER) might have joined her (as did Carver and Alden, perhaps
Martin and family) at Southampton, but the strong presumption is that
most of the English passengers joined the ship at London.

It is just possible, too, that the seamen, Alderton (or Allerton),
English, Trevore, and Ely, were hired in London and were on board the
MAY-FLOWER when she left that port, though they might have been employed
and joined the ship at either Southampton, Dartmouth, or Plymouth.
It is strongly probable, however, that they were part, if not all, hired
in Holland, and came over to Southampton in the pinnace.

Robert Cushman–the London agent (for more than three years) of the
Leyden congregation, and, in spite of the wickedly unjust criticism
of Robinson and others, incompetent to judge his acts, their brave,
sagacious, and faithful servant–properly heads the list.

Bradford says: “Where they find the bigger ship come from London,
Mr. Jones, Master, with the rest of the company who had been waiting
there with Mr. Cushman seven days.” Deacon Carver, probably from
being on shore, was not here named. In a note appended to the
memoir of Robert Cushman (prefatory to his Discourse delivered at
Plymouth, New England, on “The Sin and Danger of Self-Love”) it is
stated in terms as follows: “The fact is, that Mr. Cushman procured
the larger vessel, the MAY-FLOWER, and its pilot, at London, and
left in that vessel.” The statement–though published long after the
events of which it treats and by other than Mr. Cushman–we know to
be substantially correct, and the presumption is that the writer,
whoever he may have been, knew also.

Sailing with his wife and son (it is not probable that he had any
other living child at the time), in full expectation that it was for
Virginia, he encountered so much of ungrateful and abusive
treatment, after the brethren met at Southampton,–especially at the
hands of the insufferable Martin, who, without merit and with a most
reprehensible record (as it proved), was chosen over him as
“governor” of the ship,–that he was doubtless glad to return from
Plymouth when the SPEEDWELL broke down. He and his family appear,
therefore, as “MAY-FLOWER passengers,” only between London and
Plymouth during the vexatious attendance upon the scoundrelly Master
of the SPEEDWELL, in his “doublings” in the English Channel. His
Dartmouth letter to Edward Southworth, one of the most valuable
contributions to the early literature of the Pilgrims extant,
clearly demonstrates that he was suffering severely from dyspepsia
and deeply wounded feelings. The course of events was his complete
vindication, and impartial history to-day pronounces him second to
none in his service to the Pilgrims and their undertaking. His
first wife is shown by Leyden records to have been Sarah Reder, and
his second marriage to have occurred May 19/June 3, 1617, [sic]
about the time he first went to England in behalf of the Leyden
congregation.

Mrs. Mary (Clarke)-Singleton Cushman appears only as a passenger of the
MAY-FLOWER on her channel voyage, as she returned with her husband
and son from Plymouth, England, in the SPEEDWELL.

Thomas Cushman, it is quite clear, must have been a son by a former wife,
as he would have been but a babe, if the son of the latest wife,
when he went to New England with his father, in the FORTUNE, to
remain. Goodwin and others give his age as fourteen at this time,
and his age at death is their warrant. Robert Cushman died in 1625,
but a “Mary, wife [widow?] of Robert Cushman, and their son,
Thomas,” seem to have been remembered in the will of Ellen Bigge,
widow, of Cranbrooke, England, proved February 12, 1638
(Archdeaconry, Canterbury, vol. lxx. leaf 482). The will intimates
that the “Thomas” named was “under age” when the bequest was made.
If this is unmistakably so (though there is room for doubt), then
this was not the Thomas of the Pilgrims. Otherwise the evidence is
convincing.

Master Christopher Martin, who was made, Bradford informs us, the
treasurer-agent of the Planter Company, Presumably about the time of
the original conclusions between the Adventurers and the Planters,
seems to have been appointed such, as Bradford states, not because
he was needed, but to give the English contingent of the Planter
body representation in the management, and to allay thereby any
suspicion or jealousy. He was, if we are to judge by the evidence
in hand concerning his contention and that of his family with the
Archdeacon, the strong testimony that Cushman bears against him in
his Dartmouth letter of August 17, and the fact that there seems to
have been early dissatisfaction with him as “governor” on the ship,
a very self-sufficient, somewhat arrogant, and decidedly contentious
individual. His selection as treasurer seems to have been very
unfortunate, as Bradford indicates that his accounts were in
unsatisfactory shape, and that he had no means of his own, while his
rather surprising selection for the office of “governor” of the
larger ship, after the unpleasant experience with him as
treasurer-agent, is difficult to account for, except that he was
evidently an active opponent of Cushman, and the latter was just
then in disfavor with the colonists. He was evidently a man in the
prime of life, an “Independent” who had the courage of his
convictions if little discretion, and much of that energy and
self-reliance which, properly restrained, are excellent elements
for a colonist. Very little beside the fact that he came from
Essex is known of him, and nothing of his wife. He has further
mention hereafter.

Solomon Prower is clearly shown by the complaint made against him by the
Archdeacon of Chelmsford, the March before he sailed on the
MAY-FLOWER, to have been quite a youth, a firm “Separatist,” and
something more than an ordinary “servant.” He seems to have been
summoned before the Archdeacon at the same time with young Martin
(a son of Christopher), and this fact suggests some nearer relation
than that of “servant.” He is sometimes spoken of as Martin’s
“son,” by what warrant does not appear, but the fact suggests that
he may have been a step-son. Bradford, in recording his death,
says: “Dec. 24, this day dies Solomon Martin.” This could, of
course, have been none other than Solomon Prower. Dr. Young, in his
“Chronicles,” speaking of Martin, says, “he brought his wife and two
children.” If this means Martin’s children, it is evidently an
error. It may refer to age only. His case is puzzling, for
Bradford makes him both “servant” and “son.” If of sufficient age
and account to be cited before the Archdeacon for discipline, it
seems strange that he should not have signed the “Compact.” Even if
a “servant” this would seem to have been no bar, as Dotey and
Leister were certainly such, yet signers. The indications are that
he was but a well-grown lad, and that his youth, or severe illness,
and not his station, accounts for the absence of his signature. If
a young foster-son or kinsman of Martin, as seems most likely, then
Martin’s signature was sufficient, as in the cases of fathers for
their sons; if really a “ser vant” then too young (like Latham and
Hooke) to be called upon, as were Dotey and Leister.

John Langemore; there is nothing (save the errors of Dr. Young) to
indicate that he was other than a “servant.”

Richard Warren was probably from Kent or Essex. Surprisingly little is
known of his antecedents, former occupation, etc.

William Mullens and his family were, as shown, from Dorking in Surrey,
and their home was therefore close to London, whence they sailed,
beyond doubt, in the MAY-FLOWER. The discovery at Somerset House,
London, by Mr. Henry F. Waters, of Salem, Massachusetts; of what is
evidently the nuncupative will of William Mullens, proves an
important one in many particulars, only one of which need be
referred to in this connection, but all of which will receive due
consideration. It conclusively shows Mr. Mullens not to have been
of the Leyden congregation, as has sometimes been claimed, but that
he was a well-to-do tradesman of Dorking in Surrey, adjacent to
London. It renders it certain, too, that he had been some time
resident there, and had both a married daughter and a son (William),
doubtless living there, which effectually overthrows the “imaginary
history” of Baird, and of that pretty story, “Standish of Standish,”
whereby the Mullens (or Molines) family are given French (Huguenot)
antecedents and the daughter is endowed with numerous airs, graces,
and accomplishments, professedly French.

Dr. Griffis, in his delightful little narrative, “The Pilgrims in
their Three Homes, England, Holland, America,” cites the name
“Mullins” as a Dutch distortion of Molines or Molineaux. Without
questioning that such it might be,–for the Dutch scribes were
gifted in remarkable distortions of simple names, even of their own
people,–they evidently had no hand in thus maltreating the patronym
of William Mullens (or Mullins) of the Pilgrims, for not only is
evidence entirely wanting to show that he was ever a Leyden citizen,
though made such by the fertile fiction of Mrs. Austin, but Governor
Carver, who knew him well, wrote it in his will “Mullens,” while two
English probate functionaries of his own home-counties wrote it
respectively “Mullens” and “Mullins.”

Dr. Grifs speaks of “the Mullens family” as evidently [sic] of
Huguenot or Walloon birth or descent, but in doing so probably knew
no other authority than Mrs. Austin’s little novel, or (possibly)
Dr. Baird’s misstatements.

A writer in the “New England Historic-Genealogical Register,” vol.
xlvii, p. 90, states, that “Mrs. Jane G. Austin found her authority
for saying that Priscilla Mullens was of a Huguenot family, in Dr.
Baird’s ‘History of Huguenot Emigration to America,’ vol. i.
p. 158,” etc., referring to Rev. Charles W. Baird, D. D., New York.
The reference given is a notable specimen of very bad historical
work. Of Dr. Baird, one has a right to expect better things, and
the positiveness of his reckless assertion might well mislead those
not wholly familiar with the facts involved, as it evidently has
more than one. He states, without qualification or reservation,
that “among the passengers in the SPEEDWELL were several of the
French who had decided to cast in their lot with these English
brethren. William Molines and his daughter Priscilla, afterwards
the wife of John Alden and Philip Delanoy, born in Leyden of French
parents, were of the number.” One stands confounded by such a
combination of unwarranted errors. Not only is it not true that
there “were several of the French among the passengers in the
SPEEDWELL,” but there is no evidence whatever that there was even
one. Those specifically named as there, certainly were not, and
there is not the remotest proof or reason to believe, that William
Mullens (or Molines) and his daughter Priscilla (to say nothing of
the wife and son who accompanied him to America, whom Baird forgets)
ever even saw Leyden or Delfshaven. Their home had been at Dorking
in Surrey, just across the river from London, whence the MAY-FLOWER
sailed for New England, and nothing could be more absurd than to
assume that they were passengers on the SPEEDWELL from Delfshaven to
Southampton.

So far from Philip Delanoy (De La Noye or Delano) being a passenger
on the SPEEDWELL, he was not even one of the Pilgrim company, did
not go to New England till the following year (in the FORTUNE), and
of course had no relation to the SPEEDWELL. Neither does Edward
Winslow–the only authority for the parentage of “Delanoy”–state
that “he was born in Leyden,” as Baird alleges, but only that “he
was born of French parents . . . and came to us from Leyden to
New Plymouth,”–an essential variance in several important
particulars. Scores and perhaps hundreds of people have been led to
believe Priscilla Mullens a French Protestant of the Leyden
congregation, and themselves–as her descendants–“of Huguenot
stock,” because of these absolutely groundless assertions of Dr.
Baird. They lent themselves readily to Mrs. Austin’s fertile
imagination and facile pen, and as “welcome lies” acquired a hold on
the public mind, from which even the demonstrated truth will never
wholly dislodge them. The comment of the intelligent writer in the
“Historic-Genealogical Register” referred to is proof of this. So
fast-rooted had these assertions become in her thought as the truth,
that, confronted with the evidence that Master Mullens and his
family were from Dorking in England, it does not occur to her to
doubt the correctness of the impression which the recklessness of
Baird had created,–that they were of Leyden,–and she hence
amusingly suggests that “they must have moved from Leyden to
Dorking.” These careless utterances of one who is especially bound
by his position, both as a writer and as a teacher of morals, to be
jealous for the truth, might be partly condoned as attributable to
mistake or haste, except for the facts that they seem to have been
the fountain-head of an ever-widening stream of serious error, and
that they are preceded on the very page that bears them by others as
to the Pilgrim exodus equally unhappy. It seems proper to suggest
that it is high time that all lovers of reliable history should
stand firmly together against the flood of loose statement which is
deluging the public; brand the false wherever found; and call for
proof from of all new and important historical propositions put
forth.

Stephen Hopkins may possibly have had more than one wife before
Elizabeth, who accompanied him to New England and was mother of the
sea-born son Oceanus. Hopkins’s will indicates his affection for
this latest wife, in unusual degree for wills of that day. With
singular carelessness, both of the writer and his proof-reader, Hon.
William T. Davis states that Damaris Hopkins was born “after the
arrival” in New England. The contrary is, of course, a well
established fact. Mr. Davis was probably led into this error by
following Bradford’s “summary” as affecting the Hopkins family. He
states therein that Hopkins “had one son, who became a seaman and
died at Barbadoes probably Caleb, and four daugh ters born here.”
To make up these “four” daughters “born here” Davis found it
necessary to include Damaris, unmindful that Bradford names her in
his list of MAY-FLOWER passengers. It is evident, either that
Bradford made a mistake in the number, or that there was some
daughter who died in infancy. It is evident that Dotey and Leister,
the “servants” of Hopkins, were of English origin and accompanied
their master from London.

Gilbert Winslow was a brother of Edward Winslow, a young man, said to
have been a carpenter, who returned to England after “divers years”
in New England. There is a possibility that he was at Leyden and
was a passenger on the SPEEDWELL. It has been suggested that he
spent the greater part of the time he was in New England, outside of
the Pilgrim Colony. He took no part in its affairs.

James Chilton and his family are but little known to Pilgrim writers,
except the daughter Mary, who came into notice principally through
her marriage with John Winslow, another brother of Governor Edward,
who came over later. Their name has assumed a singular prominence
in popular regard, altogether disproportionate to either their
personal characteristics, station, or the importance of their early
descendants. Some unaccountable glamour of romance, without any
substantial foundation, is probably responsible for it. They left a
married daughter behind them in England, which is the only hint we
have as to their home just prior to the embarkation. There has been
a disposition, not well grounded, to regard them as of Leyden.

Richard Gardiner, Goodwin unequivocally places with the English colonists
(but on what authority does not fully appear), and he has been
claimed, but without any better warrant, for the Leyden list.

John Billington and his family were unmistakably of the English
colonists. Mrs. Billington’s name has been variously given,
e.g. Helen, Ellen, and Eleanor, and the same writer has used them
interchangeably. One writer has made the inexcusable error of
stating that “the younger son, Francis, was born after the arrival
at New Plymouth,” but his own affidavit shows him to have been born
in 1606.

William Latham, a “servant-boy” of Deacon Carver, has always been of
doubtful relation, some circumstances indicating that he was of
Leyden and hence was a SPEEDWELL passenger, but others–and these
the more significant–rendering it probable that he was an English
boy, who was obtained in London (like the More children) and
apprenticed to Carver, in which case he probably came in the
MAY-FLOWER from London, though he may have awaited her coming with
his master at Southampton, in which case he probably originally
embarked there, with him, on the SPEEDWELL, and was transferred
with him, at Plymouth, to the MAY-FLOWER. There is, of course,
also still the possibility that he came with Carver’s family from
Leyden. Governor Carver’s early death necessarily changed his
status somewhat, and Plymouth early records do not give much beyond
suggestion as to what the change was; but all indications confirm
the opinion that he was a poor boy–very likely of London or
vicinity–taken by Carver as his “servant.”

The More children, Jasper, Richard, their brother (whose given name has
never transpired), and Ellen, their sister, invite more than passing
mention. The belief has always been current and confident among
students of Pilgrim history that these More children, four in
number, “put” or “indentured” to three of the Leyden leaders, were
probably orphaned children of some family of the Leyden
congregation, and were so “bound” to give them a chance in the new
colony, in return for such services as they could render to those
they accompanied. If thus of the Leyden contingent they would,
of course, be enumerated as passengers in the SPEEDWELL from
Delfshaven, but if of the English contingent they should probably be
borne on the list of passengers sailing from London in the
MAY-FLOWER, certainly should be reckoned as part of the English
contingent on the MAY-FLOWER at Southampton. An affidavit of
Richard More, perhaps the eldest of these children, indentured to
Elder Brewster, dated in 1684., found in “Proceedings of the
Provincial Court, Maryland Archives, vol. xiv. [‘New England
Historic-Genealogical Register,’ vol 1. p. 203 ),” affirms the
deponent to be then “seaventy years or thereabouts” of age, which
would have made him some six years of age, “or thereabouts,” in
1620. He deposes “that being in London at the house of Mr. Thomas
Weston, Iron monger, in the year 1620, he was from there transported
to New Plymouth in New England,” etc. This clearly identifies
Richard More of the MAY FLOWER, and renders it well-nigh certain
that he and his brothers and sister, “bound out” like himself to
Pilgrim leaders, were of the English company, were probably never in
Leyden or on the SPEEDWELL, and were very surely passengers on the
MAY-FLOWER from London, in charge of Mr. Cushman or others. The
fact that the lad was in London, and went from thence direct to New
England, is good evidence that he was not of the Leyden party. The
fair presump tion is that his brothers and sister were, like
himself, of English birth, and humble–perhaps deceased–parents,
taken because of their orphaned condition. It is highly improbable
that they would be taken from London to Southampton by land, at the
large expense of land travel in those days, when the MAY-FLOWER was
to sail from London. That they would accompany their respective
masters to their respectively assigned ships at Southampton is
altogether likely. The phraseology of his affidavit suggests the
probability that Richard More, his brothers, and sister were brought
to Mr. Weston’s house, to be by him sent aboard the MAY-FLOWER,
about to sail. The affidavit is almost conclusive evidence as to
the fact that the More children were all of the English colonists’
party, though apprenticed to Leyden families, and belonged to the
London passenger list of the Pilgrim ship. The researches of Dr.
Neill among the MS. “minutes” and “transactions” of the (London)
Virginia Company show germanely that, on November 17, 1619, “the
treasurer, council, and company” of this Virginia Company addressed
Sir William Cockaine, Knight, Lord Mayor of the city of London, and
the right worthys the aldermen, his brethren, and the worthys the
“common council of the city,” and returning thanks for the benefits
conferred, in furnishing out one hundred children this last year
for “the plantation in Virginia” (from what Neill calls the
“homeless boys and girls of London”), states, that, “forasmuch as we
have now resolved to send this next spring [1620] very large
supplies,” etc., “we pray your Lordship and the rest . . . to
renew the like favors, and furnish us again with one hundred more
for the next spring. Our desire is that we may have them of twelve
years old and upward, with allowance of L3 apiece for their
transportation, and 40s. apiece for their apparel, as was formerly
granted. They shall be apprenticed; the boys till they come to 21
years of age, the girls till like age or till they be married,” etc.
A letter of Sir Edwin Sandys (dated January 28, 1620) to Sir Robert
Naunton shows that “The city of London have appointed one hundred
children from the superfluous multitude to be transported to
Virginia, there to be bound apprentices upon very beneficial
conditions.” In view of the facts that these More children–and
perhaps others–were “apprenticed” or “bound” to the Pilgrims
(Carver, Winslow, Brewster, etc.), and that there must have been
some one to make the indentures, it seems strongly probable that
these four children of one family,–as Bradford shows,–very likely
orphaned, were among those designated by the city of London for the
benefit of the (London) Virginia Company in the spring of 1620.
They seem to have been waifs caught up in the westward-setting
current, but only Richard survived the first winter. Bradford,
writing in 1650, states of Richard More that his brothers and sister
died, “but he is married [1636] and hath 4 or 5 children.” William
T. Davis, in his “Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth” (p. 24), states,
and Arber copies him, that “he was afterwards called Mann; and died
at Scituate, New England, in 1656.” The researches of Mr. George E.
Bowman, the able Secretary of the Massachusetts Society of
MAY-FLOWER Descendants, some time since disproved this error,
but Mores affidavit quoted conclusively determines the matter.

The possible accessions to the company, at London or Southampton, of
Henry Sampson and Humility Cooper, cousins of Edward Tilley and wife,
would be added to the passengers of the pinnace rather than to the
MAY-FLOWER’S, if, as seems probable, their relatives were of the
SPEEDWELL. If Edward Tilley and his wife were assigned to the MAY
FLOWER, room would doubtless also be found for these cousins on the
ship. John Alden, the only positively known addition (except Carver)
made to the list at Southampton, was, from the nature of his engagement
as “cooper,” quite likely assigned to the larger ship. There are no
known hints as to the assignments of passengers to the respective
vessels at Southampton–then supposed to be final–beyond the remarks of
Bradford that “the chief [principal ones] of them that came from Leyden
went on this ship [the SPEEDWELL] to give the Master content,” and his
further minute, that “Master Martin was governour in the biger ship and
Master Cushman assistante.” It is very certain that Deacon Carver, one
of the four agents of the colonists, who had “fitted out” the voyage in
England, was a passenger in the SPEEDWELL from Southampton,–as the
above mentioned remark of Bradford would suggest,–and was made
“governour” of her passengers, as he later was of the whole company, on
the MAY-FLOWER. It has sometimes been queried whether, in the interim
between the arrival of the SPEEDWELL at Southampton and the assignment
of the colonists to their respective ships (especially as both vessels
were taking in and transferring cargo), the passengers remained on board
or were quartered on shore. The same query has arisen, with even better
reason, as to the passengers of the SPEEDWELL during the stay at
Dartmouth, when the consort was being carefully overhauled to find her
leaks, the suggestion being made that in this case some of them might
have found accommodation on board the larger ship. The question may be
fairly considered as settled negatively, from the facts that the
colonists, with few exceptions, were unable to bear such extra expense
themselves; the funds of the Adventurers–if any were on hand, which
appears doubtful–were not available for the purpose; while the evidence
of some of the early writers renders it very certain that the Leyden
party were not released from residence on shipboard from the time they
embarked on the SPEEDWELL at Delfshaven till the final landing in the
harbor of New Plimoth. Just who of the Leyden chiefs caused themselves
to be assigned to the smaller vessel, to encourage its cowardly Master,
cannot be definitely known. It may be confidently assumed, however, that
Dr. Samuel Fuller, the physician of the colonists, was transferred to
the MAY-FLOWER, upon which were embarked three fourths of the entire
company, including most of the women and children, with some of whom, it
was evident, his services would be certainly in demand. There is little
doubt that the good Elder (William Brewster) was also transferred to the
larger ship at Southampton, while it would not be a very wild guess–in
the light of Bradford’s statement–to place Carver, Winslow, Bradford,
Standish, Cooke, Howland, and Edward Tilley, and their families, among
the passengers on the consort. Just how many passengers each vessel
carried when they sailed from Southampton will probably never be
positively known. Approximately, it may be said, on the authority of
such contemporaneous evidence as is available, and such calculations as
are possible from the data we have, that the SPEEDWELL had thirty (30),
and the MAY-FLOWER her proportionate number, ninety (90)–a total of one
hundred and twenty (120).

Captain John Smith says,

[Smith, New England’s Trials, ed. 1622, London, p. 259. It is a
singular error of the celebrated navigator that he makes the ships
to have, in less than a day’s sail, got outside of Plymouth, as he
indicates by his words, “the next day,” and “forced their return to
Plymouth.” He evidently intends to speak only in general terms, as
he entirely omits the (first) return to Dartmouth, and numbers the
passengers on the MAY-FLOWER, on her final departure, at but “one
hundred.” He also says they “discharged twenty passengers.”]

apparently without pretending to be exact, “They left the coast of
England the 23 of August, with about 120 persons, but the next day [sic]
the lesser ship sprung a leak that forced their return to Plymouth; where
discharging her [the ship] and twenty passengers, with the great ship and
a hundred persons, besides sailors, they set sail again on the 6th of
September.”

[Dr. Ames, so stringent in his requirements of other authors, for
example Jane Austin, has to this point been pathetically naive as to
the opinions of Captain John Smith. Captain Smith’s self-serving
and very subjective narratives of his own voyages obtained for him
the very derogatory judgement by his contemporaries. One of the
best reviews of John Smith’s life may be found in a small book on
this adventurer by Charles Dudley Warner. D.W.]

If the number one hundred and twenty (120) is correct, and the
distribution suggested is also exact, viz. thirty (30) to the SPEEDWELL
and ninety (90) to the MAY-FLOWER, it is clear that there must have been
more than twelve (the number usually named) who went from the consort to
the larger ship, when the pinnace was abandoned. We know that at least
Robert Cushman and his family (wife and son), who were on the MAY-FLOWER,
were among the number who returned to London upon the SPEEDWELL (and the
language of Thomas Blossom in his letter to Governor Bradford, else where
quoted, indicates that he and his son were also there), so that if the
ship’s number was ninety (90), and three or more were withdrawn, it would
require fifteen (15) or more to make the number up to one hundred and two
(102), the number of passengers we know the MAY-FLOWER had when she took
her final departure. It is not likely we shall ever be able to determine
exactly the names or number of those transferred to the MAY-FLOWER from
the consort, or the number or names of all those who went back to London
from either vessel. Several of the former and a few of the latter are
known, but we must (except for some fortunate discovery) rest content
with a very accurate knowledge of the passenger list of the MAY-FLOWER
when she left Plymouth (England), and of the changes which occurred in it
afterward; and a partial knowledge of the ship’s own complement of
officers and men.

Goodwin says: “The returning ones were probably of those who joined in
England, and had not yet acquired the Pilgrim spirit.” Unhappily this
view is not sustained by the relations of those of the number who are
known. Robert Cushman and his family (3 persons), Thomas Blossom and his
son (2 persons), and William Ring (1 person), a total of six, or just one
third of the putative eighteen who went back, all belonged to the Leyden
congregation, and were far from lacking “the Pilgrim spirit.” Cushman
was both ill and heart-sore from fatigue, disappointment, and bad
treatment; Ring was very ill, according to Cushman’s Dartmouth letter;
but the motives governing Blossom and his son do not appear, unless the
comparatively early death of the son–after which his father went to New
England–furnishes a clue thereto. Bradford says: “Those that went back
were, for the most part, such as were willing to do so, either out of
some discontent, or fear they conceived of the ill success of the Voyage,
seeing so many crosses befallen and the year time so far spent. But
others, in regard of their own weakness and the charge of many young
children, were thought [by the Managers] least useful and most unfit to
bear the brunt of this hard adventure.” It is evident from the above
that, while the return of most was from choice, some were sent back by
those in authority, as unfit for the undertaking, and that of these some
had “many young chil dren.” There are said to have been eighteen who
returned on the SPEEDWELL to London. We know who six of them were,
leaving twelve, or two thirds, unknown. Whether these twelve were in
part from Leyden, and were part English, we shall probably never know.
If any of them were from Holland, then the number of those who left
Delfshaven on the SPEEDWELL is increased by so many. If any were of the
English contingent, and probably the most were,–then the passenger list
of the MAY-FLOWER from London to Southampton was probably, by so many,
the larger. It is evident, from Bradford’s remark, that, among the
twelve unknown, were some who, from “their own weakness and charge of
many young children, were thought least useful and most unfit,” etc.
From this it is clear that at least one family was included which had a
number of young children, the parents’ “own weakness” being recognized.
A father, mother, and four children (in view of the term “many”) would
seem a reasonable surmise, and would make six, or another third of the
whole number. The probability that the unknown two thirds were chiefly
from England, rather than Holland, is increased by observation of the
evident care with which, as a rule, those from the Leyden congregation
were picked, as to strength and fitness, and also by the fact that their
Leyden homes were broken up. Winslow remarks, “the youngest and
strongest part were to go,” and an analysis of the list shows that those
selected were mostly such. Bradford, in stating that Martin was “from
Billericay in Essex,” says, “from which part came sundry others.” It is
quite possible that some of the unknown twelve who returned were from
this locality, as none of those who went on the MAY-FLOWER are understood
to have hailed from there, beside the Martins.

All the colonists still intending to go to America were now gathered in
one vessel. Whatever previous disposition of them had been made, or
whatever relations they might have had in the disjointed record of the
exodus, were ephemeral, and are now lost sight of in the enduring
interest which attaches to their final and successful “going forth” as
MAY-FLOWER Pilgrims.

Bradford informs us–as already noted–that, just before the departure
from Southampton, having “ordered and distributed their company for
either ship, as they conceived for the best,” they “chose a Governor and
two or three assistants for each ship, to order the people by the way,
and see to the disposing of the provisions, and such like affairs. All
which was not only with the liking of the Masters of the ships, but
according to their desires.” We have seen that under this arrangement
–the wisdom and necessity of which are obvious–Martin was made “Governor”
on the “biger ship” and Cushman his “assistante.” Although we find no
mention of the fact, it is rendered certain by the record which Bradford
makes of the action of the Pilgrim company on December 11, 1620, at Cape
Cod,–when they “confirmed” Deacon John Carver as “Governor,”–that he
was and had been such, over the colonist passengers for the voyage (the
ecclesiastical authority only remaining to Elder Brewster), Martin
holding certainly no higher than the second place, made vacant by
Cushman’s departure.

Thus, hardly had the Pilgrims shaken the dust of their persecuting
mother-country from their feet before they set up, by popular voice
(above religious authority, and even that vested by maritime law in their
ships’ officers), a government of themselves, by themselves, and for
themselves. It was a significant step, and the early revision they made
of their choice of “governors” certifies their purpose to have only
rulers who could command their confidence and respect. Dr. Young says:
“We know the age of but few of the Pilgrims,” which has hitherto been
true; yet by careful examination of reliable data, now available, we are
able to deter mine very closely the ages of a considerable number, and
approximately the years of most of the others, at the time of the exodus.
No analysis, so far as known, has hitherto been made of the vocations
(trades, etc.) represented by the MAY-FLOWER company. They were, as
befitted those bent on founding a colony, of considerable variety, though
it should be understood that the vocations given were, so far as
ascertained, the callings the individuals who represented them had
followed before taking ship. Several are known to have been engaged
in other pursuits at some time, either before their residence in Holland,
or during their earlier years there. Bradford tells us that most of the
Leyden congregation (or that portion of it which came from England, in or
about 1608) were agricultural people. These were chiefly obliged to
acquire handicrafts or other occupations. A few, e.g. Allerton,
Brewster, Bradford, Carver, Cooke, and Winslow, had possessed some means,
while others had been bred to pursuits for which there was no demand in
the Low Countries. Standish, bred to arms, apparently followed his
profession nearly to the time of departure, and resumed it in the colony,
adding thereto the calling which, in all times and all lands, had been
held compatible in dignity with that of arms,–the pursuit of
agriculture. While always the “Sword of the White Men,” he was the
pioneer “planter” in the first settlement begun (at Duxbury) beyond
Plymouth limits. Of the “arts, crafts or trades” of the colonists from
London and neighboring English localities, but little has been gleaned.
They were mostly people of some means, tradesmen rather than artisans,
and at least two (Martin and Mullens) were evidently also of the Merchant
Adventurers.

Their social (conjugal) conditions–not previously analyzed, it is
thought–have been determined, it is believed, with approximate accuracy;
though it is of course possible that some were married, of whom that fact
does not appear, especially among the seamen.

The passengers of the MAY-FLOWER on her departure from Plymouth
(England), as arranged for convenience by families, were as appears by
the following lists.

While the ages given in these lists are the result of much careful study
of all the latest available data, and are believed, when not exact, to be
very close approximates; as it has been possible to arrive at results,
in several cases, only by considerable calculation, the bases of which
may not always have been entirely reliable, errors may have crept in.
Though the author is aware that, in a few instances, the age stated does
not agree with that assigned by other recognized authority, critical
re-analysis seems to warrant and confirm the figures given.

The actual and comparative youth of the majority of the colonist leaders
–the Pilgrim Fathers–is matter of comment, even of surprise, to most
students of Pilgrim history, especially in view of what the Leyden
congregation had experienced before embarking for America. Only two of
the leaders exceeded fifty years of age, and of these Governor Carver
died early. Of the principal men only nine could have been over forty,
and of these Carver, Chilton, Martin, Mullins, and Priest (more than half
died within a few months after landing), leaving Brewster, Warren (who
died early), Cooke, and Hopkins–neither of the latter hardly forty–the
seniors. One does not readily think of Alden as but twenty-one, Winslow
as only twenty-five, Dr. Fuller as about thirty, Bradford as only
thirty-one when chosen Governor, Allerton as thirty-two, and Captain
Standish as thirty-six. Verily they were “old heads on young
shoulders.” It is interesting to note that the dominant influence
at all times was that of the Leyden contingent.

Of these, all except William Butten, who died upon the voyage, reached
Cape Cod in safety, though some of them had become seriously ill from the
hardships encountered, and Howland had narrowly escaped drowning. Two
were added to the number en voyage,–Oceanus Hopkins, born upon the sea,
and Peregrine White, born soon after the arrival in Cape Cod harbor.
This made the total of the passenger list 103, before further depletion
by death occurred, though several deaths again reduced it before the
MAY-FLOWER cast anchor in Plymouth harbor, her final haven on the
outward voyage.

Deacon John Carver’s place of birth or early life is not known, but he
was an Essex County man, and was probably not, until in middle life,
a member of Robinson’s congregation of “Independents.” His age is
determined by collateral evidence.

Mrs. Katherine Carver, it has been supposed by some, was a sister of
Pastor Robinson. This supposition rests, apparently, upon the
expression of Robinson in his parting letter to Carver, where he
says: “What shall I say or write unto you and your good wife, my
loving sister?” Neither the place of Mrs. Carver’s nativity nor her
age is known.

Desire Minter was evidently a young girl of the Leyden congregation,
between the ages of fourteen and seventeen, who in some way (perhaps
through kinship) had been taken into Carver’s family. She returned
to England early. See ante, for account of her (probable)
parentage.

John Howland was possibly of kin to Carver and had been apparently some
years in his family. Bradford calls him a “man-servant,” but it is
evident that “employee” would be the more correct term, and that he
was much more than a “servant.” It is observable that Howland
signed the Compact (by Morton’s List) before such men as Hopkins,
the Tilleys, Cooke, Rogers, and Priest, which does not indicate much
of the “servant” relation. His antecedents are not certainly known,
but that he was of the Essex family of the name seems probable.
Much effort has been made in recent years to trace his ancestry,
but without any considerable result. His age at death (1673)
determines his age in 1620. He was older than generally supposed,
being born about 1593.

Roger Wilder is also called a “man-servant” by Bradford, and hardly more
than this is known of him, his death occurring early. There is no
clue to his age except that his being called a “man-servant” would
seem to suggest that he was of age; but the fact that he did not
sign the Compact would indicate that he was younger, or he may have
been extremely ill, as he died very soon after arrival.

William Latham is called a “boy” by Bradford, though a lad of 18. It is
quite possible he was one of those “indentured” by the corporation
of London, but there is no direct intimation of this.

“Mrs. Carver’s maid,” it is fair to presume, from her position as
lady’s-maid and its requirements in those days, was a young woman of
eighteen or twenty years, and this is confirmed by her early
marriage. Nothing is known of her before the embarkation. She died
early.

Jasper More, Bradford says, “was a child yt was put to him.” Further
information concerning him is given in connection with his brother
Richard, “indentured” to Elder Brewster. He is erroneously called
by Justin Winsor in his “History of Duxbury” (Massachusetts) a child
of Carver’s, as Elizabeth Tilley is “his daughter.” Others have
similarly erred.

Elder William Brewster’s known age at his death determines his age in
1620. He was born in 1566-67. His early life was full of interest
and activity, and his life in Holland and America no less so. In
early life he filled important stations. Steele’s “Chief of the
Pilgrims” is a most engaging biography of him, and there are others
hardly less so, Bradford’s sketch being one of the best.

Mrs. Mary Brewster’s age at her death determines it at the embarkation,
and is matter of computation.

Love Brewster was the second son of his parents, his elder brother
Jonathan coming over afterwards.

Wrestling Brewster was but a “lad,” and his father’s third son.

Richard More and his brother, Bradford states, “were put to him” (Elder
Brewster) as bound-boys. For a full account of their English
origin, Richard’s affidavit, etc., see ante. This makes him but
about six, but he was perhaps older.

Governor Edward Winslow’s known age at his death fixes his age at the
time of the exodus, and his birth is duly recorded at Droitwich, in
Worcester, England. (See “Winslow Memorial,” David Parsons Holton,
vol. i. p. 16.)

Mrs. Elizabeth (Barker) Winslow, the first wife of the Governor, appears
by the data supplied by the record of her marriage in Holland, May
27, 1618, to have been a maiden of comporting years to her
husband’s, he being then twenty-three. Tradition makes her slightly
younger than her husband.

George Soule, it is evident,–like Howland,–though denominated a
“servant” by Bradford, was more than this, and should rather have
been styled, as Goodwin points out, “an employee” of Edward Winslow.
His age is approximated by collateral evidence, his marriage, etc.

Elias Story is called “man-servant” by Bradford, and his age is unknown.
The fact that he did not sign the Compact indicates that he was
under age, but extreme illness may have prevented, as he died early.

Ellen More, “a little girl that was put to him” (Winslow), died early.
She was sister of the other More children, “bound out” to Carver and
Brewster, of whom extended mention has been made.

Governor William Bradford’s date of birth fixes his age in 1620. His
early home was at Austerfield, in Yorkshire. Belknap (“American
Biography,” vol. ii. p. 218) says: “He learned the art of
silk-dyeing.”

Mrs. Dorothy (May) Bradford’s age (the first wife of the Governor) is
fixed at twenty-three by collateral data, but she may have been
older. She was probably from Wisbeach, England. The manner of her
tragic death (by drowning, having fallen overboard from the ship in
Cape Cod harbor), the first violent death in the colony, was
especially sad, her husband being absent for a week afterward. It
is not known that her body was recovered.

Dr. Samuel Fuller, from his marriage record at Leyden, made in 1613, when
he was a widower, it is fair to assume was about thirty, perhaps
older, in 1620, as he could, when married, have hardly been under
twenty-one. His (third) wife and child were left in Holland.

William Butten (who died at sea, November 6/16), Bradford calls
“a youth.” He was undoubtedly a “servant”-assistant to the doctor.

Isaac Allerton, it is a fair assumption, was about thirty-four in 1620,
from the fact that he married his first wife October 4, 1611, as he
was called “a young man” in the Leyden marriage record. He is
called “of London, England,” by Bradford and on the Leyden records.
He was made a “freeman” of Leyden, February 7, 1614. Arber and
others state that his early occupation was that of “tailor,” but he
was later a tradesman and merchant.

Mary (Norris) Allerton is called a “maid of Newbury in England,” in the
Leyden record of her marriage, in October, 1611, and it is the only
hint as to her age we have. She was presumably a young woman. Her
death followed (a month later) the birth of her still-born son, on
board the MAY-FLOWER in Plymouth harbor, February 25/March 7, 1621.

Bartholomew Allerton, born probably in 1612/13 (his parents married
October, 1611), was hence, as stated, about seven or eight years old
at the embarkation. He has been represented as older, but this was
clearly impossible. He was doubtless born in Holland.

Remember Allerton, apparently Allerton’s second child, has (with a
novelist’s license) been represented by Mrs. Austin as considerably
older than six, in fact nearer sixteen (Goodwin, p. 183, says,
“over 13”), but the known years of her mother’s marriage and her
brother’s birth make this improbable. She was, no doubt, born in
Holland about 1614–She married Moses Maverick by 1635, and Thomas
Weston’s only child, Elizabeth, was married from her house at
Marblehead to Roger Conant, son of the first “governor” of a
Massachusetts Bay “plantation.”

Mary Allerton, apparently the third child, could hardly have been much
more than four years old in 1620, though Goodwin (“Pilgrim
Republic,” p. 184) calls her eleven, which is an error. She was
probably born in Holland about 1616. She was the last survivor of
the passengers of the MAY-FLOWER, dying at Plymouth, New England,
1699.

John Hooke, described by Bradford as a “servant-boy,” was probably but a
youth. He did not sign the Compact. Nothing further is known of him
except that he died early. It is quite possible that he may have
been of London and have been “indentured” by the municipality to
Allerton, but the presumption has been that he came, as body-servant
of Allerton, with him from Leyden.

Captain Standish’s years in 1620 are conjectural (from fixed data), as is
his age at death. His early home was at Duxborough Hall, in
Lancashire. His commission as Captain, from Queen Elizabeth, would
make his birth about 1584. Rose Standish, his wife, is said by
tradition to have been from the Isle of Man, but nothing is known of
her age or antecedents, except that she was younger than the
Captain. She died during the “general sickness,” early in 1621.

Master Christopher Martin, as previously noted, was from Billerica, in
Essex. From collateral data it appears that he must have been
“about forty” years old when he joined the Pilgrims. He appears to
have been a staunch “Independent” and to have drawn upon himself the
ire of the Archdeacon of Chelmsford, (probably) by his loud-mouthed
expression of his views, as only “a month before the MAY-FLOWER
sailed” he, with his son and Solomon Prower of his household
(probably a relative), were cited before the archdeacon to answer
for their shortcomings, especially in reverence for this church
dignitary. He seems to have been at all times a self-conceited,
arrogant, and unsatisfactory man. That he was elected treasurer
and ship’s “governor” and permitted so much unbridled liberty as
appears, is incomprehensible. It was probably fortunate that he
died early, as he did, evidently in utter poverty. He had a son,
in 1620, apparently quite a grown youth, from which it is fair to
infer that the father was at that time “about forty.” Of his wife
nothing is known. She also died early.

Solomon Prower, who is called by Bradford both “son” and “servant” of
Martin, seems from the fact of his “citation” before the Archdeacon
of Chelmsford, etc., to have been something more than a “servant,”
possibly a kinsman, or foster-son, and probably would more properly
have been termed an “employee.” He was from Billerica, in Essex,
and was, from the fact that he did not sign the Compact, probably
under twenty-one or very ill at the time. He died early. Of John
Langemore, his fellow “servant,” nothing is known, except that he is
spoken of by Young as one of two “children” brought over by Martin
(but on no apparent authority), and he did not sign the Compact,
though this might have been from extreme illness, as he too died
early.

William White was of the Leyden congregation. He is wrongly called by
Davis a son of Bishop John White, as the only English Bishop of that
name and time died a bachelor. At White’s marriage, recorded at the
Stadthaus at Leyden, January 27/February 1, 1612, to Anna [Susanna]
Fuller, he is called “a young man of England.” As he presumably was
of age at that time, he must have been at least some twenty-nine or
thirty years old at the embarkation, eight years later. His son
Peregrine was born in Cape Cod harbor. Mr. White died very early.

Susanna (Fuller) White, wife of William, and sister of Dr. Fuller (?),
was apparently somewhat younger than her first husband and perhaps
older than her second. She must, in all probability (having been
married in Leyden in 1612), have been at least twenty-five at the
embarkation eight years later. Her second husband, Governor
Winslow, was but twenty-five in 1620, and the presumption is that
she was slightly his senior. There appears no good reason for
ascribing to her the austere and rather unlovable characteristics
which the pen of Mrs. Austin has given her.

Resolved White, the son of William and Susanna White, could not have been
more than six or seven years old, and is set down by Goodwin and
others–on what seems inconclusive evidence–at five. He was
doubtless born at Leyden.

William Holbeck is simply named as “a servant” of White, by Bradford.
His age does not appear, but as he did not sign the Compact he was
probably “under age.” From the fact that he died early, it is
possible that he was too ill to sign.

Edward Thompson is named by Bradford as a second “servant” of Master
White, but nothing more is known of him, except that he did not sign
the Compact, and was therefore probably in his nonage, unless
prevented by severe sickness. He died very early.

Master William Mullens (or Molines, as Bradford some times calls him) is
elsewhere shown to have been a tradesman of some means, of Dorking,
in Surrey, one of the Merchant Adventurers, and a man of ability.
From the fact that he left a married daughter (Mrs. Sarah Blunden)
and a son (William) a young man grown, in England, it is evident
that he must have been forty years old or more when he sailed for
New England, only to die aboard the ship in New Plymouth harbor.
That he was not a French Huguenot of the Leyden contingent, as
pictured by Rev. Dr. Baird and Mrs. Austin, is certain.

Mrs. Alice Mullens, whose given name we know only from her husband’s
will, filed in London, we know little about. Her age was (if she
was his first wife) presumably about that of her husband, whom she
survived but a short time.

Joseph Mullens was perhaps older than his sister Priscilla, and the third
child of his parents; but the impression prevails that he was
slightly her junior,–on what evidence it is hard to say. That he
was sixteen is rendered certain by the fact that he is reckoned by
his father, in his will, as representing a share in the planter’s
half-interest in the colony, and to do so must have been of that
age.

Priscilla Mullens, whom the glamour of unfounded romance and the pen of
the poet Longfellow have made one of the best known and best beloved
of the Pilgrim band, was either a little older, or younger, than her
brother Joseph, it is not certain which. But that she was over
sixteen is made certain by the same evidence as that named
concerning her brother.

Robert Carter is named by Bradford as a “man-servant,” and Mrs. Austin,
in her imaginative “Standish of Standish,” which is never to be
taken too literally, has made him (see p. 181 of that book) “a dear
old servant,” whom Priscilla Mullens credits with carrying her in
his arms when a small child, etc. Both Bradford’s mention and Mr.
Mullens’s will indicate that he was yet a young man and “needed
looking after.” He did not sign the Compact, which of itself
indicates nonage, unless illness was the cause, of which, in his
case, there is no evidence, until later.

Richard Warren, as he had a wife and five pretty well grown daughters,
must have been forty-five or more when he came over. He is
suggested to have been from Essex.

Stephen Hopkins is believed to have been a “lay-reader” with Mr. Buck,
chaplain to Governor Gates, of the Bermuda expedition of 1609 (see
Purchas, vol. iv. p. 174). As he could hardly have had this
appointment, or have taken the political stand he did, until of
age, he must have been at least twenty-one at that time. If so, he
would have been not less than thirty two years old in 1620, and was
probably considerably older, as his son Giles is represented by
Goodwin (“Pilgrim Republic,” p. 184) as being “about 15.” If the
father was but twenty-one when the son was born, he must have been
at least thirty-seven when he became a MAY-FLOWER Pilgrim. The
probabilities are that he was considerably older. His English home
is not known. Professor Arber makes an error (The Story of the
Pilgrim Fathers,” p. 261) in regard to Hopkins which, unless noted,
might lead to other and more serious mistakes. Noting the
differences between John Pierce and a Master Hopkins, heard before
the Council for New England, May 5/15, 1623, Arber designates Master
Hopkins as “Stephen” (on what authority does not appear), and leaves
us to infer that it was the Pilgrim Hopkins. On further inquiry it
transpires that the person who was at variance with Master John
Pierce over the matter of passage and freight money, on account of
the unfortunate PARAGON, was a Rev. Master Hopkins (not Stephen of
the MAY-FLOWER), who, we learn from Neill’s “History of the Virginia
Company,” was “recommended July 3, 1622, by the Court of the Company
to the Governor of Virginia, . . . being desirous to go over at
his own charge. He was evidently a passenger on both of the
disastrous attempts of the PARAGON under Captain William Pierce, and
being forced back the second time, apparently gave up the intention
of going.

Mrs. Elizabeth Hopkins, nothing is known concerning, except that she was
not her husband’s first wife. Sometime apparently elapsed between
her husband’s marriages.

Giles Hopkins we only know was the son of his father’s first wife, and
“about 15.” An error (of the types presumably) makes Griffis (“The
Pilgrims in their Three Homes,” p. 176) give the name of Oceanus
Hopkins’s father as Giles, instead of Stephen. Constance (or
Constantia) Hopkins was apparently about eleven years old in 1620,
as she married in 1627, and probably was then not far from eighteen
years old. Damaris Hopkins, the younger daughter of Master Hopkins,
was probably a very young child when she came in the MAY-FLOWER, but
her exact age has not been as certained. Davis, as elsewhere noted,
makes the singular mistake of saying she was born after her parents
arrived in New England. She married Jacob Cooke, and the
ante-nuptial agreement of his parents is believed to be the
earliest of record in America, except that between Gregory
Armstrong and the widow Billington.

Edward Dotey is called by Bradford “a servant,” but nothing is known of
his age or antecedents. It is very certain from the fact that he
signed the Compact that he was twenty-one. He was a very energetic
man. He seems to have been married before coming to New England, or
soon after.

Edward Leister (the name is variously spelled) was a “servant,” by
Bradford’s record. He was doubtless of age, as he signed the
Compact.

Master John Crackstone, being (apparently) a widower with a son, a child
well grown, was evidently about thirty five years old when he
embarked for New England. He left a daughter behind. He died early.

John Crackstone, Jr., was but a lad, and died early.

Master Edward Tilley (sometimes spelled Tillie) and his wife Ann seem to
have been without children of their own, and as they took with them
to New England two children who were their kindred, it may be
inferred that they had been married some little time. It is hence
probable that Mr. Tilley was in the neighborhood of thirty. His
wife’s age is purely conjectural. They were, Bradford states, “of
the Leyden congregation.”

Henry Sampson was apparently but a young English lad when he came over in
the MAY-FLOWER with his cousins the Tilleys. As he married in 1636,
he was probably then about twenty-one, which would make him five or
six when he came over. Goodwin (“Pilgrim Republic,” p. 184) says he
was “six.”

Humility Cooper is said by Bradford to have been a “cosen” of the
Tilleys, but no light is given as to her age or antecedents. She
was but a child, apparently. She returned to England very soon
after the death of Mr. and Mrs. Tilley, and “died young.”

Master John Tilley, having twice married, and having a daughter some
fourteen years old, must have been over thirty-five years old when
he sailed on the Pilgrim ship. His birthplace and antecedents are
not known, but he was “of the Leyden congregation.”

Mrs. Bridget (Van der Velde) Tilley was just possibly a second wife.
Nothing is known concerning her except that she was of Holland, and
that she had, apparently, no child.

Elizabeth Tilley is said by Goodwin (op. cit. p. 298) and others to have
been fourteen years old at her parents’ death in 1621, soon after
the arrival in New England. She was the child of her father’s first
wife. She married John Howland before 1624. Historians for many
years called her the “daughter of Governor Carver,” but the recovery
of Bradford’s MS. “historie” corrected this, with many other
misconceptions, though to some the error had become apparent before.
Her will also suggests her age.

Francis Cooke’s age in 1620 is fixed by his known age at his death
(“about 81”) in 1663. He was from the north of England, and long a
member of Robinson’s congregation, both in England and in
Holland(?).

John Cooke, son of Francis, is known to have been about ten years old
when he sailed with his father for America, as his parents did not
marry before 1609. He was undoubtedly born at Leyden. He was long
supposed to have been the last male survivor of the original
passengers (dying at Dartmouth in 1695.)

James Chilton’s antecedents and his age are quite unknown. He must have
been at least fifty, as he had a married daughter in Leyden,
according to Bradford. He died among the first, and there is
nothing of record to inform us concerning him, except Bradford’s
meagre mention. He may have lived at Leyden.

Mrs. Chilton’s given name is declared by one writer to have been Susanna,
but it is not clearly proven. Whence she came, her ancestry, and
her age, are alike unknown.

Mary Chilton was but a young girl in 1620. She married, before 1627,
John Winslow, and was probably not then over twenty, nor over
fourteen when she came with her parents in the MAY-FLOWER.

Thomas Rogers appears, from the fact that he had a son, a lad well-grown,
to have been thirty or more in 1620. His birthplace, antecedents,
and history are unknown, but he appears to have been “of the Leyden
congregation.” His wife and children came later.

Joseph Rogers was only a “lad” aboard the MAY-FLOWER, but he left a
considerable posterity. Nothing is surely known of him, except that
he was Thomas’s son.

Degory Priest had the distinction of being “freeman” of Leyden, having
been admitted such, November 16, 1615. He was by occupation a
“hatter,” a man of some means, who left a wife and at least two
children in Holland when he embarked for America. His known age at
death gives his age at sailing but a few months previous. At his
marriage in Leyden, October 4, 1611, he was called “of London.” He
was about thirty-two when he married. His wife (a widow Vincent)
was a sister of Isaac Allerton, who also was married at the same
time that he was. Goodwin (“Pilgrim Republic,” p. 183) also gives
his age as “forty-one.” His widow remarried and came over later.
Dexter (“Mourt’s Relation,” p. 69, note) states, quoting from Leyden
MS. records, that “Degory Priest in April, 1619, calling himself a
‘hatter,’ deposes that he ‘is forty years of age.’” He must,
therefore, have been about forty-one when he sailed on the
MAY-FLOWER, and forty-two years old at his death.

John Rigdale and his wife Alice afford no data. They both died early,
and there is no record concerning either of them beyond the fact
that they were passengers.

Edward Fuller and his wife have left us little record of themselves save
that they were of Leyden, that he is reputed a brother of Dr. Samuel
Fuller (for whom they seem to have named the boy they brought over
with them,–leaving apparently another son, Matthew, behind), and
that both died the first winter. He must have been at least
twenty-five, judging from the fact that he was married and had two
children, and was perhaps somewhat older (though traditionally
represented as younger) than his brother. Neither his occupation
nor antecedents are surely known.

Samuel Fuller–the son of Edward Fuller and his wife–is called by
Bradford “a young child.” He must have been some five or six years
of age, as he married in 1635, fifteen years later, and would
presumably have been of age, or nearly so.

Thomas Tinker’s name, the mention of his “wife” and “son,” the tradition
that they were “of the Leyden congregation” (which is not sure), the
certainty that they were MAY-FLOWER passengers,–on Brad ford’s
list,–and that all died early, are all we know of the Tinker
family.

John Turner and his two sons we know little about. He seems to have been
a widower, as no mention is found of his wife, though this is not
certain. He was of the Leyden congregation, and evidently a man of
some standing with the leaders, as he was made their messenger to
Carver and Cushman in London, in June, 1620, and was apparently
accustomed to travel. He appears to have had business of his own in
England at the time, and was apparently a man of sober age. As he
had three children,–a daughter who came later to New England, and
two sons, as stated by Bradford,–it is probable that he was thirty
or over. He and both his sons died in the spring of 1621.

Francis Eaton was of Leyden, a carpenter, and, having a wife and child,
was probably a young man about twenty five, perhaps a little
younger. He married three times.

Mrs. Sarah Eaton, wife of Francis, was evidently a young woman, with an
infant, at the date of embarkation. Nothing more is known of her,
except that she died the spring following the arrival at Plymouth.

Samuel Eaton, the son of Francis and his wife, Sarah, Bradford calls “a
sucking child:” He lived to marry.

Gilbert Window was the third younger brother of Governor Edward Winslow,
and is reputed to have been a carpenter. He was born on Wednesday,
October 26, 1600, at Droitwitch, in Worcester, England. (“Winslow
Memorial,” vol. i. p. 23.) He apparently did not remain long in
the colony, as he does not appear in either the “land division” of
1623 or the “cattle division” of 1627; and hence was probably not
then in the “settlement,” though land was later allowed his heirs,
he having been an “original” voyager of the Plymouth colony. He was
but twenty years and fifteen days old when he signed the Compact,
but probably was–from his brother’s prominence and his nearness to
his majority–counted as eligible. Bradford states that he returned
to England after “divers years” in New England, and died there. It
has been suggested that he went very early to some of the other
“plantations.”

John Alden was of Southampton, England, was hired as “a cooper,” was
twenty-one years old in 1620, as determined by the year of his
birth, 1599 (“Alden Memorial,” p. 1), and became the most prominent
and useful of any of the English contingent of the MAY FLOWER
company. Longfellow’s delightful poem, “The Courtship of Miles
Standish,” has given him and his bride, Priscilla Mullens,
world-wide celebrity, though it is to be feared that its historical
accuracy would hardly stand criticism. Why young Alden should have
been “hired for a cooper at Southampton,” with liberty to “go or
stay” in the colony, as Bradford says he was (clearly indicating
that he went to perform some specific work and return, if he liked,
with the ship), has mystified many. The matter is clear, however,
when it is known, as Griffis shows, that part of a Parliamentary Act
of 1543 reads: “Whosoever shall carry Beer beyond Sea, shall find
Sureties to the Customers (?) of that Port, to bring in Clapboard
[staves] meet [sufficient] to make so much Vessel [barrel or
“kilderkin”] as he shall carry forth.” As a considerable quantity of
beer was part of the MAY-FLOWER’S lading, and her consignors stood
bound to make good in quantity the stave-stock she carried away,
it was essential, in going to a wild country where it could not be
bought, but must be “got out” from the growing timber, to take along
a “cooper and cleaver” for that purpose. Moreover, the great demand
for beer-barrel stock made “clapboard” good and profitable return
lading. It constituted a large part of the FORTUNE’S return freight
(doubtless “gotten out” by Alden), as it would have undoubtedly of
the MAY-FLOWER’S, had the hardship of the colony’s condition
permitted.

Peter Browne we know little concerning. That he was a man of early
middle age is inferable from the fact that he married the widow
Martha Ford, who came in the FORTUNE in 1621. As she then was the
mother of three children, it is improbable that she would have
married a very young man. He appears, from certain collateral
evidence, to have been a mechanic of some kind, but it is not clear
what his handicraft was or whence he came.

John Billington (Bradford sometimes spells it Billinton) and his family,
Bradford tells us, “were from London.” They were evidently an
ill-conditioned lot, and unfit for the company of the planters, and
Bradford says, “I know not by what friend shuffled into their
Company.” As he had a wife and two children, the elder of whom must
have been about sixteen years old, he was apparently over
thirty-five years of age. There is a tradition that he was a
countryman bred, which certain facts seem to confirm. (See land
allotments for data as to age of boys, 1632.) He was the only one
of the original colonists to suffer the “death penalty” for crime.

Mrs. Ellen (or “Elen”) Billington, as Bradford spells the name, was
evidently of comporting age to her husband’s, perhaps a little
younger. Their two sons, John and Francis, were lively urchins who
frequently made matters interesting for the colonists, afloat and
ashore. The family was radically bad throughout, but they have had
not a few worthy descendants. Mrs. Billington married Gregory
Armstrong, and their antenuptial agreement is the first of record
known in America.

John Billington, Jr., is always first named of his father’s two sons, and
hence the impression prevails that he was the elder, and Bradford so
designates him. The affidavit of Francis Billington (Plymouth
County, Mass., Deeds, vol. i. p. 81), dated 1674, in which he
declares himself sixty-eight years old, would indicate that he was
born in 1606, and hence must have been about fourteen years of age
when he came on the MAY-FLOWER to New Plymouth. If John, his
brother, was older than he, he must have been born about 1604, and
so was about sixteen when, he came to New England. The indications
are that it was Francis, the younger son, who got hold of the
gunpowder in his father’s cabin in Cape Cod harbor, and narrowly
missed blowing up the ship. John died before 1630. Francis lived,
as appears, to good age, and had a family.

Moses Fletcher was of the Leyden company, a “smith,” and at the time of
his second marriage at Leyden, November 30/December 21, 1613, was
called a “widower” and “of England.” As he was probably of age at
the time of his first marriage,–presumably two years or more before
his last,–he must have been over thirty in 1620. He was perhaps
again a widower when he came over, as no mention is made of his
having wife or family. He was possibly of the Amsterdam family of
that name. His early death was a great loss to the colony.

A Thomas Williams is mentioned by Hon. Henry C Murphy (“Historical
Magazine,” vol. iii. pp. 358, 359), in a list of some of Robinson’s
congregation who did not go to New England in either the MAY-FLOWER,
FORTUNE, ANNE, Or LITTLE JAMES. He either overlooked the fact that
Williams was one of the MAY-FLOWER passengers, or else there were
two of the name, one of whom did not go. Nothing is known of the
age or former history of the Pilgrim of that name. He died in the
spring of 1621 (before the end of March). As he signed the Compact,
he must have been over twenty-one. He may have left a wife, Sarah.

John Goodman we know little more about than that he and Peter Browne seem
to have been “lost” together, on one occasion (when he was badly
frozen), and to have had, with his little spaniel dog, a rencontre
with “two great wolves,” on another. He was twice married, the last
time at Leyden in 1619. He died before the end of March, 1621.
As he signed the Compact, he must have been over twenty-one.

Edward Margeson we know nothing about. As he signed the Compact, he was
presumably of age.

Richard Britteridge affords little data. His age, birthplace, or
occupation do not transpire, but he was, it seems, according to
Bradford, the first of the company to die on board the ship after
she had cast anchor in the harbor of New Plymouth. This fact
negatives the pleasant fiction of Mrs. Austin’s “Standish of
Standish” (p. 104), that Britteridge was one of those employed in
cutting sedge on shore on Friday, January 12. Poor Britteridge died
December 21, three weeks earlier. He signed the Compact, and hence
may be accounted of age at the landing at Cape Cod.

Richard Clarke appears only as one of the passengers and as dying before
the end of March. He signed the Compact, and hence was doubtless
twenty-one or over.

Richard Gardiner, we know from Bradford, “became a seaman and died in
England or at sea.” He was evidently a young man, but of his age or
antecedents nothing appears. He signed the Compact, and hence was
at least twenty-one years old.

John Alderton (sometimes spelled Allerton), we are told by Bradford,–as
elsewhere noted,–“was hired, but was reputed one of the company,
but was to go back, being a seaman and so, presumably, unmindful of
the voyages, for the help of others.” Whether Bradford intended by
the latter clause to indicate that he had left his family behind,
and came “to spy out the land,” and, if satisfied, to return for
them, or was to return for the counsel and assistance of Robinson
and the rest, who were to follow, is not clear, but the latter view
has most to support it. We learn his occupation, but can only infer
that he was a young man over twenty-one from the above and the fact
that he signed the Compact. It has been suggested that he was a
relative of Isaac Allerton, but this is nowhere shown and is
improbable. He died before the MAY-FLOWER returned to England.

Thomas English (or Enlish), Bradford tells us (“Historie,” Mass. ed.
p. 533), “was hired to goe Master of a [the] shallop here.” He,
however, “died here before the ship returned.” It is altogether
probable that he was the savior of the colony on that stormy night
when the shallop made Plymouth harbor the first time, and, narrowly
escaping destruction, took shelter under Clarke’s Island. The first
three governors of the colony, its chief founders,–Carver,
Bradford, and Winslow,–with Standish, Warren, Hopkins, Howland,
Dotey, and others, were on board, and but for the heroism and prompt
action of “the lusty sea man which steered,” who was–beyond
reasonable doubt–English, as Bradford’s narrative (“Morton’s
Memorial”) shows, the lives of the entire party must, apparently,
have been lost. That English was, if on board–Bradford shows in
the “Memorial” that he was–as Master of the shallop, properly her
helmsman in so critical a time, goes without saying, especially as
the “rudder was broken” and an oar substituted; that the ship’s
“mates,” Clarke and Coppin, were not in charge (although on board)
fully appears by Bradford’s account; and as it must have taken all
of the other (four) seamen on board to pull the shallop, bereft of
her sail, in the heavy breakers into which she had been run by
Coppin’s blunder, there would be no seaman but English for the
steering-oar, which was his by right. Had these leaders been lost
at this critical time,–before a settlement had been made,–it is
certain that the colony must have been abandoned, and the Pilgrim
impress upon America must have been lost. English’s name should, by
virtue of his great service, be ever held in high honor by all of
Pilgrim stock. His early death was a grave loss. Bradford spells
the name once Enlish, but presumably by error. He signed the
Compact as Thomas English.

William Trevore was, according to Bradford, one of “two seamen hired to
stay a year in the countrie.” He went back when his time expired,
but later returned to New England. Cushman (Bradford, “Historie,”
p. 122) suggests that he was telling “sailors’ yarns.” He says:
“For William Trevore hath lavishly told but what he knew or imagined
of Capewock Martha’s Vineyard, Monhiggon, and ye Narragansetts.” In
1629 he was at Massachusetts Bay in command of the HANDMAID
(Goodwin, p. 320), and in February, 1633 (Winthrop, vol. i. p. 100),
he seems to have been in command of the ship WILLIAM at Plymouth,
with passengers for Massachusetts Bay. Captain Standish testified
in regard to Thompson’s Island in Boston harbor, that about 1620 he
“was on that Island with Trevore,” and called it “Island Trevore.”
(Bradford, “Historie,” Deane’s ed. p. 209.) He did not sign the
Compact, perhaps because of the limitations of his contract (one
year).

— Ely (not Ellis, as Arber miscalls him, “The Story of the Pilgrim
Fathers,” p. 377) was the other of the “two seamen hired to stay a
year,” etc. He also returned when his time expired. (Bradford,
Hist. Mass. ed. p. 534.) He did not sign the Compact, probably for
the reason operative in .Trevore’s case. A digest of the foregoing
data gives the following interesting, if incomplete, data (errors
excepted):–

Adult males (hired seamen and servants of age included)… 44
Adult females (including Mrs. Carver’s maid)………….. 19
Youths, male children, and male servants, minors………. 29
Maidens, female children……………………………. 10
——-
102

Married males……………………………………… 26
Married females……………………………………. 18
Single (adult) males (and young men)…………………. 25
Single (adult) females (Mrs. Carver’s maid)…………… 1

Vocations of adults so far as known (except wives, who are presumed
housekeepers for their husbands):–

Carpenters………………………………………… 2
Cooper……………………………………………. 1
Fustian-worker and silk-dyer………………………… 1
Hatter……………………………………………. 1
Lay-reader………………………………………… 1
Lady’s-maid……………………………………….. 1
Merchants…………………………………………. 3
Physician…………………………………………. 1
Printers and publishers…………………………….. 2
Seamen……………………………………………. 4
Servants (adult)…………………………………… 10
Smith…………………………………………….. 1
Soldier…………………………………………… 1
Tailor……………………………………………. 1
Tradesmen…………………………………………. 2
Wool-carders………………………………………. 2

Allowing for the addition of Wilder and the two sailors, Trevore and Ely,
who did not sign it, the number of those who signed the Compact tallies
exactly with the adult males. Besides these occupations, it is known
that several of the individuals representing them were skilled in other
callings, and were at some time teachers, accountants, linguists,
writers, etc., while some had formerly practised certain handicrafts;
Dr. Fuller, e.g. having formerly been a “silk-worker,” Brad ford (on the
authority of Belknap), a “silk-dyer,” and others “fustian-workers.”
Hopkins had apparently sometime before dropped his character of
“lay-reader,” and was a pretty efficient man of affairs, but his
vocation at the time of the exodus is not known.

The former occupations of fourteen of the adult colonists, Browne,
Billington, Britteridge, Cooke, Chilton, Clarke, Crackstone, Goodman,
Gardiner, Rogers, Rigdale, Turner, Warren, and Williams are not certainly
known. There is evidence suggesting that Browne was a mechanic;
Billington and Cooke had been trained to husbandry; that Chilton had been
a small tradesman; that Edward Tilley had been, like his brother, a
silk-worker; that Turner was a tradesman, and Warren a farmer; while it
is certain that Cooke, Rogers, and Warren had been men of some means.

Of the above list of fourteen men whose last occupations before joining
the colonists are unknown, only five, viz. Browne, Billington, Cooke,
Gardiner, and Warren lived beyond the spring of 1621. Of these, Warren
died early, Gardiner left the colony and “became a seaman;” the other
three, Billington, Browne, and Cooke, became “planters.” Thomas Morton,
of “Merry Mount,” in his “New Eng land’s Canaan” (p. 217), gives
Billington the sobriquet “Ould Woodman.”

The early deaths of the others make their former handicrafts–except as
so much data pertaining to the composi tion and history of the colony–
matters of only ephemeral interest.

CHAPTER VII

QUARTERS, COOKING, PROVISIONS

Probably no more vexatious problem presented itself for the time being to
the “governors” of the two vessels and their “assistants,” upon their
selection, than the assignment of quarters to the passengers allotted to
their respective ships. That these allotments were in a large measure
determined by the requirements of the women and children may be
considered certain. The difficulties attendant on due recognition of
social and official station (far more imperative in that day than this)
were in no small degree lessened by the voluntary assignment of
themselves, already mentioned, of some of the Leyden chief people to the
smaller ship; but in the interests of the general welfare and of harmony,
certain of the leaders, both of the Leyden and London contingents, were
of necessity provided for in the larger vessel. The allotments to the
respective ships made at Southampton, the designation of quarters in the
ships themselves, and the final readjustments upon the MAY-FLOWER at
Plymouth (England), when the remaining passengers of both ships had been
united, were all necessarily determined chiefly with regard to the needs
of the women, girls, and babes. Careful analysis of the list shows that
there were, requiring this especial consideration, nineteen women, ten
young girls, and one infant. Of the other children, none were so young
that they might not readily bunk with or near their fathers in any part
of the ship in which the latter might be located.

We know enough of the absolute unselfishness and devotion of all the
Leyden leaders, whatever their birth or station,–so grandly proven in
those terrible days of general sickness and death at New Plymouth,–to be
certain that with them, under all circumstances, it was noblesse oblige,
and that no self-seeking would actuate them here. It should be
remembered that the MAY-FLOWER was primarily a passenger transport, her
passengers being her principal freight and occupying the most of the
ship, the heavier cargo being chiefly confined to the “hold.” As in that
day the passenger traffic was, of course, wholly by sailing vessels, they
were built with cabin accommodations for it, as to numbers, etc.,
proportionately much beyond those of the sailing craft of to-day. The
testimony of Captain John Smith, “the navigator,” as to the passengers of
the MAY-FLOWER “lying wet in their cabins,” and that of Bradford as to
Billington’s “cabin between decks,” already quoted, is conclusive as to
the fact that she had small cabins (the “staterooms” of to-day), intended
chiefly, no doubt, for women and children. The advice of Edward Winslow
to his friend George Morton, when the latter was about to come to New
England in the ANNE, “build your cabins as open as possible,”
is suggestive of close cabins and their discomforts endured upon the
MAY-FLOWER. It also suggests that the chartering-party was expected in
those days to control, if not to do, the “fitting up” of the ship for her
voyage. In view of the usual “breadth of beam” of ships of her class and
tonnage, aft, and the fore and aft length of the poop, it is not
unreasonable to suppose that there were not less than four small cabins
on either side of the common (open) cabin or saloon (often depicted as
the signing-place of the Compact), under the high poop deck. Constructed
on the general plan of such rooms or cabins to-day (with four single
berths, in tiers of two on either hand), there would be–if the women and
girls were conveniently distributed among them–space for all except the
Billingtons, who we know had a cabin (as had also doubtless several of
the principal men) built between decks. This would also leave an after
cabin for the Master, who not infrequently made his quarters, and those
of his chief officer, in the “round house,” when one existed, especially
in a crowded ship.

Cabins and bunks “between decks” would provide for all of the males of
the company, while the seamen, both of the crew and (some of) those in
the employ of the Pilgrims–like Trevore and Ely–were no doubt housed in
the fore castle. Alderton and English seem to have been counted “of the
company.” The few data we have permit us to confidently assume that some
such disposition of the passengers was (necessarily) made, and that but
for the leaky decks, the inseparable discomforts of the sea, and those of
over crowding, the wives of the Pilgrims (three of whom gave birth to
children aboard the ship), and their daughters, were fairly “berthed.”

Bradford is authority for the statement that with the “governor” of the
ship’s company were chosen “two or three assistants . . . to order
[regulate] the people by the way [on the passage] and see to the
disposition of the provisions,” etc. The last-named duty must have been a
most difficult and wearisome one. From what has been shown of the
poverty of the ship’s cooking facilities (especially for so large a
company), one must infer that it would be hopeless to expect to cook food
in any quantity, except when all conditions favored, and then but slowly
and with much difficulty. From the fact that so many would require food
at practically the same hours of the day, it is clear that there must
have been distribution of food (principally uncooked) to groups or
families, who, with the aid of servants (when available), must each have
prepared their own meals, cooking as occasion and opportunity indicated;
much after the manner of the steerage passengers in later days, but
before those of the great ocean liners. There appears to have been but
one cook for the officers and crew of the ship, and his hands were
doubtless full with their demands. It is certain that his service to the
passengers must have been very slight. That “the cook” is named as one
of the ship’s crew who died in Plymouth harbor (New England) is all the
knowledge we have concerning him.

The use of and dependence upon tea and coffee, now so universal, and at
sea so seemingly indispensable, was then unknown, beer supplying their
places, and this happily did not have to be prepared with fire. “Strong
waters”–Holland gin and to some extent “aqua vitae” (brandy)–were
relied upon for the (supposed) maintenance of warmth. Our Pilgrim
Fathers were by no means “total abstainers,” and sadly bewailed being
deprived of their beer when the supply failed. They also made general
and habitual (moderate) use of wine and spirits, though they sharply
interdicted and promptly punished their abuse.

In the absence of cooking facilities, it became necessary in that day to
rely chiefly upon such articles of food as did not require to be prepared
by heat, such as biscuit (hard bread), butter, cheese (“Holland cheese”
was a chief staple with the Pilgrims), “haberdyne” (or dried salt
codfish), smoked herring, smoked (“cured “) ham and bacon, “dried neat’s
tongues,” preserved and “potted” meats (a very limited list in that day),
fruits, etc. Mush, oatmeal, pease-puddings, pickled eggs, sausage meats,
salt beef and pork, bacon, “spiced beef,” such few vegetables as they had
(chiefly cabbages, turnips, and onions,–there were no potatoes in that
day), etc., could be cooked in quantity, when the weather permitted, and
would then be eaten cold.

Except as dried or preserved fruits, vegetables (notably onions), limes,
lemon juice, and the free use of vinegar feebly counteracted, their food
was distinctively stimulant of scorbutic and tuberculosis disease, which
constant exposure to cold and wet and the overcrowded state of the ship
could but increase and aggravate. Bradford narrates of one of the crew
of the MAY-FLOWER when in Plymouth harbor, as suggestive of the wretched
conditions prevalent in the ship, that one of his shipmates, under an
agreement to care for him, “got him a little spice and made him a mess of
beef, once or twice,” and then deserted him.

Josselyn, in his “Two Voyages to New England,” gives as the result of the
experience and observations had in his voyages, but a few years later,
much that is interesting and of exceptional value as to the food and
equipment of passengers to, and colonists in, this part of America. It
has especial interest, perhaps, for the author and his readers, in the
fact that Josselyn’s statements were not known until after the data given
in these pages had been independently worked out from various sources,
and came therefore as a gratifying confirmation of the conclusions
already reached.

Josselyn says as to food, as follows:–“The common proportion of
victuals for the sea to a mess (being 4 men) is as followeth:–

“2 pieces of Beef of 3 lb. 1/4 apiece. Pork seems to have been
inadvertently omitted.

“Four pounds of Bread [ship-bread].

“One pint & 1/2 of Pease.

“Four Gallons of Bear [Beer], with mustard and vinegar for 3 flesh days
in the week.”

“For four fish days to each mess per day:–

“Two pieces of Codd or Haberdine, making 3 pieces of a fish, i.e. a
dried salt cod being divided into three pieces, 2 of those pieces were to
be a day’s ration for 4 men.

“Four pounds of Bread.

“Three-quarters of a pound of cheese.

“Bear as before.”

“Oatmeal per day for 50 men 1 Gallon [dry], and so proportionable for
more or fewer.”

“Thus you see the ship’s provision is Beefe and Porke, Fish, Butter,
Cheese, Pease, Pottage, Water-Gruel, Bisket, and six shilling Bear.”

“For private fresh provision you may carry with you (in case you or any
of yours should be sick at sea):–

“Conserves of Roses, Clove-Gilliflowers, Wormwood, Green-Ginger,
Burnt-Wine, English Spirits, Prunes to stew, Raisons of the Sun,
Currence [currants], Sugar, Nutmeg, Mace, Cinnamon, Pepper and Ginger,
White Bisket, Butter, or ‘Captains biscuit,’ made with wheat flour or
Spanish Rusk, Eggs, Rice, Juice of Lemons, well put up to cure or
prevent the Scurvy, Small Skillets, Pipkins, Porringers and small
Frying Pans.”

Josselyn further gives us an estimate for:–

“Victuals for a whole year to be carried out of England for one man and so
for more after this rate.” He annexed also their current prices:–

“Eight bushels of Meal [Rye meal probably intended]
Two bushels of Pease at 3/s
Two bushels of Oatmeal at 4s/6d
One Gallon of Aqua Vitae
One Gallon of Oyl
Two Gallons of Vinegar
[No estimate of Beef or Pork, or of vegetables, is included.]
A Hogshead of English Bear
A Hogshead of Irish Bear
A Hogshead of Vinegar
A bushel of Mustard seed
A Kental [Quintal] of fish, Cod or Haberdine, 112 lb.”

Edward Window, in his letter to George Morton before mentioned, advising
him as to his voyage, says: “Bring juice of lemons and take it fasting.
It is of good use.”

It is indeed remarkable that, totally unused to any such conditions, wet,
cold, poorly fed, overcrowded, storm-tossed, bruised and beaten, anxious,
and with no homes to welcome them, exposed to new hardships and dangers
on landing, worn and exhausted, any of the MAY-FLOWER’S company survived.
It certainly cannot be accounted strange that infectious diseases, once
started among them, should have run through their ranks like fire, taking
both old and young. Nor is it strange that–though more inured to
hardship and the conditions of sea life–with the extreme and unusual
exposure of boat service on the New England coast in mid winter, often
wading in the icy water and living aboard ship in a highly infected
atmosphere, the seamen should have succumbed to disease in almost equal
ratio with the colonists. The author is prepared, after careful
consideration, to accept and professionally indorse, with few exceptions,
the conclusions as to the probable character of the decimating diseases
of the passengers and crew of the MAY-FLOWER, so ably and interestingly
presented by Dr. Edward E. Cornwall in the “New England Magazine” for
February, 1897–From the fact that Edward Thompson, Jasper More, and
Master James Chilton died within a month of the arrival at Cape Cod (and
while the ship lay in that harbor), and following the axiom of vital
statistics that “for each death two are constantly sick,” there must have
been some little (though not to say general) sickness on the MAY-FLOWER
when she arrived at Cape Cod. It would, in view of the hardship of the
voyage, have been very remarkable if this had not been the case. It
would have been still more remarkable if the ill-conditioned,
thin-blooded, town-bred “servants” and apprentices had not suffered
first and most. It is significant that eight out of nine of the male
“servants” should have died in the first four months. It was impossible
that scurvy should not have been prevalent with both passengers and
crew.

CHAPTER VIII

THE MAY-FLOWER’S LADING

Beside her human freight of one hundred and thirty or more passengers and
crew, the lading of the MAY-FLOWER when she sailed from Plymouth
(England), September 6/16, 1620, was considerable and various. If
clearing at a custom-house of to-day her manifest would excite no little
interest and surprise. Taking no account of the ship’s stores and
supplies (necessarily large, like her crew, when bound upon such a
voyage, when every possible need till her return to her home port must be
provided for before sailing), the colonists’ goods and chattels were
many, their provisions bulky, their ordnance, arms, and stores (in the
hold) heavy, and their trading-stock fairly ample. Much of the cargo
originally stowed in the SPEEDWELL, a part, as we know, of her company,
and a few of her crew were transferred to the MAY-FLOWER at Plymouth, and
there can be no doubt that the ship was both crowded and overladen.

It is altogether probable that the crowded condition of her spar and main
decks caused the supply of live-stock taken–whether for consumption upon
the voyage or for the planters’ needs on shore–to be very limited as to
both number and variety. It has been matter of surprise to many that no
cattle (not even milch-cows) were taken, but if–as is not unlikely–it
was at first proposed to take a cow or two (when both ships were to go
and larger space was available), this intent was undoubtedly abandoned at
Plymouth, England, when it became evident that there would be dearth of
room even for passengers, none whatever for cattle or their fodder (a
large and prohibitive quantity of the latter being required for so long a
voyage), and that the lateness of the season and its probable hardships
would endanger the lives of the animals if taken. So far as appears the
only domestic live-stock aboard the MAY-FLOWER consisted of goats, swine,
poultry, and dogs. It is quite possible that some few sheep, rabbits, and
poultry for immediate consumption (these requiring but little forage) may
have been shipped, this being customary then as now. It is also probable
that some household pets–cats and caged singing-birds, the latter always
numerous in both England and Holland–were carried on board by their
owners, though no direct evidence of the fact is found. There is ample
proof that goats, swine, poultry, and dogs were landed with the colonists
at New Plymouth, and it is equally certain that they had at first neither
cattle, horses, nor sheep. Of course the she-goats were their sole
reliance for milk for some time, whether afloat or ashore, and goat’s
flesh and pork their only possibilities in the way of fresh meat for many
months, save poultry (and game after landing), though we may be sure, in
view of the breeding value of their goats, poultry, and swine, few were
consumed for food. The “fresh meat” mentioned as placed before
Massasoit’ on his first visit was probably venison, though possibly kid’s
meat, pork, or poultry. Of swine and poultry they must have had a pretty
fair supply, judging from their rapid increase, though their goats must
have been few. They were wholly without beasts of draft or burden (though
it seems strange that a few Spanish donkeys or English “jacks” had not
been taken along, as being easily kept, hardy, and strong, and quite
equal to light ploughing, hauling, carrying, etc.), and their lack was
sorely felt. The space they and their forage demanded it was doubtless
considered impracticable to spare. The only dogs that appear in evidence
are a large mastiff bitch (the only dog of that breed probably seen on
these shores since Pring’s “bigge dogges” so frightened the Indians’ in
this region seventeen years before)

[Captain Martin Pring had at Plymouth, in 1603, two great “mastive
dogges” named “Fool” and “Gallant,” the former being trained to carry
a half-pike in his mouth. “The Indians were more afraid of these
dogs than of twenty men.” American Magazine of History; Goodwin,
Pilgrim Republic, p. 3.]

and a small spaniel, both the property of passengers, though there may
have been others not mentioned. Speaking of the venison found in a tree
by one of the exploring parties, Winslow says: “We thought it fitter for
the dogs than for us,” perhaps suggesting by his word “the” their own
dogs aboard ship and provision for them. There is an intimation as to
the ownership of these two dogs in the facts that on certainly two
occasions John Goodman was accompanied by the little spaniel (once when
alone), from which it may perhaps be inferred that he was the dog’s
master; while the big mastiffs presence when only Peter Browne and
Goodman were together suggests that Browne was her owner. The goats,
swine, rabbits, and poultry were doubtless penned on the spar-deck
forward, while possibly some poultry, and any sheep brought for food, may
have been temporarily housed–as was a practice with early voyagers–in
the (unused) ship’s boats, though these appear to have been so few in
number and so much in demand that it is doubtful if they were here
available as pens. The heavy cargo and most of the lighter was of course
stowed in the hold, as the main deck (or “‘tween decks”) was mostly
occupied as quarters for the male passengers, old and young, though the
colonists’ shallop, a sloop-rigged boat some thirty feet in length, had
been “cut down” and stowed “between the decks” for the voyage. A glimpse
of the weary life at sea on that long and dreary passage is given in
Bradford’s remark that “she was much opened with the people’s lying in
her during the voyage:” This shallop with her equipment, a possible spare
skiff or two, the chests, “boxes,” and other personal belongings of the
passengers, some few cases of goods, some furniture, etc., constituted
the only freight for which there could have been room “between decks,”
most of the space (aft) being occupied by cabins and bunks.

The provisions in use, both by passengers and crew, were probably kept in
the lazarette or “runs,” in the stern of the ship, which would be
unusually capacious in vessels of this model; some–the bulkiest–in the
hold under the forward hatch, as the custom was, and to some extent still
is. The food supply of the Pilgrims, constituting part of the
MAY-FLOWER’S Cargo, included, as appears from authentic sources:–

Breadstuff’s, including,–
Biscuits or ship-bread (in barrels).
Oatmeal (in barrels or hogsheads).
Rye meal (in hogsheads).
Butter (in firkins).
Cheese, “Hollands” and English (in boxes).
Eggs, pickled (in tubs).
Fish, “haberdyne” [or salt dried cod] (in boxes).
Smoked herring (in boxes).
Meats, including,–
Beef, salt, or “corned” (in barrels).
Dry-salted (in barrels).
Smoked (in sacks).
Dried neats’-tongues (in boxes).
Pork, bacon, smoked (in sacks or boxes).
Salt [“corned”] (in barrels).
Hams and shoulders, smoked (in canvas sacks or hogsheads).
Salt (in bags and barrels).
Vegetables, including,–
Beans (in bags and barrels).
Cabbages (in sacks and barrels).
Onions (in sacks).
Turnips (in sacks).
Parsnips (in sacks).
Pease (in barrels), and
Vinegar (in hogsheads), while,–
Beer (in casks), brandy, “aqua vitae” (in pipes), and gin [“Hollands,”
“strong waters,” or “schnapps”] (in pipes) were no small or
unimportant part, from any point of view, of the provision supply.

Winslow, in his letter to George Morton advising him as to his
preparations for the voyage over, says: “Be careful to have a very good
bread-room to keep your biscuit in.” This was to keep them from
dampness. Winthrop gives us the memorandum of his order for the
ship-bread for his voyage in 1630. He says: “Agreed with Keene of
Southwark, baker, for 20,000 of Biscuit, 15,000 of brown, and 5,000 of
white.” Captain Beecher minutes: “10 M. of bread for the ship ARBELLA.”
Beecher’s memorandum of “oatmeal” is “30 bushels.” Winslow mentions
“oatmeal,” and Winthrop notes among the provisions bought by Captain
William Pierce, “4 hhds. of oatmeal.” Rye meal was usually meant by the
term “meal,” and Window in his letter to George Morton advises him: “Let
your meal be so hard-trod in your casks that you shall need an adz or
hatchet to work it out with;” and also to “be careful to come by [be
able to get at] some of your meal to spend [use] by the way.”
Notwithstanding that Bradford’ speaks of their “selling away” some “60
firkins of butter,” to clear port charges at Southampton, and the
leaders, in their letter to the Adventurers from that port (August 3),
speak of themselves, when leaving Southampton in August, 1620, as
“scarce having any butter,” there seems to have been some left to give
as a present to Quadrequina, Massasoit’s brother, the last of March
following, which would indicate its good “keeping” qualities. Wood, in
his “New England’s Prospect” (ch. 2), says: “Their butter and cheese
were corrupted.” Bradford mentions that their lunch on the exploration
expedition of November 15, on Cape Cod, included “Hollands cheese,”
which receives also other mention. There is a single mention, in the
literature of the day, of eggs preserved in salt, for use on shipboard.
“Haberdyne” (or dried salt cod) seems to have been a favorite and staple
article of diet aboard ship. Captain Beecher minutes “600 haberdyne for
the ship ARBELLA.” Wood says: “Their fish was rotten.” Smoked
“red-herring” were familiar food to all the MAY-FLOWER company. No
house or ship of England or Holland in that day but made great
dependence upon them. Bacon was, of course, a main staple at sea. In
its half-cooked state as it came from the smoke-house it was much
relished with their biscuit by seamen and others wishing strong food,
and when fried it became a desirable article of food to all except the
sick. Mention is made of it by several of the early Pilgrim writers.
Carlyle, as quoted, speaks of it as a diet-staple on the MAY-FLOWER.
Salt (“corned”) beef has always been a main article of food with seamen
everywhere. Wood’ states that the “beef” of the Pilgrims was “tainted.”
In some way it was made the basis of a reputedly palatable preparation
called “spiced beef,” mentioned as prepared by one of the sailors for a
shipmate dying on the MAY-FLOWER in Plymouth harbor. It must have been a
very different article from that we now find so acceptable under that
name in England. Winthrop’ gives the price of his beef at “19 shillings
per cwt.” Winslow advises his friend Morton, in the letter so often
quoted, not to have his beef “dry-salted,” saying, “none can do it
better than the sailors,” which is a suggestion not readily understood.
“Smoked” beef was practically the same as that known as “jerked,”
“smoked,” or “dried” beef in America. A “dried neat’s-tongue” is named
as a contribution of the Pilgrims to the dinner for Captain Jones and
his men on February 21, 1621, when they had helped to draw up and mount
the cannon upon the platform on the hill at Plymouth. Winthrop paid
“14d. a piece” for his “neats’ tongues.” The pork of the Pilgrims is
also said by Wood’ to have been “tainted.” Winthrop states that his
pork cost “20 pence the stone” (14 lbs.).

Hams seem to have been then, as now, a highly-prized article of diet.
Goodwin mentions that the salt used by the Pilgrims was (evaporated)
“sea-salt” and very “impure.” Winthrop mentions among his supplies,
“White, Spanish, and Bay salt.”

The beans of the Pilgrims were probably of the variety then known as
“Spanish beans.” The cabbages were apparently boiled with meat, as
nowadays, and also used considerably for “sour-krout” and for pickling,
with which the Leyden people had doubtless become familiar during their
residence among the Dutch. As anti-scorbutics they were of much value.
The same was true of onions, whether pickled, salted, raw, or boiled.
Turnips and parsnips find frequent mention in the early literature of the
first settlers, and were among their stock vegetables. Pease were
evidently staple articles of food with the Plymouth people, and are
frequently named. They probably were chiefly used for porridge and
puddings, and were used in large quantities, both afloat and ashore.

Vinegar in hogsheads was named on the food-list of every ship of the
Pilgrim era. It was one of their best antiscorbutics, and was of course
a prime factor in their use of “sour krout,” pickling, etc. The fruits,
natural, dried, and preserved, were probably, in that day, in rather
small supply. Apples, limes, lemons, prunes, olives, rice, etc., were
among the luxuries of a voyage, while dried or preserved fruits and small
fruits were not yet in common use. Winslow, in the letter cited, urges
that “your casks for beer . . . be iron bound, at least for the first
[end] tyre” [hoop]. Cushman states that they had ample supplies of beer
offered them both in Kent and Amsterdam. The planters’ supply seems to
have failed, however, soon after the company landed, and they were
obliged to rely upon the whim of the Captain of the MAY-FLOWER for their
needs, the ship’s supply being apparently separate from that of the
planters, and lasting longer. Winthrop’s supply seems to have been large
(“42 tons”–probably tuns intended). It was evidently a stipulation of
the charter-party that the ship should, in part at least, provision her
crew for the voyage,–certainly furnish their beer. This is rendered
certain by Bradford’s difficulty (as stated by himself) with Captain
Jones, previously referred to, showing that the ship had her own supply
of beer, separate from that of the colonists, and that it was intended
for the seamen as well as the officers.

Bradford mentions “aqua vitae” as a constituent of their lunch on the
exploring party of November 15. “Strong waters” (or Holland gin) are
mentioned as a part of the entertainment given Massasoit on his first
visit, and they find frequent mention otherwise. Wine finds no mention.
Bradford states in terms: “Neither ever had they any supply of foode from
them [the Adventurers] but what they first brought with them;” and again,
“They never had any supply of vitales more afterwards (but what the Lord
gave them otherwise), for all ye company [the Adventurers] sent at any
time was allways too short for those people yt came with it.”

The clothing supplies of the Pilgrims included hats, caps, shirts,
neck-cloths, jerkins, doublets, waistcoats, breeches (stuff and leather),
“hosen,” stockings, shoes, boots, belts (girdles), cloth, piece-goods
(dress-stuff’s), “haberdasherie,” etc., etc., all of which, with minor
items for men’s and women’s use, find mention in their early narratives,
accounts, and correspondence. By the will of Mr. Mullens it appears that
he had twenty-one dozen of shoes and thirteen pairs of boots on board,
doubtless intended as medium of exchange or barter. By the terms of the.
contract with the colonists, the Merchant Adventurers were to supply all
their actual necessities of Clothing food, clothing, etc., for the full
term of seven years, during which the labors of the “planters” were to be
for the joint account. Whether under this agreement they were bound to
fully “outfit” the colonists before they embarked (and did so), as was
done by Higginson’s company coming to Salem in 1628-29 at considerable
cost per capita, and as was done for those of the Leyden people who came
over in 1629 with Pierce in the MAY-FLOWER and the TALBOT to Salem, and
again in 1630 with the same Master (Pierce) in the LION by the Plymouth
successors to the Adventurers (without recompense), does not clearly
appear. No mention is found of any “outfitting” of the MAY-FLOWER
passengers except the London apprentices. There is no doubt that a
considerable supply of all the above-named articles was necessarily sent
by the Adventurers on the MAY-FLOWER, both for the Pilgrims’ needs on the
voyage and in the new colony, as also for trading purposes. There seems
to have been at all times a supreme anxiety, on the part of both Pilgrim
and Puritan settlers, to get English clothes upon their red brethren of
the forest, whether as a means of exchange for peltry, or for decency’s
sake, is not quite clear. There was apparently a greater disparity in
character, intelligence, and station between the leaders of Higginson’s
and Winthrop’s companies and their followers than between the chief men
of the Pilgrims and their associates. With the former were titles and
considerable representation of wealth and position. With the passengers
of the MAY-FLOWER a far greater equality in rank, means, intelligence,
capacity, and character was noticeable. This was due in part, doubtless,
to the religious beliefs and training of the Leyden contingent, and had
prompt illustration in their Compact, in which all stood at once on an
equal footing. There was but little of the “paternal” nature in the form
of their government (though something at times in their punishments), and
there was much personal dignity and independence of the individual.
An equipment having so much of the character of a uniform–not to say
“livery”–as that furnished by Higginson’s company to its people
suggests the “hedger and ditcher” type of colonists (of whom there were
very few among the Plymouth settlers), rather than the scholar,
publisher, tradesman, physician, hatter, smith, carpenter, “lay reader,”
and soldier of the Pilgrims, and would certainly have been obnoxious to
their finer sense of personal dignity and proportion. Doubtless an
equivalent provision existed–though in less “all-of-a-pattern”
character–in the bales and boxes of the MAY-FLOWER’S cargo for every
need suggested by the list of the Higginson “outfit,” which is given
herewith, both as matter of interest and as affording an excellent idea
of the accepted style and needs in dress of a New England settler (at
least of the men) of 1620-30. One cannot fail to wonder at the
noticeably infrequent mention of provision in apparel, etc., for the
women and children. The inventory of the “Apparell for 100 men” furnished
by Higginson’s company in 1628-29 gives us, among others, the following
items of clothing for each emigrant:–
4 “peares of shoes.”
4 “peares of stockings.”
1 “peare Norwich gaiters.”
4 “shirts.”
2 “suits dublet and hose of leather lyn’d with oyld skyn leather, ye hose
& dublett with hooks & eyes.”
1 “sute of Norden dussens or hampshire kersies lynd the hose with skins,
dublets with lynen of gilford or gedlyman kerseys.”
4 bands.
2 handkerchiefs.
1 “wastecoat of greene cotton bound about with red tape.”
1 leather girdle.
1 “Monmouth cap.”
1 “black hatt lyned in the brows with lether.”
5 “Red knitt capps milf’d about 5d apiece.”
2 “peares of gloves.”
1 “Mandiliion lynd with cotton” [mantle or greatcoat].
1 “peare of breeches and waistcoat.”
1 “leather sute of Dublett & breeches of oyled leather.”
1 “peare of leather breeches and drawers to weare with both there other
sutes.”

In 1628 Josselyn put the average cost of clothing to emigrants to New
England at L4 each. In 1629 good shoes cost the “Bay” colonists 2s/7d
per pair. In his “Two Voyages to New England” previously referred to,
Josselyn gives an estimate (made about 1628) of the “outfit” in clothing
needed by a New England settler of his time. He names as “Apparel for
one man–and after this rate for more:–”
One Hatt
One Monmouth Cap
Three falling bands
Three Shirts
One Wastcoat
One Suite of Frize (Frieze)
One Suite of Cloth
One Suite of Canvas
Three Pairs of Irish Stockings
Four Pairs of Shoes
One Pair of Canvas Sheets
Seven ells of coarse canvas, to make a bed at sea for two men,
to be filled with straw
One Coarse Rug at Sea

The Furniture of the Pilgrims has naturally been matter of much interest
to their descendants and others for many years. While it is doubtful if
a single article now in existence can be positively identified and
truthfully certified as having made the memorable voyage in the
MAY-FLOWER (nearly everything having, of course, gone to decay with the
wear and tear of more than two hundred and fifty years), this honorable
origin is still assigned to many heirlooms, to some probably correctly.
Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes in his delightful lines, “On Lending a Punch
Bowl,” humorously claims for his convivial silver vessel a place with
the Pilgrims:–

“Along with all the furniture, to fill their new abodes,
To judge by what is still on hand, at least a hundred loads.”

To a very few time-worn and venerated relics–such as Brewster’s chair
and one or more books, Myles Standish’s Plymouth sword, the Peregrine
White cradle, Winslow’s pewter, and one or two of Bradford’s books–a
strong probability attaches that they were in veritate, as traditionally
avowed, part of the MAY-FLOWER’S freight, but of even these the fact
cannot be proven beyond the possibility of a doubt.

From its pattern and workmanship, which are of a period antedating the
“departure from Delfshaven,” and the ancient tradition which is traceable
to Brewster’s time, it appears altogether probable that what is known as
“Elder Brewster’s chair” came with him on the ship. There is even
greater probability as to one of his books bearing his autograph.

The sword of Myles Standish, in possession of the Pilgrim Society, may
claim, with equal probability, MAY-FLOWER relation, from its evident
antiquity and the facts that, as a soldier, his trusty blade doubtless
stayed with him, and that it is directly traceable in his descendants’
hands, back to his time; but an equally positive claim is made for
similar honors for another sword said to have also belonged to the
Captain, now in the keeping of the Massachusetts Historical Society.

The Peregrine White cradle “is strongly indorsed as of the MAY-FLOWER,
from the facts that it is, indubitably, of a very early Dutch pattern and
manufacture; that Mrs. White was anticipating the early need of a cradle
when leaving Holland; and that the descent of this one as an heirloom in
her (second) family is so fairly traced.”

The pewter and the silver flask of Winslow not only bear very early
“Hallmarks,” but also the arms of his family, which it is not likely he
would have had engraved on what he may have bought after notably becoming
the defender of the simplicity and democracy of the “Pilgrim Republic.”
Long traceable use in his family strengthens belief in the supposition
that these articles came with the Pilgrims, and were then very probably
heirlooms. One of Governor Bradford’s books (Pastor John Robinson’s
“Justification of Separation”), published in 1610, and containing the
Governor’s autograph, bears almost ‘prima facie’ evidence of having come
with him in the MAY-FLOWER, but of course might, like the above-named
relics, have come in some later ship.

In this connection it is of interest to note what freight the MAY-FLOWER
carried for the intellectual needs of the Pilgrims. Of Bibles, as the
“book of books,” we may be sure–even without the evidence of the
inventories of the early dead–there was no lack, and there is reason to
believe that they existed in several tongues, viz. in English, Dutch, and
possibly French (the Walloon contribution from the Huguenots), while
there is little doubt that, alike as publishers and as “students of the
Word,” Brewster, Bradford, and Winslow, at least, were possessed of, and
more or less familiar with, both the Latin and Greek Testaments. It is
altogether probable, however, that Governor Bradford’s well attested
study of “the oracles of God in the original” Hebrew, and his possession
of the essential Hebrew Bible, grammar, and lexicon, were of a later day.
Some few copies of the earliest hymnals (“psalme-bookes”)–then very
limited in number–there is evidence that the Holland voyagers had with
them in the singing of their parting hymns at Leyden and Delfshaven, as
mentioned by Winslow and in the earlier inventories: These metrical
versions of the Psalms constituted at the time, practically, the only
hymnology permitted in the worship of the “Separatists,” though the grand
hymn of Luther, “Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott,” doubtless familiar to
them, must have commended itself as especially comforting and apposite.

Of the doctrinal tracts of their beloved Pastor, John Robinson, there is
every probability, as well as some proof, that there was good supply, as
well as those of Ainsworth and Clyfton and of the works of William Ames,
the renowned Franeker Professor, the controversial opponent but sincere
friend of Robinson: the founder of evangelical “systematic theology,”
[method–Methodist? D.W.] whom death alone prevented from becoming the
President of Harvard College. We may be equally sure that the few cases
of books in the freight of the Pilgrim ship included copies of the
publications of the “hidden and hunted press” of Brewster and Brewer, and
some at least of the issues of their fellows in tribulation at Amsterdam
and in Scotland and England. Some few heavy tomes and early classics in
English, Dutch, Latin, and Greek were also presumably among the goodly
number of books brought in the MAY FLOWER by Brewster, Bradford, Winslow,
Fuller, Hopkins, Allerton, Standish, and others, though it is probable
that the larger part of the very considerable library of four hundred
volumes, left at his death by Brewster (including sixty-two in Latin),
and of the respectable libraries of Fuller, Standish, and others, named
in their respective inventories, either were brought over in the later
ships, or were the products of the earliest printers of New England. One
is surprised and amused that the library of the good Dr. Fuller should
contain so relatively small a proportion of medical works (although the
number in print prior to his death in 1633 was not great), while rich in
religious works pertinent to his functions as deacon. It is equally
interesting to note that the inventory of the soldier Standish should
name only one book on military science, “Bariffe’s Artillery,” though it
includes abundant evidence to controvert, beyond reasonable doubt, the
suggestion which has been made, that he was of the Romanist faith. Just
which of the books left by the worthies named, and others whose
inventories we possess, came with them in the Pilgrim ship, cannot be
certainly determined, though, as before noted, some still in existence
bear intrinsic testimony that they were of the number. There is evidence
that Allerton made gift of a book to Giles Heale of the MAY-FLOWER
(perhaps the ship’s surgeon), while the ship lay at Plymouth, and Francis
Cooke’s inventory includes “1 great Bible and 4 olde bookes,” which as
they were “olde,” and he was clearly not a book-buyer, very probably came
with him in the ship. In fact, hardly an adult of the Leyden colonists,
the inventory of whose estate at death we possess, but left one or more
books which may have been his companions on the voyage.

Some of the early forms of British and Dutch calendars, “annuals,” and
agricultural “hand-books,” it is certain were brought over by several
families, and were doubtless much consulted and well-thumbed “guides,
counsellors, and friends” in the households of their possessors. The
great preponderance of reading matter brought by the little colony was,
however, unquestionably of the religious controversial order, which had
been so much a part of their lives, and its sum total was considerable.
There are intimations, in the inventories of the Fathers, of a few works
of historical cast, but of these not many had yet been printed.
“Caesar’s Commentaries,” a “History of the World,” and a “History of
Turkey” on Standish’s shelves, with the two Dictionaries and “Peter
Martyr on Rome” on Dr. Fuller’s, were as likely to have come in the first
ship, and to have afforded as much satisfaction to the hungry readers of
the little community as any of the books we find named in the lists of
their little stock. It is pathetic to note, in these days of utmost
prodigality in juvenile literature, that for the Pilgrim children, aside
from the “Bible stories,” some of the wonderful and mirth-provoking
metrical renderings of the “Psalme booke,” and the “horne booke,” or
primer (the alphabet and certain elementary contributions in verse or
prose, placed between thin covers of transparent horn for protection),
there was almost absolutely nothing in the meagre book-freight of the
Pilgrim ark. “Milk for Babes,” whether as physical or mental pabulum,
was in poor supply aboard the MAY-FLOWER.

The most that can be claimed with confidence, for particular objects of
alleged MAY-FLOWER relation, is that there is logical and moral certainty
that there was a supply of just such things on board, because they were
indispensable, and because every known circumstance and condition
indicates their presence in the hands to which they are assigned, while
tradition and collateral evidence confirm the inference and sometimes go
very far to establish their alleged identity, and their presence with
their respective owners upon the ship. A few other articles besides those
enumerated in possession of the Pilgrim Society, and of other societies
and individuals, present almost equally strong claims with those named,
to be counted as “of MAY-FLOWER belonging,” but in no case is the
connection entirely beyond question. Where so competent, interested, and
conscientious students of Pilgrim history as Hon. William T. Davis, of
Plymouth, and the late Dr. Thomas B. Drew, so long the curator of the
Pilgrim Society, cannot find warrant for a positive claim in behalf of
any article as having come, beyond a doubt, “in the MAY FLOWER,” others
may well hesitate to insist upon that which, however probable and
desirable, is not susceptible of conclusive proof.

That certain articles of household furniture, whether now existent or
not, were included in the ship’s cargo, is attested by the inventories of
the small estates of those first deceased, and, by mention or
implication, in the narratives of Bradford, Winslow, Morton, and other
contemporaries, as were also many utensils and articles of domestic use.
There were also beyond question many not so mentioned, which may be
safely named as having very certainly been comprised in the ship’s
lading, either because in themselves indispensable to the colonists, or
because from the evidence in hand we know them to have been inseparable
from the character, social status, daily habits, home life, or
ascertained deeds of the Pilgrims. When it is remembered that
furnishings, however simple, were speedily required for no less than
nineteen “cottages” and their households, the sum total called for was not
inconsiderable.

[Bradford, in Mourt’s Relation (p. 68), shows that the colonists
were divided up into “nineteen families,” that “so we might build
fewer houses.” Winslow, writing to George Morton, December 11/21,
1621, says: “We have built seven dwelling-houses and four for the
use of the plantation.” Bradford (Historie, Mass. ed. p. 110)
calls the houses “small cottages.”]

Among the furniture for these “cottages” brought on the Pilgrim ship may
be enumerated: chairs, table-chairs, stools and forms (benches), tables
of several sizes and shapes (mostly small), table-boards and “cloathes,”
trestles, beds; bedding and bed-clothing, cradles, “buffets,” cupboards
and “cabinets,” chests and chests of drawers, boxes of several kinds and
“trunks,” andirons, “iron dogs,” “cob-irons,” fire-tongs and “slices”
(shovels), cushions, rugs, and “blanckets,” spinning wheels, hand-looms,
etc., etc. Among household utensils were “spits,” “bake-kettles,” pots
and kettles (iron, brass, and copper), frying-pans, “mortars” and pestles
(iron, brass, and “belle-mettle”), sconces, lamps (oil “bettys”),
candlesticks, snuffers, buckets, tubs, “runlets,” pails and baskets,
“steel yards,” measures, hour-glasses and sun-dials, pewter-ware
(platters, plates, mugs, porringers, etc.), wooden trenchers, trays,
“noggins,” “bottles,” cups, and “lossets.” Earthen ware, “fatten” ware
(mugs, “jugs,” and “crocks “), leather ware (bottles, “noggins,” and
cups), table-ware (salt “sellars,” spoons, knives, etc), etc. All of the
foregoing, with numerous lesser articles, have received mention in the
early literature of the Pilgrim exodus, and were undeniably part of the
MAY-FLOWER’S lading.

The MAY-FLOWER origin claimed for the “Governor Carver chair” and the
“Elder Brewster chair” rests wholly upon tradition, and upon the
venerable pattern and aspect of the chairs themselves. The “Winslow
chair,” in possession of the Pilgrim Society at Plymouth (Mass.), though
bearing evidence of having been “made in Cheapside, London, in 1614,” is
not positively known to have been brought on the MAY-FLOWER. Thacher’s
“History of Plymouth” (p. 144.) states that “a sitting-chair, said to
have been screwed to the floor of the MAY-FLOWER’S cabin for the
convenience of a lady, is known to have been in the possession of
Penelope Winslow (who married James Warren), and is now in possession of
Hannah White.” There are certain venerable chairs alleged, with some
show of probability, to have been the property of Captain Standish, now
owned in Bridgewater, but there is no record attached to them, and they
are not surely assignable to either ship or owner. That some few tables
–mostly small–were brought in the MAY-FLOWER, there is some evidence,
but the indications are that what were known as “table-boards”–long and
narrow boards covered with what were called “board-cloths”–very largely
took the place of tables. The walnut-top table, said to have once been
Governor Winslow’s and now in possession of the Pilgrim Society, is not
known to have come over with him, and probably did not. It was very
likely bought for the use of the Council when he was governor. The
“table-boards” mentioned were laid on “trestles” (cross-legged and folding
supports of proper height), which had the great merit that they could be
placed in any convenient spot and as easily folded up, and with the board
put away, leaving the space which a table would have permanently occupied
free for other use.

Bradford mentions that when the fire of Sunday, January 14., 1621,
occurred in the “common house,” the “house was as full of beds as they
could lie one by another.” There is a doubt, however, whether this
indicates bedsteads or (probably) “pallets” only. Beds, bedding of all
sorts, pillow-“beers,” pillow-cases and even “mattrises,” are of most
frequent mention in the earliest wills and inventories. (See Appendix.)
“Buffets,” “cupboards,” and “cabinets,” all find mention in the earliest
writers and inventories, and one or two specimens, for which a MAY-FLOWER
history is claimed, are in possession of the Pilgrim Society and others.
The “White” cabinet, of putative MAY-FLOWER connection, owned by the
Pilgrim Society, is a fine example of its class, and both its “ear marks”
and its known history support the probable truth of the claim made for
it. Of “chests” and “chests-of-drawers” there were doubtless goodly
numbers in the ship, but with the exception of a few chests (or the
fragments of them), for which a MAY-FLOWER passage is vaunted, little is
known of them. The chest claimed to be that of Elder Brewster, owned by
the Connecticut Historical Society, was not improb ably his, but that it
had any MAY-FLOWER relation is not shown. A fragment of a chest claimed
to have been “brought by Edward Winslow in the MAY-FLOWER” is owned by
the Pilgrim Society, and bears considerable evidence of the probable
validity of such claim, but proof positive is lacking. Boxes of several
kinds and sizes were part of the Pilgrims’ chattels on their ship, some
of them taking the place of the travellers’ “trunks” of to-day, though
“trunks” were then known by that name and find early mention in Pilgrim
inventories, and there were no doubt some upon the Pilgrim ship. A few
claiming such distinction are exhibited, but without attested records of
their origin.

“Andirons, fire-dogs, and cob-irons” (the latter to rest roasting spits
upon) were enumerated among the effects of those early deceased among the
Pilgrims, rendering it well-certain that they must have been part of
their belongings on the MAY-FLOWER. Fire-tongs and “slices” [shovels]
are also frequently mentioned in early Pilgrim inventories, placing them
in the same category with the “andirons and fire-dogs.”

In “Mourt’s Relation,” in the accounts given of the state reception of
Massasoit, “a green rug and three or four cushions” are shown to have
performed their parts in the official ceremonies, and were, of course,
necessarily brought in the MAY-FLOWER.

Spinning-wheels and hand-looms were such absolute necessities, and were
so familiar and omnipresent features of the lives and labors of the
Pilgrim housewives and their Dutch neighbors of Leyden, that we should be
certain that they came with the Pilgrims, even if they did not find
mention in the earliest Pilgrim inventories. Many ancient ones are
exhibited in the “Old Colony,” but it is not known that it is claimed for
any of them that they came in the first ship. It is probable that some of
the “cheese fatts” and churns so often named in early inventories came in
the ship, though at first there was, in the absence of milch kine, no
such use for them as there had been in both England and Holland, and soon
was in New England.

Among cooking utensils the roasting “spit” was, in one form or another,
among the earliest devices for cooking flesh, and as such was an
essential of every household. Those brought by the Plymouth settlers
were probably, as indicated by the oldest specimens that remain to us, of
a pretty primitive type. The ancient “bake-kettle” (sometimes called
“pan”), made to bury in the ashes and thus to heat above and below, has
never been superseded where resort must be had to the open fire for
cooking, and (practically unchanged) is in use to-day at many a
sheep-herder’s and cowboy’s camp fire of the Far West. We may be sure
that it was in every MAY-FLOWER family, and occasional ancient specimens
are yet to be found in “Old Colony” garrets. Pots and kettles of all
sorts find more frequent mention in the early inventories than anything
else, except muskets and swords, and were probably more numerous upon
the ship than any other cooking utensil. A few claimed to be from the
Pilgrim ship are exhibited, chief of which is a large iron pot, said to
have been “brought by Myles Standish in the MAY-FLOWER,” now owned by
the Pilgrim Society.

Hardly an early Pilgrim inventory but includes “a mortar and pestle,”
sometimes of iron, sometimes of “brass” or “belle-mettle” (bell metal).
They were of course, in the absence of mills, and for some purposes for
which small hand mills were not adapted, prime necessities, and every
house hold had one. A very fine one of brass (with an iron pestle), nine
and a half inches across its bell-shaped top,–exhibited by the Pilgrim
Society, and said to have been “brought in the MAY-FLOWER by Edward
Winslow,”–seems to the author as likely to have been so as almost any
article for which that distinction is claimed.

The lighting facilities of the Pilgrims were fewer and cruder than those
for cooking. They possessed the lamp of the ancient Romans, Greeks, and
Hebrews, with but few improvements,–a more or less fanciful vessel for
oil, with a protuberant nose for a wick, and a loose-twisted cotton wick.
Hand-lamps of this general form and of various devices, called
“betty-lamps,” were commonly used, with candlesticks of various metals,
–iron, brass, silver, and copper,–though but few of any other ware.
For wall-lighting two or more candle sockets were brought together in
“sconces,” which were more or less elaborate in design and finish. One
of the early writers (Higginson) mentions the abundance of oil (from
fish) available for lamps, but all tallow and suet used by the early
colonists was, for some years (till cattle became plentiful),
necessarily imported. Some of the “candle-snuffers” of the “first
comers” doubtless still remain. We may be sure every family had its
candles, “betty-lamps,” candlesticks, and “snuffers.” “Lanthorns” were
of the primitive, perforated tin variety–only “serving to make darkness
visible” now found in a few old attics in Pilgrim towns, and on the
“bull-carts” of the peons of Porto Rico, by night. Fire, for any
purpose, was chiefly procured by the use of flint, steel, and tinder, of
which many very early specimens exist. Buckets, tubs, and pails were,
beyond question, numerous aboard the ship, and were among the most
essential and highly valued of Pilgrim utensils. Most, if not all of
them, we may confidently assert, were brought into requisition on that
Monday “wash-day” at Cape Cod, the first week-day after their arrival,
when the women went ashore to do their long-neglected laundrying, in the
comparatively fresh water of the beach pond at Cape Cod harbor. They
are frequently named in the earliest inventories. Bradford also
mentions the filling of a “runlet” with water at the Cape. The
“steel-yards” and “measures” were the only determiners of weight and
quantity–as the hour-glass and sun dial were of time–possessed at
first (so far as appears) by the passengers of the Pilgrim ship, though
it is barely possible that a Dutch clock or two may have been among the
possessions of the wealthiest. Clocks and watches were not yet in
common use (though the former were known in England from 1540), and
except that in “Mourt’s Relation” and Bradford’s “Historie” mention is
made of the time of day as such “o’clock” (indicating some degree of
familiarity with clocks), no mention is made of their possession at the
first. Certain of the leaders were apparently acquainted at Leyden with
the astronomer Galileo, co-resident with them there, and through this
acquaintance some of the wealthier and more scholarly may have come to
know, and even to own, one of the earliest Dutch clocks made with the
pendulum invented by Galileo, though hardly probable as early as 1620.
Pocket watches were yet practically unknown.

Except for a few pieces of silver owned by the wealthiest of their
number, pewter was the most elegant and expensive of the Pilgrims’
table-ware. A pewter platter said to have been “brought over in the
MAY-FLOWER” is now owned by the Pilgrim Society, which also exhibits
smaller pewter formerly Edward Winslow’s, and bearing his “arms,” for
which, as previously noted, a like claim is made. Platters, dishes,
“potts,” ladles, bottles, “flaggons,” “skelletts,” cups, porringers,
“basons,” spoons, candlesticks, and salt “sellars,” were among the many
pewter utensils unmistakably brought on the good ship.

The wooden-ware of the colonists, brought with them, was considerable
and various. The Dutch were long famous for its fabrication. There was
but very little china, glass, or pottery of any kind in common use in
western Europe in 1620; some kinds were not yet made, and pewter, wood,
and leather largely filled their places. Wooden trenchers (taking the
place of plates), trays, “noggins” (jug or pitcher-like cups), cups, and
“lossets” (flat dishes like the bread-plates of to day), were of course
part of every housewife’s providings. Some few of Pilgrim origin
possibly still exist. As neither coffee, tea, nor china had come into
use, the cups and saucers which another century brought in–to delight
their owners in that day and the ceramic hunter in this–were not
among the “breakables” of the “good-wife” of the MAY-FLOWER. The
“table-plenishings” had not much variety, but in the aggregate the
(first) “nineteen families” must have required quite a quantity of
spoons, knives, salt “sellars,” etc. Forks there were none, and of the
accessories of to-day (except napkins), very few. Meat was held by the
napkin while being cut with the knife. Josselyn’ gives a list of
“Implements for a family of six persons” going to New England.

Kitchen utensils:–
“1 Iron Pot.
1 Great Copper Kettle.
1 Small Kettle.
1 Lesser Kettle.
1 Large Frying pan.
1 Brass Mortar.
1 Spit.
1 Gridiron.
2 Skillets.
Platters, dishes, and spoons of wood.
A pair of Bellows.
A Skoope, etc.”

Among the implements of husbandry, etc., and mechanics’ tools we find
evidence of hoes, spades, shovels, scythes, “sikles,” mattocks,
bill-hooks, garden-rakes, hay-forks (“pitch-forks”), besides seed-grain
and garden seeds. Axes, saws, hammers, “adzs,” augers, chisels, gouges,
squares, hatchets, an “iron jack-scrue,” “holdfasts” (vises),
blacksmiths’ tools, coopers’ tools, iron and steel in bar, anvils,
chains, etc., “staples and locks,” rope, lime (for mortar), nails, etc.,
are also known to have been in the ship. Francis Eaton, the carpenter,
seems to have had a very respectable “kit,” and Fletcher, the smith, was
evidently fairly “outfitted.”

The implements of husbandry were of the lighter (?) sort; no ploughs,
harrows, carts, harness, stone-drags, or other farming tools requiring
the strength of beasts for their use, were included. In nothing could
they have experienced so sharp a contrast as in the absence of horses,
cattle, and sheep in their husbandry, and especially of milch kine.
Bradford and Window both mention hoes, spades, mattocks, and sickles,
while shovels, scythes, bill-hooks (brush-scythes, the terrible weapons
of the English peasantry in their great “Mon mouth” and earlier
uprisings), pitchforks, etc., find very early mention in inventories and
colonial records. Josselyn, in his “Two Voyages to New England,” gives,
in 1628, the following very pertinent list of “Tools for a Family of six
persons, and so after this rate for more,–intending for New England.”
This may be taken as fairly approximating the possessions of the average
MAY-FLOWER planter, though probably somewhat exceeding individual
supplies. Eight years of the Pilgrims’ experience had taught those who
came after them very much that was of service.

5 Broad Howes [hoes].
6 Chisels.
5 Narrow Howes [hoes].
3 Gimblets.
5 Felling Axes.
2 hatchets.
2 steel hand saws.
2 frones (?) to cleave pail! (Probably knives for cleaving pail stock.)
2 hand saws.
2 hand-bills.
1 whip saw, set and files with box.
Nails of all sorts.
2 Pick-axes.
A file and rest.
3 Locks and 3 paire fetters.
2 Hammers.
2 Currie Combs.
3 Shovels.
Brands for beasts.
2 Spades.
A hand vice.
2 Augers.
A pitchfork, etc.
2 Broad Axes.

Unhappily we know little from contemporaneous authority as to what grain
and other seeds the Pilgrims brought with them for planting. We may be
sure, however, that rye, barley, oats, wheat, pease, and beans were the
bulkiest of this part of their freight, though Bradford mentions the
planting of “garden seeds” their first spring.

While we know from the earliest Pilgrim chronicles that their mechanics’
implements embraced axes, saws, hammers, “adzs,” augers, hatchets, an
“iron jack-scrue,” “staples and locks,” etc., we know there must have
been many other tools not mentioned by them, brought over with the
settlers. The “great iron-scrue,” as Bradford calls it in his original
MS., played, as all know, a most important part on the voyage, in forcing
the “cracked and bowed” deck-beam of the ship into place. Governor
Bradford tells us that “it was brought on board by one of the Leyden
passengers,” and one may hazard the guess that it was by either Moses
Fletcher, the smith, or Francis Eaton, the “carpenter.” “Staples” and
“locks” found their place and mention, as well as the “chains,”
“manacles,” and “leg-irons” named in the list of accoutrements for
offence or defence, when it became necessary to chain up the Indian spy
of the Neponsets (as narrated by Winslow in his “Good Newes from New
England”) and other evil-doers. The planters seem to have made stiff
“mortar,” which premises the use of lime and indicates a supply.

Among the fishing and fowling implements of the MAY FLOWER colonists are
recorded, nets, “seynes,” twine, fish hooks, muskets (for large game),
“fowling pieces,” powder, “goose-shot,” “hail-shot,” etc.

Such early mention is found of the nets, “seynes,” etc., of their fishing
equipment, as to leave no room for doubt that store of them was brought
in the ship. They seem to have been unfortunate in the size of their
fish-hooks, which are spoken of as “too large” even for cod. They must,
as Goodwin remarks, “have been very large.” Window also says, “We wanted
fit and strong seines and other netting.”

They seem to have relied upon their muskets to some extent for wild fowl
(as witness Winslow’s long and successful shot at a duck, on his visit to
Massasoit), as they undoubtedly did for deer, etc. They were apparently
fairly well supplied with them, of either the “matchlock” or “snaphance”
(flintlock) pattern, though the planters complained to the Merchant
Adventurers (in their letter of August 3, from Southampton), that they
were “wanting many muskets,” etc. That they had some “fowling-pieces” is
shown by the fact that young Billington seems (according to Bradford) to
have “shot one off in his father’s cabin” aboard ship in Cape Cod harbor,
and there are several other coeval mentions of them.

The arms and accoutrements (besides ordnance) of the MAY-FLOWER Pilgrims,
known on the authority of Bradford and Winslow to have been brought by
them, included muskets (“matchlocks”), “snaphances” (flintlocks), armor
(“corslets,” “cuirasses,” “helmets,” “bandoliers,” etc.), swords,
“curtlaxes” (cutlasses), “daggers,” powder, “mould-shot,” “match”
(slow-match for guns), “flints,” belts, “knapsacks,” “drum,” “trumpet,”
“manacles,” “leg-irons,” etc., etc. “Pistols” (brass) appear in early
inventories, but their absence in the early hand-to-hand encounter at
Wessagussett indicates that none were then available, or that they were
not trusted. It is evident from the statement of Bradford that every one
of the sixteen men who went out (under command of Standish) on the “first
exploration” at Cape Cod had his “musket, sword, and corslet;” that they
relied much on their armor, and hence, doubtless, took all possible with
them on the ship. They probably did not long retain its use. In the
letter written to the Adventurers from Southampton, the leaders complain
of “wanting many muskets, much armour, &c.”

Josselyn gives’ the equipment he considers necessary for each man going
to New England to settle:–

“Armor compleat:–
One long piece [musket] five feet or five and a half long.
One Sword.
One bandoleer.
One belt.
Twenty pounds of powder.
Sixty pounds of shot or lead, pistol and Goose-shot.”

“Another list gives an idea of ‘complete armor.’”
Corselet
Breast [plate or piece].
Back [ditto].
Culet (?).
Gorget [throat-piece].
Tussis [thigh-pieces].
Head-piece “[morion skull-cap].”

Bradford states that they used their “curtlaxes” (cutlasses) to dig the
frozen ground to get at the Indians’ corn, “having forgotten to bring
spade or mattock.” “Daggers” are mentioned as used in their celebrated
duel by Dotey and Leister, servants of Stephen Hopkins. Bradford
narrates that on one of their exploring tours on the Cape the length of
guard duty performed at night by each “relief” was determined by the
inches of slow-match burned (“every one standing when his turn came
while five or six inches of match was burning”), clearly indicating that
they had no watches with them. The “drum” and “trumpet” are both
mentioned in “Mourt’s Relation” in the account given of Massasoit’s
reception, the latter as eliciting the especial attention of his men, and
their efforts at blowing it.

The Ordnance (cannon) brought in the ship consisted (probably) of ten
guns, certainly of six. Of these, two (2) were “sakers,”–guns ten feet
long of 3 to 4 inches bore, weighing from fifteen to eighteen hundred
pounds each; two (2) were “minions” (or “falcons”),–guns of 3 1/2 inch
bore, weighing twelve hundred pounds (1200 lbs.) each; and two (2) were
“bases,”–small guns of 1 1/4 inch bore, weighing some three hundred
pounds (300 lbs.) each. These were mounted on “the Hill” fort or
platform. It is probable that besides these were the four smallest
cannon, called “patereros” (or “murderers”), which, at the time of De
Rasiere’s visit to Plymouth in 1627, were mounted on a platform (in front
of the Governor’s house), at the intersection of the two streets of the
town, and commanded its several approaches. It is not likely that they
were sent for after 1621, because the Adventurers were never in mood to
send if asked, while Bradford, in speaking of the first alarm by the
Indians, says, “This caused us to plant our great ordnance in places most
convenient,” leaving a possible inference that they had smaller ordnance
in reserve. With this ordnance was of course a proper supply of
ammunition adapted to its use. The “sakers” are said to have carried a
four-pound ball, the “minions” a three-pound ball, and the “bases” a ball
of a pound weight. There is not entire agreement between authorities, in
regard to the size, weight, and calibre of these different classes of
early ordnance, or the weight of metal thrown by them, but the above are
approximate data, gathered from careful comparison of the figures given
by several. There is no doubt that with this heavy ordnance and
ammunition they stowed among their ballast and dunnage (as was the case
in Higginson’s ships), their “spare chains and anchors, chalk, bricks,
sea-coal (for blacksmithing), iron, steel, lead, copper, red-lead, salt,”
etc.; all of which they also necessarily had, and from their bulk,
character, and weight, would stow as low in the ship as might be.

That a considerable “stock of trading goods” was included in the
MAY-FLOWER’S lading is mentioned by at least one writer, and that this
was a fact is confirmed by the records of the colonists’ dealings with
the Indians, and the enumeration of not a few of the goods which could
have had, for the most part, no other use or value. They consisted
largely of knives, bracelets (bead and metal), rings, scissors,
copper-chains, beads, “blue and red trading cloth,” cheap (glass) jewels
(“for the ears,” etc.), small mirrors, clothing (e. g. “red-cotton
horseman’s coats–laced,” jerkins, blankets, etc.), shoes, “strong
waters,” pipes, tobacco, tools and hard ware (hatchets, nails, hoes,
fish-hooks, etc.), rugs, twine, nets, etc., etc. A fragment of one of
the heavy hoes of the ancient pattern–“found on the site of the
Pilgrim trading house at Manomet”–is owned by the Pilgrim Society, and
speaks volumes of the labor performed by the Pilgrims, before they had
ploughs and draught-cattle, in the raising of their wonderful crops of
corn. Such was the MAY-FLOWER’S burden, animate and inanimate, whe
–the last passenger and the last piece of freight transferred from the
SPEEDWELL–her anchor “hove short,” she swung with the tide in Plymouth
roadstead, ready to depart at last for “the Virginia plantations.”

CHAPTER IX

THE JOURNAL OF THE SHIP MAY-FLOWER

Thomas Jones, Master, from London, England, towards “Hudson’s River” in
Virginia

[The voyage of the MAY-FLOWER began at London, as her consort’s did
at Delfshaven, and though, as incident to the tatter’s brief career,
we have been obliged to take note of some of the happenings to the
larger ship and her company (at Southampton, etc.), out of due
course and time, they have been recited only because of their
insuperable relation to the consort and her company, and not as part
of the MAY-FLOWER’S own proper record]

SATURDAY, July 15/25, 1620
Gravesend. Finished lading. Got
passengers aboard and got under way for
Southampton. Dropped down the Thames to
Gravesend with the tide.

[Vessels leaving the port of London always, in that day, “dropped
down with the tide,” tug-boats being unknown, and sail-headway
against the tide being difficult in the narrow river.]

Masters Cushman and Martin, agents of the
chartering–party, came aboard at London.

SUNDAY, July 16/26
Gravesend. Channel pilot aboard. Favoring
wind.

MONDAY, July 17/27
In Channel. Course D.W. by W. Favoring
wind.

TUESDAY, July 18/28
In Channel. Southampton Water.

WEDNESDAY, July 19/29
Southampton Water. Arrived at Southampton
and came to anchor.

[Both ships undoubtedly lay at anchor a day or two, before hauling
in to the quay. The MAY-FLOWER undoubtedly lay at anchor until
after the SPEEDWELL arrived, to save expense]

THURSDAY, July 20/30
Lying at Southampton off north end of “West
Quay.”

FRIDAY, July 21/31
Lying at Southampton. Masters Carver,
Cushman, and Martin, three of the agents
here. Outfitting ship, taking in lading,
and getting ready for sea.

SATURDAY, July 22/Aug 1
Lying off Quay, Southampton.

SUNDAY, July 23/Aug 2
Lying off Quay, Southampton.

MONDAY, July 24/Aug 3
Lying off Quay, Southampton.

TUESDAY, July 25/Aug 4
Lying off Quay, Southampton. Waiting for
consort to arrive from Holland.

WEDNESDAY, July 26/Aug 5
Lying off Quay, Southampton. Pinnace
SPEEDWELL, 60 tons, Reynolds, Master, from
Delfshaven, July 22, consort to this ship,
arrived in harbor, having on board some 70
passengers and lading for Virginia. She
came to anchor off north end “West Quay.”

THURSDAY, July 27/Aug. 6
Lying at Quay, Southampton, SPEEDWELL
warped to berth at Quay near the ship, to
transfer lading.

[Some of the cargo of the SPEEDWELL is understood to have been here
transferred to the larger ship; doubtless the cheese, “Hollands,”
and other provisions, ordered, as noted, by Cushman]

FRIDAY, July 28/Aug. 7
Lying at Quay, Southampton, Much parleying
and discontent among the passengers.

[Bradford gives an account of the bickering and recrimination at
Southampton, when all parties had arrived. Pastor Robinson had
rather too strenuously given instructions, which it now began to be
seen were not altogether wise. Cushman was very much censured, and
there was evidently some acrimony. See Cushman’s Dartmouth letter
of August 17 to Edward Southworth, Bradford’s Historie, Mass. ed.
p. 86.]

SATURDAY, July 29/Aug. 8
Lying at Quay, Southampton. Some of the
passengers transferred from SPEEDWELL and
some to her. Master Christopher Martin
chosen by passengers their “Governour” for
the voyage to order them by the way, see to
the disposing of their pro visions, etc.
Master Robert Cushman chosen “Assistant.”
The ship ready for sea this day, but
obliged to lie here on account of leakiness
of consort, which is forced to retrim. Ship
has now 90 passengers and consort 30.

SUNDAY, July 30/Aug. 9
Lying at Southampton.

MONDAY, July 31/Aug. 10
Lying at Southampton. Letters received for
passengers from Holland. One from the
Leyden Pastor [Robinson] read out to the
company that came from that place.

TUESDAY, Aug. 1/Aug. 11
Lying at anchor at Southampton. SPEEDWELL
retrimmed a second time to overcome
leakiness.

WEDNESDAY, Aug. 2/Aug. 12
Lying at anchor at Southampton. Master
Weston, principal agent of the Merchants
setting out the voyage, came up from Lon
don to see the ships dispatched, but, on
the refusal of the Planters to sign certain
papers, took offence and returned to London
in displeasure, bidding them “stand on
their own legs,” etc.

[The two “conditions” which Weston had changed in the proposed
agreement between the Adventurers and Planters, the Leyden leaders
refused to agree to. Bradford, op cit. p. 61. He says: “But they
refused to sign, and answered him that he knew right well that these
were not according to the first Agreement.” Dr. Griffis has made
one of those little slips common to all writers–though perfectly
conversant with the facts–in stating as he does (The Pilgrims in
their Three Homes, etc. p. 158), with reference to the new
“conditions” which some blamed Cushman for assenting to, as “more
fit for thieves and slaves than for honest men,” that, “nevertheless
they consented to them;” while on p. 169 he says “The SPEEDWELL
people [i.e. the Leyden leaders would not agree with the new
conditions, without the consent of those left behind in Leyden.”

The fact is that the Pilgrims did not assent to the new conditions,
unwarrantably imposed by Weston, though of small consequence in any
view of the case, until Cushman came over to New Plymouth in the
FORTUNE, in 1621, and by dint of his sermon on the “Sin and Danger
of Self-Love,” and his persuasion, induced them (they being also
advised thereto by Robinson) to sign them. All business up to this
time had been done between the Adventurers and the Pilgrims,
apparently, without any agreement in writing. It was probably felt,
both by Robinson and the Plymouth leaders, that it was the least
reparation they could make Cushman for their cruel and unjust
treatment of him, realizing at length that, through all
vicissitudes, he had proven their just, sagacious, faithful, and
efficient friend. There does not appear to be any conclusive
evidence that any articles of agreement between the Adventurers and
colonists were signed before the MAY-FLOWER Sailed.]

THURSDAY, Aug. 3/Aug. 13
Lying at anchor at Southampton. After
Master Weston’s departure, the Planters had
a meeting and resolved to sell some of such
stores as they could best spare, to clear
port charges, etc., and to write a general
letter to the Adventurers explaining the
case, which they did. Landed some three
score firkins of butter, sold as
determined.

FRIDAY, Aug. 4/Aug. 14
Lying at anchor at Southampton. Consort
nearly ready for sea. Heard that the
King’s warrant had issued to Sir James
Coventry, under date of July 23, to prepare
a Patent for the Council for the Affairs of
New England to supersede the Plymouth
Virginia Company, Sir Ferdinando Gorges and
Sir Robert Rich the Earl of Warwick among
the Patentees.

SATURDAY, Aug. 5/Aug. 15
Weighed anchor, as did consort, and in
company dropped down Southampton Water.
Took departure from Cowes, Isle of Wight,
and laid course down the Solent to Channel.
Winds baffling. General course S.W. by S.

SUNDAY, Aug. 6/Aug. 16
Head winds. Beating out Channel.
SPEEDWELL In Company. Passed Bill of
Portland.

MONDAY, Aug. 7/Aug. 17
Wind contrary. Beating out Channel.
SPEEDWELL In company.

TUESDAY, Aug. 8/Aug. 18
Wind still contrary. Beating out Channel.
SPEEDWELL in company.

WEDNESDAY, Aug. 9/Aug. 19
Wind ahead. Beating down Channel. Consort
in company.

THURSDAY, Aug. 10/20
Wind fair. All sail set. SPEEDWELL in
company. Signalled by consort, which hove
to. Found to be leaking badly. On
consultation of Masters and chief of
passengers of both ships, it was concluded
that both should put into Dartmouth, being
nearest port. Laid course for Dartmouth
with wind ahead.

THURSDAY, Aug. 11/21
Wind ahead. Bearing up to Dartmouth.

SATURDAY, Aug. 12/22
Made port at Dartmouth. SPEEDWELL in
company, and came to anchor in harbor.

[Bradford, op. cit. Deane’s ed. p. 68, note. Russell (Pilgrim
Memorials, p. 15) says: “The ships put back into Dartmouth, August
13/23.” Goodwin (op. cit. p. 55) says: “The port was reached
about August 23.” Captain John Smith strangely omits the return of
the ships to Dartmouth, and confuses dates, as he says “But the next
day after leaving Southampton the lesser ship sprung a leak that
forced their return to Plymouth,” etc. Smith, New England’s Trials,
2d ed. 1622. Cushman’s letter, written the 17th, says they had
then lain there “four days,” which would mean, if four full days,
the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th.]

SUNDAY, Aug. 13/23
Lying at anchor with SPEEDWELL leaking
badly in Dartmouth harbor. No passengers,
except leaders, allowed ashore.

[Cushman in his letter to Edward Southworth, written at Dartmouth,
August 17, says that Martin, the “governour” of the passengers in
the MAY-FLOWER, “will not suffer them the passengers to go, ashore
lest they should run away.” This probably applied especially to
such as had become disaffected by the delays and disasters, the
apprenticed (“bound”) servants, etc. Of course no responsible
colonist would be thus restrained for the reason alleged.]

MONDAY, Aug. 14/24
Lying at anchor, Dartmouth harbor.
SPEEDWELL at Quay taking out lading for
thorough overhauling.

TUESDAY, Aug. 15/25
Lying at anchor, Dartmouth harbor.

WEDNESDAY, Aug. 16/26
Lying at anchor, Dartmouth harbor.
SPEEDWELL being thoroughly overhauled for
leaks. Pronounced “as open and leaky as a
sieve.” Much dissatisfaction between the
passengers, and discontent with the ship’s
“governour” Master Martin, between whom
and Mr. Cushman, the “assistant,” there is
constant disagreement.

[Cushman portrays the contemptible character and manner of Martin
very sharply, and could not have wished to punish him worse for his
meannesses than he has, by thus holding him up to the scorn of the
world, for all time. He says, ‘inter alia’: “If I speak to him, he
flies in my face and saith no complaints shall be heard or received
but by himself, and saith: ‘They are froward, and waspish,
discontented people, and I do ill to hear them.’”]

THURSDAY, Aug. 17/27
Lying at anchor, Dartmouth harbor. Consort
being searched and mended. Sailors offended
at Master Martin because of meddling.

[Cushman’s letter, Dartmouth, August 17. He says: “The sailors also
are so offended at his ignorant boldness in meddling and controling
in things he knows not what belongs to, as that some threaten to
mischief him . . . . But at best this cometh of it, that he
makes himself a scorn and laughing stock unto them.”]

FRIDAY, Aug. 18/28
Lying at anchor, Dartmouth harbor. Consort
still repairing. Judged by workmen that
mended her sufficient for the voyage.

SATURDAY, Aug. 19/29
Lying at anchor, Dartmouth harbor.
SPEEDWELL relading.

SUNDAY, Aug. 20/30
Lying at anchor, Dartmouth harbor.

MONDAY, Aug. 21/31
Lying at anchor, Dartmouth harbor. Consort
relading.

TUESDAY, Aug. 22/Sept. 1
Lying at anchor, Dartmouth harbor. Both
ships ready for sea.

[Bradford, Historie, Deane’s ed. p. 68. He says: “Some leaks were
found and mended and now it was conceived by the workmen and all,
that she was sufficient, and they might proceed without either fear
or danger.” Bradford shows (op. cit. p. 69) note that they must
have left Dartmouth “about the 21st” of August. Captain John Smith
gives that date, though somewhat confusedly. Arber (the Story of
the Pilgrim Fathers, p. 343 says: “They actually left on 23 August.”
Goodwin (Pilgrim Republic, p. 55) says : “Ten days were spent in
discharging and re-stowing the SPEEDWELL and repairing her from stem
to stern,” etc.)]

WEDNESDAY, Aug. 23/Sept. 2
Weighed anchor, as did consort. Laid
course W.S.W. Ships in company. Wind
fair.

THURSDAY, Aug. 24/Sept. 3
Comes in with wind fair. General course
W.S.W. Consort in company.

FRIDAY, Aug. 25/Sept. 4
Comes in with wind fair. Course W.S.W.
SPEEDWELL in company.

SATURDAY, Aug. 26/Sept. 5
Observations showed ship above 100 leagues
W.S.W. of Land’s End. SPEEDWELL signalled
and hove to. Reported leaking dangerously.
On consultation between Masters and
carpenters of both ships, it was concluded
to put back into Plymouth–Bore up for
Plymouth. Consort in company.

SUNDAY, Aug. 27/Sept. 6
Ship on course for Plymouth. SPEEDWELL in
company.

MONDAY, Aug. 28/Sept. 7
Made Plymouth harbor, and came to anchor in
the Catwater, followed by consort.

TUESDAY, Aug. 29/Sept. 8
At anchor in roadstead. At conference of
officers of ship and consort and the chief
of the Planters, it was decided to send the
SPEEDWELL back to London with some 18 or 20
of her passengers, transferring a dozen or
more, with part of her lading, to the
MAY-FLOWER.

WEDNESDAY, Aug. 30/Sept. 9
At anchor in Plymouth roadstead off the
Barbican. Transferring passengers and
lading from consort, lying near by.
Weather fine.

[Goodwin notes (Pilgrim Republic, p. 57) that “it was fortunate for
the overloaded MAY-FLOWER that she had fine weather while lying at
anchor there, . . . for the port of Plymouth was then only a
shallow, open bay, with no protection. In southwesterly gales its
waters rose into enormous waves, with such depressions between that
ships while anchored sometimes struck the bottom of the harbor and
were dashed in pieces.”]

THURSDAY, Aug. 31/Sept. 10
At anchor in Plymouth roadstead.
Transferring cargo from SPEEDWELL.

FRIDAY, Sept. 1/Sept. 11
At anchor in Plymouth roadstead.
Transferring passengers and freight to and
from consort. Master Cushman and family,
Master Blossom and son, William Ring, and
others with children, going back to London
in SPEEDWELL. All Of SPEEDWELL’S
passengers who are to make the voyage now
aboard. New “governour” of ship and
assistants chosen. Master Carver
“governour.”

[We have seen that Christopher Martin was made “governour” of the
passengers on the MAY-FLOWER for the voyage, and Cushman
“assistant.” It is evident from Cushman’s oft-quoted letter (see
ante) that Martin became obnoxious, before the ship reached
Dartmouth, to both passengers and crew. It is also evident that
when the emigrants were all gathered in the MAY-FLOWER there was a
new choice of officers (though no record is found of it), as Cushman
vacated his place and went back to London, and we find that, as
noted before, on November 11 the colonists “confirmed” John Carver
as their “governour,” showing that he had been such hitherto.
Doubtless Martin was deposed at Southampton (perhaps put into
Cushman’s vacant place, and Carver made “governour” in his stead.)]

SATURDAY, Sept. 2/Sept. 12
At anchor, Plymouth roadstead. Some of
principal passengers entertained ashore by
friends of their faith. SPEEDWELL sailed
for London. Quarters assigned, etc.

SUNDAY, Sept. 3/Sept. 13
At anchor in Plymouth roadstead.

MONDAY, Sept. 4/Sept. 14
At anchor in Plymouth roadstead. Some Of
company ashore.

TUESDAY, Sept. 5/Sept. 15
At anchor in Plymouth roadstead. Ready for
sea.

WEDNESDAY, Sept. 6/Sept. 16
Weighed anchor. Wind E.N.E., a fine gale.
Laid course W.S.W. for northern coasts of
Virginia.

THURSDAY, Sept. 7/Sept. 17
Comes in with wind E.N.E. Light gale
continues. Made all sail on ship.

FRIDAY, Sept. 8/Sept. 18
Comes in with wind E.N.E. Gale continues.
All sails full.

SATURDAY, Sept. 9/Sept. 19
Comes in with wind E.N E. Gale holds.
Ship well off the land.

SUNDAY, Sept. 10/Sept. 20
Comes in with wind E.N.E. Gale holds.
Distance lost, when ship bore up for
Plymouth, more than regained.

MONDAY, Sept. 11/Sept. 21
Same; and so without material change, the
daily record of wind, weather, and the
ship’s general course–the repetition of
which would be both useless and wearisome
–continued through the month and until the
vessel was near half the seas over. Fine
warm weather and the “harvest-moon.” The
usual equinoctial weather deferred.

SATURDAY, Sept. 23/Oct. 3
One of the seamen, some time sick with a
grievous disease, died in a desperate manner.
The first death and burial at sea of the
voyage.

[We can readily imagine this first burial at sea on the MAY FLOWER,
and its impressiveness. Doubtless the good Elder “committed the
body to the deep” with fitting ceremonial, for though the young man
was of the crew, and not of the Pilgrim company, his reverence for
death and the last rites of Christian burial would as surely impel
him to offer such services, as the rough, buccaneering Master (Jones
would surely be glad to evade them).

Dr. Griffis (The Pilgrims in their Three Homes, p. 176) says “The
Puritans [does this mean Pilgrims ?] cared next to nothing about
ceremonies over a corpse, whether at wave or grave.” This will
hardly bear examination, though Bradford’s phraseology in this case
would seem to support it, as he speaks of the body as “thrown
overboard;” yet it is not to be supposed that it was treated quite
so indecorously as the words would imply. It was but a few years
after, certainly, that we find both Pilgrim and Puritan making much
ceremony at burials. We find considerable ceremony at Carver’s
burial only a few months later. Choate, in his masterly oration at
New York, December 22, 1863, pictures Brewster’s service at the open
grave of one of the Pilgrims in March, 1621.]

A sharp change. Equinoctial weather,
followed by stormy westerly gales;
encountered cross winds and continued
fierce storms. Ship shrewdly shaken and
her upper works made very leaky. One of
the main beams in the midships was bowed
and cracked. Some fear that the ship could
not be able to perform the voyage. The
chief of the company perceiving the
mariners to fear the sufficiency of the
ship (as appeared by their mutterings) they
entered into serious consultation with the
Master and other officers of the ship, to
consider, in time, of the danger, and
rather to return than to cast themselves
into a desperate and inevitable peril.

There was great distraction and difference
of opinion amongst the mariners themselves.
Fain would they do what would be done for
their wages’ sake, being now near half the
seas over; on the other hand, they were
loath to hazard their lives too
desperately. In examining of all opinions,
the Master and others affirmed they knew
the ship to be strong and firm under water,
and for the buckling bending or bowing of
the main beam, there was a great iron scrue
the passengers brought out of Holland which
would raise the beam into its place. The
which being done, the carpenter and Master
affirmed that a post put under it, set firm
in the lower deck, and otherwise bound,
would make it sufficient. As for the decks
and upper works, they would caulk them as
well as they could; and though with the
working of the ship they would not long
keep staunch, yet there would otherwise be
no great danger if they did not overpress
her with sails. So they resolved to
proceed.

In sundry of these stormes, the winds were
so fierce and the seas so high, as the ship
could not bear a knot of sail, but was
forced to hull drift under bare poles for
divers days together. A succession of
strong westerly gales. In one of the
heaviest storms, while lying at hull, [hove
to D.W.] a lusty young man, one of the
passengers, John Howland by name, coming
upon some occasion above the gratings
latticed covers to the hatches, was with
the seel [roll] of the ship thrown into the
sea, but caught hold of the topsail
halliards, which hung overboard and ran out
at length; yet he held his hold, though he
was sundry fathoms under water, till he was
hauled up by the same rope to the brim of
the water, and then with a boathook and
other means got into the ship again and his
life saved. He was something ill with it.

The equinoctial disturbances over and the
strong October gales, the milder, warmer
weather of late October followed.

Mistress Elizabeth Hopkins, wife of Master
Stephen Hopkins, of Billericay, in Essex,
was delivered of a son, who, on account of
the circumstances of his birth, was named
Oceanus, the first birth aboard the ship
during the voyage.

A succession of fine days, with favoring
winds.

MONDAY Nov. 6/16
William Butten; a youth, servant to Doctor
Samuel Fuller, died. The first of the
passengers to die on this voyage.

MONDAY Nov. 7/17
The body of William Butten committed to the
deep. The first burial at sea of a
passenger, on this voyage.

MONDAY Nov. 8/18
Signs of land.

MONDAY Nov. 9/19
Closing in with the land at nightfall.
Sighted land at daybreak. The landfall
made out to be Cape Cod the bluffs [in what
is now the town of Truro, Mass.]. After a
conference between the Master of the ship
and the chief colonists, tacked about and
stood for the southward. Wind and weather
fair. Made our course S.S.W., continued
proposing to go to a river ten leagues
south of the Cape Hudson’s River. After
had sailed that course about half the day
fell amongst dangerous shoals and foaming
breakers [the shoals off Monomoy] got out of
them before night and the wind being
contrary put round again for the Bay of
Cape Cod. Abandoned efforts to go further
south and so announced to passengers.

[Bradford (Historie, Mass. ed. p. 93) says: “They resolved to bear
up again for the Cape.” No one will question that Jones’s assertion
of inability to proceed, and his announced determination to return
to Cape Cod harbor, fell upon many acquiescent ears, for, as Winslow
says: “Winter was come; the seas were dangerous; the season was
cold; the winds were high, and the region being well furnished for a
plantation, we entered upon discovery.” Tossed for sixty-seven days
on the north Atlantic at that season of the year, their food and
firing well spent, cold, homesick, and ill, the bare thought of once
again setting foot on any land, wherever it might be, must have been
an allurement that lent Jones potential aid in his high-handed
course.]

SATURDAY Nov. 11/21
Comes in with light, fair wind. On course
for Cape Cod harbor, along the coast. Some
hints of disaffection among colonists, on
account of abandonment of location

[Bradford (in Mourt’s Relation) says: “This day before we come to
harbor Italics the author’s, observing some not well affected to
unity and concord, but gave some appearance of faction, it was
thought good there should be an Association and Agreement that we
should combine together in one body; and to submit to such
Government and Governors as we should, by common consent, agree to
make and choose, and set our hands to this that follows word for
word.” Then follows the Compact. Bradford is even more explicit in
his Historie (Mass. ed. p. 109), where he says: “I shall a little
returne backe and begin with a combination made by them before they
came ashore, being ye first foundation of their governments in this
place; occasioned partly by ye discontent & mutinous speeches that
some of the strangers amongst them [i.e. not any of the Leyden
contingent had let fall from them in ye ship–That when they came
ashore they would use their owne libertie: for none had power to
command them, the patents they had being for Virginia, and not for
New-England which belonged to another Government, with which ye
London [or First Virginia Company had nothing to doe, and partly
that such an acte by them done . . . might be as firm as any
patent, and in some respects more sure.” Dr. Griffis is hardly
warranted in making Bradford to say, as he does (The Pilgrims in
their Three Homes, p. 182), that “there were a few people I
‘shuffled’ in upon them the company who were probably unmitigated
scoundrels.” Bradford speaks only of Billington and his family as
those “shuffled into their company,” and while he was not improbably
one of the agitators (with Hopkins) who were the proximate causes of
the drawing up of the Compact, he was not, in this case, the
responsible leader. It is evident from the foregoing that the
“appearance of faction” did not show itself until the vessel’s prow
was turned back toward Cape Cod Harbor, and it became apparent that
the effort to locate “near Hudson’s River” was to be abandoned, and
a location found north of 41 degrees north latitude, which would
leave them without charter rights or authority of any kind. It is
undoubtedly history that Master Stephen Hopkins,–then “a
lay-reader” for Chaplain Buck,–on Sir Thomas Gates’s expedition to
Virginia, had, when some of them were cast away on the Bermudas,
advocated just such sentiments–on the same basis–as were now
bruited upon the MAY-FLOWER, and it could hardly have been
coincidence only that the same were repeated here. That Hopkins
fomented the discord is well-nigh certain. It caused him, as
elsewhere noted, to receive sentence of death for insubordination,
at the hands of Sir Thomas Gates, in the first instance, from which
his pardon was with much difficulty procured by his friends. In the
present case, it led to the drafting and execution of the Pilgrim
Compact, a framework of civil self-government whose fame will never
die; though the author is in full accord with Dr. Young (Chronicles,
p. 120) in thinking that “a great deal more has been discovered in
this document than the signers contemplated,”–wonderfully
comprehensive as it is. Professor Herbert B. Adams, of Johns
Hopkins University, says in his admirable article in the Magazine of
American History, November, 1882 (pp–798 799): “The fundamental
idea of this famous document was that of a contract based upon the
common law of England,”–certainly a stable and ancient basis of
procedure. Their Dutch training (as Griffis points out) had also
led naturally to such ideas of government as the Pilgrims adopted.
It is to be feared that Griffis’s inference (The Pilgrims in their
Three Homes, p. 184), that all who signed the Compact could write,
is unwarranted. It is more than probable that if the venerated
paper should ever be found, it would show that several of those
whose names are believed to have been affixed to it “made their
‘mark.’” There is good reason, also, to believe that neither
“sickness” (except unto death) nor “indifference” would have
prevented the ultimate obtaining of the signatures (by “mark,” if
need be) of every one of the nine male servants who did not
subscribe, if they were considered eligible. Severe illness was, we
know, answerable for the absence of a few, some of whom died a few
days later.

The fact seems rather to be, as noted, that age–not social status
was the determining factor as to all otherwise eligible. It is
evident too, that the fact was recognized by all parties (by none so
clearly as by Master Jones) that they were about to plant themselves
on territory not within the jurisdiction of their steadfast friends,
the London Virginia Company, but under control of those formerly of
the Second (Plymouth) Virginia Company, who (by the intelligence
they received while at Southampton) they knew would be erected into
the “Council for the Affairs of New England.” Goodwin is in error
in saying (Pilgrim Republic, p. 62), “Neither did any other body
exercise authority there;” for the Second Virginia Company under Sir
Ferdinando Gorges, as noted, had been since 1606 in control of this
region, and only a week before the Pilgrims landed at Cape Cod (i.e.
on November 3) King James had signed the patent of the Council for
New England, giving them full authority over all territory north of
the forty-first parallel of north latitude, as successors to the
Second Virginia Company. If the intention to land south of the
forty-first parallel had been persisted in, there would, of course,
have been no occasion for the Compact, as the patent to John Pierce
(in their interest) from the London Virginia Company would have been
in force. The Compact became a necessity, therefore, only when they
turned northward to make settlement above 41 deg. north latitude.
Hence it is plain that as no opportunity for “faction”–and so no
occasion for any “Association and Agreement”–existed till the
MAY-FLOWER turned northward, late in the afternoon of Friday,
November to, the Compact was not drawn and presented for signature
until the morning of Saturday, November 11. Bradford’s language,
“This day, before we came into harbour,” leaves no room for doubt
that it was rather hurriedly drafted–and also signed–before noon
of the 11th. That they had time on this winter Saturday–hardly
three weeks from the shortest day in the year–to reach and
encircle the harbor; secure anchorage; get out boats; arm, equip,
and land two companies of men; make a considerable march into the
land; cut firewood; and get all aboard again before dark, indicates
that they must have made the harbor not far from noon. These facts
serve also to correct another error of traditional Pilgrim history,
which has been commonly current, and into which Davis falls
(Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth, p. 60), viz. that the Compact was
signed “in the harbor of Cape Cod.” It is noticeable that the
instrument itself simply says, “Cape Cod,” not “Cape Cod harbour,”
as later they were wont to say. The leaders clearly did not mean
to get to port till there was a form of law and authority.]

for settlement on territory under the
protection of the patent granted in their
interest to John Pierce, by the London
Virginia Company.

[The patent granted John Pierce, one of the Merchant Adventurers,
by the London Virginia Company in the interest of the Pilgrims,
was signed February 2/12, 1619, and of course could convey no rights
to, or upon, territory not conveyed to the Company by its charter
from the King issued in 1606, and the division of territory made
thereunder to the Second Virginia Company. By this division the
London Company was restricted northward by the 41st parallel, as
noted, while the Second Company could not claim the 38th as its
southern bound, as the charter stipulated that the nearest
settlements under the respective companies should not be within one
hundred miles of each other.]

Meeting in main cabin of all adult male
passengers except their two hired seamen,
Trevore and Ely, and those too ill–to make
and sign a mutual ‘Compact”

[The Compact is too well known to require reprinting here (see
Appendix); but a single clause of it calls for comment in this
connection. In it the framers recite that, “Having undertaken to
plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia,” etc.
From this phraseology it would appear that they here used the words
“northern parts of Virginia” understandingly, and with a new
relation and significance, from their connection with the words “the
first colony in,” for such declaration could have no force or truth
except as to the region north of 41 deg. north latitude. They knew,
of course, of the colonies in Virginia under Gates, Wingfield,
Smith, Raleigh, and others (Hopkins having been with Gates), and
that, though there had been brief attempts at settlements in the
“northern plantations,” there were none there then, and that hence
theirs would be in a sense “the first,” especially if considered
with reference to the new Council for New England. The region of
the Hudson had heretofore been included in the term “northern parts
of Virginia,” although in the southern Company’s limit; but a new
meaning was now designedly given to the words as used in the
Compact, and New England was contemplated. ]

to regulate their civil government. This
done, they confirmed Master Carver their
“governour” in the ship on the voyage,
their “governour” for the year. Bore up
for the Cape, and by short tacks made the
Cape [Paomet, now Provincetown] Harbor,
coming to an anchorage a furlong within the
point. The bay so circular that before
coming to anchor the ship boxed the compass
[i.e. went clear around all points of it].

Let go anchors three quarters of an English
mile off shore, because of shallow water,
sixty-seven days from Plymouth (Eng.),
eighty-one days from Dartmouth, ninety-nine
days from Southampton, and one hundred and
twenty from London. Got out the long-boat
and set ashore an armed party of fifteen or
sixteen in armor, and some to fetch wood,
having none left, landing them on the long
point or neck, toward the sea.

[The strip of land now known as Long Point, Provincetown (Mass.)
harbor.]
Those going ashore were forced to wade a
bow-shot or two in going aland. The party
sent ashore returned at night having seen
no person or habitation, having laded the
boat with juniper wood.

SUNDAY, Nov. 12/22
At anchor in Cape Cod harbor. All hands
piped to service. Weather mild.

MONDAY, Nov. 13/23
At anchor in Cape Cod harbor, unshipped the
shallop and drew her on land to mend and
repair her.

[Bradford (Historie, Mass. ed. p. 97) says: “Having brought a large
shallop with them out of England, stowed in quarters in ye ship they
now gott her out and sett their carpenters to worke to trime her up:
but being much brused and shatered in ye ship with foule weather,
they saw she sould be longe in mending.” In ‘Mourt’s Relation’ he
says: “Monday, the 13th of November, we unshipped our shallop and
drew her on land to mend and repair her, having been forced to cut
her down, in bestowing her betwixt the decks, and she was much
opened, with the peoples lying in her, which kept us long there: for
it was sixteen or seventeen days before the Carpenter had finished
her.” Goodwin says she was “a sloop-rigged craft of twelve or
fifteen tons.” There is an intimation of Bradford that she was
“about thirty feet long.” It is evident from Bradford’s account
(Historie, Mass. ed. p. 105) of her stormy entrance to Plymouth
harbor that the shallop had but one mast, as he says “But herewith
they broake their mast in 3 pieces and their saill fell overboard in
a very grown sea.”]

Many went ashore to refresh themselves, and
the women to wash.

TUESDAY, Nov. 14/24
Lying at anchor. Carpenter at work on
shallop. Arms and accoutrements being got
ready for an exploring party inland.

WEDNESDAY, Nov. 15/25
Lying at anchor in harbor. Master and
boat’s crew went ashore, followed in the
afternoon by an armed party of sixteen men
under command of Captain Myles Standish.
Masters William Bradford, Stephen Hopkins,
and Edward Tilley being joined to him for
council. The party to be gone from the
ship a day or two. Weather mild and ground
not frozen.

THURSDAY, Nov. 16/26
Lying at anchor in harbor. Exploring party
still absent from ship. Weather continues
open.

FRIDAY, Nov. 17/27
At anchor, Cape Cod harbor. Weather open.
Saw signal-fire on the other side of bay
this morning, built by exploring party as
arranged. The Master, Governor Carver, and
many of the company ashore in afternoon,
and met exploring party there on their
return to ship. Hearing their signal-guns
before they arrived at the shore, sent
long-boat to fetch them aboard. They
reported seeing Indians and following them
ten miles without coming up to them the
first afternoon out, and the next day found
store of corn buried, and a big ship’s
kettle, which they brought to the ship with
much corn. Also saw deer and found
excellent water.

SATURDAY, Nov. 18/28
At anchor, Cape Cod harbor. Planters
helving tools, etc. Carpenter at work on
shallop, which takes more labor than at
first supposed. Weather still moderate.
Fetched wood and water.

SUNDAY, Nov. 19/29
At anchor, Gape Cod harbor. Second Sunday
in harbor. Services aboard ship. Seamen
ashore. Change in weather. Colder.

MONDAY, Nov. 20/30
At anchor, Cape Cod harbor. Carpenter and
others at work on shallop, getting out
stock for a new shallop, helving tools,
making articles needed, etc.

TUESDAY, Nov. 21/Dec. 1
At anchor in harbor. Much inconvenienced
in going ashore. Can only go and come at
high water except by wading, from which
many have taken coughs and colds.

WEDNESDAY, Nov. 22/Dec. 2
At anchor in harbor. Weather cold and
stormy, having changed suddenly.

THURSDAY, Nov. 23/Dec. 3
At anchor in harbor. Cold and stormy.
Work progressing on shallop.

FRIDAY, Nov. 24/Dec. 4
At anchor in harbor. Continues cold and
stormy.

SATURDAY, Nov. 25/Dec. 5
At anchor in harbor. Weather same. Work
on shallop pretty well finished and she can
be used, though more remains to be done.
Another exploration getting ready for
Monday. Master and crew anxious to unlade
and return for England. Fetched wood and
water.

SUNDAY, Nov. 26/Dec. 6
At anchor, Cape Cod harbor. Third Sunday
here. Master notified Planters that they
must find permanent location and that he
must and would keep sufficient supplies for
ship’s company and their return.

[Bradford, Historie, Mass. ed. p. 96. The doubt as to how the
ship’s and the colonists’ provisions were divided and held is again
suggested here. It is difficult, however, to understand how the
Master “must and would” retain provisions with his small force
against the larger, if it came to an issue of strength between Jones
and Standish.]

MONDAY, Nov. 27/Dec. 7
At anchor, Cape Cod harbor. Rough weather
and cross winds. The Planters determined
to send out a strong exploring party, and
invited the Master of the ship to join them
and go as leader, which he agreed continued
to, and offered nine of the crew and the
long-boat, which were accepted. Of the
colonists there were four-and-twenty,
making the party in all four-and-thirty.
Wind so strong that setting out from the
ship the shallop and long-boat were obliged
to row to the nearest shore and the men to
wade above the knees to land. The wind
proved so strong that the shallop was
obliged to harbor where she landed. Mate
in charge of ship. Blowed and snowed all
day and at night, and froze withal.
Mistress White delivered of a son which is
called “Peregrine.” The second child born
on the voyage, the first in this harbor.

TUESDAY, Nov. 28/Dec. 8
At anchor, Cape Cod harbor. Cold. Master
Jones and exploring party absent on shore
with long-boat and colonists’ shallop. The
latter, which beached near ship yesterday
in a strong wind and harbored there last
night, got under way this morning and
sailed up the harbor, following the course
taken by the long-boat yesterday, the wind
favoring. Six inches of snow fell
yesterday and last night. Crew at work
clearing snow from ship.

WEDNESDAY, Nov. 29/Dec. 9
At anchor, Cape Cod harbor. Cold. Foul
weather threatening. Master Jones with
sixteen men in the long-boat and shallop
came aboard towards night (eighteen men
remaining ashore), bringing also about ten
bushels of Indian corn which had been found
buried. The Master reports a long march,
the exploration of two creeks, great
numbers of wild fowl, the finding of much
corn and beans,’ etc.

[This seems to be the first mention of beans (in early Pilgrim
literature) as indigenous (presumably) to New England. They have
held an important place in her dietary ever since.]

THURSDAY, Nov. 30/Dec. 10
At anchor in harbor. Sent shallop to head
of harbor with mattocks and spades, as
desired by those ashore, the seamen taking
their muskets also. The shallop came
alongside at nightfall with the rest of the
explorers–the tide being out–bringing a
lot of Indian things, baskets, pottery,
wicker-ware, etc., discovered in two graves
and sundry Indian houses they found after
the Master left them. They report ground
frozen a foot deep.

FRIDAY, Dec. 1/11
At anchor, Cape Cod harbor. Carpenter
finishing work on shallop. Colonists
discussing locations visited, as places for
settlement.

SATURDAY, Dec. 2/12
At anchor in harbor. Much discussion among
colonists as to settlement, the Master
insisting on a speedy determination.
Whales playing about the ship in
considerable numbers. One lying within
half a musket-shot of the ship, two of the
Planters shot at her, but the musket of the
one who gave fire first blew in pieces both
stock and barrel, yet no one was hurt.
Fetched wood and water.

SUNDAY, Dec. 3/13
At anchor in Cape Cod harbor. The fourth
Sunday here. Scarce any of those aboard
free from vehement coughs, some very ill.
Weather very variable.

MONDAY, Dec. 4/14
At anchor in Cape Cod harbor. Carpenter
completing repairs on shallop. Much
discussion of plans for settlement. The
Master urging that the Planters should
explore with their shallop at some
distance, declining in such season to stir
from the present anchorage till a safe
harbor is discovered by them where they
would be and he might go without danger.
This day died Edward Thompson, a servant of
Master William White, the first to die
aboard the ship since she anchored in the
harbor. Burying-party sent ashore after
services to bury him.

TUESDAY, Dec. 5/15
At anchor in harbor. Francis Billington, a
young son of one of the passengers, put the
ship and all in great jeopardy, by shooting
off a fowling-piece in his father’s cabin
between decks where there was a small
barrel of powder open, and many people
about the fire close by. None hurt.
Weather cold and foul.

WEDNESDAY, Dec. 6/16
At anchor in harbor. Very cold, bad
weather. This day died Jasper More, a lad
bound to Governor Carver. The second death
in the harbor. The third exploring party
got away from the ship in the afternoon in
the shallop, intent on finding a harbor
recommended by the second mate, Robert
Coppin, who had visited it. Captain
Standish in command, with whom were
Governor Carver, Masters Bradford, Winslow,
John Tilley and Edward Tilley, Warren and
Hopkins, John Howland, Edward Dotey, and
two of the colonists’ seamen, Alderton and
English, and of the ship’s company, the
mates Clarke and Coppin, the master-gunner
and three sailors, eighteen in all. The
shallop was a long time getting clear of
the point, having to row, but at last got
up her sails and out of the harbor. Sent
burying-party ashore with body of little
More boy, after services aboard.

THURSDAY, Dec. 7/17
At anchor in Cape Cod harbor. This day
Mistress Dorothy Bradford, wife of Master
Bradford, who is away with the exploring
party to the westward, fell over board and
was drowned.

FRIDAY, Dec. 8/18
At anchor in harbor. A strong south-east
gale with heavy rain, turning to snow and
growing cold toward night, as it cleared.
This day Master James Chilton died aboard
the ship. The third passenger, and first
head of a family; to die in this harbor.

SATURDAY, Dec. 9/19
At anchor in harbor. Burying-party sent
ashore after services aboard, to bury
Chilton. Fetched wood and water.

[The death of Chilton was the first of the head of a family, and it
may readily be imagined that the burial was an especially affecting
scene, especially as following so closely upon the tragic death of
Mrs. Bradford (for whom no funeral or burial arrangements are
mentioned?? D.W.)]

SUNDAY, Dec. 10/20
At anchor in Cape Cod harbor. The fifth
Sunday in this harbor. The exploring party
still absent. Four deaths one by drowning;
very severe weather; the ship’s narrow
escape from being blown up; and the absence
of so many of the principal men, have made
it a hard, gloomy week.

MONDAY, Dec. 11/21
At anchor in harbor. Clear weather.

TUESDAY, Dec. 12/22
At anchor in harbor. Exploration party
still absent.

WEDNESDAY, Dec. 13/23
At anchor in harbor. Exploration party
returned to ship, where much sad
intelligence met them (especially Master
Bradford), as to his wife’s drowning. The
exploring party report finding a
considerable Indian burying-place; several
Indian houses; a fierce attack on them by
Indians on Friday morning, but without
harm; a severe gale on the same afternoon,
in which their rudder-hinges broke, their
mast was split in three pieces, their sail
fell over board in a heavy sea, and they
were like to have been cast away in making
a harbor which Master Coppin thought he
knew, but was deceived about. They landed
on an island at the mouth of the harbor,
which they named for Master Clarke, the
first mate, and spent Saturday and Sunday
there, and on Monday examined the harbor
they found, and are agreed that it is the
place for settlement. Much satisfaction
with the report among the colonists.

THURSDAY, Dec. 14/24
At anchor, Cape Cod harbor. The colonists
have determined to make settlement at the
harbor they visited, and which is
apparently, by Captain John Smith’s chart
of 1616, no other than the place he calls
“Plimoth” thereon. Fetched wood and water.

FRIDAY, Dec. 15/25
Weighed anchor to go to the place the
exploring party discovered. Course west,
after leaving harbor. Shallop in company.
Coming within two leagues, the wind coming
northwest, could not fetch the harbor, and
was faine to put round again towards Cape
Cod. Made old anchorage at night. The
thirty-fifth night have lain at anchor
here. Shallop returned with ship.

SATURDAY, Dec. 16/26
Comes in with fair wind for Plymouth.
Weighed anchor and put to sea again and made
harbor safely. Shallop in company. Within
half an hour of anchoring the wind changed,
so if letted [hindered] but a little had
gone back to Cape Cod. A fine harbor.
Let go anchors just within a long spur of
beach a mile or more from shore. The end of
the outward voyage; one hundred and two days
from Plymouth (England to Plymouth New
England). One hundred and fifty-five days
from London.

THE SHIPS JOURNAL WHILE SHE LAY IN
PLYMOUTH HARBOR

SUNDAY, Dec. 17/27
At anchor in Plymouth harbor. Services on
ship. This harbor is a bay greater than
Cape Cod, compassed with goodly land. It is
in fashion like a sickle or fish-hook.

MONDAY, Dec. 18/28
At anchor, Plymouth harbor: The Master of
the ship, with three or four of the sailors
and several of the Planters, went aland and
marched along the coast several miles.
Made careful examination of locality. Found
many brooks of fine water, abundant wood,
etc. The party came aboard at night weary
with marching.

TUESDAY, Dec. 19/29
At anchor, Plymouth harbor. A party from
the ship went ashore to discover, some
going by land and some keeping to the
shallop. A creek was found leading up
within the land and followed up three
English miles, a very pleasant river at
full sea. It was given the name of “Jones
River” in compliment to the Master of the
ship. A bark of thirty tons may go up at
high tide, but the shallop could scarcely
pass at low water. All came aboard at
night with resolution to fix, to-morrow,
which of the several places examined they
would settle upon.

WEDNESDAY, Dec. 20/30
At anchor, Plymouth harbor, many ill. Dec.
After service the colonists decided to go
ashore this morning and determine upon one
of two places which were thought most
fitting for their habitation. So a
considerable party went ashore and left
twenty of their number there to make a
rendezvous, the rest coming on board at
night. They reported that they had chosen
by the most voices the site first looked at
by the largest brook, near where they
landed on the 11th on a large rock
[Plymouth Rock].

[The “Rock” seems to have become the established landing place of
the Pilgrims, from the time of the first visit of the third
exploring party on December 11/21. The absurdity of the claims of
the partisans of Mary Chilton, in the foolish contention which
existed for many years as to whether she or John Alden was the first
person to set foot upon the “Rock,” is shown by the fact that, of
course, no women were with the third exploring party which first
landed there, while it is also certain that Alden was not of that
exploring party. That Mary Chilton may have been the first woman to
land at Cape Cod harbor is entirely possible, as it is that she or
John Alden may have been the first person to land on the “Rock”
after the ship arrived in Plymouth harbor. It was a vexatious
travesty upon history (though perpetuated by parties who ought to
have been correct) that the Association for building the Pilgrim
Monument at Plymouth should issue a pamphlet giving a picture of the
“Landing of the Pilgrims, December 21, 1620,” in which women are
pictured, and in which the shallop is shown with a large
fore-and-aft mainsail, while on the same page is another picture
entitled, “The Shallop of the MAY-FLOWER,” having a large yard and
square-sail, and a “Cuddy” (which last the MAY-FLOWER’S shallop we
know did not have). The printed description of the picture,
however, says: “The cut is copied from a picture by Van der Veldt,
a Dutch painter of the seventeenth century, representing a
shallop,” etc. It is matter of regret to find that a book like
Colonel T. W. Higginson’s ‘Book of American Explorers’, intended
for a text-book, and bearing the imprint of a house like Longmans,
Green & Co. should actually print a “cut” showing Mary Chilton
landing from a boat full of men (in which she is the only woman)
upon a rock, presumably Plymouth Rock.]

THURSDAY, Dec. 21/31
At anchor, Plymouth harbor. Wet and
stormy, so the Planters could not go ashore
as planned, having blown hard and rained
extremely all night. Very uncomfortable
for the party on shore. So tempestuous
that the shallop could not go to land as
soon as was meet, for they had no victuals
on land. About eleven o’clock the shallop
went off with much ado with provision, but
could not return, it blew so strong. Such
foul weather forced to ride with three
anchors ahead. This day Richard
Britteridge, one of the colonists, died
aboard the ship, the first to die in this
harbor.

FRIDAY, Dec. 22/Jan. 1
At anchor, Plymouth harbor. The storm
continues, so that no one could go ashore,
or those on land come aboard. This morning
goodwife Allerton was delivered of a son,
but dead-born. The third child born on
board the ship since leaving England,–the
first in this harbor.

SATURDAY, Dec. 23/Jan. 2
At anchor in Plymouth harbor. Sent body of
Britteridge ashore for burial, the storm
having prevented going before, and also a
large party of colonists to fell timber,
etc. Left a large number on shore at the
rendezvous. Fetched wood and water.

SUNDAY, Dec. 24/Jan. 3
At anchor, Plymouth harbor. Second Sunday
here. This day died Solomon Prower, one of
the family of Master Martin, the treasurer
of the colonists, being the sixth death
this month, and the second in this harbor.
A burying-party went ashore with Prower’s
body, after services aboard.

MONDAY, Dec. 25/Jan. 4
At anchor in Plymouth harbor. Christmas
Day, but not observed by these colonists,
they being opposed to all saints’ days,
etc. The men on shore Sunday reported that
they “heard a cry of some savages,” as they
thought, that day. A large party went
ashore this morning to fell timber and
begin building. They began to erect the
first house about twenty feet square for
their common use, to receive them and their
goods. Another alarm as of Indians this
day. All but twenty of the Planters came
aboard at night, leaving the rest to keep
court of guard. The colonists began to
drink water, but at night the Master caused
them to have some beer.

TUESDAY, Dec. 26/Jan. 5
At anchor in Plymouth harbor. A violent
storm of wind and rain. The weather so
foul this morning that none could go
ashore.

WEDNESDAY, Dec. 27/Jan. 6
At anchor in harbor. Sent working party
ashore. All but the guard came aboard at
night.

THURSDAY, Dec. 28/Jan. 7
At anchor. All able went ashore this
morning to work on a platform for ordnance
on the hill back of the settlement,
commanding the harbor. The Planters this
day laid out their town-site and allotted
ground to the several families. Many of
the colonists ill from exposure. All but
the guard came off to the ship at night.

FRIDAY, Dec. 29/Jan. 8
At anchor in harbor. No working-party went
aland. The Planters fitting tools, etc.,
for their work. The weather wet and cold.

SATURDAY, Dec. 30/Jan. 9
At anchor in harbor. Very stormy and cold.
No working-party sent aland. The Planters
fitting tools, etc. Great smokes of fires
visible from the ship, six or seven miles
away, probably made by Indians.

SUNDAY, Dec. 31/Jan. 10
At anchor in harbor. The third Sunday in
this harbor. Sailors given leave to go
ashore. Many colonists ill.

MONDAY, Jan. 1/Jan. 11
At anchor in Plymouth harbor. This day
Degory Priest, one of the colonists, died
aboard the ship. A large party went ashore
early to work. Much time lost between ship
and shore, the ship drawing so much water
as obliged to anchor a mile and a half off.
The working-party came aboard at nightfall.
Fetched wood and water.

TUESDAY, Jan. 2/Jan. 12
At anchor in harbor. Sent burying-party
ashore with Priest’s body. Weather good.
Working-party aland and returned to ship at
night.

WEDNESDAY, Jan. 3/Jan. 13
At anchor in harbor. Working-party aland,
returned at night. They report seeing
great fires of the Indians. Smoke seen
from the ship. Have seen no savages since
arrival.

THURSDAY, Jan. 4/Jan. 14
At anchor in Plymouth harbor. Captain
Standish, with four or five men, went to
look for savages, and though they found
some of their old houses “wigwams” could
not meet with any of them.

FRIDAY, Jan. 5/Jan. 15
At anchor in Plymouth harbor. Working-
party went aland early. One of the sailors
found a live herring upon the shore, which
the Master had to his supper. As yet have
caught but one cod.

SATURDAY, Jan. 6/Jan. 16
At anchor in harbor. In judgment of
Masters Brewster, Bradford, and others,
Master Martin, the colonists’ treasurer,
was so hopelessly ill that Governor Carver,
who had taken up his quarters on land, was
sent for to come aboard to speak with him
about his accounts. Fetched wood and water.

SUNDAY, Jan. 7/Jan. 17
At anchor in harbor. Fourth Sunday here.
Governor Carver came aboard to talk with
Master Martin, who was sinking fast.

MONDAY, Jan. 8/Jan. 18
At anchor in Plymouth harbor. A very fan
fair day. The working-party went aland
early. The Master sent, the shallop for
fish. They had a great tempest at sea and
were in some danger. They returned to the
ship at night, with three great seals they
had shot, and an excellent great cod.
Master Martin died this day. He had been a
“governour” of the passengers on the ship,
and an “assistant,” and was an Adventurer.
One of the Master-mates took a musket, and
went with young Francis Billington to find
the great inland sea the latter had seen
from the top of a tree, and found a great
water, in two great lakes [Billington Sea,]
also Indian houses.

TUESDAY, Jan. 9/Jan. 19
At anchor in harbor. Fair day. Sent
burying-party ashore after services aboard,
with the body of Master Martin, and he was
buried with some ceremony on the hill near
the landing-place. The settlers drew lots
for their meersteads and garden-plots. The
common-house nearly finished, wanting only
covering.

WEDNESDAY, Jan. 10/Jan. 20
At anchor in harbor. Party went aland from
ship. Frosty.

THURSDAY, Jan. 11/Jan. 21
At anchor in harbor. A fair day. Party
ashore from ship and coming off at night,
reported Master William Bradford very ill:
Many ill aboard.

FRIDAY, Jan. 12/Jan. 22
At anchor in harbor. Began to rain at noon
and stopped all work. Those coming aboard
ship at night reported John Goodman and
Peter Browne, two of the colonists,
missing, and fears entertained that they
may have been taken by Indians. Froze and
snowed at night. The first snow for a
month. An extremely cold night.

SATURDAY, Jan. 13/Jan. 23
At anchor in harbor. The Governor sent out
an armed party of ten or twelve to look for
the missing men, but they returned without
seeing or hearing anything at all of them.
Those on shipboard much grieved, as deeming
them lost. Fetched wood and water.

SUNDAY, Jan. 14/Jan. 24
At anchor in harbor. About six o’clock in
the morning, the wind being very great, the
watch on deck spied the great new
rendezvous on shore on fire and feared it
fired by Indians, but the tide being out,
men could not get ashore for three quarters
of an hour, when they went armed. At the
landing they heard that the lost men were
returned, some frost-bitten, and that the
thatch of the common-house only was burnt
by a spark, but no other harm done the
roof. The most loss was Governor Carver’s
and Master Bradford’s, both of whom lay
sick in bed, and narrowly missed being
blown up with powder. The meeting was to
have been kept ashore to-day, the greater
number of the people now being there, but
the fire, etc., prevented. Some of those
sick in the common-house were fain to
return aboard for shelter. Fifth Sunday in
this harbor.

MONDAY, Jan. 15/Jan. 25
At anchor in Plymouth harbor. Rained much
all day. They on shipboard could not go
ashore nor they on shore do any labor, but
were all wet.

TUESDAY, Jan. 16/Jan. 26
At anchorage. A fine, sunshining day like
April. Party went aland betimes. Many ill
both on ship and on shore.

WEDNESDAY, Jan. 17/Jan. 27
At anchorage. Another fine, sunshining
day. Working-party went aland early. Set
on shore some of the Planters’ goods.

[Mourt’s Relation, Dexter’s ed. p. 77. Bradford states (op. cit.
Mass. ed. p. 110) that they were hindered in getting goods ashore
by “want of boats,” as well as sickness. Mention is made only of
the “long-boat” and shallop. It is possible there were no others,
except the Master’s skiff]

THURSDAY, Jan. 18/Jan. 28
At anchorage. Another fine, bright day.
Some of the common goods [i.e. belonging
to all] set on shore.

FRIDAY, Jan. 19/Jan. 29
At anchorage. A shed was begun on shore to
receive the goods from the ship. Rained at
noon but cleared toward night.

[Cleared toward evening (though wet at noon), and John Goodman went
out to try his frozen feet, as is recorded, and had his encounter
with wolves.]

SATURDAY, Jan. 20/Jan. 30
At anchorage. Shed made ready for goods
from ship. Fetched wood and water.

SUNDAY, Jan. 21/Jan. 31
At anchor in Plymouth harbor. Sixth Sunday
in this harbor. Many ill. The Planters
kept their meeting on land to-day for the
first time, in the common-house.

MONDAY, Jan. 22/Feb. 1
At anchorage. Fair day. Hogsheads of meal
sent on shore from ship and put in
storehouse.

TUESDAY, Jan. 23/Feb. 2
At anchorage. The general sickness
increases, both on shipboard and on land.

WEDNESDAY, Jan. 24/Feb. 3
At anchor in harbor. Fair weather. Party
on shore from ship and returned at night.

THURSDAY, Jan. 25/Feb. 4
At anchorage. Weather good. Party set
ashore and came aboard at night.

FRIDAY, Jan. 26/Feb. 5
At anchorage. Weather good. Party set
ashore. The sickness increases.

SATURDAY, Jan. 27/Feb. 6
At anchorage. Weather fair. Good working
weather all the week, but many sick.
Fetched wood and water.

SUNDAY, Jan. 28/Feb. 7
At anchorage, Plymouth harbor. Seventh
Sunday in this harbor. Meeting kept on
shore. Those of Planters on board who were
able, and some of the ship’s company, went
ashore, and came off after service.

MONDAY, Jan. 29/Feb. 8
At anchor, Plymouth harbor. Morning cold,
with frost and sleet, but after reason ably
fair. Both long-boat and shallop carrying
Planters’ goods on shore. Those returning
reported that Mistress Rose Standish, wife
of Captain Standish, died to-day.

TUESDAY, Jan. 30/Feb. 9
At anchorage. Cold, frosty weather, so no
working-party went on shore from ship. The
Master and others of the ship’s company saw
two savages that had been on the island
near the ship [Clarke’s Island]. They were
gone so far back again before they were
discovered that could not speak with them.
The first natives actually seen since the
encounter on the Cape.

WEDNESDAY, Jan. 31/Feb. 10
At anchor in harbor. Still cold and
frosty, with sleet. No party went on
shore. Eight of the colonists have died
this month on the ship and on shore.

THURSDAY, Feb. 1/Feb. 11
At anchor in harbor. Weather better, and
some of those on board the ship went on
shore to work, but many ill.

FRIDAY, Feb. 2/Feb. 12
At anchorage. The same.

SATURDAY, Feb. 3/13
At anchorage. Weather threatening. Fetched
wood and water.

SUNDAY, Feb. 4/14
At anchor, Plymouth harbor. The eighth
Sunday in this harbor, and now inexpedient
to think of getting away, till both Planters
and crew in better condition as to health.

[Bradford, Historie, p. 92; Young, Chronicler, p. 198. Bradford
says (op. cit. Mass. ed, pp. 120, 121): “The reason on their parts
why she stayed so long was ye necessitie and danger that lay upon
them, for it was well toward ye ende of December before she could
land anything here, or they able to receive anything ashore. After
wards, ye 14 of January the house which they had made for a general
randevoze by casulty fell afire, and some were faine to retire
aboard for shelter. Then the sickness begane to fall sore amongst
them, and ye weather so bad as they could not make much sooner
dispatch. Againe, the Governor & chiefe of them seeing so many dye,
and fall down sick dayly, thought it no wisdom to send away the
ship, their condition considered, and the danger they stood in from
ye Indians, till they could procure some shelter; and therefore
thought it better to draw some more charge upon themselves & friends
[“demurrage?”] than hazard all. The Mr. and sea-men likewise;
though before they hasted ye passengers a shore to be goone [gone],
now many of their men being dead, and of ye ablest of them [as is
before noted, and of ye rest many lay sick & weake, ye Mr, durst not
put to sea till he saw his men begine to recover, and ye hart of
winter over.”]]

A very rainy day with the heaviest gusts of
wind yet experienced. The ship in some
danger of oversetting, being light and
unballasted.

MONDAY, Feb. 5/15
At anchor in harbor. Clearing weather.

TUESDAY, Feb. 6/16
At anchor in harbor. Cold and clear.

WEDNESDAY, Feb. 7/17
At anchor in harbor. Much colder.

THURSDAY, Feb. 8/18
At anchorage. Hard, cold weather.

FRIDAY, Feb. 9/19
At anchorage. Cold weather continues.
Little work possible. The little house for
the sick people on shore took fire this
afternoon, by a spark that kindled in the
roof. No great harm done. The Master
going ashore, killed five geese, which he
distributed among the sick people. He also
found a good deer the savages had killed,
having also cut off his horns. A wolf was
eating him. Cannot conceive how he came
there.