Read Ebook: The Mayflower and Her Log; July 15 1620-May 6 1621 — Volume 4 by Ames Azel

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 153 lines and 19573 words, and 4 pages

Please do not remove this.

Edition: 10

THE MAY-FLOWER AND HER LOG

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

BOOK 4.

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 -Singleton Cushman, 2d wife, Thomas Cushman, son .

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 Hopkins, 2d wife, Giles Hopkins, son , Constance Hopkins, daughter , Damaris Hopkins, daughter, Edward Dotey, "servant," Edward Leister, "servant."

Gilbert Winslow.

James Chilton, Mrs. Susanna Chilton, wife, Mary Chilton, daughter.

Richard Gardiner.

John Billington, Mrs. Eleanor Billington, wife, John Billington , 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.

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 might have joined her 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 , 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 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 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 , 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 , 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, about the time he first went to England in behalf of the Leyden congregation.

Mrs. Mary -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 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 . The will intimates that the "Thomas" named was "under age" when the bequest was made. If this is unmistakably so , 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 , 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 to be called upon, as were Dotey and Leister.

John Langemore; there is nothing 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 , doubtless living there, which effectually overthrows the "imaginary history" of Baird, and of that pretty story, "Standish of Standish," whereby the Mullens family are given French 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 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 of Huguenot or Walloon birth or descent, but in doing so probably knew no other authority than Mrs. Austin's little novel, or 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 and his daughter Priscilla 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 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 , 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 , 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 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 , 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. ," 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 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" , states, that, "forasmuch as we have now resolved to send this next spring 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 trans portation, 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 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 , 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 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 and hath 4 or 5 children." William T. Davis, in his "Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth" , 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 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 of them that came from Leyden went on this ship 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 , 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 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 , and the MAY-FLOWER her proportionate number, ninety --a total of one hundred and twenty .

Captain John Smith says,

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

If the number one hundred and twenty is correct, and the distribution suggested is also exact, viz. thirty to the SPEEDWELL and ninety to the MAY-FLOWER, it is clear that there must have been more than twelve who went from the consort to the larger ship, when the pinnace was abandoned. We know that at least Robert Cushman and his family , who were on the MAY-FLOWER, were among the number who returned to London upon the SPEEDWELL , so that if the ship's number was ninety , and three or more were withdrawn, it would require fifteen or more to make the number up to one hundred and two , 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 rest content with a very accurate knowledge of the passenger list of the MAY-FLOWER when she left Plymouth , 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 , Thomas Blossom and his son , and William Ring , 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 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 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.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet