Martin. Was the first treasurer of the colonists and also a MAY-FLOWERPilgrim. Mention of him appears later. He was no credit to theCompany, 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 hispeople to Plymouth Colony at an early day.
Mullens. Was, as appears elsewhere, a well-conditioned tradesman ofSurrey, England, who was both an Adventurer and a MAY-FLOWERPilgrim, and Martin and himself appear to have been the only oneswho enjoyed that distinction. He died, however, soon after thearrival at Plymouth. That he was an Adventurer is but recentlydiscovered by the author, but there appears no room for doubt as tothe fact. His record was brief, but satisfactory, in its relation tothe 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 JohnRobinson’s letters. He appears to have been a shrewd, cold-bloodedcalculator, like his partner-Adventurer, Greene, not interestedespecially in the Pilgrims, except for gain, and soon deserting theAdventurers. His family seem to have been in favor with Charles II.(See Pepys’ “Diary.”)
Pierce (John). Although recognized by the Virginia Companies and Councilfor New England, as the representative of the Adventurers, he hasonly been recently generally reckoned a chief man of theAdventurers. A Protean friend of the Pilgrims, never reliable, everpretentious, always self-seeking, and of no help. He was finallyruined by the disasters to his ship, the PARAGON, which cost him allhis interests. Having attempted treacherously to secure to himselfthe Patent granted in the Colony’s interest, he was compelled by theCouncil to surrender its advantages to the Adventurers andcolonists.
Pocock. Was a stanch and firm supporter of the Pilgrims and theirinterests, at all times, and to the end. He was also a financialsupporter and deputy-governor the Massachusetts Company, underWinthrop. 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’sCompany. Was an “assistant” and one of the five “undertakers”chosen to go to New England to reside. He went to New England onthe JEWELL of Winthrop’s fleet, and was part owner of the LADYARBELLA. He evidently, however, did not like the life, and returnedafter a few weeks’ stay.
Rookes. Appears only as a signer.
Sharpe. Was also a friend of both Pilgrim and Puritan. He came to NewEngland in 1629, and settled first at Salem, in the MassachusettsCompany. He died in 1658, having long been a ruling elder of thechurch there. He met with many enemies, but was a valuable man andan able one. He was Governor Cradock’s New England agent.
Shirley. Requires little mention here. The perfidious friend of thePilgrims,—perhaps originally true to them,—he sunk everything forhope of gain. He was treasurer of the Adventurers, one of theirmost active and intelligent men, but proved a rascal and a cantinghypocrite. 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 isstrange, as repeated letters of his to Bradford, and other data,show him to have been one of the best and truest of them all. Hesold his interests before the “Composition” and became a colonistafter 1630. He was the fifth of the Adventurers to come to NewEngland to remain, and cast in his lot with the Pilgrims at NewPlimoth—Martin, Mullens, Collier, and Hatherly preceding him. Awealthy and well-informed man, he became a power in the government.Probably Welsh by birth, he was a London merchant when theAdventurers 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 isreason to believe they were related. He was not a friend to thePilgrims.
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 NewEngland and settling near Hatherly at Scituate. Nathaniel’s sonJoseph—named for his uncle—was made his executor and heir. Theuncle was always a firm friend of the Pilgrims. Mr. Tilden’s willis given by Waters (“Genealogical Gleanings,” vol. i. p. 71), andis 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 theupbuilding of New England. His record was a broad and noble one.Goodwin says: “Haven thinks White was that Dorchester clergymanreputed to be the author of the Planters’ Plea.” Probably, butnot 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 theAdventurers and Pilgrims (which, however, was never used) was taken.It is only recently that evidences which, though not conclusive, areyet 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 andunmistakably the organizer of the Adventurers, he became a gracelessingrate and rascal. An instrument of good at first, he became aheartless and designing enemy of the Planters. He was a “citizenand merchant [ironmonger] of London.” It is altogether probablethat he was originally a tool of Sir Ferdinando Gorges and was ledby him to influence the Leyden brethren to break off negotiationswith the Dutch. He died poor, at Bristol, England.
Wright. Perhaps came to New Plimoth and married a daughter of theMAY-FLOWER Pilgrim, Francis Cooke. If so, he settled at Rehoboth andbecame its leading citizen. He may possibly have been the settlerof that name in the Bay-Colony, and the weight of evidence ratherfavors 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 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.”
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 excellent “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.
SHIP
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.”
Ship Models
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:—