Mrs. Mary (Clarke)-Singleton Cushman appears only as a passenger of theMAY-FLOWER on her channel voyage, as she returned with her husbandand 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, toremain. 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 intimatesthat the “Thomas” named was “under age” when the bequest was made.If this is unmistakably so (though there is room for doubt), thenthis was not the Thomas of the Pilgrims. Otherwise the evidence isconvincing.
Master Christopher Martin, who was made, Bradford informs us, thetreasurer-agent of the Planter Company, Presumably about the time ofthe original conclusions between the Adventurers and the Planters,seems to have been appointed such, as Bradford states, not becausehe was needed, but to give the English contingent of the Planterbody representation in the management, and to allay thereby anysuspicion or jealousy. He was, if we are to judge by the evidencein hand concerning his contention and that of his family with theArchdeacon, the strong testimony that Cushman bears against him inhis Dartmouth letter of August 17, and the fact that there seems tohave been early dissatisfaction with him as “governor” on the ship,a very self-sufficient, somewhat arrogant, and decidedly contentiousindividual. His selection as treasurer seems to have been veryunfortunate, as Bradford indicates that his accounts were inunsatisfactory shape, and that he had no means of his own, while hisrather surprising selection for the office of “governor” of thelarger ship, after the unpleasant experience with him astreasurer-agent, is difficult to account for, except that he wasevidently an active opponent of Cushman, and the latter was justthen in disfavor with the colonists. He was evidently a man in theprime of life, an “Independent” who had the courage of hisconvictions if little discretion, and much of that energy andself-reliance which, properly restrained, are excellent elementsfor a colonist. Very little beside the fact that he came fromEssex is known of him, and nothing of his wife. He has furthermention hereafter.
Solomon Prower is clearly shown by the complaint made against him by theArchdeacon of Chelmsford, the March before he sailed on theMAY-FLOWER, to have been quite a youth, a firm “Separatist,” andsomething more than an ordinary “servant.” He seems to have beensummoned before the Archdeacon at the same time with young Martin(a son of Christopher), and this fact suggests some nearer relationthan that of “servant.” He is sometimes spoken of as Martin’s“son,” by what warrant does not appear, but the fact suggests thathe may have been a step-son. Bradford, in recording his death,says: “Dec. 24, this day dies Solomon Martin.” This could, ofcourse, have been none other than Solomon Prower. Dr. Young, in his“Chronicles,” speaking of Martin, says, “he brought his wife and twochildren.” If this means Martin’s children, it is evidently anerror. It may refer to age only. His case is puzzling, forBradford makes him both “servant” and “son.” If of sufficient ageand account to be cited before the Archdeacon for discipline, itseems strange that he should not have signed the “Compact.” Even ifa “servant” this would seem to have been no bar, as Dotey andLeister were certainly such, yet signers. The indications are thathe was but a well-grown lad, and that his youth, or severe illness,and not his station, accounts for the absence of his signature. Ifa young foster-son or kinsman of Martin, as seems most likely, thenMartin’s signature was sufficient, as in the cases of fathers fortheir sons; if really a “ser vant” then too young (like Latham andHooke) to be called upon, as were Dotey and Leister.
John Langemore; there is nothing (save the errors of Dr. Young) toindicate that he was other than a “servant.”
Richard Warren was probably from Kent or Essex. Surprisingly little isknown 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 isevidently the nuncupative will of William Mullens, proves animportant one in many particulars, only one of which need bereferred to in this connection, but all of which will receive dueconsideration. It conclusively shows Mr. Mullens not to have beenof the Leyden congregation, as has sometimes been claimed, but thathe was a well-to-do tradesman of Dorking in Surrey, adjacent toLondon. It renders it certain, too, that he had been some timeresident there, and had both a married daughter and a son (William),doubtless living there, which effectually overthrows the “imaginaryhistory” 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 intheir Three Homes, England, Holland, America,” cites the name“Mullins” as a Dutch distortion of Molines or Molineaux. Withoutquestioning that such it might be,—for the Dutch scribes weregifted in remarkable distortions of simple names, even of their ownpeople,—they evidently had no hand in thus maltreating the patronymof William Mullens (or Mullins) of the Pilgrims, for not only isevidence entirely wanting to show that he was ever a Leyden citizen,though made such by the fertile fiction of Mrs. Austin, but GovernorCarver, who knew him well, wrote it in his will “Mullens,” while twoEnglish probate functionaries of his own home-counties wrote itrespectively “Mullens” and “Mullins.”Dr. Grifs speaks of “the Mullens family” as evidently [sic] ofHuguenot or Walloon birth or descent, but in doing so probably knewno 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 authorityfor 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 historicalwork. Of Dr. Baird, one has a right to expect better things, andthe positiveness of his reckless assertion might well mislead thosenot wholly familiar with the facts involved, as it evidently hasmore than one. He states, without qualification or reservation,that “among the passengers in the SPEEDWELL were several of theFrench who had decided to cast in their lot with these Englishbrethren. William Molines and his daughter Priscilla, afterwardsthe wife of John Alden and Philip Delanoy, born in Leyden of Frenchparents, were of the number.” One stands confounded by such acombination of unwarranted errors. Not only is it not true thatthere “were several of the French among the passengers in theSPEEDWELL,” but there is no evidence whatever that there was evenone. Those specifically named as there, certainly were not, andthere is not the remotest proof or reason to believe, that WilliamMullens (or Molines) and his daughter Priscilla (to say nothing ofthe wife and son who accompanied him to America, whom Baird forgets)ever even saw Leyden or Delfshaven. Their home had been at Dorkingin Surrey, just across the river from London, whence the MAY-FLOWERsailed for New England, and nothing could be more absurd than toassume that they were passengers on the SPEEDWELL from Delfshaven toSouthampton.So far from Philip Delanoy (De La Noye or Delano) being a passengeron the SPEEDWELL, he was not even one of the Pilgrim company, didnot go to New England till the following year (in the FORTUNE), andof course had no relation to the SPEEDWELL. Neither does EdwardWinslow—the only authority for the parentage of “Delanoy”—statethat “he was born in Leyden,” as Baird alleges, but only that “hewas born of French parents . . . and came to us from Leyden toNew Plymouth,”—an essential variance in several importantparticulars. Scores and perhaps hundreds of people have been led tobelieve Priscilla Mullens a French Protestant of the Leydencongregation, and themselves—as her descendants—“of Huguenotstock,” because of these absolutely groundless assertions of Dr.Baird. They lent themselves readily to Mrs. Austin’s fertileimagination and facile pen, and as “welcome lies” acquired a hold onthe public mind, from which even the demonstrated truth will neverwholly dislodge them. The comment of the intelligent writer in the“Historic-Genealogical Register” referred to is proof of this. Sofast-rooted had these assertions become in her thought as the truth,that, confronted with the evidence that Master Mullens and hisfamily were from Dorking in England, it does not occur to her todoubt the correctness of the impression which the recklessness ofBaird had created,—that they were of Leyden,—and she henceamusingly suggests that “they must have moved from Leyden toDorking.” These careless utterances of one who is especially boundby his position, both as a writer and as a teacher of morals, to bejealous for the truth, might be partly condoned as attributable tomistake or haste, except for the facts that they seem to have beenthe fountain-head of an ever-widening stream of serious error, andthat they are preceded on the very page that bears them by others asto the Pilgrim exodus equally unhappy. It seems proper to suggestthat it is high time that all lovers of reliable history shouldstand firmly together against the flood of loose statement which isdeluging the public; brand the false wherever found; and call forproof from of all new and important historical propositions putforth.
Stephen Hopkins may possibly have had more than one wife beforeElizabeth, who accompanied him to New England and was mother of thesea-born son Oceanus. Hopkins’s will indicates his affection forthis latest wife, in unusual degree for wills of that day. Withsingular carelessness, both of the writer and his proof-reader, Hon.William T. Davis states that Damaris Hopkins was born “after thearrival” in New England. The contrary is, of course, a wellestablished fact. Mr. Davis was probably led into this error byfollowing Bradford’s “summary” as affecting the Hopkins family. Hestates therein that Hopkins “had one son, who became a seaman anddied at Barbadoes probably Caleb, and four daugh ters born here.”To make up these “four” daughters “born here” Davis found itnecessary to include Damaris, unmindful that Bradford names her inhis list of MAY-FLOWER passengers. It is evident, either thatBradford made a mistake in the number, or that there was somedaughter who died in infancy. It is evident that Dotey and Leister,the “servants” of Hopkins, were of English origin and accompaniedtheir master from London.
Gilbert Winslow was a brother of Edward Winslow, a young man, said tohave been a carpenter, who returned to England after “divers years”in New England. There is a possibility that he was at Leyden andwas a passenger on the SPEEDWELL. It has been suggested that hespent the greater part of the time he was in New England, outside ofthe 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 throughher marriage with John Winslow, another brother of Governor Edward,who came over later. Their name has assumed a singular prominencein popular regard, altogether disproportionate to either theirpersonal characteristics, station, or the importance of their earlydescendants. Some unaccountable glamour of romance, without anysubstantial foundation, is probably responsible for it. They left amarried daughter behind them in England, which is the only hint wehave as to their home just prior to the embarkation. There has beena 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 beenclaimed, but without any better warrant, for the Leyden list.
John Billington and his family were unmistakably of the Englishcolonists. Mrs. Billington’s name has been variously given,e.g. Helen, Ellen, and Eleanor, and the same writer has used theminterchangeably. One writer has made the inexcusable error ofstating that “the younger son, Francis, was born after the arrivalat New Plymouth,” but his own affidavit shows him to have been bornin 1606.
William Latham, a “servant-boy” of Deacon Carver, has always been ofdoubtful relation, some circumstances indicating that he was ofLeyden and hence was a SPEEDWELL passenger, but others—and thesethe more significant—rendering it probable that he was an Englishboy, who was obtained in London (like the More children) andapprenticed to Carver, in which case he probably came in theMAY-FLOWER from London, though he may have awaited her coming withhis master at Southampton, in which case he probably originallyembarked there, with him, on the SPEEDWELL, and was transferredwith him, at Plymouth, to the MAY-FLOWER. There is, of course,also still the possibility that he came with Carver’s family fromLeyden. Governor Carver’s early death necessarily changed hisstatus somewhat, and Plymouth early records do not give much beyondsuggestion as to what the change was; but all indications confirmthe opinion that he was a poor boy—very likely of London orvicinity—taken by Carver as his “servant.”
The More children, Jasper, Richard, their brother (whose given name hasnever transpired), and Ellen, their sister, invite more than passingmention. The belief has always been current and confident amongstudents of Pilgrim history that these More children, four innumber, “put” or “indentured” to three of the Leyden leaders, wereprobably orphaned children of some family of the Leydencongregation, and were so “bound” to give them a chance in the newcolony, in return for such services as they could render to thosethey accompanied. If thus of the Leyden contingent they would,of course, be enumerated as passengers in the SPEEDWELL fromDelfshaven, but if of the English contingent they should probably beborne on the list of passengers sailing from London in theMAY-FLOWER, certainly should be reckoned as part of the Englishcontingent on the MAY-FLOWER at Southampton. An affidavit ofRichard More, perhaps the eldest of these children, indentured toElder Brewster, dated in 1684., found in “Proceedings of theProvincial Court, Maryland Archives, vol. xiv. (‘New EnglandHistoric-Genealogical Register,’ vol 1. p. 203 ),” affirms thedeponent to be then “seaventy years or thereabouts” of age, whichwould have made him some six years of age, “or thereabouts,” in1620. He deposes “that being in London at the house of Mr. ThomasWeston, Iron monger, in the year 1620, he was from there transportedto New Plymouth in New England,” etc. This clearly identifiesRichard More of the MAY FLOWER, and renders it well-nigh certainthat he and his brothers and sister, “bound out” like himself toPilgrim leaders, were of the English company, were probably never inLeyden or on the SPEEDWELL, and were very surely passengers on theMAY-FLOWER from London, in charge of Mr. Cushman or others. Thefact that the lad was in London, and went from thence direct to NewEngland, is good evidence that he was not of the Leyden party. Thefair presump tion is that his brothers and sister were, likehimself, of English birth, and humble—perhaps deceased—parents,taken because of their orphaned condition. It is highly improbablethat they would be taken from London to Southampton by land, at thelarge expense of land travel in those days, when the MAY-FLOWER wasto sail from London. That they would accompany their respectivemasters to their respectively assigned ships at Southampton isaltogether likely. The phraseology of his affidavit suggests theprobability that Richard More, his brothers, and sister were broughtto Mr. Weston’s house, to be by him sent aboard the MAY-FLOWER,about to sail. The affidavit is almost conclusive evidence as tothe fact that the More children were all of the English colonists’party, though apprenticed to Leyden families, and belonged to theLondon 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, “thetreasurer, council, and company” of this Virginia Company addressedSir William Cockaine, Knight, Lord Mayor of the city of London, andthe right worthys the aldermen, his brethren, and the worthys the“common council of the city,” and returning thanks for the benefitsconferred, in furnishing out one hundred children this last yearfor “the plantation in Virginia” (from what Neill calls the“homeless boys and girls of London”), states, that, “forasmuch as wehave now resolved to send this next spring 1620 very largesupplies,” etc., “we pray your Lordship and the rest . . . torenew the like favors, and furnish us again with one hundred morefor the next spring. Our desire is that we may have them of twelveyears old and upward, with allowance of L3 apiece for theirtransportation, and 40s. apiece for their apparel, as was formerlygranted. They shall be apprenticed; the boys till they come to 21years 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 RobertNaunton shows that “The city of London have appointed one hundredchildren from the superfluous multitude to be transported toVirginia, there to be bound apprentices upon very beneficialconditions.” In view of the facts that these More children—andperhaps others—were “apprenticed” or “bound” to the Pilgrims(Carver, Winslow, Brewster, etc.), and that there must have beensome one to make the indentures, it seems strongly probable thatthese four children of one family,—as Bradford shows,—very likelyorphaned, were among those designated by the city of London for thebenefit of the (London) Virginia Company in the spring of 1620.They seem to have been waifs caught up in the westward-settingcurrent, but only Richard survived the first winter. Bradford,writing in 1650, states of Richard More that his brothers and sisterdied, “but he is married 1636and hath 4 or 5 children.” WilliamT. Davis, in his “Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth” (p. 24), states,and Arber copies him, that “he was afterwards called Mann; and diedat Scituate, New England, in 1656.” The researches of Mr. George E.Bowman, the able Secretary of the Massachusetts Society ofMAY-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 asingular error of the celebrated navigator that he makes the shipsto have, in less than a day’s sail, got outside of Plymouth, as heindicates by his words, “the next day,” and “forced their return toPlymouth.” He evidently intends to speak only in general terms, ashe entirely omits the (first) return to Dartmouth, and numbers thepassengers on the MAY-FLOWER, on her final departure, at but “onehundred.” 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.”
[PG Etext Editor’s Note:Dr. Ames, so stringent in his requirements of other authors, forexample Jane Austin, has to this point been perhaps naive as tothe veracity of Captain John Smith. Captain Smith’s self-servingand subjective narratives of his own voyages obtained for himthe very derogatory judgement by his contemporaries. One of thebest studies of John Smith’s life may be found in a small book onthis 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 hewas an Essex County man, and was probably not, until in middle life,a member of Robinson’s congregation of “Independents.” His age isdetermined by collateral evidence.
Mrs. Katherine Carver, it has been supposed by some, was a sister ofPastor Robinson. This supposition rests, apparently, upon theexpression of Robinson in his parting letter to Carver, where hesays: “What shall I say or write unto you and your good wife, myloving sister?” Neither the place of Mrs. Carver’s nativity nor herage is known.
Desire Minter was evidently a young girl of the Leyden congregation,between the ages of fourteen and seventeen, who in some way (perhapsthrough kinship) had been taken into Carver’s family. She returnedto England early. See ante, for account of her (probable)parentage.
John Howland was possibly of kin to Carver and had been apparently someyears in his family. Bradford calls him a “man-servant,” but it isevident that “employee” would be the more correct term, and that hewas much more than a “servant.” It is observable that Howlandsigned the Compact (by Morton’s List) before such men as Hopkins,the Tilleys, Cooke, Rogers, and Priest, which does not indicate muchof 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 morethan this is known of him, his death occurring early. There is noclue to his age except that his being called a “man-servant” wouldseem to suggest that he was of age; but the fact that he did notsign the Compact would indicate that he was younger, or he may havebeen extremely ill, as he died very soon after arrival.
William Latham is called a “boy” by Bradford, though a lad of 18. It isquite possible he was one of those “indentured” by the corporationof London, but there is no direct intimation of this.
“Mrs. Carver’s maid,” it is fair to presume, from her position aslady’s-maid and its requirements in those days, was a young woman ofeighteen or twenty years, and this is confirmed by her earlymarriage. Nothing is known of her before the embarkation. She diedearly.
Jasper More, Bradford says, “was a child yt was put to him.” Furtherinformation concerning him is given in connection with his brotherRichard, “indentured” to Elder Brewster. He is erroneously calledby Justin Winsor in his “History of Duxbury” (Massachusetts) a childof Carver’s, as Elizabeth Tilley is “his daughter.” Others havesimilarly erred.
Elder William Brewster’s known age at his death determines his age in1620. He was born in 1566-67. His early life was full of interestand activity, and his life in Holland and America no less so. Inearly life he filled important stations. Steele’s “Chief of thePilgrims” is a most engaging biography of him, and there are othershardly 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 brotherJonathan 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” (ElderBrewster) as bound-boys. For a full account of their Englishorigin, Richard’s affidavit, etc., see ante. This makes him butabout six, but he was perhaps older.
Governor Edward Winslow’s known age at his death fixes his age at thetime of the exodus, and his birth is duly recorded at Droitwich, inWorcester, England. (See “Winslow Memorial,” David Parsons Holton,vol. i. p. 16.)
Governor Winslow
Mrs. Elizabeth (Barker) Winslow, the first wife of the Governor, appearsby the data supplied by the record of her marriage in Holland, May27, 1618, to have been a maiden of comporting years to herhusband’s, he being then twenty-three. Tradition makes her slightlyyounger than her husband.
George Soule, it is evident,—like Howland,—though denominated a“servant” by Bradford, was more than this, and should rather havebeen 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 wasunder age, but extreme illness may have prevented, as he died early.