Plymouth Reorganizes Financially
The colony looks to the fur trade to pay its debts
The method devised for repaying what was a stiff debt for the young
colony, as one writer puts it, “shows considerable business ingenuity.”
With ownership transferred from London to Plymouth, the plantation
became a virtual corporation in fact. Two important matters still had
to be decided. Should all the settlers share in the disposition of the
corporate lands and assets and in the obligation of repayment to the
adventurers? How would they be able to guarantee satisfaction of the
London men? It was wisely decided to include as holders of shares, or
“purchasers,” all men, whatever their former status, who were either
heads of families or single and not indentured servants. At the 1627
division of assets in the form of land and cattle, every such person
received twenty acres of tillable land to add to the one-acre portion
allotted him when the plantation had ended the “common course.” The
livestock was parceled out for a time among twelve groups, a total
of 156 individuals, with every six persons receiving one cow and two
goats. These “purchasers,” of whom in 1640 fifty-three were listed as
living in Plymouth and five in England, were to benefit from subsequent
divisions of land as the colony opened up.
The immediate task of paying the Londoners fell upon a group of eight
leaders, including William Bradford, Miles Standish, Isaac Allerton,
Edward Winslow, William Brewster, John Howland, John Alden, and Thomas
Prence, known as the “Undertakers.” These men founded a partnership to
manage the fur trade of the colony for six years, the time during which
the returns from the Pilgrims’ most profitable business enterprise
were to be devoted to paying the debt and importing essential English
goods. This became the business of the eight who took possession at
once of the company boats and “the whole stock of furs, fells, beads,
corn, wampampeak, hatchets, knives, &c.”
It may be asked why the “Undertakers” were willing to saddle themselves
with such a responsibility. The answer is their sense of obligation to
their old friends in Leyden, as well as their fidelity to the London
merchants. Most of the former adventurers had so opposed sending
over any more people from Leyden that the beloved Pastor Robinson
prophetically, before his death, looked for no further help until means
came from Plymouth itself. The first example of such aid would cost the
partnership £500, the amount paid for the emigration in 1629 of what
was a welcome but “weak” addition to the colony.
Three London merchants agree to continue as Plymouth’s partners
It was extremely important to tap resources of English credit to
secure new working capital for the trade. It might have to be borrowed
at rates as high as 30–50%, instead of the 6–8% Sherley reported as
current for English business loans in 1628. This explains why Allerton
was sent to London to persuade the former treasurer of the company,
Sherley, and others in England to join the “Undertakers” as partners.
Together with Sherley, John Beauchamp and Richard Andrews consented to
the proposal. One immediate result was that Sherley forebore collection
of £50 he had lent at 30% two years earlier, and induced John Beauchamp
and Richard Andrews to do the same for goods they had provided while
the negotiations were in progress. At Bradford’s request, Sherley and
Beauchamp were designated as factors to receive the furs shipped to
London, while Allerton, long since Bradford’s right hand as chief of
the assistants in the colony, continued to act as business agent of
the “Undertakers.”[36]
The Pilgrims encounter difficulties in the fur trade
Under skillful and energetic management the Plymouth traders soon
succeeded in expanding their collection of pelts from the Indians. The
trade in furs had begun in 1621, when Squanto guided the Pilgrims’
shallop to the Massachusetts Indians. Unluckily, the first return
to England of two hogsheads, estimated to be worth about £400, was
captured in the _Fortune_. In fact, a considerable quantity of what
was collected in the first years never reached England at all and thus
produced no credit for the colony. Instead, Weston’s malice was all
they got for 170 pounds of beaver lent him on his arrival in 1623.
Another part of their precious hoard of skins paid some fishermen for
raising the _Little James_, while Turkish pirates seized an additional
800 pounds on its way to England in 1625. Finally, the colony purchased
with beaver about £500 worth of trading goods, including Biscay rugs,
from a wrecked ship they learned was for sale at Monhegan.
After the joint stock company had broken up, Standish took £277 worth
of beaver with him to pay Sherley. A large haul of 700 pounds was
the result of a single autumn voyage to the Kennebec, purchased,
remarkably enough, with home-grown corn. No lack of energy on the part
of the Plymouth traders had prevented returns, but scarcity of the
kind of English trading goods, such as hatchets, knives, and trading
cloth, which the Indians wanted. In the early stages such goods had
to be bought from passing vessels. On at least one occasion valuable
coat beaver, which Bradford expected to bring about 20s. per pound in
England, was sold to these at 3s. a pound, in exchange for beads and
knives.
As the “Undertakers” took over management, it was evident that
numerous competing trading posts, settled up and down the New England
coast, were beginning to cut into Plymouth’s sources of fur and to
raise the price the Indians demanded for it. The scapegrace, Thomas
Morton of Merrymount, in particular, aroused their ire by selling the
natives the forbidden articles, liquor, guns, and powder. On top of
this, his introduction of such pastimes as setting up a May Pole and
“drinking and ... dancing and frisking together” with Indian maidens so
seriously offended their religious sensibilities that they sent Captain
Standish to evict Morton in 1628.
In the early stages of the fur trade, transportation presented
considerable difficulty. Shallops or open boats were used at first, but
a small vessel was needed to coast in and out of the little harbors for
several weeks at a time, carrying a few traders and their supplies. To
provide for this, an ingenious house carpenter lengthened one of the
shallops and built a deck, affording a hold for long voyages in the
winter.[37]
The “Undertakers” now decided to build a pinnace on the Manomet River,
twenty miles south of Plymouth, and to erect there a permanent trading
house of hewn oak planks, furnished with trading goods and in the care
of two men the year round. Aptucxet was the name of their first post;
it was located so strategically in relation to Buzzard’s Bay that its
site is at the edge of the modern passage, the Cape Cod Canal. In the
seventeenth century a short overland portage, probably accomplished in
about six hours, took one across the neck of the Cape from a few miles
up the Scusset River, entered from Cape Cod Bay, and thus avoided the
hazards of sea passage around the Cape.
Just at this time the Pilgrims took advantage of a new contact.
Responding to earlier Dutch offers to trade for beaver, Governor
Bradford invited Isaack de Rasieres, the chief merchant in New
Amsterdam, to pay a visit. The portly burgher arrived at the Aptucxet
post in October 1627 and came ashore “accompanied with a noise of
trumpeters.” Finding the journey overland to Plymouth too far to walk,
he requested that a small boat be sent for him, visited the little
town, and in due course wrote a description of it. The intercourse
thus opened with the Dutch plantation at the mouth of the Hudson
lasted several years. It not only offered the Pilgrims desirable
goods, such as sugar, linen cloth, and other stuffs, but in the long
run greatly enhanced the colony’s opportunities for Indian trade by
selling them a quantity of wampum. This valuable native shell money,
made by the Narragansetts, now promoted gainful dealings with the
Abnakis of the Kennebec country and other tribes. De Rasieres felt it
necessary to justify his selling the Pilgrims the first fifty fathom
of sewan (wampum) by saying that he hoped to keep them from seeking
it themselves at its source of manufacture and so discovering the
profitable fur trade inland. He must have meant by this the trade with
the Iroquois the Dutch had tapped through their control of the Hudson
River, or that of the upper Connecticut Valley.[38]
Plymouth obtains a new patent to protect its trading rights
The rival shipmasters and settlers now ranging along the rocky coves
and inlets of the Maine coast alarmed Plymouth lest they take control
of the mouth of the Kennebec River. Since the autumn of 1625, most
of the beaver collected had been furnished by the Abnaki Indians of
this region. To secure this area and to define the boundaries of the
colony, which had been unspecified in the Peirce patent, Isaac Allerton
was directed to seek a new patent from the Council for New England.
Some money was laid out for this purpose in his accounts with Sherley
in 1628. The first grant he obtained proved to be so “strait and ill
bounded,” however, that he had to apply for its enlargement. Sherley
reported that Allerton was “so turmoiled about it” that he would not
have undertaken such trouble, even for a thousand pounds.
The fruit of these efforts was a patent the Council issued in 1630,
signed by the Earl of Warwick. It gave Plymouth not only its first
exact boundaries, but a strip of land along the Kennebec, with control
of fifteen miles on either side of the river, running up the river
as far as the site of Cushenoc or present-day Augusta, Maine. This
document, in the name of William Bradford and his associates, the first
of their grants reflecting the complete shift in ownership from London
to the New World, provided the basis for the colony’s land rights. At
the same time Allerton did not succeed in getting past the seals a
charter from the King, such as Massachusetts Bay had. He was criticized
for this, somewhat unjustly, on the grounds that he failed because he
and Sherley included among its terms some special customs privileges.
Yet several charters, notably that of Massachusetts Bay, carried
privileges similar to those Allerton requested, so it is more likely
that a lack of funds and influence at court blocked passage. Allerton
had apparently influenced Sherley to persuade Bradford that this
charter could be secured only if he was allowed to go back to England.
In fact, nothing more came of it, although £500 was reported to have
been spent on the patent.[39]
Plymouth’s business agent is dismissed for a “conflict of interest”
Until this time everyone had relied on Allerton; now the “Undertakers”
began to look on their business agent with disfavor. His previous long
record of helpfulness had caused them to disregard the grumblings of
the new settlers from Leyden, who were dissatisfied with his treatment
of them. Allerton had belonged to the original Leyden congregation and
had helped advise Carver and Cushman about preparations for the voyage
to America, had signed the Mayflower Compact, and had assisted Governor
Bradford after Carver’s death. As a member of the governing circle and
a trusted official, he completed negotiation of the dissolution of
the merchant adventurers for New Plymouth during trips to London in
1626–27. Quite naturally, Sherley’s praise of him as an “honest and
discreet agent” bolstered the colony’s belief in his “good and faithful
service.”
While this enterprising man began his mission without deliberately
dishonest intent, he expected successfully to combine with it the
pursuit of his own private interests. He soon joined Sherley in a
private arrangement, for in 1628 the London man referred to an “account
betwixt you and me,” which was separate from Allerton’s purchases for
Plymouth. There it was known and accepted that he brought over some
goods “upon his own particular, and sold them for his own ... benefit.”
His frequent journeys to England and the intimate knowledge he had of
the needs of New England obviously gave him special opportunities. One
of these was to buy provisions for the settlers of Massachusetts Bay, a
contract perhaps dating from a visit he made aboard the ship carrying
John Winthrop to New England in 1630. Emmanuel Downing and John
Humfrey, two leading supporters in London of the Bay colony, thought
highly of his advice that they move this plantation to the Hudson
River. Allerton’s relation with the Bay leaders outlasted those with
the Pilgrims.[40]
Plymouth’s agent nonetheless revealed an indifference to her wishes
when he brought back from England the very same Thomas Morton whom she
had expelled. It was an insult to shelter this man right on the main
street and even to employ him for a short time as a business secretary.
Then, too, while buying a much bigger quantity of goods to be sold
to the settlers than instructed, Allerton neglected to secure proper
supplies of trading goods. Sherley had pressured him into exceeding
the small quotas ordered by the “Undertakers,” he said in his defense.
Sherley’s letters did stress, of course, the need to turn over as
large an amount as possible during the relatively short duration of
the partnership’s monopoly of trade, arguing that a large outlay
was required to make a good profit in so short a time. “... we must
follow it roundly and to purpose, for if we piddle out the time in our
trade, others will step in and nose us....” Bradford and the others,
understandably, were much more anxious to pay off the debts already
owed than to overextend themselves just to make a profit.[41]
Such disagreements between Allerton and Sherley on the one hand, and
Bradford, Winslow, and others at Plymouth, multiplied as the result
of a new Maine venture, devised in 1629, which rivaled the Kennebec.
Sherley and three other Londoners sent Edward Ashley, a keen trader
but “a profane young man” by Pilgrim standards, to found a rival post
at Pentagoet, near the Penobscot River. Allerton had refused to commit
the Plymouth partners to the scheme without their consent, but on the
basis of later correspondence Bradford decided that he had been an
instigator of the plan. Since they had to send Ashley supplies, the
Pilgrims had little choice anyway but to come in, if they wished to
have some control of this potential competitor. Ashley soon was better
supplied with trading goods than Plymouth, which, indeed, had to buy
from Allerton himself, in return for part of their beaver taken at
reduced prices. Without their knowledge, their versatile agent next
borrowed money on their account at Bristol, at 50% interest, ostensibly
so that goods might be shipped early with the fishing fleet headed for
New England waters in the spring of the year.
Meanwhile, Winslow had conceived a plan to send a fishing ship laden
with trading goods from the West Country in England directly to Maine,
where a cargo of salt purchased the season before would await the
ship’s arrival. In fact, the vessel thus hired, the _Friendship_,
was badly delayed by “foul weather” so that Allerton reached Maine,
traveling on the _White Angel_, only just before Timothy Hatherley, one
of the London associates, finally reached Boston in the _Friendship_.
The latter revealed that most of the goods he carried were not for
Plymouth at all, but for Massachusetts. Plymouth’s mounting annoyance
and mistrust of Allerton reached its pinnacle with the disturbing
revelation that the English partners had bought outright the _White
Angel_, not merely hired her, as was customary. The “Undertakers”
suddenly were confronted by fresh, crushing debts, for each English
partner had contributed two or three times as large an investment
as before. Meanwhile, with a subtle note of mistrust of Plymouth’s
dealings with them, the latter had designated Hatherley as a
confidential agent to be informed of “the state and account of all the
business.”[42]
Thus commenced a new and tedious financial wrangle between Plymouth
and London. The former felt that the necessary control of their own
business and obligations ceased when the English members could “run
into such great things, and charge of shipping and new projects in
their own heads, not only without but against all order and advice....”
Confronted by their objections, Allerton undertook to convince them
that they need not have the _White Angel_ on the general account, if
they did not wish to. Years later, in 1639, he testified that he had
bought her at Bristol in 1631 only for the inner group comprising
himself, Sherley, Andrews, and Beauchamp, and even Hatherley, whereas
the _Friendship_ was hired for all the partners of Plymouth. London
contradicted this, saying that the ship would not have been purchased
at all, if it hadn’t been for the interests of Plymouth.
The disagreement over the _White Angel_ and the _Friendship_ plagued
the partnership for some time to come, but the leaders on both sides
of the Atlantic now concurred in the dismissal of Allerton as agent.
Hatherley’s tour of inspection of the “down east” trading posts before
his return to London demonstrated to him that “Allerton played his own
game and ran a course not only to the great wrong and detriment of
the Plantation who employed and trusted him, but abused them ... in
possessing them [in England] with prejudice against the Plantation ...
that they would never be able to repay their moneys....” Winslow, one
of the most enterprising traders among the “Undertakers,” had journeyed
to London earlier in 1631 and succeeded the discredited agent.
Should Allerton flatly be called a cheat? Unable to “be brief in so
tedious and intricate a business,” Bradford himself struggled not to
impute to Allerton thoroughly dishonest motives. The Governor even
admitted that the agent’s commission to act in Plymouth’s behalf had
given him a certain freedom of action. That Allerton had been led
aside from the main desires of the Plantation by “his own gains and
private ends,” we conclude from his managing to invest £400 under
Sherley’s name in the brewhouse belonging to one of the former London
adventurers, William Collier. Bradford became convinced that the agent
had inspired both the schemes of Ashley’s rival trade and the purchase
of the _White Angel_, persuading his London friends that the Kennebec
trade alone was insufficient to pay them.
The partnership’s general account thus became simply a convenient place
for Allerton to unload losses, with records “so large and intricate,
as they could not well understand them, much less examine and correct
them without a great deal of time and help....” His lists of all sorts
of expenses took advantage of the Pilgrims’ weakness with accounts:
“£30 given at a clap, and £50 spent in a journey.... Yea, he screwed
up his poor old father-in-law’s [Elder Brewster] account to above £200
and brought it upon the general account ... because he knew they would
never let it lie on the old man....” Puzzled, Bradford admitted that
he did not know “how it came to pass, or what mystery was in it,” that
Allerton even was able to present a list of all “disbursements,” though
it was Sherley who made them during his own absence. In the final
calculations a sizable discrepancy (£2300) arose. Whereas the agent
claimed the partners owed him £300, the latter represented his debt to
them as £2000.
When Sherley wrote that “if their business had been better managed they
might have been the richest plantation of any English at that time,” he
could blame the financial incompetence of the “Undertakers” at Plymouth
as well as Allerton’s deficiencies. Their initial trust in the honesty
of others, however praiseworthy, was no match for the shrewdness of the
businessmen who soon were to make Boston and the Bay colony the center
of trade in New England. Consider how they accepted their associate
Hatherley’s unauthorized “honest word” that they would be discharged
from the _Friendship_’s account, thus permitting Allerton and him to
collect all its returns, even though they paid the Pilgrims only £200.
Then, after Hatherley’s London partners repudiated this discharge, the
Pilgrims were billed for losses, but with no countervailing credits.
“... they were ... now taught how to deal in the world, especially with
merchants, in such cases,” Bradford sadly noted in comment, but the
lesson unfortunately did not improve their keeping of accounts.[43]
Without a single surviving letter of Allerton’s, stating his point of
view about the Pilgrims, it is difficult to judge his career. We know
that as a busy merchant and projector he continued to shuttle back
and forth across the Atlantic and up and down the American coast from
northern Maine to New Amsterdam. His own ventures in the _White Angel_,
which he hired and later bought from Sherley, turned out badly, but the
fault of placing part of its debts on Plymouth’s account seems to have
been Sherley’s. Allerton set up a rival post at Machias, Maine, “to run
into every hole and into the river of the Kennebec to glean away the
trade ... there”; after its capture by the French, his pinnace traded
in the Penobscot region. During a season of fishing at Marblehead for
Matthew Cradock, a London promoter of the Massachusetts Bay Company,
Allerton nevertheless continued to be named an assistant of the
Plymouth colony and was a freeman there as late as 1637. In 1633 he
was the richest man in Plymouth; he lent large sums of money to other
settlers, including his sister’s husband. Merchants of Massachusetts
and New Netherland did not distrust him, even though Winslow wrote
from England in 1637 to warn Governor Winthrop of Massachusetts that
Allerton was too friendly with “our common adversaries,” those who were
thinking of securing a royal commission to govern all of New England.
He wrote: “... the truth is he loveth neither you nor us.”
The former agent was, in fact, primarily a businessman, without strong
religious or sentimental ties. He certainly “abused” the trust of his
old comrades by saddling them with such heavy debts, but his acts seem
unscrupulous rather than calculated dishonesty. He took risks which, if
they turned out badly, hurt other people. In short, this maker of “fair
propositions and large promises” was led into temptation by dreams of
wealth; in this he was like many another promoter. Ultimately, his bad
judgment and ill luck brought him losses, and he died insolvent in New
Haven in 1659.[44]
The colony and its London partners dispute over their accounts
The stresses between the “Undertakers” and the London partners were
not relieved simply by Allerton’s dismissal. A decade of acrimonious
exchange of letters followed from 1631 to 1641. It was not easy for the
Londoners to balance off Allerton’s debts, along with new expenses,
against the receipt of furs shipped from Plymouth. They were determined
to hold out until a settlement profitable to them was reached.
Throughout this quarrel Bradford’s _History_ has to be our guide for
the most part, for only one fragment of reckoning between Sherley and
Allerton has been found. Undoubtedly, when the great governor wrote
his narrative he was trying to rehabilitate the Pilgrims’ financial
reputation and counter the rumors in London and Boston mercantile
circles that they were in default. In his chapters on finance he
is repetitious, sometimes confusing, and yet omits certain business
details. His judgment was charitable, however, and by recording
Sherley’s letters he preserved at least some of London’s side of the
controversy.
The first dispute arose from Edward Winslow’s unwillingness to accept
the _White Angel_’s losses on the “Undertakers’” account. Sherley
was displeased and warned that this “unreasonable refusal” might
“hasten that fire which is a kindling too fast already....” Plymouth
nonetheless declined to take on all the debts which appeared in
Sherley’s accounting of 1631. It was found that in arriving at a total
of £4770, in addition to £1000 unpaid of the purchase money, he had
charged twice and even three times for certain items. £600 of this
amount even Allerton could not identify.
The London partners’ dissatisfaction with the records kept in Plymouth
led Sherley to insist on the appointment of Josiah Winslow, younger
brother of Edward, as their accountant. The Pilgrims remarked crustily
“that if they were well dealt with and had their goods well sent over,
they could keep their accounts ... themselves.” Certainly, the new
accountant, with his hopeless inaccuracy and carelessness, did little
to mend matters. In fact, he “did wholly fail them, and could never
give them any account; but trusting to his memory and loose papers,
let things run into such confusion that neither he, nor any with him,
could bring things to rights.” Ultimately, they lost several hundreds
of pounds in this way for goods trusted out without any record clear
enough to call in the payments. Also, goods arrived from England
without prices or invoices.
Meanwhile, several circumstances fed Plymouth’s dissatisfaction with
James Sherley, including his continuing to do business with Allerton.
After selling the latter the controversial ship, Sherley nevertheless
could write with unctious fervor, “Oh the grief and trouble that man,
Mr. Allerton, hath brought upon you and us! I cannot forget it, and to
think on it draws many a sigh from my heart and tears from my eyes.”
Yet he rescued Allerton from trouble with his ship, sent Plymouth’s
supply on board it in 1632, and allowed him easy terms. It was hard to
reconcile Sherley’s depressing complaints about his own heavy debts
with this extension of credit to Allerton and participation in other
ventures, such as sending Captain William Peirce to Massachusetts Bay.
Unfortunately, Peirce’s ship met disaster on her way home in 1632, so
the beaver that Plymouth had entrusted to her, along with some of their
accounts, was “swallowd up in the sea.”
By 1636 Bradford reckoned that Plymouth had sent to England about
12,530 pounds of beaver estimated to be worth more than £10,000, with
1,156 otter skins to pay the freight charges. Because of Winslow’s
shaky accounts, they could only estimate the receipts of English goods.
They thought these cost about £2000, and even if the debt of £4770 was
increased, they could not understand why the fur receipts would not
have more than paid it off. One explanation probably is that Sherley
was unable to sell all of the beaver at the high prices they had
counted on. During the plague year of 1636 he complained that prices
dropped to 8s. a pound. Also, Sherley was unable to determine just
how many skins belonged to the “Undertakers’” account, and how many
Winslow had bought from settlers who had no part in the “Undertakers’”
scheme.[45]
The London partners quarrel among themselves
To the problem of extricating the Plymouth venture from its financial
straits a new one was now added. A quarrel had broken out among the
English partners themselves, James Sherley, John Beauchamp, and Richard
Andrews. These men had shared in the debts incurred after 1626 to keep
Plymouth supplied. The Pilgrims had expected all three to profit from
the large quantities of furs shipped after 1631. Instead, in 1640
Beauchamp and Andrews revealed a rift with Sherley of several years
standing. They complained in court that they had not received a fair
share of the returns on their investment and tried to force a full
accounting of Sherley’s transactions with Plymouth. This suit, with its
contradictory sets of figures, exposed the nature of their association.
In the joint adventure to trade with the Governor and the rest of the
Plymouth “Undertakers,” each of the three Londoners had promised to put
£1100 into stock. Richard Andrews paid in £1136, John Beauchamp £1127,
and, they claimed, James Sherley pretended to put in £1190 (a total of
about £3500). To meet pressing debts about 1636 Beauchamp contributed
£500 more. It was expected that Sherley, acting as sole factor, would
dispose of returns from the plantation, report occasionally to them,
and distribute any profits. In a few years, they asserted, he handled
beaver and otter worth from £12,000 to £13,000 but ignored their
requests to show his accounts; thus they had no way of checking whether
he had used some of the profits for his own business. He had exhibited
“a covetous disposition to gain ... [their dues] himself ...” and to
their “loving” pleas replied violently that he would rot and die before
giving an account. They suspected him of withdrawing his own stock and
profits.
How did Sherley answer these charges? First, he denied that Andrews was
a party to the suit, since before going abroad, he had told Sherley
of Beauchamp’s plan to sue and refused to join in it. Not he, but
Allerton, had been the “Undertakers’” agent, accredited to buy and
sell; he acted only in Allerton’s absence, although permitting his
warehouse in London to be used for Plymouth’s goods. In 1632 he had
given Edward Winslow copies of all his receipts and payments. Since
the chief function of all three London merchants had consisted of
making good Allerton’s demands for credit for Plymouth, they had laid
out sizable sums of money, urged on by hope of preventing loss of what
they had already invested. Sherley alone found himself “out of purse”
some £1866 in March 1631/32. If he was able to collect £675 owed to
Plymouth, this still left him with £1190 tied up in their enterprise.
The debts of the London men, on Plymouth’s behalf, ran up to £5900 in
1631, but Sherley had been paying these off slowly, as the planters’
returns trickled in. Indeed, had it not been for his own “deep
engagements” and his partners’ “earnest request,” Sherley protested,
he would have given up the business long before. He was not obliged to
give a detailed accounting to his copartners, but only to the Plymouth
associates. Actually, it was up to the latter to produce an exact
accounting to the three London men, not the other way about. Sherley
was anxious to reconcile his accounts with them and was willing to meet
their agent even in France or Holland; until then, he could not even
“book” (enter) the items for which he had loose records.
Sherley insisted that he had sold no furs for his own profit, but had
informed Beauchamp and Andrews when he disposed of any. In a final
balance of all records he was sure that Plymouth would still owe
him money, not he owe his copartners, for the latter had adventured
absolutely nothing since 1631. He, not they, had carried the burden
in London in the “sickly” years of 1635 and 1636. With this defense,
Bradford says, Beauchamp and Andrews failed to win the suit,[46] and
indeed, Sherley’s letters confirm that his credit was sorely taxed in
the 1630s.
Through arbiters, Plymouth and London reach a financial settlement
While this dispute was in progress, however, the Pilgrims were so
perplexed about its rights that they were persuaded to send 1,325
pounds of beaver directly to the other two partners, hoping to satisfy
their claims that Sherley had paid them nothing. After selling it,
Beauchamp chalked off £400 of their debt, but Andrews, through
mismanagement, sold his at a loss and in 1642 still claimed between
£500 and £600. He finally agreed to accept payment in cattle to
Governor John Winthrop of Massachusetts Bay and designated the “godly
poor men” and “poor ministers” of that colony as the beneficiaries of
Plymouth’s debt. In addition, Andrews and Beauchamp received land in
Scituate, one of several flourishing daughter towns now settled in
Plymouth.[47]
Meanwhile the business with Sherley was wound up at last. Trade with
him had already broken off because of distrust of his repeated delays
in accounting to his London partners. For fear of legal reprisals from
any of these, it was decided not to risk sending another agent to
London but to have some “gentlemen and merchants in the Bay” hear the
dispute. Even “though it should cost them all they had in the world,”
the “Undertakers” promised to accept their award. This decision was
prompted by two considerations. First, they feared that the price of
cattle, by now a greater source of income than furs, might drop and
change their circumstances. Also, the colony’s founders, surviving
into old age, wished to clear up their affairs before death overtook
them. Sherley himself believed that lawyers would be “the most gainers”
from legal action, and therefore selected John Atwood and William
Collier, recent merchant arrivals in Plymouth from London, to draw up a
composition. Another participant in the settlement was Edmund Freeman,
Beauchamp’s brother-in-law, and now the leading citizen of Sandwich.
After laborious days of investigation of accounts, they estimated
everything left in Plymouth of the old stock, housing, boats, the bark
and goods for the Indian trade, and “all debts, as well those that were
desperate, as others more hopeful,” at £1400.
By October 15, 1641, Atwood, Bradford, and Edward Winslow had
come to terms ending the partnership. The agreement of 1627 was
reacknowledged, but Plymouth, while admitting confusion in Josiah
Winslow’s bookkeeping, again repudiated the debts of the _White Angel_
and the _Friendship_. A full discharge from the obligations of the
beaver trade, the charges of the two ships, and the £1800 purchase
money agreed on in 1627 was promised by Atwood in behalf of the London
associates. Bradford and his partners for their part guaranteed payment
to them of £1400. £110 of this had already been paid to Winthrop for
Andrews’ account, and eighty pounds of beaver to Atwood. The rest was
to be discharged in appropriate commodities, at the rate of £200 per
year.
1645--Plymouth’s debts “hopeful and desperate” at last are discharged
To execute this agreement across the distance of the broad Atlantic
took some time. Recognizing the justness of the “Undertakers’” final
account but calling the venture “uncomfortable and unprofitable to
all,” James Sherley signed the release in June 1642. In the bargaining,
the Reverend Hugh Peter, Thomas Weld, and William Hibbins, in England
as agents of Massachusetts, put forth Atwood’s terms. At the same time
they succeeded in persuading the London partners to surrender for
charitable purposes in New England the £1200 debt. Three quarters, or
£900, was set apart for Massachusetts, while Plymouth was to receive
only £300.
A letter of Richard Andrews about this time fortunately permits us to
break away from the divergent points of view set forth in Bradford’s
narrative and Sherley’s letters. In many ways Andrews was the most
straightforward of the London partners and the most generous. While
forgiving the interest due on his own account, he charged that Sherley
and Beauchamp had “wronged [the business] many £100 both in principal
and interest” and knowingly presented unfair accounts. This remark
suggests one solution to the problem as to why the seemingly excessive
charges on the Pilgrims mounted year after year in spite of their
returns. Hinting that Sherley had manipulated some private losses so as
to place them on the general account, Andrews perhaps did not recognize
the rapidity with which the debts accumulated because of the high rates
of interest on them. The fact is that colonial ventures were considered
such poor financial risks that their debts tended to multiply faster
than they could be paid off. This explanation of their financial plight
is probably closer to the truth than that the Londoners deliberately
perpetrated a “manifest fraud” upon the plantation. It was Andrews also
who echoed the complaint common to all the London merchants engaged
in colonial enterprise. He wrote in 1645 that the conduct of the
“Undertakers” did not become “fair dealing men who make not so much
profession to walk according to the rule of the gospel as they.... I
hope that seven years time is long enough to keep my money before they
return the principal....”
John Beauchamp, unlike the more generous Andrews, continued to insist
on collecting his debt even though it could never be proved. To settle
this claim, Bradford and his partners in 1645 turned over to his
attorney houses and lands in Plymouth, Rehoboth, and Marshfield worth
£291.[48]
It is to Plymouth’s credit that all these obligations were met in
the 1640s, because the colony was no longer as prosperous as in the
preceding decade. Its wealth had come to consist increasingly of
cattle, so that the price collapse which took place when the influx
of new settlers into the Bay ceased, came suddenly and with severe
effect. Cattle came to be worth perhaps 25% of its former value. Even
the wealthier colony of Massachusetts discovered that it could no
longer secure credit in England. The Pilgrims nevertheless continued
to develop their modest resources in animal stock and land. A new land
arrangement reflected the ending of the old debts. Governor Bradford,
who had held title to the patent since 1630, along with the “old
comers” or “purchasers,” turned over the grant to the whole body of
freemen of Plymouth, retaining for himself only three reserved tracts
as his reward for carrying the responsibility for repayment.
As to Plymouth’s fur trade, the complaint John Winthrop had once voiced
that the colony had “engrossed all the chief places of trade” in New
England was no longer true. The “Old Colony” had been edged out of the
Connecticut River and Narragansett trade, some of its Maine posts had
been attacked by the French, and rival settlers and competitors had
made the rest less profitable. At Aptucxet commerce with the Dutch kept
on for a time, and on the Kennebec there remained an echo of the busy
activity of the 1630s. A small group farmed the Indian trade there so
that at his death in 1657 Bradford’s stock of trading goods and debts
due from it was worth £256. Within a few years, however, all trading
goods were brought home and the Kennebec tract sold.[49]
Thus ended the history of Plymouth Colony as a business venture.
Even after careful study of all the details we know, it is hard to
interpret and correctly assess whether the London capitalists or the
colony can really be blamed for the contradictory financial muddle.
In their somewhat uneasy alliance, the Londoners with spare funds and
the group of obscure artisans and small farmers, mostly dissenters
from the established church, no doubt emphasized different goals. Most
of the merchants, while Puritan in religious sympathies, nevertheless
anticipated profits. This appeared to them fitting, since they
risked great loss in so untried a speculation. Then, after Plymouth
was settled and valuable returns established, the Londoners held an
advantage to the end, for they were always in a creditor position as
they continued to supply essential goods at high prices and rates
of interest. The colonists’ payment was slow, interrupted by many
misfortunes and contingencies, but eventually it was made. Although
the investors in the original company lost most of their money, the
businessmen who stayed with the enterprise, such as Sherley, seem to
have increased their capital.
The Pilgrims, too, achieved success, for they had built the essentials
of a free and self-sustaining community. If they were never wealthy in
their new environment, the leaders of Plymouth, developing business
experience and judgment, by 1645 enjoyed modest prosperity. They had
paid off the expenses of shipping over their fellow exiles from Leyden
and bought the livestock and equipment needed as the foundation for
settlement. Ignorance, desertion by their first backers, cruel losses
at sea, their agent’s misdeeds, all had been overcome. They were now
rid of the burdens inherent in the London merchants’ sponsorship of the
colony. Their debts, both “hopeful and desperate,” lay behind.
Notes
[1] William Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_, ed. Samuel E. Morison
(New York, 1952), 16–17, 24, 27, 33, 49. Quotations will ordinarily be
from this modernized version of Governor Bradford’s history. Quotations
from other sources have been modernized. Henry Martyn Dexter, _The
England and Holland of the Pilgrims_ (Boston, 1905), App. 601–641, for
list of occupations; Roland G. Usher, _The Pilgrims and Their History_
(New York, 1918), 35–40, on the economic and religious motives for
removal.
[2] John Smith, _Description of New England_ (1616), is in Smith,
_Works_, ed. Edward Arber (Westminster, 1895), II; for Brewster’s copy,
see “Plymouth Colony, Wills and Inventories,” 1641–1649 (typescript,
Pilgrim Hall, Plymouth, Mass.), 49; Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_,
ed. Morison, 28–29; Smith’s comment on the Pilgrims, Bradford, _History
of Plymouth Plantation_, ed. W. C. Ford, 2 vols. (Boston, 1912), I,
192n. Edward Winslow, _Hypocrisie Unmasked_ (1646), told the story
about consulting God’s will, cited _ibid._, 66n.
[3] Bradford, _History_, ed. Ford, I, 70n., 77n. Winslow reported the
King’s conversation long after Plymouth’s settlement in _Hypocrisie
Unmasked_, cited in Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_, ed. Morison,
30n. It sounds a bit overdrawn. William Brewster, a former tenant of
the Sandys family, may have introduced his associates to Sir Edwin
Sandys.
[4] Charles M. Andrews, _The Colonial Period of American History_ (New
Haven, 1934), I, 254–255, describes the system of private plantations.
Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_, ed. Morison, 35, 37, identifying
the offer of support by Thomas Weston; the 1619 patent in Susan M.
Kingsbury, ed., _The Records of the Virginia Company_ (Washington,
1906), I, 221, 228; Edward Arber, ed., _Story of the Pilgrim Fathers_
(London, 1897), ch. XXV, on Brewster; Bradford, _Of Plymouth
Plantation_, ed. Morison, 356–357, for Cushman’s report on Blackwell.
[5] On the Dutch offer, Bradford, _History_, ed. Ford, I, 99n. See
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, LIV, 166, 168, 177, and Astrid Friis,
_Alderman Cockayne’s Project and the Cloth Trade_ (Copenhagen and
London, 1927), 370, for Weston as an ironmonger and “interloper.” The
lawsuit against Weston filed in the Court of Exchequer by Pickering’s
executors, John Fowler, James Sherley, and Richard Andrews, appears to
confirm a streak of dishonesty in Weston. The original depositions and
award include interesting details about some of the Plymouth partners
and their associates, _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, LIV (1922), 165–178
(summaries); P.R.O., E. 134, 22 James I, Mich. 22; Mich. 59; Hilary
22/8. The award, E. 178/5451, was kindly transcribed for me by Prof.
Norma Adams. “Governor Bradford’s Letter Book,” I _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Colls._, III (1794), 27, on Weston’s debts to partners.
[6] John Smith, _A Description of New England_ (1616), is a plea for
fishing and plantation; also Smith’s letter to Sir Francis Bacon, 1618,
transcript in Bancroft Mss., New England (New York Public Library), I,
19–23.
[7] Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_, ed. Morison, 49–50, 43, 42, 44,
50, 55.
[8] £1200 Cushman reported raised by June 1620 still left them £300 or
£400. Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_, ed. Morison, 45–46, 55, 56;
104n., quoting John Smith, _Generall Historie ..._ (1626); 49, 50, 57,
on sale of supplies; 60, on landfall. Nathaniel Morton, _New England’s
Memoriall_ (1669), (Boston, 1903), 30, on Carver.
[9] Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_, ed. Morison, 75n.; Bradford,
_History_, ed. Ford, I, 234n., 246f. for the text and a photograph
of the original indenture now on exhibit in Pilgrim Hall; Frances
Rose-Troup, _Massachusetts Bay Company and its Predecessors_ (New York,
1930), 3–4, explains the difference between an indenture and a patent.
[10] Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_, ed. Morison, 93, Weston’s
letter; Henry Martyn Dexter, ed., _Mourt’s Relation or Journal of the
Plantation at Plymouth_ (Boston, 1865).
[11] Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_, ed. Morison, 95; Cushman’s
discourse, printed as _A Sermon Preached at Plimoth in New England ..._
(London, 1622), is reprinted in part in Alexander Young, _Chronicles of
the Pilgrim Fathers_ (2d ed., Boston, 1844), 255–268.
[12] See note 5 above; Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_, ed. Morison,
100–103, 104, 105, 107, 119; Treasury warrant, Ms. Calendar of
Cranfield Papers, 8680, Hist. Mss. Commission, P.R.O., London. Charles
Francis Adams, _Three Episodes in Massachusetts History_ (Boston, 1892)
I, 45–104, is still the most readable account of Weston’s colony at
Wessagusset, although inaccurate in a few details.
[13] Dexter, _Mourt’s Relation_, xxxv-xxxviii; Bradford, _Of Plymouth
Plantation_, ed. Morison, 124–125; _New Eng. Hist. Gen. Reg._, LXVII,
147–153; P.R.O., C2/P44/43, Peirce’s suit. Andrews, _Col. Per. Amer.
Hist._, I, 281–282 and 282n., takes Bradford to task for “pretty
deliberate misrepresentation” of the Peirce matter. The search in
English records for information on Peirce proved unusually difficult,
because of the commonness of his name. For example, two John Peirces
were admitted to the Clothworkers’ Company, one in 1597, the other in
1612 (letter to author from Mr. J. E. Coombes, Clerk, Clothworkers’
Company, Aug. 9, 1961). Mr. Coombes’ report of scanty records for the
period precluded further search. A Mr. John Peirce sold John Winthrop
provisions, _Winthrop Papers_ (Boston, 1931–47), III, 3, 4, 5.
[14] The leaders of the adventurers named by Peirce in his Chancery
suit were James Sherley, John Pocock, Christopher Coulson, William
Collier, John Thornell, and George [Robert] Keane, _New Eng. Hist. Gen.
Reg._, LXVII, 149. Usher, _The Pilgrims and Their History_, 147–148,
and John A. Goodwin, _The Pilgrim Republic_ (Boston, 1888), 252–254,
sum up the misadventures of the _Little James_. The original evidence
is in Bradford, _History_, ed. Ford, I, 341–346, 350–351, 403–405,
433–435. Additional details are in the Admiralty suit of two crew
members, Stephens and Fell, _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, LXI, 148–151;
H. C. A., Instance and Prize Court, Libel Files, Bundle 82, no. 124
(Library of Congress transcript). An effort to locate this document in
the Public Record Office under this reference was unsuccessful.
[15] For the transcript of Altham’s letters to his brother, Sir Edward
Altham, Sept. 1623, Mar. 1623/24, June 10, 1625, I am indebted to Dr.
Sydney V. James’s “Three Visitors to Early Plymouth,” a typescript in
the possession of Plimoth Plantation. The original letters belonged to
Dr. Otto Fisher of Detroit, Michigan, who gave permission for use of
quotations. James, “Three Visitors,” 36, 42, 46, 50. Altham invested
some of his friends’ money in the common stock and suggested that if
he came back on a fishing voyage, he could use £400 or £500 of their
ventures, _ibid._, 62, 66.
[16] William Bradford and Isaac Allerton to the adventurers, Sept.
1623, _Amer. Hist. Rev._, VIII, 297; John W. Thornton, _The Landing at
Cape Anne_ (Boston, 1854); Goodwin, _Pilgrim Republic_, 255; Bradford,
_History_, ed. Ford, I, 377–379, 407–410, for the patent.
[17] Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_, ed. Morison, 120–121, 132,
144–145, 187; Edward Winslow, _Good Newes from New England_ (1624) in
Young, _Chronicles of the Pilgrims_, 346–347; Bradford, _History_, ed.
Ford, I, 300n.
[18] For further light on these factions, see James, “Three Visitors,”
104ff., letter of June 10, 1625.
[19] _Ibid._, 70, 72; Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_, ed. Morison,
170; Bradford, “Letter Book,” 28, 34, 29, 32.
[20] The most complete list of investors in Plymouth is that of the
signers of the composition of 1626, _ibid._, 48. To these should
be added Christopher Coulson, William Greene, John Peirce, Edward
Pickering, and Thomas Weston. The Plymouth leaders accepted in 1627 the
terms the merchants had signed in November 1626. Thus it is correct to
refer to 1627 as the date of the final business settlement with the
original company.
[21] W. R. Scott, _The Constitution and Finance of English ...
Joint-Stock Companies_ (London, 1910), II, 310–311, calculated the
share capital as £5600. Sherley spent the best part of £5000 in two
years as treasurer. This probably did not include the period when
Weston was in charge, Bradford, “Letter Book,” 49. On debts of £1400,
see _ibid._, 32.
[22] Smith is quoted in Bradford, _History_, ed. Ford, I, 104n. Andrews
observed that even though the names of a number of the adventurers
were known, “of only a few can any further information be obtained,”
_Col. Per. Amer. Hist._, I, 287n. The research on which the following
paragraphs are based is probably the most sustained effort so far to
find out more. The late Col. Charles E. Banks was interested chiefly in
tracing the emigrants to Plymouth; see _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, LXI,
55–63, “William Bradford and the Pilgrim Quarter in London.”
For Sir Thomas Andrews, see Valerie Pearl, _London and the Outbreak
of the Puritan Revolution_ (Oxford, 1961), 309–311, 208, 240, 242.
This work is invaluable for its mass of biographical detail about
London merchants, interpretation of London’s role, and bibliography.
J. C. Whitebrook, “Sir Thomas Andrewes, Lord Mayor and Regicide, and
his Relatives,” _Trans. Congregational Hist. Soc._, XIII (1938–39),
151–165, informs us that Damaris Andrews, daughter of Thomas, married
the son of Matthew Cradock, first governor of the Massachusetts Bay
Company. The Richard Andrews connected with Plymouth and Massachusetts
Bay, appears to be the brother of Thomas, _ibid._, 159. For Thomas’s
official career, see C. H. Firth and R. S. Rait, eds., _Acts and
Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642–60_ (London, 1911), 2 vols.,
_passim_, esp. I, 1150, 1255; II, 365, 595, 647, 917; A. B. Beaven,
_The Aldermen of London_ (London, 1908), II, 66. As an active member
of the directorate of the East India Company, he was expert on
shipping and the sale of Company wares; see E. B. Sainsbury, ed.,
_Cal. Court Mins. E. I. Co., 1635–1676_ (Oxford, 1907–35), III,
xi, xvi, xxii-xxiii, 218, 222, 128, 224, 267; V, xxxii, 333. Among
summaries of Independency in the Civil Wars, see J. R. Tanner,
_English Constitutional Conflicts of the 17th Century_ (Cambridge,
repr. 1947), 128; Pearl, _London and the Outbreak_, 6, who reminds
us of the distinction between religious Independents and “political
independents.” The complex situation in England is not easy to
summarize.
[23] This list has formerly been given as six, Bradford, _Of Plymouth
Plantation_, ed. Morison, 185n., and slightly different in Bradford,
_History_, ed. Ford, II, 7n. I add Richard Andrews and Christopher
Coulson and retain both Robert Keane and John White.
[24] For Richard Andrews’ address, _Winthrop Papers_, II, 306; Thomas
Lechford, “Notebook,” _Trans. Amer. Antiq. Soc._, VII, 142; P.R.O.,
Exchequer, Depositions, E. 134, 22 James I, Mich. 59, on reverse of
testimony by Francis Stubbs; Henry A. Harben, _A Dictionary of London_
(London, 1918), 407. He may have resided in the ward of Cripplegate
Within, where Richard Andrews, haberdasher, was one of the inhabitants
most able to contribute to a Crown request for money, W. J. Harvey,
ed., _List of Principal Inhabitants of London, 1640_ (London, 1886),
14. For links to Massachusetts Bay, _Winthrop Papers_, II, 306; _Recs.
Mass. Bay_, I, 128; role as shipowner, _Cal. S. P. Domestic, 1628–29_,
440, and _1629–31_, 469; Netherlands trade, P.R.O., E. 134, 12 Charles
I, Easter, 39, and Michaelmas, 23; _Winthrop Papers_, V, 4. Gifts to
Massachusetts in _Winthrop’s Journal_, ed. James K. Hosmer (New York,
1908), I, 128, and II, 70, 222; and discussion in R. P. Stearns,
“The Weld-Peter Mission to England,” _Pubs. Col. Soc. Mass._, XXXII,
199, and _The Strenuous Puritan: Hugh Peter_ (Urbana, 1954), 162,
erroneously calling Richard Andrews an alderman. _A.O.I., 1642–60_,
I, 970, 1088, 1240, for his public service; P.R.O., S.P. 16/515/146;
William Kellaway, _The New England Company, 1649–1776_ (London, 1961),
66, for donations to a Puritan lectureship and to Indians; _idem_,
“Collection for the Indians of New England, 1649–1660,” _Bull. John
Rylands Library_, XXXIX (1957), 458.
[25] Rose-Troup, _Mass. Bay Company and its Predecessors_, 138; _Recs.
Mass. Bay_, I, 37c, 40; P.R.O., Close Rolls, C. 54/2635/ no. 8; Harvey,
_Inhabitants of London_, 14; Pearl, _London and the Outbreak_, 169.
[26] _Winthrop’s Journal_, ed. Hosmer, I, 15n., 30, 53; _Winthrop
Papers_, II, 309, 317, 339, and III, 4, 5. Ownership of _Welcome_, S.P.
16/16/182. London addresses of Goffe in T. C. Dale, ed., _Inhabitants
of London, 1638_ (London, 1931), 112; “Return of Divided Houses ...
London, 1637” (typescript, Guildhall Library), 115.
[27] E. N. Hartley, _Ironworks on the Saugus_ (Norman, Okla., 1957),
69–70; Stearns, _The Strenuous Puritan_, 162, 166, 175, 180–181, 189;
Bradford, _History_, ed. Ford, II, 5n., and facsimile opp. 5. Hartley
and Stearns disagree as to amount Pocock lent to Massachusetts Bay,
but _Recs. Mass. Bay_, II, 82, 262, and subsequent actions, appear to
uphold the latter. Gift to St. Antholin’s, S.P. 16/515/146; public
service, _A.O.I. 1642–60_, I, 143, 233, 371, and II, 1000.
[28] _Recs. Mass. Bay_, I, 60, 361, 386, 394, 395, 402, 367. Sharpe’s
later career has not been traced, but he is not especially prominent
after arrival in Massachusetts.
[29] _Ibid._, 60, 48, 53, 128. The ship’s name probably was the
_Eagle_, 400 tons. _Winthrop Papers_, II, 215n., and III, 3;
_Winthrop’s Journal_, ed. Hosmer, I, 44.
[30] Bernard Bailyn, “The _Apologia_ of Robert Keayne,” _Wm. and Mary
Quarterly_, 3d ser., VII, 568–587. His will, _Report of the Record
Commissioners of Boston_, X (Boston, 1886), 1–54; sermons attended in
London, _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, 2d ser., L, 204–207. See _Recs. Mass.
Bay_, I, 128; _Cal. S. P. Dom._, 1627–28, 458; _New England Hist. Gen.
Reg._, LXVII, 247; Bradford, “Letter Book,” 47; _Aspinwall Notarial
Records 1644–51_, 92; _Winthrop Papers_, V, 351; Oliver A. Roberts,
_History of the Military Company of the Massachusetts now called the
Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts 1637–1888_
(Boston, 1895), I, 12, 20.
[31] Mary Freer Keeler, _The Long Parliament, 1640–41_ (Philadelphia,
1954), 390; Frances Rose-Troup, _John White: the Patriarch of
Dorchester_ ... (New York, 1930), 56, 460, 163n., 73n.; _Winthrop
Papers_, II, 82n., 97; Andrews, _Col. Per. Amer. Hist._, I, 345,
citing Bradford, _History_, ed. Ford, I, 406. The correct reference
is _ibid._, 416. Isabel M. Calder, “A Seventeenth Century Attempt to
Purify the Anglican Church,” _Amer. Hist. Rev._, LIII, 761, 774n.;
Pearl, _London and the Outbreak_, 194–195. It is possible that the John
White named as an owner of ships at Plymouth, Devon, is the lawyer,
although it might also be John White of Dorchester, _Cal. S. P. Dom.,
1628–29_, 301, 306, 440, 441; _ibid., 1629–31_, 154, 156.
[32] To identify John Beauchamp is particularly difficult. Ford has
him as the son of Thomas Beauchamp of Cosgrave, Nottinghamshire. Using
the same reference cited by him (_Visitation of London, 1633–35_,
59), I read it as Cosgrave, Northamptonshire. His marriage to Alice
Freeman, whose brother, Edmund Freeman, acted as Beauchamp’s attorney
in Plymouth in 1641, seems to establish him as the right Beauchamp. See
Bradford, _History_, ed. Ford, II, 296n. Beaven makes John Beauchamp,
Salter, Alderman for Billingsgate Ward in 1651, and gives as his will
a reference to a John Beauchamp of the parish of St. Giles Cripplegate
Without (Beaven, _Aldermen of London_, II, 75; P.C.C. Hene [1668]), who
left as heirs no wife or children, whereas the John Beauchamp connected
with Plymouth had several sons and daughters. This will must be that
of another man. In 1649 and after, a John Beauchamp of Surrey appeared
in the same committees as James Sherley and Edward Winslow, such as
those for collecting the army assessment or to sell goods from the
estate of Charles I, _A.O.I., 1642–60_, II, 44, 160, 310, 479, 676. See
also Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_, ed. Morison, 100, 198, 199,
386n.; Friis, _Alderman Cockayne’s Project_, 110n.; P.R.O., Chancery,
C. 3/431/12; _Cal. S. P. Dom._, 1628–29, 285; Harvey, _Inhabitants
of London, 1640_, 18; T. C. Dale, transcriber, “Citizens of London,
1641–43,” (London, 1936; typescript, Guildhall Library).
[33] Bradford, “Letter Book,” 34; Goldsmiths’ Company, London,
Apprentice Book, I, 1578–1645, 151; Wardens’ Accounts and Court
Minutes, vol. P, pt. 1 (1611–17), 76, 198; pt. 2 (1617–24), 189 and
_passim_, 76, 77, 79; vol. Q, pt. 1 (1624–29), 79; vol. R, pt. 2
(1631–34), 193, 195, 199, 200, 223, 224, 225; vol. T (1637–39), 185,
186, 189; vol. V (1639–42), 58, 62; vol. unlettered [W] (1642–45),
228, 237. Presumably because he was living in Clapham, James Sherley
is not listed among those who paid poll money to the Commissioners. A
duty of the prime warden, with his second and third wardens, was to
have custody of the plate belonging to the City of London, _ibid._,
238. In 1652 Sherley was appointed with other wardens to prepare an
answer to a petition by the freemen of the Company to a committee of
Parliament concerning their rights in choosing the wardens, Sir Walter
S. Prideaux, _Memorials of the Goldsmiths’ Company_ ... (London, 1896),
II, 24.
Of the several James Sherleys who are contemporaries, I have concluded
that the James Sherley, third son of Robert Sherley, originally of
Wistonston, was the one involved with the Plymouth venture. The other
James Sherleys in this family are (1) the eldest son of John Sherley
of London, and (2) the elder son of James Sherley, son of Robert.
See _Visitation of London, 1633–35_, II, 235–236. It is difficult to
determine whether the James Sherley, merchant, who owned houses in
London in 1637 is the same, “Returns of Divided Houses in the City of
London, 1637,” 208. The one who appeared with Robert Sherley to turn
over property to Robert’s daughter, Sara, in 1632 is our man, P.R.O.,
C. 54/2950; see also _Registers of St. Vedast, Foster Lane_ (Harl.
Soc., 1902) 35, for birth of Sara in 1611.
“Foynes” or foins were originally fur of the weasel family, or more
generally, furs.
[34] On Sherley’s addresses, Marsden, _Amer. Hist. Rev._, VIII, 301;
Plooij, _Pilgrim Fathers from a Dutch Point of View_, 100. Plooij says
that London Bridge was his business address and Crooked Lane his “town
house.” I have been unable to verify it. Sir Ambrose Heal, _The London
Goldsmiths, 1200–1800_ (Cambridge, 1935), 242; Bradford, _Of Plymouth
Plantation_, ed. Morison, 287; Acts of Administration, 1657 (Somerset
House, London), fol. 242. Sherley’s public appointments, _A.O.I._,
I, 730, and II, 14, 310, 479, 676, 1082, 975; also William A. Shaw,
_History of the English Church during the Civil Wars and under the
Commonwealth_ (London, 1900), II, 434.
P.R.O., E. 134, 22 James I, Mich. 22; P.C.C. 86 Swann (1623);
Bradford, “Letter Book,” 68. The ships owned in part by Sherley were
the _John and Mary_ and the _Hector_ of London, 220 tons and 250 tons
respectively. Sherley refers to sending a letter in the _Mary and
John_, very likely the same ship. A vessel of that name brought goods
to Boston in 1633 and 1633/34, P.R.O., S.P. 16/17/83 and 16/17/117;
_Winthrop Papers_, III, 130, 149; Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_,
ed. Morison, 391; _Recs. Mass. Bay_, II, 262. The _Lyon_ sent to Boston
in 1632 belonged to Sherley and the other London partners in the
“Undertakers”; it was lost on its way to Virginia bearing 800 pounds of
beaver as returns, Bradford, _op. cit._, 254–255.
[35] Pearl, _London and the Outbreak_, 126n., 147, 148n., 255n., 265;
Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_, ed. Morison, 104, 106; _Cal. S. P.,
Dom., 1625–26_, 430; _Journal of Sir Simonds d’Ewes_, ed. Wallace
Notestein (New Haven, 1923), 77.
[36] In his explanation of the division of the assets and value of
a single share, Professor Andrews appears to have applied the terms
of the 1627 division to the 1640 list of “purchasers,” _Col. Per.
Amer. Hist._, I, 285–286. Goodwin, _Pilgrim Republic_, 292–295, is
substantially correct in listing the 156 individuals who shared in
the 1627 division of land. The total assets in land prior to division
cannot be ascertained. See Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_, ed.
Morison, 375, 376, Robinson’s comments; 194, 196, organization of
“Undertakers”; 382, 214, cost of bringing over company from Leyden;
Bradford, “Letter Book,” 58, 65, Sherley on other partners.
[37] Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_, ed. Morison, 94; _idem_,
_History_, ed. Ford, I, 268n. gives £400 as total value of the cargo
seized; this included some clapboards. The literary result of Morton’s
ignominious departure, _The New English Canaan_ (1637), satirizes the
“saints” at Plymouth, _ibid._, II, 75–77. Nathaniel C. Hale, _Pelts
and Palisades_ (Richmond, Va., 1959) included a lively narrative of
Plymouth’s fur trade, showing little interest in its business end and
letting by a few inaccuracies. Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_,
119, 163, 176, 178; Bradford, “Letter Book,” 36, on amounts collected;
_ibid._, 112, 183, on boats.
[38] See Percival Hall Lombard, _The Aptucxet Trading Post_ (Bourne,
Mass.: Bourne Historical Soc., 1943) for description of that post.
A reconstruction has been erected on the site. On the visit of de
Rasieres, Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_, ed. Morison, 202, 203
and App. VI; Bradford, “Letter Book,” 51–55; J. F. Jameson, ed.,
_Narratives of New Netherland, 1609–1664_ (New York, 1909), 110, 112.
[39] Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_, ed. Morison, 200, 215–216,
242, 262, 384–385; Goodwin, _Pilgrim Republic_, 337–340; see text of
patent and map in Henry S. Burrage, _The Beginnings of Colonial Maine_
(Portland, 1914), 186–187; money spent for patent, 3 _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Colls._, I, 199.
[40] “Isaac Allerton,” _New Eng. Hist. Gen. Reg._, XLIV, 290–296;
Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_, ed. Morison, 202, 198; 3 _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Colls._, I, 200; see also Bradford, _History_, ed. Ford, II,
opp. 79; _Winthrop Papers_, II, 262, 205, 317, 329, 334–335, and III,
2, 4, 102; Bradford, “Letter Book,” 69.
[41] Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_, ed. Morison, 216–217;
Bradford, “Letter Book,” 71. Morison reads this “peddle,” _op. cit._,
385.
[42] Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_, ed. Morison, 219–220, 386–387,
22, 228; _Winthrop’s Journal_, ed. Hosmer, I, 65, 66. Morison’s note on
page 226, by its placement, is confusing in identifying Mr. Peirce’s
ship as the _White Angel_. He correctly states further in the note that
Peirce was master of the _Lyon_, which arrived in Massachusetts in
February 1631, _Winthrop’s Journal_, I, 57.
[43] Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_, ed. Morison, 229, 230, 237,
232, 238–244; Thomas Lechford, _Notebook, Archaeologia Americana_, VII
(Cambridge, 1885), 189–190, Allerton’s 1639 testimony on the _White
Angel_ and _Friendship_.
[44] Allerton appears often in _Winthrop’s Journal_, and in _Winthrop
Papers_, II, III; in Plymouth’s tax list and as an official, _Records
of Plymouth Colony_, eds. N. B. Shurtleff, _et al._ (Boston, 1855–61),
1, 9, 21, 52. Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_, ed. Morison, 241n.,
244, 245, 250–251, 392. “Plymouth Colony, Wills and Inventories”
(typescript), 1620–39, 4, 5; 1641–49, 44, for debts to Allerton.
Allerton gave permission for his brother-in-law’s debts to be settled
first with his other creditors, _Recs. Plymouth Col._, I, 20. _Winthrop
Papers_, III, 437, July 1, 1637, Winslow’s remarks. For an estimate
less harsh than Bradford’s see Andrews, _Col. Per. Amer. Hist._, I,
288–289, 289n.
[45] Bradford said the beaver yielded 14_s._ to 20_s._ a pound. On one
occasion, however, the arrival of “the plimouth merchants great parcel
... brought down the price,” _Winthrop Papers_, III, 150. See also
Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_, ed. Morison, 238, 243, 390, 250,
Winslow’s refusal to accept the debts of _White Angel_, and Sherley’s
reaction; 288–289, quantities of furs, 1631 to 1636; 392, 250,
Sherley’s remarks on Allerton; 255n., Peirce’s ship; 287, plague and
low prices; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, XLV, 619–620, Sherley’s doubts as
to who sent the furs.
[46] This contradicts Sherley’s letter to Bradford, Sept. 14, 1636,
Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_, ed. Morison, 287, 288. The bill of
complaint in Chancery and Sherley’s answer are in _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Proc._, XLV, 611–623. Minor errors of form in transcription called to
my attention by Mrs. A. W. Millard, may be corrected by consulting
photostats of the original, P.R.O., C. 2, A/44/43, deposited at Pilgrim
Hall, Plymouth, Mass.
[47] Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_, ed. Morison, 298, 301,
309, settlement with Andrews and Beauchamp; Andrews’ arrangements,
_Winthrop Papers_, IV, 129–131, 257, 437; V, 2–4; Andrews, _Col. Per.
Amer. Hist._, I, 370, 370n.; Bradford, _History_, ed. Ford, II, 289n.
Morison seems in error in saying the cattle were to go to the “poor of
Plymouth.” See _Recs. Mass. Bay_, II, 39, 89.
[48] Bradford, _Of Plymouth Plantation_, ed. Morison, 298, 302,
308–313, 399–402, 415–417; Bradford, _History_, ed. Ford, II, 332n.,
294n., 158n., 336n., on Atwood, Collier, and Freeman; _Winthrop
Papers_, V, 3, Andrews’ comment. Atwood, owner of a servant and house
in Plymouth, was a business correspondent of Sherley, _Recs. Plymouth
Col._, I, 12, 47, 48; “Plymouth Colony, Wills and Inventories,”
1641–49, 39. Settlement with Beauchamp, _Recs. Plymouth Col._, XII,
128, 129, 130.
[49] _Recs. Mass. Bay_, II, 39; Bradford, _History_, ed. Ford, II,
333n., paid for Andrews are £490 or £534 9s. See _Aspinwall Notarial
Records, 1644–51_ (Boston, 1903), 21, Allerton’s acquittance. On
former prosperity and drop in cattle prices, Bradford, _Of Plymouth
Plantation_, ed. Morison, 252–253, 310; W. B. Weeden, _Economic and
Social History of New England_ (Boston, 1891), I, 165–166; _Winthrop’s
Journal_, II, 17, 23, 25. _Recs. Plymouth Col._, XII, 90, 127–132,
agreements with Edmund Freeman, Beauchamp’s attorney. Bradford, _Of
Plymouth Plantation_, ed. Morison, 428ff., Bradford’s surrender of
patent. _Winthrop Papers_, III, 167, on Plymouth’s pre-eminence in fur
trade; G. F. Willison, _Saints and Strangers_ (New York, 1945) and
Hale, _Pelts and Palisades_, describe the expansion and decline of the
fur trade. See “Plymouth Colony, Wills and Inventories,” 1650–59, 105,
110, Bradford’s Kennebec stock; _Recs. Plymouth Col._, I, III, VII,
later fur trade and Kennebec.
Bibliography
Primary Sources, Manuscript
Goldsmiths’ Company, Goldsmiths’ Hall, London. Apprentice Book,
1598–1645; Wardens’ Accounts and Court Minutes, Vols. P-V, unlettered
(W), 1611–45.
James, Sydney V. Three Visitors to Early Plymouth. Typescript prepared
for Plimoth Plantation.
“Plymouth Colony, Wills and Inventories,” 1620–39, 1640–49, 1650–59.
Typescript, Pilgrim Hall, Plymouth, Mass.
Public Record Office, London. High Court of Admiralty, Instance and
Prize Court (Libel Files), Bundle 82, No. 124. Stephens and Fell, Ship,
_Little James_, and Treasurer and Planters of Plymouth in New England.
Library of Congress Transcript.
Specific references to materials used in the Public Record Office and
Guildhall Library, London, are included in the footnotes.
Primary Sources, Printed
Arber, Edward, ed. _Story of the Pilgrim Fathers._ London, 1897.
Aspinwall, William. _A Volume Relating to the Early History of Boston
Containing the Aspinwall Notarial Records from 1644 to 1651._ Boston,
1903.
Baxter, James Phinney, ed. _Sir Ferdinando Gorges and his Province of
Maine._ 2 vols. Boston: Prince Society, 1890.
Bradford, William. _History of Plymouth Plantation._ W. C. Ford, ed. 2
vols. Boston, 1912.
-- -- “_Governour Bradford’s Letter Book._” 1 _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Colls._, III (1794), 27–76.
-- -- _Of Plymouth Plantation._ Samuel E. Morison, ed. New York, 1952.
“Letter of William Bradford and Isaac Allerton, 1623.” _American
Historical Review_, VIII (1902–03), 294–301.
“Letters of John Bridge and Emanuel Altham.” _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
XLIV (1910–11), 178–189.
Burrage, Champlin, ed. _John Pory’s Lost Description of Plymouth Colony
in the Earliest Days of the Pilgrim Fathers._ Boston, 1918.
_Calendar of State Papers, Colonial, East Indies, 1617–34._
_Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, James I, 1619–25; Charles I,
1625–49._
Cushman, Robert. _A Sermon Preached at Plimmoth in New-England,
December 9, 1621._ Boston, 1870. Facsimile reprint.
Dexter, Henry Martyn, ed. _Mourt’s Relation or Journal of the
Plantation of Plymouth._ Boston, 1865.
Firth, C. H., and Rait, R. S., eds. _Acts and Ordinances of the
Interregnum, 1642–60._ 2 vols. London, 1911.
Harvey, W. J., ed. _List of Principal Inhabitants of London, 1640._
London, 1886.
Hosmer, James Kendall, ed. _Winthrop’s Journal History of New England,
1630–49._ 2 vols. New York, 1908.
Jameson, J. F., ed. _Narratives of New Netherlands, 1609–64._ New York,
1909.
“Will of Robert Keayne.” _Report of Record Commissioners of Boston._ X.
Boston, 1886.
Kingsbury, Susan M., ed. _Records of the Virginia Company of London._
I. Washington, 1906.
Lechford, Thomas. _Notebook. Archaeologica Americana_, VII. Cambridge,
1885.
“London Partners in New Plymouth, 1641.” _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, XLV
(1911–12), 611–623.
Morton, Nathaniel. _New England’s Memoriall._ Boston, 1903.
Morton, Thomas. _New English Canaan._ C. F. Adams, ed. Boston, 1883.
Notestein, Wallace, ed. _The Journal of Sir Simonds d’Ewes._ New Haven,
1923.
“John Peirce of London and the Merchant Adventurers.” _New England
Historic and Genealogical Register_, LXVII (1913), 147–153.
“Pickering v. Weston, 1623.” _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, LIV (1920–21),
165–178.
“Plymouth Accounts.” 3 _Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls._, I (1846), 199–201.
“Records of the Council for New England.” Charles Deane, ed.
_Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society for 1867_, 51–131.
Sainsbury, E. B., ed. _Calendar of Court Minutes of East India Company,
1635–74._ 10 vols. Oxford, 1907–35.
Shurtleff, Nathaniel B., ed. _Records of the Governor and Company of
Massachusetts Bay in New England_, II, _1642–49_. Boston, 1853.
Shurtleff, N. B., _et al._, eds. _Records of the Colony of New Plymouth
in New England_ (1620–92). 12 vols. Boston, 1855–61.
Smith, John. _Works._ Edward Arber, ed. 2 vols. Westminster, 1895.
_Visitation of London, 1633–35._ London: Harleian Society, 1880–83.
Willison, George F. _The Pilgrim Reader._ New York, 1953.
Winslow, Edward. _Hypocrisie Unmasked._ London, 1646.
_Winthrop Papers_, II, III, IV, V. Boston, 1931–47.
“Wreck of the _Little James_.” _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, LXI (1927–28),
148–151.
Young, Alexander. _Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers._ 2d ed. Boston,
1844.
Secondary Sources
Adams, Charles Francis. _Three Episodes in Massachusetts History._
Boston, 1892.
“Isaac Allerton.” _New England Historic and Genealogical Register_,
VIII, 265–270; XLIV, 290–296.
Andrews, Charles M. _The Colonial Period of American History_, I. New
Haven, 1934.
Bailyn, Bernard. “The _Apologia_ of Robert Keayne.” _William and Mary
Quarterly_, 3d ser., VII, 568–587.
Banks, Charles E. “William Bradford and the Pilgrim Quarter in London.”
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, LXI (1927–28), 55–68.
Beaven, A. B. _The Aldermen of London_, II. London, 1908.
Buffinton, A. H. “New England and the Western Fur Trade.” _Publications
of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts_, XVIII (1915–16), 160–192.
Burrage, Henry S. _The Beginnings of Colonial Maine._ Portland, 1914.
Calder, Isabel M. “A Seventeenth Century Attempt to Purify the Anglican
Church.” _American Historical Review_, LIII, 760–775.
Dexter, Henry Martyn. _The England and Holland of the Pilgrims._
Boston, 1905.
Friis, Astrid. _Alderman Cockayne’s Project and the Cloth Trade._
Copenhagen and London, 1927.
Goodwin, John A. _The Pilgrim Republic._ Boston, 1888.
Hale, Nathaniel C. _Pelts and Palisades._ Richmond, 1959.
Harben, Henry A. _A Dictionary of London._ London, 1918.
Hartley, E. N. _Ironworks on the Saugus._ Norman, Okla., 1957.
Kellaway, William. “The Collection for the Indians of New England,
1649–1660.” _Bulletin of John Rylands Library_, XXXIX (1957), 444–462.
-- -- _The New England Company_, 1649–1776. London, 1961.
Lombard, Percival Hall. _The Aptucxet Trading Post._ Bourne: Bourne
Historical Society, 1943.
Morison, Samuel E. _The Story of the “Old Colony” of New Plymouth_
(1620–92). New York, 1956.
Pearl, Valerie. _London and the Outbreak of the Puritan Revolution._
Oxford, 1961.
Plooij, D. _The Pilgrim Fathers from a Dutch Point of View._ New York,
1932.
Prideaux, Sir Walter S. _Memorials of the Goldsmiths’ Company_, II.
London, 1896.
Rose-Troup, Frances. _John White._ New York, 1930.
-- -- _The Massachusetts Bay Company and its Predecessors._ New York,
1930.
Rowse, A. L. _The Elizabethans and America._ London, 1959.
Scott, William R. _The Constitution and Finance of English, Scottish,
and Irish Joint-Stock Companies_, II. London, 1910.
Shaw, William A. _History of the English Church during the Civil Wars
and under the Commonwealth_, II. London, 1900.
Slotkin, J. S. and Schmitt, Karl. “Studies of Wampum.” _American
Anthropologist_ LI (1949), 223–236.
Smith, Bradford. _Bradford of Plymouth._ Philadelphia, 1951.
Stearns, Raymond P. _The Strenuous Puritan: Hugh Peter, 1598–1660._
Urbana, Ill., 1954.
-- -- “The Weld-Peter Mission to England.” _Pubs. Col. Soc. Mass._,
XXXII, 188–246.
Thornton, John W. _The Landing at Cape Anne._ Boston, 1854.
Usher, Roland G. “Isaac Allerton.” _Dictionary of American Biography._
New York, 1928.
-- -- _The Pilgrims and their History._ New York, 1918.
Whitebrook, J. C. “Sir Thomas Andrewes, Lord Mayor and Regicide, and
his Relatives.” _Transactions Congregational Historical Soc._, XIII
(1938–39), 151–165.
W. E. P. [Winslow, Edward Pelham]. _Memorial of Edward Winslow._
Winnipeg, 1920.
Index of Personal Names
Alden, John, 47
Alden [Allden], Robert, 33, 45
Allerton, Isaac, 11, 23, 32, 38, 45, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56,
57, 58, 59, 71, 77
Altham, Sir Edward, 71
Altham [Alltham], Emmanuel, 29, 31, 33, 34, 71
Andrews, Richard, 25, 33, 37–38, 43, 48, 55, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65,
72, 73, 78
Andrews, Damaris, 72
Andrews, Thomas, 33, 35–36, 37, 38, 72
Anthony, Lawrence, 33
Ashley, Edward, 43, 45, 54, 56
Atwood, John, 63, 64, 78
Bacon, Sir Francis, 70
Bass, Edward, 32, 33
Beauchamp, John, 25, 32, 33, 35, 43, 48, 55, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 74,
78
Beauchamp, Thomas, 74
Blackwell, Francis, 15, 69
Bradford, William, 4, 9, 11, 12, 14, 18, 20, 23, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31,
42, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 56, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 71, 78
Brewer, Thomas, 14, 33, 34, 45
Brewster, William, 12, 13, 14, 47, 56, 69
Browning, Henry, 33
Carver, John, 12, 13, 19, 20, 23, 52, 70
Charles I, 32
Collier, William, 33, 56, 63, 71, 77
Coulson, Christopher, 33, 34, 37, 38, 71, 72, 73
Coventry, Thomas, 33
Cradock, Matthew, 39, 57, 72
Cushman, Robert, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 29, 52, 69,
70
Davenport, John, 40
de Rasieres, Isaack, 50–51, 77
Downing, Emmanuel, 53
Eliot, John, 38
Endecott, [John], 39
Ferrar, John, 20
Ferrar, Nicholas, 20
Fletcher, Thomas, 33
Fowler, John, 25, 69
Freeman, Alice, 74
Freeman, Edmund, 63, 78
Goffe, Thomas, 33, 37, 38
Gorges, Sir Ferdinando, 21
Greene, William, 33, 34, 45, 72
Gudburn, Peter, 33
Harcourt, Robert, 12
Hatherley, Timothy, 33, 54, 55, 57
Heath, Thomas, 33
Hibbins, William, 64
Hobson, William, 33
Holland, Robert, 33
Howland, John, 47
Hudson, Thomas, 33
Humfrey, John, 53
James I, 14
Keane, Benjamin, 41
Keane, George, 71
Keane [Keayne], Robert, 32, 33, 35, 37, 40–41, 71, 73, 74
Knight, Eliza, 33
Knight, John, 33
Knowles, Myles, 33
Ling, John, 33
Lyford, John, 30, 31, 42
Martin, Christopher, 19, 20
Mayhew, Thomas, 38
Millsop, Thomas, 33
Morton, George, 12, 23
Morton, Thomas, 50, 53, 76
Mott, Thomas, 33
Mullins, William, 17
Newbald, Fria., 33
Oldham, John, 30, 31
Peirce, John, 21, 24, 26–28, 33, 39, 41, 42, 70, 71, 72, 77
Peirce, Richard, 27
Peirce, William, 60
Penington, William, 33
Penrin, William, 33
Peter, Hugh, 35, 39, 40, 64
Pickering, Edward, 12, 15–16, 19, 25, 33, 45, 69, 72
Pindar, Sir Paul, 37
Pocock, John, 32, 33, 37, 39, 71, 74
Pory, John, 20
Poynton, Daniel, 33
Prince, Thomas, 47
Quarles, William, 33
Revell, John, 33, 37, 39, 40
Robinson, John, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 31, 48
Rookes, Newman, 33
Samoset, 23
Sandys, Sir Edwin, 13, 69
Sharpe, Samuel, 33, 37, 39, 74
Sheffield, Lord, 29
Sherley, James, 4, 25, 27, 31, 32, 33, 35, 37, 40, 41, 43–45, 48, 49,
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67,
69, 71, 72, 75, 76
Sherley, John, 44, 75, 78
Sherley, Robert, 44, 75
Smith, John, 13, 16, 32, 33, 70
Squanto, 23, 49
Standish, Miles, 47, 49, 50
Thorned [Thornell], John, 33, 71
Thornhill, Matthew, 33
Tilden, Joseph, 33
Ward, Thomas, 33
Warwick, Earl of [Rich, Sir Robert], 52
Weld, Thomas, 39, 64
Weston, Thomas, 9, 14, 15–17, 19, 21, 24, 25, 26, 33, 45, 49, 69, 70,
72
White, John, 33, 34, 37, 41–42
White, John (of Dorchester), 41
Wincob, John, 14
Winslow, Edward, 12, 23, 29, 35, 47, 54, 56, 58, 59, 61, 63, 69, 75,
77, 78
Winslow, Josiah, 59, 60, 64
Winthrop, John, 37, 38, 40, 42, 53, 58, 63, 64, 66, 71
Winthrop, John, Jr., 39
Wolstenholme, Sir John, 13
Wright, Richard, 33
Transcriber’s Notes
Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a
predominant preference was found in the original book; otherwise they
were not changed.
Simple typographical errors were corrected; unbalanced quotation
marks were remedied when the change was obvious, and otherwise left
unbalanced.
The left-justified layout of the Table of Contents closely matches
the layout in the original book.
Footnote 12 is unreferenced (has no anchor).
The index was not checked for proper alphabetization or correct page
references.