THE MAY-FLOWER’S CONSORT THE SPEEDWELL
The SPEEDWELL was the first vessel procured by the Leyden Pilgrims for
the emigration, and was bought by themselves; as she was the ship of
their historic embarkation at Delfshaven, and that which carried the
originators of the enterprise to Southampton, to join the MAY-FLOWER,
--whose consort she was to be; and as she became a determining factor
in the latter’s belated departure for New England, she may justly claim
mention here as indeed an inseparable “part and parcel” of the
MAY-FLOWER’S voyage.
The name of this vessel of associate historic renown with the MAY-FLOWER
was even longer in finding record in the early literature of the Pilgrim
hegira than that of the larger It first appeared, so far as discovered,
in 1669--nearly fifty years after her memorable service to the Pilgrims
on the fifth page of Nathaniel Morton’s “New England’s Memorial.”
Davis, in his “Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth,” makes a singular error for
so competent a writer, when he says: “The agents of the company in
England had hired the SPEEDWELL, of sixty tons, and sent her to
Delfthaven, to convey the colonists to Southampton.” In this, however,
he but follows Mather and the “Modern Universal History,” though both are
notably unreliable; but he lacks their excuse, for they were without his
access to Bradford’s “Historie.” That the consort-pinnace was neither
“hired” nor “sent to Delfthaven” duly appears.
Bradford states the fact,--that “a smale ship (of some 60 tune), was
bought and fitted in Holand, which was intended to serve to help to
transport them, so to stay in ye countrie and atend ye fishing and such
other affairs as might be for ye good and benefite of ye colonie when
they come ther.” The statements of Bradford and others indicate that she
was bought and refitted with moneys raised in Holland, but it is not easy
to understand the transaction, in view of the understood terms of the
business compact between the Adventurers and the Planters, as hereinafter
outlined. The Merchant Adventurers--who were organized (but not
incorporated) chiefly through the activity of Thomas Weston, a merchant
of London, to “finance” the Pilgrim undertaking--were bound, as part of
their engagement, to provide the necessary shipping,’ etc., for the
voyage. The “joint-stock or partnership,” as it was called in the
agreement of the Adventurers and Planters, was an equal partnership
between but two parties, the Adventurers, as a body, being one of the
co-partners; the Planter colonists, as a body, the other. It was a
partnership to run for seven years, to whose capital stock the
first-named partner (the Adventurers) was bound to contribute whatever
moneys, or their equivalents,--some subscriptions were paid in goods,
--were necessary to transport, equip, and maintain the colony and provide
it the means of traffic, etc., for the term named. The second-named
partner (the Planter body) was to furnish the men, women, and children,
--the colonists themselves, and their best endeavors, essential to the
enterprise,--and such further contributions of money or provisions, on
an agreed basis, as might be practicable for them. At the expiration of
the seven years, all properties of every kind were to be divided into
two equal parts, of which the Adventurers were to take one and the
Planters the other, in full satisfaction of their respective investments
and claims. The Adventurers’ half would of course be divided among
themselves, in such proportion as their individual contributions bore to
the sum total invested. The Planters would divide their half among
their number, according to their respective contributions of persons,
money, or provisions, as per the agreed basis, which was:
[Bradford’s Historie, Deane’s ed.; Arber, op. cit. p. 305.
The fact that Lyford (Bradford, Historie, Mass. ed. p. 217)
recommended that every “particular” (i.e. non-partnership colonist)
sent out by the Adventurers--and they had come to be mostly of that
class--“should come over as an Adventurer, even if only a ser vant,”
and the fact that he recognized that some one would have to pay in
L10 to make each one an Adventurer, would seem to indicate that any
one was eligible and that either L10 was the price of the Merchant
Adventurer’s share, or that this was the smallest subscription which
would admit to membership. Such “particular,” even although an
Adventurer, had no partnership share in the Planters’ half-interest;
had no voice in the government, and no claim for maintenance. He
was, however, amenable to the government, subject to military duty
and to tax. The advantage of being an Adventurer without a voice in
colony affairs would be purely a moral one.]
that every person joining the enterprise, whether man, woman, youth,
maid, or servant, if sixteen years old, should count as a share; that a
share should be reckoned at L10, and hence that L10 worth of money or
provisions should also count as a share. Every man, therefore, would be
entitled to one share for each person (if sixteen years of age) he
contributed, and for each L10 of money or provisions he added thereto,
another share. Two children between ten and sixteen would count as one
and be allowed a share in the division, but children under ten were to
have only fifty acres of wild land. The scheme was admirable for its
equity, simplicity, and elasticity, and was equally so for either
capitalist or colonist.
Goodwin notes, that, “in an edition of Cushman’s ‘Discourse,’ Judge Davis
of Boston advanced the idea that at first the Pilgrims put all their
possessions into a common stock, and until 1623 had no individual
property. In his edition of Morton’s ‘Memorial’ he honorably admits his
error.” The same mistake was made by Robertson and Chief Justice
Marshall, and is occasionally repeated in this day. “There was no
community of goods, though there was labor in common, with public
supplies of food and clothing.” Neither is there warrant for the
conclusion of Goodwin, that because the holdings of the Planters’ half
interest in the undertaking were divided into L10 shares, those of the
Adventurers were also. It is not impossible, but it does not necessarily
follow, and certain known facts indicate the contrary.
Rev. Edward Everett Hale, in “The Pilgrims’ Life in Common,” says:
“Carver, Winslow, Bradford, Brewster, Standish, Fuller, and Allerton.
were the persons of largest means in the Leyden group of the emigrants.
It seems as if their quota of subscription to the common stock were paid
in ‘provisions’ for the voyage and the colony, and that by ‘provisions’
is meant such articles of food as could be best bought in Holland.” The
good Doctor is clearly in error, in the above. Allerton was probably as
“well off” as any of the Leyden contingent, while Francis Cooke and
Degory Priest were probably “better off” than either Brewster or
Standish, who apparently had little of this world’s goods. Neither is
there any evidence that any considerable amount of “provision” was bought
in Holland. Quite a large sum of money, which came, apparently, from the
pockets of the Leyden Adventurers (Pickering, Greene, etc.), and some of
the Pilgrims, was requisite to pay for the SPEEDWELL and her refitting,
etc.; but how much came from either is conjectural at best. But aside
from “Hollands cheese,” “strong-waters” (schnapps), some few things that
Cushman names; and probably a few others, obtained in Holland, most of
the “provisioning,” as repeatedly appears, was done at the English
Southampton. In fact, after clothing and generally “outfitting”
themselves, it is pretty certain that but few of the Leyden party had
much left. There was evidently an understanding between the partners that
there should be four principal agents charged with the preparations for,
and carrying out of, the enterprise,--Thomas Weston and Christopher
Martin representing the Adventurers and the colonists who were recruited
in England (Martin being made treasurer), while Carver and Cushman acted
for the Leyden company. John Pierce seems to have been the especial
representative of the Adventurers in the matter of the obtaining of the
Patent from the (London) Virginia Company, and later from the Council for
New England. Bradford says: “For besides these two formerly mentioned,
sent from Leyden, viz., Master Carver and Robert Cushman, there was one
chosen in England to be joyned with them, to make the provisions for the
Voyage. His name was Master Martin. He came from Billerike in Essexe;
from which parts came sundry others to go with them; as also from London
and other places, and therefore it was thought meet and convenient by
them in Holand, that these strangers that were to goe with them, should
appointe one thus to be joyned with them; not so much from any great need
of their help as to avoid all susspition, or jealosie, of any
partialitie.” But neither Weston, Martin, Carver, nor Cushman seems to
have been directly concerned in the purchase of the SPEEDWELL. The most
probable conjecture concerning it is, that in furtherance of the purpose
of the Leyden leaders, stated by Bradford, that there should be a small
vessel for their service in fishing, traffic, etc., wherever they might
plant the colony, they were permitted by the Adventurers to purchase the
SPEEDWELL for that service, and as a consort, “on general account.”
It is evident, however, from John Robinson’s letter of June 14, 1620, to
John Carver, that Weston ridiculed the transaction, probably on selfish
grounds, but, as events proved, not without some justification.
Robinson says: “Master Weston makes himself merry with our endeavors
about buying a ship,” [the SPEEDWELL] “but we have done nothing in this
but with good reason, as I am persuaded.” Although bought with funds
raised in Holland,
[Arber (The Story of the Pilgrim Fathers, p. 341) arrives at the
conclusion that “The SPEEDWELL had been bought with Leyden money.
The proceeds of her sale, after her return to London, would, of
course, go to the credit of the common joint-Stock there.” This
inference seems warranted by Robinson’s letter of June 16/26 to
Carver, in which he clearly indicates that the Leyden brethren
collected the “Adventurers” subscriptions of Pickering and his
partner (Greene), which were evidently considerable.]
it was evidently upon “joint-account,” and she was doubtless so sold, as
alleged, on her arrival in September, at London, having proved
unseaworthy. In fact, the only view of this transaction that harmonizes
with the known facts and the respective rights and relations of the
parties is, that permission was obtained (perhaps through Edward
Pickering, one of the Adventurers, a merchant of Leyden, and others) that
the Leyden leaders should buy and refit the consort, and in so doing
might expend the funds which certain of the Leyden Pilgrims were to pay
into the enterprise, which it appears they did,--and for which they would
receive, as shown, extra shares in the Planters’ half-interest. It was
very possibly further permitted by the Adventurers, that Mr. Pickering’s
and his partners’ subscriptions to their capital stock should be applied
to the purchase of the SPEEDWELL, as they were collected by the Leyden
leaders, as Pastor Robinson’s letter of June 14/24 to John Carver,
previously noted, clearly shows.
She was obviously bought some little time before May 31, 1620,--probably
in the early part of the month,--from the fact that in their letter of
May 31st to Carver and Cushman, then in London, Messrs. Fuller, Winslow,
Bradford, and Allerton state that “we received divers letters at the
coming of Master Nash and our Pilott,” etc. From this it is clear that
time enough had elapsed, since their purchase of the pinnace, for their
messenger (Master Nash) to go to London,--evidently with a request to
Carver and Cushman that they would send over a competent “pilott” to
refit her, and for Nash to return with him, while the letter announcing
their arrival does not seem to have been immediately written.
The writers of the above-mentioned letter use the words “we received,”
--using the past tense, as if some days before, instead of “we have your
letters,” or “we have just received your letters,” which would rather
indicate present, or recent, time. Probably some days elapsed after the
“pilott’s” arrival, before this letter of acknowledgment was sent. It is
hence fair to assume that the pinnace was bought early in May, and that
no time was lost by the Leyden party in preparing for the exodus, after
their negotiations with the Dutch were “broken off” and they had “struck
hands” with Weston, sometime between February 2/12, 1619/20, and April
1/11, 1620,--probably in March.
The consort was a pinnace--as vessels of her class were then and for many
years called--of sixty tons burden, as already stated, having two masts,
which were put in--as we are informed by Bradford, and are not allowed by
Professor Arber to forget--as apart of her refitting in Holland. That
she was “square-rigged,” and generally of the then prevalent style of
vessels of her size and class, is altogether probable. The name pinnace
was applied to vessels having a wide range in tonnage, etc., from a craft
of hardly more than ten or fifteen tons to one of sixty or eighty. It
was a term of pretty loose and indefinite adaptation and covered most of
the smaller craft above a shallop or ketch, from such as could be
propelled by oars, and were so fitted, to a small ship of the SPEEDWELL’S
class, carrying an armament.
None of the many representations of the SPEEDWELL which appear in
historical pictures are authentic, though some doubtless give correct
ideas of her type. Weir’s painting of the “Embarkation of the Pilgrims,”
in the Capitol at Washington (and Parker’s copy of the same in Pilgrim
Hall, Plymouth); Lucy’s painting of the “Departure of the Pilgrims,” in
Pilgrim Hall; Copes great painting in the corridor of the British Houses
of Parliament, and others of lesser note, all depict the vessel on much
the same lines, but nothing can be claimed for any of them, except
fidelity to a type of vessel of that day and class. Perhaps the best
illustration now known of a craft of this type is given in the painting
by the Cuyps, father and son, of the “Departure of the Pilgrims from
Delfshaven,” as reproduced by Dr. W. E. Griffis, as the frontispiece to
his little monograph, “The Pilgrims in their Three Homes.” No reliable
description of the pinnace herself is known to exist, and but few facts
concerning her have been gleaned. That she was fairly “roomy” for a
small number of passengers, and had decent accommodations, is inferable
from the fact that so many as thirty were assigned to her at Southampton,
for the Atlantic voyage (while the MAY-FLOWER, three times her tonnage,
but of greater proportionate capacity, had but ninety), as also from the
fact that “the chief [i.e. principal people] of them that came from
Leyden went in this ship, to give Master Reynolds content.” That she
mounted at least “three pieces of ordnance” appears by the testimony of
Edward Winslow, and they probably comprised her armament.
We have seen that Bradford notes the purchase and refitting of this
“smale ship of 60 tune” in Holland. The story of her several sailings,
her “leakiness,” her final return, and her abandonment as unseaworthy,
is familiar. We find, too, that Bradford also states in his “Historie,”
that “the leakiness of this ship was partly by her being overmasted and
too much pressed with sails.” It will, however, amaze the readers of
Professor Arber’s generally excellent “Story of the Pilgrim Fathers,” so
often referred to herein, to find him sharply arraigning “those members
of the Leyden church who were responsible for the fitting of the
SPEEDWELL,” alleging that “they were the proximate causes of most of the
troubles on the voyage [of the MAY-FLOWER] out; and of many of the deaths
at Plymouth in New England in the course of the following Spring; for
they overmasted the vessel, and by so doing strained her hull while
sailing.” To this straining, Arber wholly ascribes the “leakiness” of
the SPEEDWELL and the delay in the final departure of the MAYFLOWER, to
which last he attributes the disastrous results he specifies. It would
seem that the historian, unduly elated at what he thought the discovery
of another “turning-point of modern history,” endeavors to establish it
by such assertions and such partial references to Bradford as would
support the imaginary “find.” Briefly stated, this alleged discovery,
which he so zealously announces, is that if the SPEEDWELL had not been
overmasted, both she and the MAY-FLOWER would have arrived early in the
fall at the mouth of the Hudson River, and the whole course of New
England history would have been entirely different. Ergo, the
“overmasting” of the SPEEDWELL was a “pivotal point in modern history.”
With the idea apparently of giving eclat to this announcement and of
attracting attention to it, he surprisingly charges the responsibility
for the “overmasting” and its alleged dire results upon the leaders of
the Leyden church, “who were,” he repeatedly asserts, “alone
responsible.” As a matter of fact, however, Bradford expressly states
(in the same paragraph as that upon which Professor Arber must wholly
base his sweeping assertions) that the “overmasting” was but “partly”
responsible for the SPEEDWELL’S leakiness, and directly shows that the
“stratagem” of her master and crew, “afterwards,” he adds, “known, and by
some confessed,” was the chief cause of her leakiness.
Cushman also shows, by his letter,--written after the ships had put back
into Dartmouth,--a part of which Professor Arber uses, but the most
important part suppresses, that what he evidently considers the principal
leak was caused by a very “loose board” (plank), which was clearly not
the result of the straining due to “crowding sail,” or of “overmasting.”
(See Appendix.)
Moreover, as the Leyden chiefs were careful to employ a presumably
competent man (“pilott,” afterwards “Master” Reynolds) to take charge of
refitting the consort, they were hence clearly, both legally and morally,
exempt from responsibility as to any alterations made. Even though the
“overmasting” had been the sole cause of the SPEEDWELL’S leakiness, and
the delays and vicissitudes which resulted to the MAY-FLOWER and her
company, the leaders of the Leyden church--whom Professor Arber arraigns
--(themselves chiefly the sufferers) were in no wise at fault! It is
clear, however, that the “overmasting” cut but small figure in the case;
“confessed” rascality in making a leak otherwise, being the chief
trouble, and this, as well as the “overmasting,” lay at the door of
Master Reynolds.
Even if the MAY-FLOWER had not been delayed by the SPEEDWELL’S condition,
and both had sailed for “Hudson’s River” in midsummer, it is by no means
certain that they would have reached there, as Arber so confidently
asserts. The treachery of Captain Jones, in league with Gorges, would as
readily have landed them, by some pretext, on Cape Cod in October, as in
December. But even though they had landed at the mouth of the Hudson,
there is no good reason why the Pilgrim influence should not have worked
north and east, as well as it did west and south, and with the
Massachusetts Bay Puritans there, Roger Williams in Rhode Island, and the
younger Winthrop in Connecticut, would doubtless have made New England
history very much what it has been, and not, as Professor Arber asserts,
“entirely different.”
The cruel indictment fails, and the imaginary “turning point in modern
history,” to announce which Professor Arber seems to have sacrificed so
much, falls with it.
The Rev. Dr. Griffis (“The Pilgrims in their Three Homes,” p. 158) seems
to give ear to Professor Arber’s untenable allegations as to the Pilgrim
leaders’ responsibility for any error made in the “overmasting” of the
SPEEDWELL, although he destroys his case by saying of the “overmasting:”
“Whether it was done in England or Holland is not certain.” He says,
unhappily chiming in with Arber’s indictment: “In their eagerness to get
away promptly, they [the Leyden men] made the mistake of ordering for the
SPEEDWELL heavier and taller masts and larger spars than her hull had
been built to receive, thus altering most unwisely and disastrously her
trim.” He adds still more unhappily: “We do not hear of these inveterate
landsmen and townsfolk [of whom he says, ‘possibly there was not one man
familiar with ships or sea life’] who were about to venture on the
Atlantic, taking counsel of Dutch builders or mariners as to the
proportion of their craft.” Why so discredit the capacity and
intelligence of these nation-builders? Was their sagacity ever found
unequal to the problems they met? Were the men who commanded confidence
and respect in every avenue of affairs they entered; who talked with
kings and dealt with statesmen; these diplomats, merchants, students,
artisans, and manufacturers; these men who learned law, politics, state
craft, town building, navigation, husbandry, boat-building, and medicine,
likely to deal negligently or presumptuously with matters upon which they
were not informed? Their first act, after buying the SPEEDWELL, was to
send to England for an “expert” to take charge of all technical matters
of her “outfitting,” which was done, beyond all question, in Holland.
What need had they, having done this (very probably upon the advice of
those experienced ship-merchants, their own “Adventurers” and townsmen,
Edward Pickering and William Greene), to consult Dutch ship-builders or
mariners? She was to be an English ship, under the English flag, with
English owners, and an English captain; why: should they defer to Dutch
seamen or put other than an English “expert” in charge of her
alterations, especially when England rightfully boasted the best? But
not only were these Leyden leaders not guilty of any laches as indicted
by Arber and too readily convicted by Griffis, but the “overmasting” was
of small account as compared with the deliberate rascality of captain and
crew, in the disabling of the consort, as expressly certified by
Bradford, who certainly, as an eye-witness, knew whereof he affirmed.
Having bought a vessel, it was necessary to fit her for the severe
service in which she was to be employed; to provision her for the voyage,
etc.; and this could be done properly only by experienced hands. The
Pilgrim leaders at Leyden seem, therefore, as noted, to have sent to
their agents at London for a competent man to take charge of this work,
and were sent a “pilott” (or “mate”), doubtless presumed to be equal to
the task. Goodwin mistakenly says: “As Spring waned, Thomas Nash went
from Leyden to confer with the agents at London. He soon returned with a
pilot (doubtless [sic] Robert Coppin), who was to conduct the Continental
party to England.” This is both wild and remarkable “guessing” for the
usually careful compiler of the “Pilgrim Republic.” There is no warrant
whatever for this assumption, and everything contra-indicates it,
although two such excellent authorities as Dr. Dexter and Goodwin
coincide--the latter undoubtedly copying the former--concerning Coppin;
both being doubtless in error, as hereafter shown. Dexter says “My
impression is that Coppin was originally hired to go in the SPEEDWELL,
and that he was the ‘pilott’ whose coming was ‘a great incouragement’ to
the Leyden expectants, in the last of May, or first of June, 1620 [before
May 31, as shown]; that he sailed with them in the SPEEDWELL, but on her
final putting back was transferred to the MAY-FLOWER.” All the direct
light any one has upon the matter comes from the letter of the Leyden
brethren of May 31 [O.S.], 1620, previously cited, to Carver and Cushman,
and the reply of the latter thereto, of Sunday, June 11, 1620. The
former as noted, say: “We received diverse letters at the coming of
Master Nash [probably Thomas] and our pilott, which is a great
incouragement unto us . . . and indeed had you not sente him [the
‘pilott,’ presumably] many would have been ready to fainte and goe
backe.” Neither here nor in any other relation is there the faintest
suggestion of Coppin, except as what he was, “the second mate,” or
“pilott,” of the MAY-FLOWER. It is not reasonable to suppose that, for
so small a craft but just purchased, and with the expedition yet
uncertain, the Leyden leaders or their London agents had by June 11,
employed both a “Master” and a “pilott” for the SPEEDWELL, as must have
been the case if this “pilott” was, as Goodwin so confidently assumes,
“doubtless Robert Coppin.” For in Robert Cushman’s letter of Sunday,
June 11, as if proposing (now that the larger vessel would be at once
obtained, and would, as he thought, be “ready in fourteen days”) that the
“pilott” sent over to “refit” the SPEEDWELL should be further utilized,
he says: “Let Master Reynolds tarrie there [inferentially, not return
here when his work is done, as we originally arranged] and bring the ship
[the SPEEDWELL], to Southampton.” The latter service we know he
performed.
The side lights upon the matter show, beyond doubt:--
(a) That a “pilott” had been sent to Holland, with Master Nash, before
May 31, 1620;
(b) That unless two had been sent (of which there is no suggestion, and
which is entirely improbable, for obvious reasons), Master Reynolds was
the “pilott” who was thus sent;
(c) That it is clear, from Cushman’s letter of June 11/21, that Reynolds
was then in Holland, for Cushman directs that “Master Reynolds tarrie
there and bring the ship to Southampton;”
(d) That Master Reynolds was not originally intended to “tarrie there,”
and “bring the ship,” etc., as, if he had been, there would have been no
need of giving such an order; and
(e) That he had been sent there for some other purpose than to bring the
SPEEDWELL to Southampton. Duly considering all the facts together, there
can be no doubt that only one “pilott” was sent from England; that he was
expected to return when the work was done for which he went (apparently
the refitting of the SPEEDWELL); that he was ordered to remain for a new
duty, and that the man who performed that duty and brought the ship to
Southampton (who, we know was Master Reynolds) must have been the
“pilott”, sent over.
We are told too, by Bradford,
[Bradford’s Historie, as already cited; Arber, The Story of the
Pilgrim Fathers, p. 341. John Brown, in his Pilgrim Fathers of New
England, p. 198, says: “She [the SPEEDWELL] was to remain with the
colony for a year.” Evidently a mistake, arising from the length of
time for which her crew were shipped. The pinnace herself was
intended, as we have seen, for the permanent use of they colonists,
and was to remain indefinitely.]
that the crew of the SPEEDWELL “were hired for a year,” and we know, in a
general way, that most of them went with her to London when she abandoned
the voyage. This there is ample evidence Coppin did not do, going as he
did to New England as “second mate” or “pilott” of the MAY-FLOWER, which
there is no reason to doubt he was when she left London. Neither is
there anywhere any suggestion that there was at Southampton any change in
the second mate of the larger ship, as there must have been to make good
the suggestion of Dr. Dexter.
Where the SPEEDWELL lay while being “refitted” has not been ascertained,
though presumably at Delfshaven, whence she sailed, though possibly at
one of the neighboring larger ports, where her new masts and cordage
could be “set up” to best advantage.
We know that Reynolds--“pilott” and “Master” went from London to
superintend the “making-ready” for sea. Nothing is known, however, of
his antecedents, and nothing of his history after he left the service of
the Pilgrims in disgrace, except that he appears to have come again to
New England some years later, in command of a vessel, in the service of
the reckless adventurer Weston (a traitor to the Pilgrims), through whom,
it is probable, he was originally selected for their service in Holland.
Bradford and others entitled to judge have given their opinions of this
cowardly scoundrel (Reynolds) in unmistakable terms.
What other officers and crew the pinnace had does not appear, and we know
nothing certainly of them, except the time for which they shipped; that
some of them were fellow-conspirators with the Master (self-confessed),
in the “strategem” to compel the SPEEDWELL’S abandonment of the voyage;
and that a few were transferred to the MAYFLOWER. From the fact that the
sailors Trevore and Ely returned from New Plymouth on the FORTUNE in
1621, “their time having expired,” as Bradford notes, it may be fairly
assumed that they were originally of the SPEEDWELL’S crew.
That the fears of the SPEEDWELL’S men had been worked upon, and their
cooperation thus secured by the artful Reynolds, is clearly indicated by
the statement of Bradford: “For they apprehended that the greater ship
being of force and in which most of the provisions were stored, she would
retain enough for herself, whatever became of them or the passengers, and
indeed such speeches had been cast out by some of them.”
Of the list of passengers who embarked at Delfshaven, July 22, 1620,
“bound for Southampton on the English coast, and thence for the northern
parts of Virginia,” we fortunately have a pretty accurate knowledge.
All of the Leyden congregation who were to emigrate, with the exception
of Robert Cushman and family, and (probably) John Carver, were doubtless
passengers upon the SPEEDWELL from Delfshaven to Southampton, though the
presence of Elder Brewster has been questioned. The evidence that he was
there is well-nigh as conclusive as that Robert Cushman sailed on the
MAY-FLOWER from London, and that Carver, who had been for some months in
England,--chiefly at Southampton, making preparations for the voyage, was
there to meet the ships on their arrival. It is possible, of course,
that Cushman’s wife and son came on the SPEEDWELL from Delfshaven; but is
not probable. Among the passengers, however, were some who, like Thomas
Blossom and his son, William Ring, and others, abandoned the voyage to
America at Plymouth, and returned in the pinnace to London and thence
went back to Holland. Deducting from the passenger list of the MAYFLOWER
those known to have been of the English contingent, with Robert Cushman
and family, and John Carver, we have a very close approximate to the
SPEEDWELL’S company on her “departure from Delfshaven.” It has not been
found possible to determine with absolute certainty the correct relation
of a few persons. They may have been of the Leyden contingent and so
have come with their brethren on the SPEEDWELL, or they may have been of
the English colonists, and first embarked either at London or at
Southampton, or even at Plymouth,--though none are supposed to have
joined the emigrants there or at Dartmouth.
The list of those embarking at Delfshaven on the SPEEDWELL, and so of the
participants in that historic event,--a list now published for the first
time, so far as known,--is undoubtedly accurate, within the limitations
stated, as follows, being for convenience’ sake arranged by families:
The Family of Deacon John Carver (probably in charge of John Howland),
embracing:--
Mrs. Katherine Carver,
John Howland (perhaps kinsman of Carver), “servant” or “employee,”
Desire Minter, or Minther (probably companion of Mrs. Carver,
perhaps kinswoman),
Roger Wilder, “servant,”
“Mrs. Carver’s maid” (whose name has never transpired).
Master William Bradford and
Mrs. Dorothy (May) Bradford.
Master Edward Winslow and
Mrs. Elizabeth (Barker) Winslow,
George Soule a “servant” (or employee),
Elias Story, “servant.”
Elder William Brewster and
Mrs. Mary Brewster,
Love Brewster, a son,
Wrestling Brewster, a son.
Master Isaac Allerton and
Mrs. Mary (Morris) Allerton,
Bartholomew Allerton, a son,
Remember Allerton, a daughter,
Mary Allerton, a daughter,
John Hooke, “servant-boy.”
Dr. Samuel Fuller and
William Butten, “servant”-assistant.
Captain Myles Standish and
Mrs. Rose Standish.
Master William White and
Mrs. Susanna (Fuller) White,
Resolved White, a son,
William Holbeck, “servant,”
Edward Thompson, “servant.”
Deacon Thomas Blossom and
----- Blossom, a son.
Master Edward Tilley and
Mrs. Ann Tilley.
Master John Tilley and
Mrs. Bridget (Van der Velde?) Tilley (2d wife),
Elizabeth Tilley, a daughter of Mr. Tilley by a former wife(?)
John Crackstone and
John Crackstone (Jr.), a son.
Francis Cooke and
John Cooke, a son.
John Turner and
---- Turner, a son,
---- Turner, a son.
Degory Priest.
Thomas Rogers and
Joseph Rogers, a son.
Moses Fletcher.
Thomas Williams.
Thomas Tinker and
Mrs. ---- Tinker,
---- Tinker, a son.
Edward Fuller and
Mrs. ---- Fuller,
Samuel Fuller, a son.
John Rigdale and
Mrs. Alice Rigdale.
Francis Eaton and
Mrs. ---- Eaton,
Samuel Eaton, an infant son.
Peter Browne.
William Ring.
Richard Clarke.
John Goodman.
Edward Margeson.
Richard Britteridge.
Mrs. Katherine Carver and her family, it is altogether probable, came
over in charge of Howland, who was probably a kinsman, both he and
Deacon Carver coming from Essex in England,--as they could hardly
have been in England with Carver during the time of his exacting
work of preparation. He, it is quite certain, was not a passenger
on the Speedwell, for Pastor Robinson would hardly have sent him
such a letter as that received by him at Southampton, previously
mentioned (Bradford’s “Historie,” Deane’s ed. p. 63), if he had been
with him at Delfshaven at the “departure,” a few days before. Nor
if he had handed it to him at Delfshaven, would he have told him in
it, “I have written a large letter to the whole company.”
John Howland was clearly a “secretary” or “steward,” rather than a
“servant,” and a man of standing and influence from the outset.
That he was in Leyden and hence a SPEEDWELL passenger appears
altogether probable, but is not absolutely certain.
Desire Minter (or Minther) was undoubtedly the daughter of Sarah, who,
the “Troth Book” (or “marriage-in-tention” records) for 1616, at the
Stadtbuis of Leyden, shows, was probably wife or widow of one
William Minther--evidently of Pastor Robinson’s congregation--when
she appeared on May 13 as a “voucher” for Elizabeth Claes, who then
pledged herself to Heraut Wilson, a pump-maker, John Carver being
one of Wilson’s “vouchers.” In 1618 Sarah Minther (then recorded as
the widow of William) reappeared, to plight her troth to Roger
Simons, brick-maker, from Amsterdam. These two records and the
rarity of the name warrant an inference that Desire Minter (or
Minther) was the daughter of William and Sarah (Willet) Minter (or
Minther), of Robinson’s flock; that her father had died prior to
1618 (perhaps before 1616); that the Carvers were near friends,
perhaps kinsfolk; that her father being dead, her mother, a poor
widow (there were clearly no rich ones in the Leyden congregation),
placed this daughter with the Carvers, and, marrying herself, and
removing to Amsterdam the year before the exodus, was glad to leave
her daughter in so good a home and such hands as Deacon and Mistress
Carver’s. The record shows that the father and mother of Mrs. Sarah
Minther, Thomas and Alice Willet, the probable grandparents of
Desire Minter, appear as “vouchers” for their daughter at her Leyden
betrothal. Of them we know nothing further, but it is a reasonable
conjecture that they may have returned to England after the
remarriage of their daughter and her removal to Amsterdam, and the
removal of the Carvers and their granddaughter to America, and that
it was to them that Desire went, when, as Bradford records, “she
returned to her friends in England, and proved not very well and
died there.”
“Mrs. Carver’s maid” we know but little about, but the presumption is
naturally strong that she came from; Leyden with her mistress. Her
early marriage and; death are duly recorded.
Roger Wilder, Carver’s “servant;” was apparently in his service at Leyden
and accompanied the family from thence. Bradford calls him “his
[Carver’s] man Roger,” as if an old, familiar household servant,
which (as Wilder died soon after the arrival at Plymouth) Bradford
would not have been as likely to do--writing in 1650, thirty years
after--if he had been only a short-time English addition to Carver’s
household, known to Bradford only during the voyage. The fact that
he speaks of him as a “man” also indicates something as to his age,
and renders it certain that he was not an “indentured” lad. It is
fair to presume he was a passenger on the SPEEDWELL to Southampton.
(It is probable that Carver’s “servant-boy,” William Latham, and
Jasper More, his “bound-boy,” were obtained in England, as more
fully appears.)
Master William Bradford and his wife were certainly of the party in the
SPEEDWELL, as shown by his own recorded account of the embarkation.
(Bradford’s “Historie,” etc.)
Master Edward Winslow’s very full (published) account of the embarkation
(“Hypocrisie Unmasked,” pp. 10-13, etc.) makes it certain that
himself and family were SPEEDWELL passengers.
George Soule, who seems to have been a sort of “upper servant” or
“steward,” it is not certain was with Winslow in Holland, though it
is probable.
Elias Story, his “under-servant,” was probably also with him in Holland,
though not surely so. Both servants might possibly have been
procured from London or at Southampton, but probably sailed from
Delfshaven with Winslow in the SPEEDWELL.
Elder William Brewster and his family, his wife and two boys, were
passengers on the SPEEDWELL, beyond reasonable doubt. He was, in
fact, the ranking man of the Leyden brethren till they reached
Southampton and the respective ships’ “governors” were chosen. The
Church to that point was dominant. (The Elder’s two “bound-boys,”
being from London, do not appear as SPEEDWELL passengers.) There is,
on careful study, no warrant to be found for the remarkable
statements of Goodwin (“Pilgrim Republic,” p. 33), that, during the
hunt for Brewster in Holland in 1619, by the emissaries of James I.
of England (in the endeavor to apprehend and punish him for printing
and publishing certain religious works alleged to be seditious),
“William Brewster was in London . . . and there he remained until
the sailing of the MAYFLOWER, which he helped to fit out;” and that
during that time “he visited Scrooby.” That he had no hand whatever
in fitting out the MAYFLOWER is certain, and the Scrooby statement
equally lacks foundation. Professor Arber, who is certainly a
better authority upon the “hidden press” of the Separatists in
Holland, and the official correspondence relating to its proprietors
and their movements, says (“The Story of the Pilgrim Fathers,”
p.196): “The Ruling Elder of the Pilgrim Church was, for more than a
year before he left Delfshaven on the SPEEDWELL, on the 22 July-
1 August, 1620, a hunted man.” Again (p. 334), he says: “Here let
us consider the excellent management and strategy of this Exodus.
If the Pilgrims had gone to London to embark for America, many, if
not most of them, would have been put in prison [and this is the
opinion of a British historian, knowing the temper of those times,
especially William Brewster.] So only those embarked in London
against whom the Bishops could take no action.” We can understand,
in light, why Carver--a more objectionable person than Cushman to
the prelates, because of his office in the Separatist Church--was
chiefly employed out of their sight, at Southampton, etc., while the
diplomatic and urbane Cushman did effective work at London, under
the Bishops’ eyes. It is not improbable that the personal
friendship of Sir Robert Naunton (Principal Secretary of State to
King James) for Sir Edward Sandys and the Leyden brethren (though
officially seemingly active under his masters’ orders in pushing Sir
Dudley Carleton, the English ambassador at the Hague, to an
unrelenting search for Brewster) may have been of material aid to
the Pilgrims in gaining their departure unmolested. The only basis
known for the positive expression of Goodwin resides in the
suggestions of several letters’ of Sir Dudley Carleton to Sir Robert
Naunton, during the quest for Brewster; the later seeming clearly to
nullify the earlier.
Under date of July 22, 1619, Carleton says: “One William Brewster,
a Brownist, who has been for some years an inhabitant and printer at
Leyden, but is now within these three weeks removed from thence and
gone back to dwell in London,” etc.
On August 16, 1619 (N.S.), he writes: “I am told William Brewster is
come again for Leyden,” but on the 30th adds: “I have made good
enquiry after William Brewster and am well assured he is not
returned thither, neither is it likely he will; having removed from
thence both his family and goods,” etc.
On September 7, 1619 (N.S.), he writes: “Touching Brewster, I am now
informed that he is on this side the seas [not in London, as before
alleged]; and that he was seen yesterday, at Leyden, but, as yet, is
not there settled,” etc.
On September 13, 1619 (N.S.), he says: “I have used all diligence to
enquire after Brewster; and find he keeps most at Amsterdam; but
being ‘incerti laris’, he is not yet to be lighted upon. I
understand he prepares to settle himself at a village called
Leerdorp, not far from Leyden, thinking there to be able to print
prohibited books without discovery, but I shall lay wait for him,
both there and in other places, so as I doubt but either he must
leave this country; or I shall, sooner or later, find him out.”
On September 20, 1619 (N.S.), he says: “I have at length found out
Brewster at Leyden,” etc. It was a mistake, and Brewster’s partner
(Thomas Brewer), one of the Merchant Adventurers, was arrested
instead.
On September 28, 1619 (N.S.), he states, writing from Amsterdam:
“If he lurk here for fear of apprehension, it will be hard to find
him,” etc.
As late as February 8, 1619/20, there was still a desire and hope
for his arrest, but by June the matter had become to the King--and
all others--something of an old story. While, as appears by a
letter of Robert Cushman, written in London, in May, 1619, Brewster
was then undoubtedly there, one cannot agree, in the light of the
official correspondence just quoted, with the conclusion of Dr.
Alexander Young (“Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers,” vol. i.
p. 462), that “it is probable he [Brewster] did not return to
Leyden, but kept close till the MAYFLOWER sailed.”
Everything indicates that he was at Leyden long after this; that he
did not again return to London, as supposed; and that he was in
hiding with his family (after their escape from the pursuit at
Leyden), somewhere among friends in the Low Countries. Although by
July, 1620, the King had, as usual, considerably “cooled off,” we
may be sure that with full knowledge of the harsh treatment meted
out to his partner (Brewer) when caught, though unusually mild (by
agreement with the authorities of the University and Province of
Holland), Brewster did not deliberately put himself “under the
lion’s paw” at London, or take any chances of arrest there, even in
disguise. Dr. Griffis has lent his assent (“The Pilgrims in their
Homes,” p, 167), though probably without careful analysis of all the
facts, to the untenable opinion expressed by Goodwin, that Brewster
was “hiding in England” when the SPEEDWELL sailed from Delfshaven.
There can be no doubt that, with his ever ready welcome of sound
amendment, he will, on examination, revise his opinion, as would the
clear-sighted Goodwin, if living and cognizant of the facts as
marshalled against his evident error. As the leader and guide of
the outgoing part of the Leyden church we may, with good warrant,
believe--as all would wish--that Elder Brewster was the chief figure
the departing Pilgrims gathered on the SPEEDWELL deck, as she took
her departure from Delfshaven.
Master Isaac Allerton and his family, his wife and three children, two
sons and a daughter, were of the Leyden company and passengers in
the SPEEDWELL. We know he was active there as a leader, and was
undoubtedly one of those who bought the SPEEDWELL. He was one of
the signers of the joint-letter from Leyden, to Carver and Cushman,
May 31 (O.S.) 1620.
John Hooke, Allerton’s “servant-lad,” may have been detained at London or
Southampton, but it is hardly probable, as Allerton was a man of
means, consulted his comfort, and would have hardly started so large
a family on such a journey without a servant.
Dr. Samuel Fuller was, as is well known, one of the Leyden chiefs,
connected by blood and marriage with many of the leading families of
Robinson’s congregation. He was active in the preparations for the
voyage the first signer of the joint-letter of May 31, and doubtless
one of the negotiators for the SPEEDWELL. His wife and child were
left behind, to follow later as they did.
William Butten, the first of the Pilgrim party to die, was, in all
probability, a student-“servant” of Doctor Fuller at Leyden, and
doubtless embarked with him at Delfshaven. Bradford calls him
(writing of his death) “Wm. Butten, a youth, servant to Samuel
Fuller.” Captain Myles Standish and his wife Rose, we know from
Bradford, were with the Pilgrims in Leyden and doubtless shipped
with them. Arber calls him (“The Story of the Pilgrim Fathers,”
p. 378) a “chief of the Pilgrim Fathers” in the sense of a father
and leader in their Israel; but there is no warrant for this
assumption, though he became their “sword-hand” in the New World.
By some writers, though apparently with insufficient warrant,
Standish has been declared a Roman Catholic. It does not appear
that he was ever a communicant of the Pilgrim Church. His family,
moreover, was not of the Roman Catholic faith, and all his conduct
in the colony is inconsistent with the idea that he was of that
belief. Master William White, his wife and son, were of the Leyden
congregation, both husband and wife being among its principal
people, and nearly related to several of the Pilgrim band. The
marriage of Mr. and Mrs. White is duly recorded in Leyden. William
Holbeck and Edward Thompson, Master White’s two servants, he
probably took with him from Leyden, as his was a family of means and
position, though they might possibly have been procured at
Southampton. They were apparently passengers in the SPEEDWELL.
Deacon Thomas Blossom and his son were well known as of Pastor
Robinson’s flock at Leyden. They returned, moreover, to Holland
from Plymouth, England (where they gave up the voyage), via London.
The father went to New Plymouth ten years later, the son dying
before that time. (See Blossom’s letter to Governor Bradford.
Bradford’s Letter Book, “Plymouth Church Records,” i. 42.) In his
letter dated at Leyden, December 15, 1625, he says: “God hath taken
away my son that was with me in the ship MAYFLOWER when I went back
again.”
Edward Tilley (sometimes given the prefix of Master) his wife Ann are
known to have been of the Leyden company. (Bradford’s “Historie,”
p. 83.) It is doubtful if their “cousins,” Henry Sampson and
Humility Cooper, were of Leyden. They apparently were English
kinsfolk, taken to New England with the Tilleys, very likely joined
them at Southampton and hence were not of the SPEEDWELL’S
passengers. Humility Cooper returned to England after the death of
Tilley and his wife. That Mrs. Tilley’s “given name” was Ann is not
positively established, but rests on Bradford’s evidence.
John Tilley (who is also sometimes called Master) is reputed a brother of
Edward, and is known to have been--as also his wife--of the Leyden
church (Bradford, Deane’s ed. p. 83.) His second wife Bridget Van
der Velde, was evidently of Holland blood, and their marriage is
recorded in Leyden. Elizabeth Tilley was clearly a daughter by an
earlier wife. He is said by Goodwin (“Pilgrim Republic,” p. 32) to
have been a “silk worker” Leyden, but earlier authority for this
occupation is not found.
John Crackstone is of record as of the Leyden congregation. His daughter
remained there, and came later to America.
John Crackstone, Jr., son of above. Both were SPEEDWELL passengers.
Francis Cooke has been supposed a very early member of Robinson’s flock
in England, who escaped with them to Holland, in 1608. He and his
son perhaps embarked at Delfshaven, leaving his wife and three other
children to follow later. (See Robinson’s letter to Governor
Bradford, “Mass. Hist. Coll.,” vol. iii. p. 45, also Appendix for
account of Cooke’s marriage.)
John Cooke, the son, was supposed to have lived to be the last male
survivor of the MAY-FLOWER, but Richard More proves to have survived
him. He was a prominent man in the colony, like his father, and the
founder of Dartmouth (Mass.).
John Turner and his sons are also known to have been of the Leyden party,
as he was undoubtedly the messenger sent to London with the letter
(of May 31) of the leaders to Carver and Cushman, arriving there
June 10, 1620. They were beyond doubt of the SPEEDWELL’S list.
Degory Priest--or “Digerie,” as Bradford calls him--was a prominent
member of the Leyden body. His marriage is recorded there, and he
left his family in the care of his pastor and friends, to follow him
later. He died early.
Thomas Rogers and his son are reputed of the Leyden company. He left
(according to Bradford) some of his family there--as did Cooke and
Priest--to follow later. It has been suggested that Rogers might
have been of the Essex (England) lineage, but no evidence of this
appears. The Rogers family of Essex were distinctively Puritans,
both in England and in the Massachusetts colony.
Moses Fletcher was a “smith” at Leyden, and of Robinson’s church. He was
married there, in 1613, to his second wife. He was perhaps of the
English Amsterdam family of Separatists, of that name. As the only
blacksmith of the colonists, his early death was a great loss.
Thomas Williams, there seems no good reason to doubt, was the Thomas
Williams known to have been of Leyden congregation. Hon. H. C.
Murphy and Arber include him--apparently through oversight alone
--in the list of those of Leyden who did not go, unless there were
two of the name, one of whom remained in Holland.
Thomas Tinker, wife, and son are not certainly known to have been of the
Leyden company, or to have embarked at Delfshaven, but their
constant association in close relation with others who were and who
so embarked warrants the inference that they were of the SPEEDWELL’S
passengers. It is, however, remotely possible, that they were of
the English contingent.
Edward Fuller and his wife and little son were of the Leyden company, and
on the SPEEDWELL. He is reputed to have been a brother of Dr.
Fuller, and is occasionally so claimed by early writers, but by what
warrant is not clear.
John Rigdale and his wife have always been placed by tradition and
association with the Leyden emigrants but there is a possibility
that they were of the English party. Probability assigns them to
the SPEEDWELL, and they are needed to make her accredited number.
Francis Eaton, wife, and babe were doubtless of the Leyden list. He is
said to have been a carpenter there (Goodwin, “Pilgrim Republic,” p.
32), and was married there, as the record attests.
Peter Browne has always been classed with the Leyden party. There is no
established authority for this except tradition, and he might
possibly have been of the English emigrants, though probably a
SPEEDWELL passenger; he is needed to make good her putative number.
William Ring is in the same category as are Eaton and Browne. Cushman
speaks of him, in his Dartmouth letter to Edward Southworth (of
August 17), in terms of intimacy, though this, while suggestive, of
course proves nothing, and he gave up the voyage and returned from
Plymouth to London with Cushman. He was certainly from Leyden.
Richard Clarke is on the doubtful list, as are also John Goodman, Edward
Margeson, and Richard Britteridge. They have always been
traditionally classed with the Leyden colonists, yet some of them
were possibly among the English emigrants. They are all needed,
however, to make up the number usually assigned to Leyden, as are
all the above “doubtfuls,” which is of itself somewhat confirmatory
of the substantial correctness of the list.
Thomas English, Bradford records, “was hired to goe master of a [the]
shallopp” of the colonists, in New England waters. He was probably
hired in Holland and was almost certainly of the SPEEDWELL.
John Alderton (sometimes written Allerton) was, Bradford states, “a hired
man, reputed [reckoned] one of the company, but was to go back
(being a seaman) and so making no account of the voyages for the
help of others behind” [probably at Leyden]. It is probable that he
was hired in Holland, and came to Southampton on the SPEEDWELL.
Both English and Alderton seem to have stood on a different footing
from Trevore and Ely, the other two seamen in the employ of the
colonists.
William Trevore was, we are told by Bradford, “a seaman hired to stay a
year in the countrie,” but whether or not as part of the SPEEDWELL’S
Crew (who, he tells us, were all hired for a year) does not appear.
As the Master (Reynolds) and others of her crew undoubtedly returned
to London in her from Plymouth, and her voyage was cancelled, the
presumption is that Trevore and Ely were either hired anew or--more
probably--retained under their former agreement, to proceed by the
MAY-FLOWER to America, apparently (practically) as passengers.
Whether of the consort’s crew or not, there can be little doubt that
he left Delfshaven on the SPEEDWELL.
--- Ely, the other seaman in the Planters’ employ, also hired to “remain
a year in the countrie,” appears to have been drafted, like Trevore,
from the SPEEDWELL before she returned to London, having, no doubt,
made passage from Holland in her. Both Trevore and Ely survived
“the general sickness” at New Plimoth, and at the expiration of the
time for which they were employed returned on the FORTUNE to England
Of course the initial embarkation, on Friday, July 21/31 1620, was at
Leyden, doubtless upon the Dutch canal-boats which undoubtedly brought
them from a point closely adjacent to Pastor Robinson’s house in the
Klock-Steeg (Bell, Belfry, Alley), in the garden of which were the houses
of many, to Delfshaven.
Rev. John Brown, D.D., says: “The barges needed for the journey were
most likely moored near the Nuns’ Bridge which spans the Rapenburg
immediately opposite the Klok-Steeg, where Robinsons house was. This,
being their usual meeting-place, would naturally be the place of
rendezvous on the morning of departure. From thence it was but a stone’s
throw to the boats, and quickly after starting they would enter the
Vliet, as the section of the canal between Leyden and Delft is named, and
which for a little distance runs within the city bounds, its quays
forming the streets. In those days the point where the canal leaves the
city was guarded by a water-gate, which has long since been removed, as
have also the town walls, the only remaining portions of which are the
Morsch-gate and the Zylgate. So, gliding along the quiet waters of the
Vliet, past the Water-gate, and looking up at the frowning turrets of the
Cow-gate, ‘they left that goodly and pleasant city which had been their
resting-place near twelve years.’ . . . Nine miles from Leyden a
branch canal connects the Vliet with the Hague, and immediately beyond
their junction a sharp turn is made to the left, as the canal passes
beneath the Hoom-bridge; from this point, for the remaining five miles,
the high road from the Hague to Delft, lined with noble trees, runs side
by side with the canal. In our time the canal-boats make a circuit of
the town to the right, but in those days the traffic went by canal
through the heart of the city . . . . Passing out of the gates of
Delft and leaving the town behind, they had still a good ten miles of
canal journey before them ere they reached their vessel and came to the
final parting, for, as Mr. Van Pelt has clearly shown, it is a mistake to
confound Delft with Delfshaven, as the point of embarkation in the
SPEEDWELL. Below Delft the canal, which from Leyden thither is the
Vliet, then becomes the Schie, and at the village of Overschie the
travellers entered the Delfshaven Canal, which between perfectly straight
dykes flows at a considerable height above the surrounding pastures.
Then finally passing through one set of sluice gates after another, the
Pilgrims were lifted from the canal into a broad receptacle for vessels,
then into the outer haven, and so to the side of the SPEEDWELL as she lay
at the quay awaiting their arrival.”
Dr. Holmes has prettily pictured the “Departure” in his “Robinson of
Leyden,” even if not altogether correctly, geographically.
“He spake; with lingering, long embrace,
With tears of love and partings fond,
They floated down the creeping Maas,
Along the isle of Ysselmond.
“They passed the frowning towers of Briel,
The ‘Hook of Holland’s’ shelf of sand,
And grated soon with lifting keel
The sullen shores of Fatherland.
“No home for these! too well they knew
The mitred king behind the throne;
The sails were set, the pennons flew,
And westward ho! for worlds unknown.”
Winslow informs us that they of the Leyden congregation who volunteered
for the American enterprise were rather the smaller fraction of the whole
body, though he adds, as noted “that the difference was not great.”
A careful analysis of the approximate list of the Leyden colonists,
--including, of course, Carver, and Cushman and his family,--whose total
number seems to have been seventy-two, indicates that of this number,
forty-two, or considerably more than half (the rest being children,
seamen, or servants), were probably members of the Leyden church. Of
these, thirty, probably, were males and twelve females. The exact
proportion this number bore to the numerical strength of Robinson’s
church at that time cannot be determined, because while something less
than half as we know, gave their votes for the American undertaking, it
cannot be known whether or not the women of church had a vote in the
matter. Presumably they did not, the primitive church gave good heed to
the words of Paul (i Corinthians xiv. 34), “Let your women keep silence
in the churches.” Neither can it be known--if they had a voice--whether
the wives and daughters of some of the embarking Pilgrims, who did not go
themselves at this time, voted with their husbands and fathers for the
removal. The total number, seventy-two, coincides very nearly with the
estimate made by Goodwin, who says: “Only eighty or ninety could go in
this party from Leyden,” and again: “Not more than eighty of the
MAY-FLOWER company were from Leyden. Allowing for [i.e. leaving out]
the younger children and servants, it is evident that not half the
company can have been from Robinson’s congregation.” As the total
number of passengers on the MAYFLOWER was one hundred and two when she
took her final departure from England, it is clear that Goodwin’s
estimate is substantially correct, and that the number representing the
Leyden church as given above, viz., forty-two, is very close to the
fact.
“When they came to the place” [Delfshaven], says Bradford, “they found
the ship and all things ready; and such of their friends as could not
come with them [from Leyden] followed after them; and sundry also came
from Amsterdam (about fifty miles) to see them shipped, and to take their
leave of them.”
Saturday, July 22/Aug. 1, 1620, the Pilgrim company took their farewells,
and Winslow records: “We only going aboard, the ship lying to the key
[quay] and ready to sail; the wind being fair, we gave them [their
friends] a volley of small shot [musketry] and three pieces of ordnance
and so lifting up our hands to each other and our hearts for each other
to the Lord our God, we departed.”
Goodwin says of the parting: “The hull was wrapped in smoke, through
which was seen at the stern the white flag of England doubly bisected by
the great red cross of St. George, a token that the emigrants had at last
resumed their dearly-loved nationality. Far above them at the main was
seen the Union Jack of new device.”
And so after more than eleven years of banishment for conscience’ sake
from their native shores, this little band of English exiles, as true to
their mother-land--despite persecutions--as to their God, raised the
flag of England, above their own little vessel, and under its folds set
sail to plant themselves for a larger life in a New World.
And thus opens the “Log” of the SPEEDWELL, and the “Westward-Ho” of the
Pilgrim Fathers.
THE SPEEDWELL’S LOG
Sunday, July 23/Aug. 2.
On the German Ocean. Wind fair. General
course D.W., toward Southampton. sails
set, running free.
Monday, July 24/Aug. 3.
Fair. Wind moderate. Dover Straits
English Channel. In sight Dover Cliffs.
Tuesday, July 25/Aug. 5
Hugging English shore. Enters Southampton
Water.
Wednesday, July 26/Aug. 5.
Came to anchor in Port of Southampton near
ship MAYFLOWER of Yarmouth, from London (to
which this pinnace is consort), off the
north of the West Quay.’
Thursday, July 27/Aug. 6.
At anchor in port of Southampton.
Friday, July 28/Aug. 7.
Lying at anchor at Southampton.
Saturday, July 29/Aug. 8.
Lying at Southampton. MAY-FLOWER ready for
sea, but pinnace leaking and requires
re-trimming.
Sunday, July 30/Aug. 9.
Lying at Southampton.
Monday, July 31/Aug. 10.
Ditto.
Tuesday, Aug. 1/11.
Ditto.
Wednesday, Aug. 2/22.
Ditto. Pinnace leaking. Re-trimmed again.
Thursday, Aug 3/13.
Ditto. Receiving passengers, etc. Some of
principal Leyden men assigned to SPEEDWELL.
Friday, Aug. 4/14
Southampton. Making ready to leave.
Saturday, Aug. 5/55.
Dropped down Southampton Water and beat
down Channel. Wind dead ahead. Laid general
course W.S.W.
Sunday, Aug. 6/16.
Wind baffling. Beating down Channel.
Monday, Aug. 7/17.
Ditto.
Tuesday, Aug. 8/18.
Ditto. Ship leaking.
Wednesday, Aug. 9/19.
Ship leaking badly. Wind still ahead.
Thursday, Aug. 10/20.
Ship still leaking badly. Gaining on
pumps. Hove to. Signalled MAY-FLOWER, in
company. Consultation with Captain Jones
and principal passengers. Decided vessels
shall put back, Dartmouth, being nearest
convenient port. Wore ship and laid course
for Dartmouth with good wind.
Friday, Aug. 11/21.
Wind fair. Ship leaking badly.
Saturday, Aug. 12/22.
Made port at Dartmouth MAY-FLOWER in
company. Came to anchor near MAY-FLOWER.
Sunday, Aug. 13/23.
Lying at anchor, Dartmouth harbor.
Monday, Aug. 14/24.
Moving cargo and overhauling and retrimming
ship.
Tuesday, Aug. 15/25.
Lying at Dartmouth. At on ship.
Wednesday, Aug. 16/26.
Ditto. Found a plank feet long loose and
admitting water freely, as at a mole hole.
Seams opened some.
Thursday, Aug. 17/27.
Lying at Dartmouth. Some dissension among
chief of passengers. Ship’s “Governor”
unsatisfactory.
Friday, Aug. 18/28.
Lying at Dartmouth. Still at work on ship.
Saturday, Aug. 19/29.
Still lying at Dartmouth.
Sunday, Aug. 20/30.
Lying at Dartmouth.
Monday, Aug. 21/31
Still at Dartmouth. Overhauling completed.
Cargo relaced. Making ready to go to sea.
Tuesday, Aug. 22/Sept. 1.
Still at Dartmouth. Lying at anchor ready
for sea.
Wednesday, Aug. 23/Sept. 2.
Weighed anchor,’ as did also MAY-FLOWER,
and set sail. Laid general course W.S.W.
Wind fair
Thursday, Aug. 24/Sept.3.
Fair wind, but ship leaking.
Friday, Aug. 25/Sept. 4.
Wind fair. Ship leaking dangerously.
MAY-FLOWER in company.
Saturday, Aug. 26/Sept. 5.
About 100 leagues [300 miles] from Land’s
End. Ship leaking badly. Hove to.
Signalled MAY-FLOWER, in company.
Consultation between masters, carpenters,
and principal passengers. Decided to put
back into Plymouth and determine whether
pinnace is seaworthy. Put about and laid
course for Plymouth.
Sunday, Aug. 27/Sept. 6.
Wind on starboard quarter. Made Plymouth
harbor and came to anchor. MAY-FLOWER in
company.
Monday, Aug. 28/Sept. 7.
At anchor in Plymouth harbor. Conference
of chief of Colonists and officers of
MAY-FLOWER and SPEEDWELL. No special leak
could be found, but it was judged to be the
general weakness of the ship, and that she
would not prove sufficient for the voyage.
It was resolved to dismiss her the
SPEEDWELL, and part of the company, and
proceed with the other ship.
Tuesday, Aug. 29/Sept. 8
Lying at Plymouth. Transferring cargo.
Wednesday, Aug. 30/Sept. 9
Lying at Plymouth. Transferring cargo.
Saturday, Sept. 2/12
Ditto. Reassignment of passengers. Master
Cushman and family, Master Blossom and son,
Wm. Ring and others to return in pinnace to
London.
Sunday, Sept. 3/13
At anchor in Plymouth roadstead.
Monday, Sept. 4/14
Weighed anchor and took departure for
London, leaving MAY-FLOWER at anchor in
roadstead.
Saturday, Sept. 9/19
Off Gravesend. Came to anchor in Thames.
THE END OF THE VOYAGE AND
OF THE LOG OF THE
MAY-FLOWER’S
CONSORT
From Bradford we learn that the SPEEDWELL was sold at London, and was
“refitted”, her old trip being restored, and that she afterwards made for
her new owners many and very prosperous voyages.