Читать книгу The Mayflower Ship's Log (Vol. 1-6) - Azel Ames - Страница 8

Table of Contents

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: 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, 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, 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.