The May-flower and Her Log, by Azel Ames

Master Christopher Martin, who was made, Bradford informs us, the
     treasurer-agent of the Planter Company, Presumably about the time of
     the original conclusions between the Adventurers and the Planters,
     seems to have been appointed such, as Bradford states, not because
     he was needed, but to give the English contingent of the Planter
     body representation in the management, and to allay thereby any
     suspicion or jealousy. He was, if we are to judge by the evidence
     in hand concerning his contention and that of his family with the
     Archdeacon, the strong testimony that Cushman bears against him in
     his Dartmouth letter of August 17, and the fact that there seems to
     have been early dissatisfaction with him as “governor” on the ship,
     a very self-sufficient, somewhat arrogant, and decidedly contentious
     individual. His selection as treasurer seems to have been very
     unfortunate, as Bradford indicates that his accounts were in
     unsatisfactory shape, and that he had no means of his own, while his
     rather surprising selection for the office of “governor” of the
     larger ship, after the unpleasant experience with him as
     treasurer-agent, is difficult to account for, except that he was
     evidently an active opponent of Cushman, and the latter was just
     then in disfavor with the colonists. He was evidently a man in the
     prime of life, an “Independent” who had the courage of his
     convictions if little discretion, and much of that energy and
     self-reliance which, properly restrained, are excellent elements
     for a colonist. Very little beside the fact that he came from
     Essex is known of him, and nothing of his wife. He has further
     mention hereafter.

Solomon Prower is clearly shown by the complaint made against him by the
     Archdeacon of Chelmsford, the March before he sailed on the
     MAY-FLOWER, to have been quite a youth, a firm “Separatist,” and
     something more than an ordinary “servant.” He seems to have been
     summoned before the Archdeacon at the same time with young Martin
     (a son of Christopher), and this fact suggests some nearer relation
     than that of “servant.” He is sometimes spoken of as Martin’s
     “son,” by what warrant does not appear, but the fact suggests that
     he may have been a step-son. Bradford, in recording his death,
     says: “Dec. 24, this day dies Solomon Martin.” This could, of
     course, have been none other than Solomon Prower. Dr. Young, in his
     “Chronicles,” speaking of Martin, says, “he brought his wife and two
     children.” If this means Martin’s children, it is evidently an
     error. It may refer to age only. His case is puzzling, for
     Bradford makes him both “servant” and “son.” If of sufficient age
     and account to be cited before the Archdeacon for discipline, it
     seems strange that he should not have signed the “Compact.” Even if
     a “servant” this would seem to have been no bar, as Dotey and
     Leister were certainly such, yet signers. The indications are that
     he was but a well-grown lad, and that his youth, or severe illness,
     and not his station, accounts for the absence of his signature. If
     a young foster-son or kinsman of Martin, as seems most likely, then
     Martin’s signature was sufficient, as in the cases of fathers for
     their sons; if really a “ser vant” then too young (like Latham and
     Hooke) to be called upon, as were Dotey and Leister.

John Langemore; there is nothing (save the errors of Dr. Young) to
indicate that he was other than a “servant.”

Richard Warren was probably from Kent or Essex. Surprisingly little is
known of his antecedents, former occupation, etc.

William Mullens and his family were, as shown, from Dorking in Surrey,
     and their home was therefore close to London, whence they sailed,
     beyond doubt, in the MAY-FLOWER. The discovery at Somerset House,
     London, by Mr. Henry F. Waters, of Salem, Massachusetts; of what is
     evidently the nuncupative will of William Mullens, proves an
     important one in many particulars, only one of which need be
     referred to in this connection, but all of which will receive due
     consideration. It conclusively shows Mr. Mullens not to have been
     of the Leyden congregation, as has sometimes been claimed, but that
     he was a well-to-do tradesman of Dorking in Surrey, adjacent to
     London. It renders it certain, too, that he had been some time
     resident there, and had both a married daughter and a son (William),
     doubtless living there, which effectually overthrows the “imaginary
     history” of Baird, and of that pretty story, “Standish of Standish,”
      whereby the Mullens (or Molines) family are given French (Huguenot)
     antecedents and the daughter is endowed with numerous airs, graces,
     and accomplishments, professedly French.

     Dr. Griffis, in his delightful little narrative, “The Pilgrims in
     their Three Homes, England, Holland, America,” cites the name
     “Mullins” as a Dutch distortion of Molines or Molineaux. Without
     questioning that such it might be,—for the Dutch scribes were
     gifted in remarkable distortions of simple names, even of their own
     people,—they evidently had no hand in thus maltreating the patronym
     of William Mullens (or Mullins) of the Pilgrims, for not only is
     evidence entirely wanting to show that he was ever a Leyden citizen,
     though made such by the fertile fiction of Mrs. Austin, but Governor
     Carver, who knew him well, wrote it in his will “Mullens,” while two
     English probate functionaries of his own home-counties wrote it
     respectively “Mullens” and “Mullins.”

     Dr. Grifs speaks of “the Mullens family” as evidently [sic] of
     Huguenot or Walloon birth or descent, but in doing so probably knew
     no other authority than Mrs. Austin’s little novel, or (possibly)
     Dr. Baird’s misstatements.

     A writer in the “New England Historic-Genealogical Register,” vol.
     xlvii, p. 90, states, that “Mrs. Jane G. Austin found her authority
     for saying that Priscilla Mullens was of a Huguenot family, in Dr.
     Baird’s ‘History of Huguenot Emigration to America,’ vol. i.
     p. 158,” etc., referring to Rev. Charles W. Baird, D. D., New York.
     The reference given is a notable specimen of very bad historical
     work. Of Dr. Baird, one has a right to expect better things, and
     the positiveness of his reckless assertion might well mislead those
     not wholly familiar with the facts involved, as it evidently has
     more than one. He states, without qualification or reservation,
     that “among the passengers in the SPEEDWELL were several of the
     French who had decided to cast in their lot with these English
     brethren. William Molines and his daughter Priscilla, afterwards
     the wife of John Alden and Philip Delanoy, born in Leyden of French
     parents, were of the number.” One stands confounded by such a
     combination of unwarranted errors. Not only is it not true that
     there “were several of the French among the passengers in the
     SPEEDWELL,” but there is no evidence whatever that there was even
     one. Those specifically named as there, certainly were not, and
     there is not the remotest proof or reason to believe, that William
     Mullens (or Molines) and his daughter Priscilla (to say nothing of
     the wife and son who accompanied him to America, whom Baird forgets)
     ever even saw Leyden or Delfshaven. Their home had been at Dorking
     in Surrey, just across the river from London, whence the MAY-FLOWER
     sailed for New England, and nothing could be more absurd than to
     assume that they were passengers on the SPEEDWELL from Delfshaven to
     Southampton.

     So far from Philip Delanoy (De La Noye or Delano) being a passenger
     on the SPEEDWELL, he was not even one of the Pilgrim company, did
     not go to New England till the following year (in the FORTUNE), and
     of course had no relation to the SPEEDWELL. Neither does Edward
     Winslow—the only authority for the parentage of “Delanoy”—state
     that “he was born in Leyden,” as Baird alleges, but only that “he
     was born of French parents . . . and came to us from Leyden to
     New Plymouth,”—an essential variance in several important
     particulars. Scores and perhaps hundreds of people have been led to
     believe Priscilla Mullens a French Protestant of the Leyden
     congregation, and themselves—as her descendants—“of Huguenot
     stock,” because of these absolutely groundless assertions of Dr.
     Baird. They lent themselves readily to Mrs. Austin’s fertile
     imagination and facile pen, and as “welcome lies” acquired a hold on
     the public mind, from which even the demonstrated truth will never
     wholly dislodge them. The comment of the intelligent writer in the
     “Historic-Genealogical Register” referred to is proof of this. So
     fast-rooted had these assertions become in her thought as the truth,
     that, confronted with the evidence that Master Mullens and his
     family were from Dorking in England, it does not occur to her to
     doubt the correctness of the impression which the recklessness of
     Baird had created,—that they were of Leyden,—and she hence
     amusingly suggests that “they must have moved from Leyden to
     Dorking.” These careless utterances of one who is especially bound
     by his position, both as a writer and as a teacher of morals, to be
     jealous for the truth, might be partly condoned as attributable to
     mistake or haste, except for the facts that they seem to have been
     the fountain-head of an ever-widening stream of serious error, and
     that they are preceded on the very page that bears them by others as
     to the Pilgrim exodus equally unhappy. It seems proper to suggest
     that it is high time that all lovers of reliable history should
     stand firmly together against the flood of loose statement which is
     deluging the public; brand the false wherever found; and call for
     proof from of all new and important historical propositions put
     forth.

Stephen Hopkins may possibly have had more than one wife before
     Elizabeth, who accompanied him to New England and was mother of the
     sea-born son Oceanus. Hopkins’s will indicates his affection for
     this latest wife, in unusual degree for wills of that day. With
     singular carelessness, both of the writer and his proof-reader, Hon.
     William T. Davis states that Damaris Hopkins was born “after the
     arrival” in New England. The contrary is, of course, a well
     established fact. Mr. Davis was probably led into this error by
     following Bradford’s “summary” as affecting the Hopkins family. He
     states therein that Hopkins “had one son, who became a seaman and
     died at Barbadoes probably Caleb, and four daugh ters born here.”
      To make up these “four” daughters “born here” Davis found it
     necessary to include Damaris, unmindful that Bradford names her in
     his list of MAY-FLOWER passengers. It is evident, either that
     Bradford made a mistake in the number, or that there was some
     daughter who died in infancy. It is evident that Dotey and Leister,
     the “servants” of Hopkins, were of English origin and accompanied
     their master from London.

Gilbert Winslow was a brother of Edward Winslow, a young man, said to
     have been a carpenter, who returned to England after “divers years”
      in New England. There is a possibility that he was at Leyden and
     was a passenger on the SPEEDWELL. It has been suggested that he
     spent the greater part of the time he was in New England, outside of
     the Pilgrim Colony. He took no part in its affairs.

James Chilton and his family are but little known to Pilgrim writers,
     except the daughter Mary, who came into notice principally through
     her marriage with John Winslow, another brother of Governor Edward,
     who came over later. Their name has assumed a singular prominence
     in popular regard, altogether disproportionate to either their
     personal characteristics, station, or the importance of their early
     descendants. Some unaccountable glamour of romance, without any
     substantial foundation, is probably responsible for it. They left a
     married daughter behind them in England, which is the only hint we
     have as to their home just prior to the embarkation. There has been
     a disposition, not well grounded, to regard them as of Leyden.

Richard Gardiner, Goodwin unequivocally places with the English colonists
(but on what authority does not fully appear), and he has been
claimed, but without any better warrant, for the Leyden list.

John Billington and his family were unmistakably of the English
     colonists. Mrs. Billington’s name has been variously given,
     e.g. Helen, Ellen, and Eleanor, and the same writer has used them
     interchangeably. One writer has made the inexcusable error of
     stating that “the younger son, Francis, was born after the arrival
     at New Plymouth,” but his own affidavit shows him to have been born
     in 1606.

William Latham, a “servant-boy” of Deacon Carver, has always been of
     doubtful relation, some circumstances indicating that he was of
     Leyden and hence was a SPEEDWELL passenger, but others—and these
     the more significant—rendering it probable that he was an English
     boy, who was obtained in London (like the More children) and
     apprenticed to Carver, in which case he probably came in the
     MAY-FLOWER from London, though he may have awaited her coming with
     his master at Southampton, in which case he probably originally
     embarked there, with him, on the SPEEDWELL, and was transferred
     with him, at Plymouth, to the MAY-FLOWER. There is, of course,
     also still the possibility that he came with Carver’s family from
     Leyden. Governor Carver’s early death necessarily changed his
     status somewhat, and Plymouth early records do not give much beyond
     suggestion as to what the change was; but all indications confirm
     the opinion that he was a poor boy—very likely of London or
     vicinity—taken by Carver as his “servant.”

The More children, Jasper, Richard, their brother (whose given name has
     never transpired), and Ellen, their sister, invite more than passing
     mention. The belief has always been current and confident among
     students of Pilgrim history that these More children, four in
     number, “put” or “indentured” to three of the Leyden leaders, were
     probably orphaned children of some family of the Leyden
     congregation, and were so “bound” to give them a chance in the new
     colony, in return for such services as they could render to those
     they accompanied. If thus of the Leyden contingent they would,
     of course, be enumerated as passengers in the SPEEDWELL from
     Delfshaven, but if of the English contingent they should probably be
     borne on the list of passengers sailing from London in the
     MAY-FLOWER, certainly should be reckoned as part of the English
     contingent on the MAY-FLOWER at Southampton. An affidavit of
     Richard More, perhaps the eldest of these children, indentured to
     Elder Brewster, dated in 1684., found in “Proceedings of the
     Provincial Court, Maryland Archives, vol. xiv. (‘New England
     Historic-Genealogical Register,’ vol 1. p. 203 ),” affirms the
     deponent to be then “seaventy years or thereabouts” of age, which
     would have made him some six years of age, “or thereabouts,” in
     1620. He deposes “that being in London at the house of Mr. Thomas
     Weston, Iron monger, in the year 1620, he was from there transported
     to New Plymouth in New England,” etc. This clearly identifies
     Richard More of the MAY FLOWER, and renders it well-nigh certain
     that he and his brothers and sister, “bound out” like himself to
     Pilgrim leaders, were of the English company, were probably never in
     Leyden or on the SPEEDWELL, and were very surely passengers on the
     MAY-FLOWER from London, in charge of Mr. Cushman or others. The
     fact that the lad was in London, and went from thence direct to New
     England, is good evidence that he was not of the Leyden party. The
     fair presump tion is that his brothers and sister were, like
     himself, of English birth, and humble—perhaps deceased—parents,
     taken because of their orphaned condition. It is highly improbable
     that they would be taken from London to Southampton by land, at the
     large expense of land travel in those days, when the MAY-FLOWER was
     to sail from London. That they would accompany their respective
     masters to their respectively assigned ships at Southampton is
     altogether likely. The phraseology of his affidavit suggests the
     probability that Richard More, his brothers, and sister were brought
     to Mr. Weston’s house, to be by him sent aboard the MAY-FLOWER,
     about to sail. The affidavit is almost conclusive evidence as to
     the fact that the More children were all of the English colonists’
     party, though apprenticed to Leyden families, and belonged to the
     London passenger list of the Pilgrim ship. The researches of Dr.
     Neill among the MS. “minutes” and “transactions” of the (London)
     Virginia Company show germanely that, on November 17, 1619, “the
     treasurer, council, and company” of this Virginia Company addressed
     Sir William Cockaine, Knight, Lord Mayor of the city of London, and
     the right worthys the aldermen, his brethren, and the worthys the
     “common council of the city,” and returning thanks for the benefits
     conferred, in furnishing out one hundred children this last year
     for “the plantation in Virginia” (from what Neill calls the
     “homeless boys and girls of London”), states, that, “forasmuch as we
     have now resolved to send this next spring 1620 very large
     supplies,” etc., “we pray your Lordship and the rest . . . to
     renew the like favors, and furnish us again with one hundred more
     for the next spring. Our desire is that we may have them of twelve
     years old and upward, with allowance of L3 apiece for their
     transportation, and 40s. apiece for their apparel, as was formerly
     granted. They shall be apprenticed; the boys till they come to 21
     years of age, the girls till like age or till they be married,” etc.
     A letter of Sir Edwin Sandys (dated January 28, 1620) to Sir Robert
     Naunton shows that “The city of London have appointed one hundred
     children from the superfluous multitude to be transported to
     Virginia, there to be bound apprentices upon very beneficial
     conditions.” In view of the facts that these More children—and
     perhaps others—were “apprenticed” or “bound” to the Pilgrims
     (Carver, Winslow, Brewster, etc.), and that there must have been
     some one to make the indentures, it seems strongly probable that
     these four children of one family,—as Bradford shows,—very likely
     orphaned, were among those designated by the city of London for the
     benefit of the (London) Virginia Company in the spring of 1620.
     They seem to have been waifs caught up in the westward-setting
     current, but only Richard survived the first winter. Bradford,
     writing in 1650, states of Richard More that his brothers and sister
     died, “but he is married 1636and hath 4 or 5 children.” William
     T. Davis, in his “Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth” (p. 24), states,
     and Arber copies him, that “he was afterwards called Mann; and died
     at Scituate, New England, in 1656.” The researches of Mr. George E.
     Bowman, the able Secretary of the Massachusetts Society of
     MAY-FLOWER Descendants, some time since disproved this error,
     but Mores affidavit quoted conclusively determines the matter.

The possible accessions to the company, at London or Southampton, of Henry Sampson and Humility Cooper, cousins of Edward Tilley and wife, would be added to the passengers of the pinnace rather than to the MAY-FLOWER’S, if, as seems probable, their relatives were of the SPEEDWELL. If Edward Tilley and his wife were assigned to the MAY FLOWER, room would doubtless also be found for these cousins on the ship. John Alden, the only positively known addition (except Carver) made to the list at Southampton, was, from the nature of his engagement as “cooper,” quite likely assigned to the larger ship. There are no known hints as to the assignments of passengers to the respective vessels at Southampton—then supposed to be final—beyond the remarks of Bradford that “the chief [principal ones] of them that came from Leyden went on this ship [the SPEEDWELL] to give the Master content,” and his further minute, that “Master Martin was governour in the biger ship and Master Cushman assistante.” It is very certain that Deacon Carver, one of the four agents of the colonists, who had “fitted out” the voyage in England, was a passenger in the SPEEDWELL from Southampton,—as the above mentioned remark of Bradford would suggest,—and was made “governour” of her passengers, as he later was of the whole company, on the MAY-FLOWER. It has sometimes been queried whether, in the interim between the arrival of the SPEEDWELL at Southampton and the assignment of the colonists to their respective ships (especially as both vessels were taking in and transferring cargo), the passengers remained on board or were quartered on shore. The same query has arisen, with even better reason, as to the passengers of the SPEEDWELL during the stay at Dartmouth, when the consort was being carefully overhauled to find her leaks, the suggestion being made that in this case some of them might have found accommodation on board the larger ship. The question may be fairly considered as settled negatively, from the facts that the colonists, with few exceptions, were unable to bear such extra expense themselves; the funds of the Adventurers—if any were on hand, which appears doubtful—were not available for the purpose; while the evidence of some of the early writers renders it very certain that the Leyden party were not released from residence on shipboard from the time they embarked on the SPEEDWELL at Delfshaven till the final landing in the harbor of New Plimoth. Just who of the Leyden chiefs caused themselves to be assigned to the smaller vessel, to encourage its cowardly Master, cannot be definitely known. It may be confidently assumed, however, that Dr. Samuel Fuller, the physician of the colonists, was transferred to the MAY-FLOWER, upon which were embarked three fourths of the entire company, including most of the women and children, with some of whom, it was evident, his services would be certainly in demand. There is little doubt that the good Elder (William Brewster) was also transferred to the larger ship at Southampton, while it would not be a very wild guess—in the light of Bradford’s statement—to place Carver, Winslow, Bradford, Standish, Cooke, Howland, and Edward Tilley, and their families, among the passengers on the consort. Just how many passengers each vessel carried when they sailed from Southampton will probably never be positively known. Approximately, it may be said, on the authority of such contemporaneous evidence as is available, and such calculations as are possible from the data we have, that the SPEEDWELL had thirty (30), and the MAY-FLOWER her proportionate number, ninety (90)—a total of one hundred and twenty (120).

     [Smith, New England’s Trials, ed. 1622, London, p. 259. It is a
     singular error of the celebrated navigator that he makes the ships
     to have, in less than a day’s sail, got outside of Plymouth, as he
     indicates by his words, “the next day,” and “forced their return to
     Plymouth.” He evidently intends to speak only in general terms, as
     he entirely omits the (first) return to Dartmouth, and numbers the
     passengers on the MAY-FLOWER, on her final departure, at but “one
     hundred.” He also says they “discharged twenty passengers.”]

apparently without pretending to be exact, “They left the coast of England the 23 of August, with about 120 persons, but the next day [sic] the lesser ship sprung a leak that forced their return to Plymouth; where discharging her [the ship] and twenty passengers, with the great ship and a hundred persons, besides sailors, they set sail again on the 6th of September.”

     [PG Etext Editor’s Note:
     Dr. Ames, so stringent in his requirements of other authors, for
     example Jane Austin, has to this point been perhaps naive as to
     the veracity of Captain John Smith. Captain Smith’s self-serving
     and subjective narratives of his own voyages obtained for him
     the very derogatory judgement by his contemporaries. One of the
     best studies of John Smith’s life may be found in a small book on
     this adventurer by Charles Dudley Warner. D.W.]

If the number one hundred and twenty (120) is correct, and the distribution suggested is also exact, viz. thirty (30) to the SPEEDWELL and ninety (90) to the MAY-FLOWER, it is clear that there must have been more than twelve (the number usually named) who went from the consort to the larger ship, when the pinnace was abandoned. We know that at least Robert Cushman and his family (wife and son), who were on the MAY-FLOWER, were among the number who returned to London upon the SPEEDWELL (and the language of Thomas Blossom in his letter to Governor Bradford, else where quoted, indicates that he and his son were also there), so that if the ship’s number was ninety (90), and three or more were withdrawn, it would require fifteen (15) or more to make the number up to one hundred and two (102), the number of passengers we know the MAY-FLOWER had when she took her final departure. It is not likely we shall ever be able to determine exactly the names or number of those transferred to the MAY-FLOWER from the consort, or the number or names of all those who went back to London from either vessel. Several of the former and a few of the latter are known, but we must (except for some fortunate discovery) rest content with a very accurate knowledge of the passenger list of the MAY-FLOWER when she left Plymouth (England), and of the changes which occurred in it afterward; and a partial knowledge of the ship’s own complement of officers and men.

Goodwin says: “The returning ones were probably of those who joined in England, and had not yet acquired the Pilgrim spirit.” Unhappily this view is not sustained by the relations of those of the number who are known. Robert Cushman and his family (3 persons), Thomas Blossom and his son (2 persons), and William Ring (1 person), a total of six, or just one third of the putative eighteen who went back, all belonged to the Leyden congregation, and were far from lacking “the Pilgrim spirit.” Cushman was both ill and heart-sore from fatigue, disappointment, and bad treatment; Ring was very ill, according to Cushman’s Dartmouth letter; but the motives governing Blossom and his son do not appear, unless the comparatively early death of the son—after which his father went to New England—furnishes a clue thereto. Bradford says: “Those that went back were, for the most part, such as were willing to do so, either out of some discontent, or fear they conceived of the ill success of the Voyage, seeing so many crosses befallen and the year time so far spent. But others, in regard of their own weakness and the charge of many young children, were thought [by the Managers] least useful and most unfit to bear the brunt of this hard adventure.” It is evident from the above that, while the return of most was from choice, some were sent back by those in authority, as unfit for the undertaking, and that of these some had “many young chil dren.” There are said to have been eighteen who returned on the SPEEDWELL to London. We know who six of them were, leaving twelve, or two thirds, unknown. Whether these twelve were in part from Leyden, and were part English, we shall probably never know. If any of them were from Holland, then the number of those who left Delfshaven on the SPEEDWELL is increased by so many. If any were of the English contingent, and probably the most were,—then the passenger list of the MAY-FLOWER from London to Southampton was probably, by so many, the larger. It is evident, from Bradford’s remark, that, among the twelve unknown, were some who, from “their own weakness and charge of many young children, were thought least useful and most unfit,” etc. From this it is clear that at least one family was included which had a number of young children, the parents’ “own weakness” being recognized. A father, mother, and four children (in view of the term “many”) would seem a reasonable surmise, and would make six, or another third of the whole number. The probability that the unknown two thirds were chiefly from England, rather than Holland, is increased by observation of the evident care with which, as a rule, those from the Leyden congregation were picked, as to strength and fitness, and also by the fact that their Leyden homes were broken up. Winslow remarks, “the youngest and strongest part were to go,” and an analysis of the list shows that those selected were mostly such. Bradford, in stating that Martin was “from Billericay in Essex,” says, “from which part came sundry others.” It is quite possible that some of the unknown twelve who returned were from this locality, as none of those who went on the MAY-FLOWER are understood to have hailed from there, beside the Martins.

All the colonists still intending to go to America were now gathered in one vessel. Whatever previous disposition of them had been made, or whatever relations they might have had in the disjointed record of the exodus, were ephemeral, and are now lost sight of in the enduring interest which attaches to their final and successful “going forth” as MAY-FLOWER Pilgrims.

Bradford informs us—as already noted—that, just before the departure from Southampton, having “ordered and distributed their company for either ship, as they conceived for the best,” they “chose a Governor and two or three assistants for each ship, to order the people by the way, and see to the disposing of the provisions, and such like affairs. All which was not only with the liking of the Masters of the ships, but according to their desires.” We have seen that under this arrangement —the wisdom and necessity of which are obvious—Martin was made “Governor” on the “biger ship” and Cushman his “assistante.” Although we find no mention of the fact, it is rendered certain by the record which Bradford makes of the action of the Pilgrim company on December 11, 1620, at Cape Cod,—when they “confirmed” Deacon John Carver as “Governor,”—that he was and had been such, over the colonist passengers for the voyage (the ecclesiastical authority only remaining to Elder Brewster), Martin holding certainly no higher than the second place, made vacant by Cushman’s departure.

Thus, hardly had the Pilgrims shaken the dust of their persecuting mother-country from their feet before they set up, by popular voice (above religious authority, and even that vested by maritime law in their ships’ officers), a government of themselves, by themselves, and for themselves. It was a significant step, and the early revision they made of their choice of “governors” certifies their purpose to have only rulers who could command their confidence and respect. Dr. Young says: “We know the age of but few of the Pilgrims,” which has hitherto been true; yet by careful examination of reliable data, now available, we are able to deter mine very closely the ages of a considerable number, and approximately the years of most of the others, at the time of the exodus. No analysis, so far as known, has hitherto been made of the vocations (trades, etc.) represented by the MAY-FLOWER company. They were, as befitted those bent on founding a colony, of considerable variety, though it should be understood that the vocations given were, so far as ascertained, the callings the individuals who represented them had followed before taking ship. Several are known to have been engaged in other pursuits at some time, either before their residence in Holland, or during their earlier years there. Bradford tells us that most of the Leyden congregation (or that portion of it which came from England, in or about 1608) were agricultural people. These were chiefly obliged to acquire handicrafts or other occupations. A few, e.g. Allerton, Brewster, Bradford, Carver, Cooke, and Winslow, had possessed some means, while others had been bred to pursuits for which there was no demand in the Low Countries. Standish, bred to arms, apparently followed his profession nearly to the time of departure, and resumed it in the colony, adding thereto the calling which, in all times and all lands, had been held compatible in dignity with that of arms,—the pursuit of agriculture. While always the “Sword of the White Men,” he was the pioneer “planter” in the first settlement begun (at Duxbury) beyond Plymouth limits. Of the “arts, crafts or trades” of the colonists from London and neighboring English localities, but little has been gleaned. They were mostly people of some means, tradesmen rather than artisans, and at least two (Martin and Mullens) were evidently also of the Merchant Adventurers.

Their social (conjugal) conditions—not previously analyzed, it is thought—have been determined, it is believed, with approximate accuracy; though it is of course possible that some were married, of whom that fact does not appear, especially among the seamen.

The passengers of the MAY-FLOWER on her departure from Plymouth (England), as arranged for convenience by families, were as appears by the following lists.

While the ages given in these lists are the result of much careful study of all the latest available data, and are believed, when not exact, to be very close approximates; as it has been possible to arrive at results, in several cases, only by considerable calculation, the bases of which may not always have been entirely reliable, errors may have crept in. Though the author is aware that, in a few instances, the age stated does not agree with that assigned by other recognized authority, critical re-analysis seems to warrant and confirm the figures given.

The actual and comparative youth of the majority of the colonist leaders —the Pilgrim Fathers—is matter of comment, even of surprise, to most students of Pilgrim history, especially in view of what the Leyden congregation had experienced before embarking for America. Only two of the leaders exceeded fifty years of age, and of these Governor Carver died early. Of the principal men only nine could have been over forty, and of these Carver, Chilton, Martin, Mullins, and Priest (more than half died within a few months after landing), leaving Brewster, Warren (who died early), Cooke, and Hopkins—neither of the latter hardly forty—the seniors. One does not readily think of Alden as but twenty-one, Winslow as only twenty-five, Dr. Fuller as about thirty, Bradford as only thirty-one when chosen Governor, Allerton as thirty-two, and Captain Standish as thirty-six. Verily they were “old heads on young shoulders.” It is interesting to note that the dominant influence at all times was that of the Leyden contingent.

Of these, all except William Butten, who died upon the voyage, reached Cape Cod in safety, though some of them had become seriously ill from the hardships encountered, and Howland had narrowly escaped drowning. Two were added to the number en voyage,—Oceanus Hopkins, born upon the sea, and Peregrine White, born soon after the arrival in Cape Cod harbor. This made the total of the passenger list 103, before further depletion by death occurred, though several deaths again reduced it before the MAY-FLOWER cast anchor in Plymouth harbor, her final haven on the outward voyage.