The Mayflower and Her Log Part 10

That Weston was a most pliant and efficient tool in the hands of Gorges, "from start to finish" of this undertaking, is certainly apparent.

Whether he was, from the outset, made fully aware of the sinister designs of the chief conspirator, and a party to them, admits of some doubt, though the conviction strengthens with study, that he was, from the beginning, 'particeps criminis'. If he was ever single-minded for the welfare of the Leyden brethren and the Adventurers, it must have been for a very brief time at the inception of the enterprise; and circ.u.mstances seem to forbid crediting him with honesty of purpose, even then. The weight of evidence indicates that he both knew, and was fully enlisted in, the entire plot of Gorges from the outset. In all its early stages he was its most efficient promoter, and seems to have given ample proof of his compliant zeal in its execution. His visit to the Leyden brethren in Holland was, apparently, wholly instigated by Gorges, as the latter complacently claims and collateral evidence proves. In his endeavor to induce the leaders to "break off with the Dutch," their pending negotiations for settlement at "Hudson's River," he evidently made capital of, and traded upon, his former kindness to some of them when they were in straits,--a most contemptible thing in itself, yet characteristic of the man. He led the Pilgrims to "break off" their dealings with the Dutch by the largest and most positive promises of greater advantages through him, few of which he ever voluntarily kept (as we see by John Robinson's sharp arraignment of him), his whole object being apparently to get the Leyden party into his control and that of his friends,--the most subtle and able of whom was Gorges. Bradford recites that Weston not only urged the Leyden leaders "not to meddle with ye Dutch," but also,--"not too much to depend on ye Virginia [London]

Company," but to rely on himself and his friends. This strongly suggests active cooperation with Gorges, on Weston's part, at the outset, with the intent (if he could win them by any means, from allegiance to the First (London) Virginia Company), to lead the Leyden party, if possible, into Gorges's hands and under the control and patronage of the Second (or Plymouth) Virginia Company. Whatever the date may have been, at which (as Bradford states) the Leyden people "heard, both by Mr. Weston and others, yt sundrie Honble: Lords had obtained a large grante from ye king for ye more northerly parts of that countrie, derived out of ye Virginia patents, and wholly secluded from theire Governmente, and to be called by another name, viz. New England, unto which Mr. Weston and the chiefe of them begane to incline;" Bradford leaves us in no doubt as to Weston's att.i.tude toward the matter itself. It is certain that the governor, writing from memory, long afterward, fixed the time at which the Honble: Lords had obtained "their large grante" much earlier than it could possibly have occurred, as we know the exact date of the patent for the, "Council for New England," and that the order for its issue was not given till just as the Pilgrims left Leyden; so that they could not have known of the actual "grante" till they reached Southampton. The essential fact, stated on this best of authority, is, that "Mr. Weston and the chiefe of them [their sponsors, i.e. Weston and Lord Warwick, both in league with Gorges] begane to incline to Gorges's new Council for New England." Such an att.i.tude (evidently taken insidiously) meant, on Weston's part, of necessity, no less than treachery to his a.s.sociates of the Adventurers; to the (London) Virginia Company, and to the Leyden company and their allied English colonists, in the interest of Sir Ferdinando Gorges and his schemes and of the new "Council" that Gorges was organizing. Weston's refusal to advance "a penny" to clear the departing Pilgrims from their port charges at Southampton; his almost immediate severance of connection with both the colonists and the Adventurers; and his early a.s.sociation with Gorges,--in open and disgraceful violation of all the formers' rights in New England,--to say nothing of his exhibition of a malevolence rarely exercised except toward those one has deeply wronged, all point to a complete and positive surrender of himself and his energies to the plot of Gorges, as a full partic.i.p.ant, from its inception. In his review of the Anniversary Address of Hon. Charles Francis Adams (of July 4, 1892, at Quincy), Daniel W.

Baker, Esq., of Boston, says: "The Pilgrim Fathers were influenced in their decision to come to New England by Weston, who, if not the agent of Gorges in this particular matter, was such in other matters and held intimate relations with him."

The known facts favor the belief that Gorges's cogitations on colonial matters--especially as stimulated by his plottings in relation to the Leyden people--led to his project of the grant--and charter for the new "Council for New England," designed and const.i.tuted to supplant, or override, all others. It is highly probable that this grand scheme --duly embellished by the crafty Gorges,--being unfolded to Weston, with suggestions of great opportunities for Weston himself therein, warmed and drew him, and brought him to full and zealous cooperation in all Gorges's plans, and that from this time, as Bradford states, he "begane to incline" toward, and to suggest to the Pilgrims, a.s.sociation with Gorges and the new "Council." Not daring openly to declare his change of allegiance and his perfidy, he undertook, apparently, at first, by suggestions, e.g. "not to place too much dependence on the London Company, but to rely on himself and friends;" that "the fis.h.i.+ng of New England was good," etc.; and making thus no headway, then, by a policy of delay, fault finding, etc., to breed dissatisfaction, on the Pilgrims'

part, with the Adventurers, the patent of Wincob, etc., with the hope of bringing about "a new deal" in the Gorges interest. The same "delays" in sailing, that have been adduced as proof of Jones's complicity with the Dutch, would have been of equal advantage to these n.o.ble schemers, and if he had any hand in them-which does not appear--it would have been far more likely in the interest of his long-time patron, the Earl of Warwick, and of his friends, than of any Dutch conspirators.

Once the colonists were landed upon the American soil, especially if late in the season, they would not be likely, it doubtless was argued, to remove; while by a liberal policy on the part of the "Council for New England" toward them--when they discovered that they were upon its territory--they could probably be retained. That just such a policy was, at once and eagerly, adopted toward them, as soon as occasion permitted, is good proof that the scheme was thoroughly matured from the start. The record of the action of the "Council for New England"--which had become the successor of the Second Virginia Company before intelligence was received that the Pilgrims had landed on its domain--is not at hand, but it appears by the record of the London Company, under date of Monday, July 16/26, 1621, that the "Council for New England" had promptly made itself agreeable to the colonists. The record reads: "It was moved, seeing that Master John Pierce had taken a Patent of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, and thereupon seated his Company [the Pilgrims] within the limits of the Northern Plantations, as by some was supposed,"' etc. From this it is plain that, on receipt by Pierce of the news that the colony was landed within the limits of the "Council for New England," he had, as instructed, applied for, and been given (June 1, 1621), the (first) "Council" patent for the colony. For confirmation hereof one should see also the minutes of the "Council for New England" of March 25/April 4., 1623, and the fulsome letter of Robert Cushman returning thanks in behalf of the Planters (through John Pierce), to Gorges, for his prompt response to their request for a patent and for his general complacency toward them Hon. James Phinney Baxter, Gorges's able and faithful biographer, says: "We can imagine with what alacrity he [Sir Ferdinando] hastened to give to Pierce a patent in their behalf." The same biographer, clearly unconscious of the well-laid plot of Gorges and Warwick (as all other writers but Neill and Davis have been), bears testimony (all the stronger because the witness is unwitting of the intrigue), to the ardent interest Gorges had in its success. He says: "The warm desire of Sir Ferdinando Gorges to see a permanent colony founded within the domain of the Plymouth [or Second] Virginia Company was to be realized in a manner of which he had never dreamed [sic!] and by a people with whom he had but little sympathized, although we know that he favored their settlement within the territorial limits of the Plymouth [Second] Company." He had indeed "favored their settlement," by all the craft of which he was master, and greeted their expected and duly arranged advent with all the jubilant open-handedness with which the hunter treats the wild horse he has entrapped, and hopes to domesticate and turn to account. Everything favored the conspirators. The deflection north-ward from the normal course of the s.h.i.+p as she approached the coast, bound for the lat.i.tude of the Hudson, required only to be so trifling that the best sailor of the Pilgrim leaders would not be likely to note or criticise it, and it was by no means uncommon to make Cape Cod as the first landfall on Virginia voyages. The lateness of the arrival on the coast, and the difficulties ever attendant on doubling Cape Cod, properly turned to account, would increase the anxiety for almost any landing-place, and render it easy to retain the sea-worn colonists when once on sh.o.r.e. The grand advantage, however, over and above all else, was the entire ease and certainty with which the cooperation of the one man essential to the success of the undertaking could be secured, without need of the privity of any other, viz. the Master of the MAY-FLOWER, Captain Thomas Jones.

Let us see upon what the a.s.sumption of this ready and certain accord on the part of Captain Jones rests. Rev. Dr. Neill, whose thorough study of the records of the Virginia Companies, and of the East India Company Calendars and collateral data, ent.i.tles him to speak with authority, recites that, "In 1617, Capt. Thomas Jones (sometimes spelled Joanes) had been sent to the East Indies in command of the s.h.i.+p LION by the Earl of Warwick (then Sir Robt. Rich), under a letter of protection from the Duke of Savoy, a foreign prince, ostensibly 'to take pirates,' which [pretext]

had grown, as Sir Thomas Roe (the English amba.s.sador with the Great Mogul) states, 'to be a common pretence for becoming pirate.'" Caught by the famous Captain Martin Pring, in full pursuit of the junk of the Queen Mother of the Great Mogul, Jones was attacked, his s.h.i.+p fired in the fight, and burned,--with some of his crew,--and he was sent a prisoner to England in the s.h.i.+p BULL, arriving in the Thames, January 1, 1618/19. No action seems to have been taken against him for his offences, and presumably his employer, Sir Robert, the coming Earl, obtained his liberty on one pretext or another. On January 19, however, complaint was made against Captain Jones, "late of the LION," by the East India Company, "for hiring divers men to serve the King of Denmark in the East Indies." A few days after his arrest for "hiring away the Company's men, Lord Warwick got him off" on the claim that he had employed him "to go to Virginia with cattle." From the "Transactions" of the Second Virginia Company, of which--as we have seen--Sir Ferdinando Gorges was the leading spirit, it appears that on "February 2, 1619/20, a commission was allowed Captain Thomas Jones of the FALCON, a s.h.i.+p of 150 tons" [he having been lately released from arrest by the Earl of Warwick's intercession], and that "before the close of the month, he sailed with cattle for Virginia," as previously noted. Dr. Neill, than whom there can be no better authority, was himself satisfied, and unequivocally states, that "Thomas Jones, Captain of the MAY-FLOWER, was without doubt the old servant of Lord Warwick in the East Indies." Having done Sir Robert Rich's (the Earl of Warwick's) "dirty work" for years, and having on all occasions been saved from harm by his n.o.ble patron (even when piracy and similar practices had involved him in the meshes of the law), it would be but a trifling matter, at the request of such powerful friends as the Earl and Sir Ferdinando Gorges, to steal the Pilgrim Colony from the London Virginia Company, and hand it over bodily to the "Council for New England,"--the successor of the Second (Plymouth) Virginia Company,--in which their interests were vested, Warwick having, significantly, transferred his members.h.i.+p from the London Company to the new "Council for New England," as it was commonly called. Neill states, and there is abundant proof, that "the Earl of Warwick and Gorges were in sympathy," and were active coadjutors, while it is self-evident that both would be anxious to accomplish the permanent settlement of the "Northern Plantations" held by their Company. That they would hesitate to utilize so excellent an opportunity to secure so very desirable a colony, by any means available, our knowledge of the men and their records makes it impossible to believe,--while nothing could apparently have been easier of accomplishment. It will readily be understood that if the conspirators were these men,--upon whose grace the Pilgrims must depend for permission to remain upon the territory to which they had been inveigled, or even for permission to depart from it, without spoliation, --men whose influence with the King (no friend to the Pilgrims) was sufficient to make both of them, in the very month of the Pilgrims'

landing, "governors" of "The Council for New England," under whose authority the Planters must remain,--the latter were not likely to voice their suspicions of the trick played upon them, if they discovered it, or openly to resent it, when known. Dr. Dexter, in commenting on the remark of Bradford, "We made Master Jones our leader, for we thought it best herein to gratifie his kindness & forwardness," sensibly says, "This proves nothing either way, in regard to the charge which Secretary Morton makes of treachery against Jones, in landing the company so far north, because, if that were true, it was not known to any of the company for years afterward, and of course could not now [at that time] impair their feelings of confidence in, or kindness towards, him. Moreover, the phraseology, "we thought it best to gratifie," suggests rather considerations of policy than cordial desire, and their acquaintance, too, with the man was still young. There is, however, no evidence that Jones's duplicity was suspected till long afterward, though his character was fully recognized. Gorges himself furnishes, in his writings, the strongest confirmation we have of the already apparent fact, that he was himself the prime conspirator. He says, in his own "Narration," "It was referred [evidently by himself] to their [the London Virginia Company's] consideration, how necessary it was that means might be used to draw unto those their enterprises, some of those families that had retired themselves into Holland for scruple of conscience, giving them such freedom and liberty as might stand with their liking." When have we ever found Sir Ferdinando Gorges thus solicitous for the success of the rival Virginia Company? Why, if he so esteemed the Leyden people as excellent colonists, did he not endeavor to secure them himself directly, for his own languis.h.i.+ng company? Certainly the "scruple of conscience" of the Leyden brethren did not hinder him, for he found it no bar, though of the Established Church himself, to giving them instantly all and more than was asked in their behalf, as soon as he had them upon his territory and they had applied for a patent. He well knew that it would be matter of some expense and difficulty to bring the Leyden congregation into agreement to go to either of the Virginia grants, and he doubtless, and with good reason, feared that his repute and the character and reputation of his own Company, with its past history of failure, convict settlers, and loose living, would be repellent to these people of "conscience." If they could be brought to the "going-point,"

by men more of their ilk, like Sir Edwin Sandys, Weston, and others, it would then be time to see if he could not pluck the ripe fruit for himself,--as he seems to have done.

"This advice," he says, "being hearkened unto, there were [those] that undertook the putting it in practice [Weston and others] and it was accordingly brought to effect," etc. Then, reciting (erroneously) the difficulties with the SPEEDWELL, etc., he records the MAY-FLOWER'S arrival at Cape Cod, saying, "The . . . s.h.i.+p with great difficulty reached the coast of New England." He then gives a glowing, though absurd, account of the attractions the planters found--in midwinter --especially naming the hospitable reception of the Indians, despite the fact of the savage attack made upon them by the Nausets at Cape Cod, and adds: "After they had well considered the state of their affairs and found that the authority they had from the London Company of Virginia, could not warrant their abode in that place," which "they found so prosperous and pleasing [sic] they hastened away their s.h.i.+p, with orders to their Solicitor to deal with me to be a means they might have a grant from the Council of New England Affairs, to settle in the place, which was accordingly performed to their particular satisfaction and good content of them all." One can readily imagine the crafty smile with which Sir Ferdinando thus guilelessly recorded the complete success of his plot. It is of interest to note how like a needle to the pole the grand conspirator's mind flies to the fact which most appeals to him --that they find "that the authority they had . . . could not warrant their abode in that place." It is of like interest to observe that in that place which he called "pleasant and prosperous" one half their own and of the s.h.i.+p's company had died before they hastened the s.h.i.+p away, and they had endured trial, hards.h.i.+ps, and sorrows untellable,--although from pluck and principle they would not abandon it. He tells us "they hastened away their s.h.i.+p," and implies that it was for the chief purpose of obtaining through him a grant of the land they occupied. While we know that the s.h.i.+p did not return till the following April,--and then at her Captain's rather than the Pilgrims' pleasure,--it is evident that Gorges could think of events only as incident to his designs and from his point of view. His plot had succeeded. He had the "Holland families"

upon his soil, and his willing imagination converted their sober and deliberate action into the eager haste with which he had planned that they should fly to him for the patent, which his cunning had--as he purposed--rendered necessary. Of course their request "was performed,"

and so readily and delightedly that, recognizing John Pierce as their mouthpiece and the plantation as "Mr. Pierces Plantation," Sir Ferdinando and his a.s.sociates--the "Council for New England," including his joint-conspirator, the Earl of Warwick--gave Pierce unhesitatingly whatever he asked. The Hon. William T. Davis, who alone among Pilgrim historians (except Dr. Neill, whom he follows) seems to have suspected the hand of Gorges in the treachery of Captain Jones, here demonstrated, has suggested that: "Whether Gorges might not have influenced Pierce, in whose name the patent of the Pilgrims had been issued--and whether both together might not have seduced Capt. Jones, are further considerations to be weighed, in solving the problem of a deviation from the intended voyage of the MAYFLOWER." Although not aware of these suggestions, either of Mr. Davis or of Dr. Neill, till his own labors had satisfied him of Gorges's guilt, and his conclusions were formed, the author cheerfully recognizes the priority to his own demonstration, of the suggestions of both these gentlemen. No thing appears of record, however, to indicate that John Pierce was in any way a party to Gorges's plot. On the contrary, as his interest was wholly allied to his patent, which Gorges's scheme would render of little value to his a.s.sociate Adventurers and himself he would naturally have been, unless heavily bribed to duplicity beyond his expectations from their intended venture, the last man to whom to disclose such a conspiracy. Neither was he necessary in any way to the success of the scheme. He did not hire either the s.h.i.+p or her master; he does not appear to have had any Pilgrim relations to Captain Jones, and certainly could have had no such influence with him as Gorges could himself command, through Warwick and his own ability--from his position at the head of the "New England Council"--to reward the service he required. That Gorges was able himself to exert all the influence requisite to secure Jones's cooperation, without the aid of Pierce, who probably could have given none, is evident. Mr. Davis's suggestion, while pertinent and potential as to Gorges, is clearly wide of the mark as to Pierce. He represented the Adventurers in the matter of patents only, but Weston was in authority as to the pivotal matter of s.h.i.+pping. An evidently hasty footnote of Dr. Neill, appended to the "Memorial" offered by him to the Congress of the United States, in 1868, seems to have been the only authority of Mr. William T. Davis for the foregoing suggestion as to the complicity of Pierce in the treachery of Captain Jones, except the bare suspicion, already alluded to, in the records of the London Company.

Neill says: "Captain Jones, the navigator of the MAY-FLOWER, and John Pierce, probably had arranged as to destination without the knowledge of the pa.s.sengers." While of course this is not impossible, there is, as stated, absolutely nothing to indicate any knowledge, partic.i.p.ation, or need of Pierce in the matter, and of course the fewer there were in the secret the better.

Un.o.bservant that John Pierce was acting upon the old adage, "second thief best owner," when he asked, a little later, even so extraordinary a thing as that the "Council for New England" would exchange the patent they had so promptly granted him (as representing his a.s.sociates, the Adventurers and Planters) for a "deed-pole," or t.i.tle in fee, to himself alone, they instantly complied, and thus unwittingly enabled him also to steal the colony, and its demesne beside. It is evident, from the very servile letter of Robert Cushman to John Pierce (written while the former was at New Plymouth, in November-December, 1621, on behalf of the MAY-FLOWER Adventurers), that up to that time at least, the Pilgrims had no suspicion of the trick which had been played upon them. For, while too adroit recklessly to open a quarrel with those who could--if they chose --destroy them, the Pilgrims were far too high-minded to stoop to flattery and dissimulation (especially with any one known to have been guilty of treachery toward them), or to permit any one to do so in their stead.

In the letter referred to, Cush man acknowledges in the name of the colonists the "bounty and grace of the President and Council of the Affairs of New England [Gorges, Warwick, et als.] for their allowance and approbation" of the "free possession and enjoyment" of the territory and rights so promptly granted Pierce by the Council, in the colonists'

interest, upon application. If the degree of promptness with which the wily Gorges and his a.s.sociates granted the pet.i.tion of Pierce, in the colony's behalf for authority to occupy the domain to which Gorges's henchman Jones had so treacherously conveyed them, was at all proportionate to the fulsome and lavish acknowledgments of Cushman, there must have been such eagerness of compliance as to provoke general suspicion at the Council table. Gorges and Warwick must have "grinned horribly behind their hands" upon receipt of the honest thanks of these honest planters and the pious benedictions of their scribe, knowing themselves guilty of detestable conspiracy and fraud, which had frustrated an honest purpose, filched the results of others' labors, and had "done to death" good men and women not a few. Winslow, in "Hypocrisie Unmasked," says: "We met with many dangers and the mariners'

put back into the harbor of the Cape." The original intent of the Pilgrims to go to the neighborhood of the Hudson is unmistakable; that this intention was still clear on the morning of November 10 (not 9th) --after they had "made the land"--has been plainly shown; that there was no need of so "standing in with the land" as to become entangled in the "rips" and "shoals" off what is now known as Monomoy (in an effort to pa.s.s around the Cape to the southward, when there was plenty of open water to port), is clear and certain; that the dangers and difficulties were magnified by Jones, and the abandonment of the effort was urged and practically made by him, is also evident from Winslow's language above noted,--"and the mariners put back," etc. No indication of the old-time consultations with the chief men appears here as to the matter of the return. Their advice was not desired. "The mariners put back" on their own responsibility.

Goodwin forcibly remarks, "These waters had been navigated by Gosnold, Smith, and various English and French explorers, whose descriptions and charts must have been familiar to a veteran master like Jones. He doubtless magnified the danger of the pa.s.sage [of the shoals], and managed to have only such efforts made as were sure to fail. Of course he knew that by standing well out, and then southward in the clear sea, he would be able to bear up for the Hudson. His professed inability to devise any way for getting south of the Cape is strong proof of guilt."

The sequential acts of the Gorges conspiracy were doubtless practically as follows:--

(a) The Leyden leaders applied to the States General of Holland, through the New Netherland Company, for their aid and protection in locating at the mouth of "Hudson's" River;

(b) Sir Dudley Carleton, the English amba.s.sador at the Hague, doubtless promptly reported these negotiations to the King, through Sir Robert Naunton;

(c) The King, naturally enough, probably mentioned the matter to his intimate and favorite, Sir Ferdinando Gorges, the leading man in American colonization matters in the kingdom;

(d) Sir Ferdinando Gorges, recognizing the value of such colonists as the Leyden congregation would make, anxious to secure them, instead of permitting the Dutch to do so, and knowing that he and his Company would be obnoxious to the Leyden leaders, suggested, as he admits, to Weston, perhaps to Sandys, as the Leyden brethren's friends, that they ought to secure them as colonists for their (London) Company;

(e) Weston was dispatched to Holland to urge the Leyden leaders to drop the Dutch negotiations, come under English auspices, which he guaranteed, and they, placing faith in him, and possibly in Sandys's a.s.surances of his (London) Virginia Company's favor, were led to put themselves completely into the hands of Weston and the Merchant Adventurers; the Wincob patent was cancelled and Pierces subst.i.tuted;

(f) Weston, failing to lead them to Gorges's company, was next deputed, perhaps by Gorges's secret aid, to act with full powers for the Adventurers, in securing s.h.i.+pping, etc.;

(g) Having made sure of the Leyden party, and being in charge of the s.h.i.+pping, Weston was practically master of the situation. He and Cushman, who was clearly entirely innocent of the conspiracy, had the hiring of the s.h.i.+p and of her officers, and at this point he and his acts were of vital importance to Gorges's plans. To bring the plot to a successful issue it remained only to effect the landing of the colony upon territory north of the 41st parallel of north lat.i.tude, to take it out of the London Company's jurisdiction, and to do this it was only necessary to make Jones Master of the s.h.i.+p and to instruct him accordingly. This, with so willing a servant of his masters, was a matter of minutes only, the instructions were evidently given, and the success of the plot--the theft of the MAY-FLOWER colony--was a.s.sured.

To a careful and candid student of all the facts, the proofs are seemingly unmistakable, and the conclusion is unavoidable, that the MAY-FLOWER Pilgrims were designedly brought to Cape Cod by Captain Jones, and their landing in that lat.i.tude was effected, in pursuance of a conspiracy entered into by him, not with the Dutch, but with certain of the n.o.bility of England; not with the purpose of keeping the planters out of Dutch territory, but with the deliberate intent of stealing the colony from the London Virginia Company, under whose auspices it had organized and set sail, in the interest, and to the advantage, of its rival Company of the "Northern Plantations."

It is noteworthy that Jones did not command the MAY-FLOWER for another voyage, and never sailed afterward in the employ of Thomas Goffe, Esq., or (so far as appears) of any reputable s.h.i.+powner. Weston was not such, nor were the chiefs of the "Council for New England," in whose employ he remained till his death.

The records of the Court of the "Council" show, that "as soon as it would do," and when his absence would tend to lull suspicion as to the parts played, Captain Jones's n.o.ble patrons took steps to secure for him due recognition and compensation for his services, from the parties who were to benefit directly, with themselves, by his knavery. The records read:

"July 17, 1622. A motion was made in the behaffe of Captaine Thomas Jones, Captaine of the DISCOVERY, nowe employed in Virginia for trade and fis.h.i.+nge [it proved, apparently, rather to be piracy], that he may be admitted a freeman in this Companie in reward of the good service he hath there [Virginia in general] performed. The Court liked well of the motion and condiscended thereunto." The DISCOVERY left London at the close of November, 1621. She arrived at Jamestown, Virginia, in April, 1622. She reached Plymouth, New England, in August, 1622. Her outward voyage was not, so far as can be learned, eventful, or ent.i.tled to especial consideration or recognition, and the good store of English trading-goods she still had on hand--as Governor Bradford notices--on her arrival at Plymouth indicates no notable success up to that time, in the way of a trading-voyage, while "fis.h.i.+ng" is not mentioned. For piracy, in which she was later more successful, she had then had neither time nor opportunity. The conclusion is irresistible, that "the good service" recognized by the vote recorded was of the past (he had sailed only the MAY-FLOWER voyage for the "Council" before), and that this recognition was a part of the compensation previously agreed upon, if, in the matter of the MAY-FLOWER voyage, Captain Jones did as he was bidden. Thus much of the crafty Master of the MAY-FLOWER, Captain Thomas Jones,--his Christian name and ident.i.ty both apparently beyond dispute, --whom we first know in the full tide of his piratical career, in the corsair LION in Eastern seas; whom we next find as a prisoner in London for his misconduct in the East, but soon Master of the cattle-s.h.i.+p FALCON on her Virginia voyage; whom we greet next--and best--as Admiral of the Pilgrim fleet, commander of the destiny freighted MAY-FLOWER, and though a conspirator with n.o.bles against the devoted band he steered, under the overruling hand of their Lord G.o.d, their unwitting pilot to "imperial labors" and mighty honors, to the founding of empire, and to eternal Peace; whom we next meet--fallen, "like Lucifer, never to hope again"

--as Captain of the little buccaneer,--the DISCOVERY, disguised as a trading-s.h.i.+p, on the Virginian and New England coasts; and lastly, in charge of his leaking prize, a Spanish frigate in West Indian waters, making his way--death-stricken--into the Virginia port of Jamestown, where (July, 1625), he "cast anchor" for the last time, dying, as we first found him, a pirate, to whom it had meantime been given to "minister unto saints."

Of JOHN CLARKE, the first mate of the MAY-FLOWER, we have already learned that he had been in the employ of the First (or London) Virginia Company, and had but just returned (in June, 1620) from a voyage to Virginia with Captain Jones in the FALCON, when found and employed by Weston and Cushman for the Pilgrim s.h.i.+p. Dr. Neill quotes from the "Minutes of the London Virginia Company," of Wednesday, February 13/23, 1621/2, the following; which embodies considerable information concerning him:--

"February 13th, 1621. Master Deputy acquainted the Court, that one Master John Clarke being taken from Virginia long since [Arber interpolates, "in 1612"] by a Spanish s.h.i.+p that came to discover the Plantation, that forasmuch as he hath since that time done the Company presumably the First (or London) Virginia Company good service in many voyages to Virginia; and, of late [1619] went into Ireland, for the transportation of cattle to Virginia; he was a humble suitor to this Court that he might be a Free brother of the Company, and have some shares of land bestowed upon him."

From the foregoing he seems to have begun his American experiences as early as 1612, and to have frequently repeated them. That he was at once hired by Weston and Cushman as a valuable man, as soon as found, was not strange.

He seems to have had the ability to impress men favorably and secure their confidence, and to have been a modest and reliable man. Although of both experience and capacity, he continued an under-officer for some years after the Pilgrim voyage, when, it is fair to suppose, he might have had command of a s.h.i.+p. He seems to have lacked confidence in himself, or else the breadth of education necessary to make him trust his ability as a navigator.

He is not mentioned, in connection with the affairs of the Pilgrims, after he was hired as "pilot,"--on Sat.u.r.day afternoon the 10th of June, 1620, at London,--until after the arrival at Cape Cod, and evidently was steadily occupied during all the experience of "getting away" and of the voyage, in the faithful performance of his duty as first mate (or "pilot") of the MAY-FLOWER. It was not until the "third party" of exploration from Cape Cod harbor was organized and set out, on Wednesday, December 6, that he appeared as one of the company who put out in the shallop, to seek the harbor which had been commended by Coppin, "the second mate." On this eventful voyage--when the party narrowly escaped s.h.i.+pwreck at the mouth of Plymouth harbor--they found shelter under the lee of an island, which (it being claimed traditionally that he was first to land there on) was called, in his honor, "Clarke's Island," which name it retains to this day. No other mention of him is made by name, in the affairs of s.h.i.+p or sh.o.r.e, though it is known inferentially that he survived the general illness which attacked and carried off half of the s.h.i.+p's company. In November, 1621,--the autumn following his return from the Pilgrim voyage,--he seems to have gone to Virginia as "pilot" (or "mate") of the FLYING HART, with cattle of Daniel Gookin, and in 1623 to have attained command of a s.h.i.+p, the PROVIDENCE, belonging to Mr. Gookin, on a voyage to Virginia where he arrived April 10, 1623, but died in that colony soon after his arrival. He seems to have been a competent and faithful man, who filled well his part in life. He will always have honorable mention as the first officer of the historic MAY-FLOWER, and as sponsor at the English christening of the smiling islet in Plymouth harbor which bears his name.

Of ROBERT COPPIN, the "second mate" (or "pilot") of the MAY-FLOWER, nothing is known before his voyage in the Pilgrim s.h.i.+p, except that he seems to have made a former to the coast of New England and the vicinity of Cape Cod, though under what auspices, or in what s.h.i.+p, does not transpire. Bradford says: "Their Pilotte, one Mr. Coppin, who had been in the countrie before." Dr. Young a suggests that Coppin was perhaps on the coast with Smith or Hunt. Mrs. Austin imaginatively makes him, of "the whaling bark SCOTSMAN of Glasgow," but no warrant whatever for such a conception appears.

Dr. Dexter, as elsewhere noted, has said: "My impression is that Coppin was originally hired to go in the SPEEDWELL, . . . that he sailed with them [the Pilgrims] in the SPEED WELL, but on her final putting back was transferred to the MAY-FLOWER." As we have seen in another relation, Dr. Dexter also believed Coppin to have been the "pilot" sent over by Cushman to Leyden, in May, 1620, and we have found both views to be untenable. It was doubtless because of this mistaken view that Dr.

Dexter believed that Coppin was "hired to go in the SPEEDWELL," and, the premise being wrong, the conclusion is sequentially incorrect. But there are abundant reasons for thinking that Dexter's "impression" is wholly mistaken. It would be unreasonable to suppose (as both vessels were expected to cross the ocean), that each had not--certainly on leaving Southampton her full complement of officers. If so, each undoubtedly had her second mate. The MAY-FLOWER'S officers and crew were, as we know, hired for the voyage, and there is no good reason to suppose that the second mate of the MAY-FLOWER was dismissed at Plymouth and Coppin put in his place which would not be equally potent for such an exchange between the first mate of the SPEEDWELL and Clarke of the MAY-FLOWER. The a.s.sumption presumes too much. In fact, there can be no doubt that Dexter's misconception was enbased upon, and arose from, the unwarranted impression that Coppin was the "pilot" sent over to Leyden. It is not likely that, when the SPEEDWELL'S officers were so evidently anxious to escape the voyage, they would seek transfer to the MAY-FLOWER.

Charles Deane, the editor of Bradford's "Historie" (ed.1865), makes, in indexing, the clerical error of referring to Coppin as the "master-gunner," an error doubtless occasioned by the fact that in the text referred to, the words, "two of the masters-mates, Master Clarke and Master Coppin, the master-gunner," etc., were run so near together that the mistake was readily made.

In "Mourt's Relation" it appears that in the conferences that were held aboard the s.h.i.+p in Cape Cod harbor, as to the most desirable place for the colonists to locate, "Robert Coppin our pilot, made relation of a great navigable river and great harbor in the headland of the Bay, almost right over against Cape Cod, being a right line not much above eight leagues distant," etc. Mrs. Jane G. Austin a.s.serts, though absolutely without warrant of any reliable authority, known tradition, or probability, that "Coppin's harbor . . . afterward proved to be Cut River and the site of Marshfield," but in another place she contradicts this by stating that it was "Jones River, Duxbury." As Coppin described his putative harbor, called "Thievish Harbor," a "great navigable river and good harbor" were in close relation, which was never true of either the Jones River or "Cut River" localities, while any one familiar with the region knows that what Mrs. Austin knew as "Cut River" had no existence in the Pilgrims' early days, but was the work of man, superseding a small river-mouth (Green Harbor River), which was so shallow as to have its exit closed by the sand-s.h.i.+ft of a single storm.

Young, with almost equal recklessness, says: "The other headland of the bay," alluded to by Coppin, was Manomet Point, and the river was probably the North River in Scituate; but there are no "great navigable river and good harbor" in conjunction in the neighborhood of Manomet, or of the North River,--the former having no river and the latter no harbor. If Coppin had not declared that he had never seen the mouth of Plymouth harbor before ("mine eyes never saw this place before"), it might readily have been believed that Plymouth harbor was the "Thievish Harbor" of his description, so well do they correspond.

Goodwin, the brother of Mrs. Austin, quite at variance with his sister's conclusions, states, with every probability confirming him, that the harbor Coppin sought "may have been Boston, Ipswich, Newburyport, or Portsmouth."

As a result of his "relation" as to a desirable harbor, Coppin was made the "pilot" of the "third expedition," which left the s.h.i.+p in the shallop, Wednesday, December 6, and, after varying disasters and a narrow escape from s.h.i.+pwreck--through Coppin's mistake--landed Friday night after dark, in the storm, on the island previously mentioned, ever since called "Clarke's Island," at the mouth of Plymouth harbor.

Nothing further is known of Coppin except that he returned to England with the s.h.i.+p. He has pa.s.sed into history only as Robert Coppin, "the second mate" (or "pilot") of the MAY-FLOWER.

But one other officer in merchant s.h.i.+ps of the MAY-FLOWER cla.s.s in her day was dignified by the address of "Master" (or Mister), or had rank with the Captain and Mates as a quarter-deck officer,--except in those instances where a surgeon or a chaplain was carried. That the MAY-FLOWER carried no special s.h.i.+p's-surgeon has been supposed from the fact of Dr.

Fuller's attendance alike on her pa.s.sengers and crew, and the increased mortality of the seamen--after his removal on sh.o.r.e.

[The author is greatly indebted to his esteemed friend, Mr. George Ernest Bowman, Secretary-General of the Society of MAY-FLOWER Descendants, for information of much value upon this point. He believes that he has discovered trustworthy evidence of the existence of a small volume bearing upon its t.i.tle-page an inscription that would certainly indicate that the MAY-FLOWER had her own surgeon. A copy of the inscription, which Mr. Bowman declares well attested (the book not being within reach), reads as follows:-- "To Giles Heale Chirurgeon, from Isaac Allerton in Virginia.

Feb. 10, 1620."

Giles Heale's name will be recognized as that of one of the witnesses to John Carver's copy of William Mullens's nuncupative will, and, if he was the s.h.i.+p's-surgeon, might very naturally appear in that relation. If book and inscription exist and the latter is genuine, it would be indubitable proof that Heale (who was surely not a MAY-FLOWER pa.s.senger) was one of the s.h.i.+p's company, and if a "chirurgeon," the surgeon of the s.h.i.+p, for no other Englishmen, except those of the colonists and the s.h.i.+p's company, could have been at New Plymouth, at the date given, and New England was then included in the term "Virginia." It is much to be hoped that Mr.

Bowman's belief may be established, and that in Giles Heale we shall have another known officer, the surgeon, of the MAY-FLOWER.]

That she had no chaplain goes without saying. The Pilgrims had their spiritual adviser with them in the person of Elder Brewster, and were not likely to tolerate a priest of either the English or the Romish church on a vessel carrying them. The officer referred to was the representative of the business interests of the owner or chartering-party, on whose account the s.h.i.+p made the voyage; and in that day was known as the "s.h.i.+p's-merchant," later as the "purser," and in some relations as the "supercargo." No mention of an officer thus designated, belonging to the MAY-FLOWER, has ever been made by any writer, so far as known, and it devolves upon the author to indicate his existence and to establish, so far as possible, both this and his ident.i.ty.

A certain "Master Williamson," whose name and presence, though but once mentioned by Governor Bradford, have greatly puzzled Pilgrim historians, seems to have filled this berth on board the MAY-FLOWER. Bradford tells us that on Thursday, March 22, 1620/21, "Master Williamson" was designated to accompany Captain Standish--practically as an officer of the guard--to receive and escort the Pokanoket chief, Ma.s.sasoit, to Governor Carver, on the occasion of the former's first visit of state.

Prior to the recent discovery in London, by an American genealogist, of a copy of the nuncupative will of Master William Mullens, one of the MAY-FLOWER Pilgrims, clearly dictated to Governor John Carver on board the s.h.i.+p, in the harbor of New Plymouth (probably) Wednesday, February 21, 1620 (though not written out by Carver till April 2, 1620), on which day (as we learn from Bradford), Master Mullens died, no other mention of "Master Williamson" than that above quoted was known, and his very existence was seriously questioned. In this will, as elsewhere noted, "Master Williamson" is named as one of the "Overseers." By most early writers it was held that Bradford had unwittingly subst.i.tuted the name "Williamson" for that of Allerton, and this view--apparently for no better reasons than that both names had two terminal letters in common, and that Allerton was a.s.sociated next day with Standish on some military duty--came to be generally accepted, and Allerton's name to be even frequently subst.i.tuted without question.---Miss Marcia A. Thomas, in her "Memorials of Marshfield" (p. 75), says: "In 1621, Master Williamson, Captain Standish, and Edward Winslow made a journey to make a treaty with Ma.s.sasoit. He is called 'Master George,' meaning probably Master George Williamson," etc.

This is certainly most absurd, and by one not familiar with the exceptional fidelity and the conscientious work of Miss Thomas would rightly be denounced as reckless and reprehensible fabrication. Of course Williamson, Standish, and Winslow made no such journey, and made no treaty with Ma.s.sasoit, but aided simply in conducting, with due ceremonial, the first meeting between Governor John Carver and the Indian sachem at Plymouth, at which a treaty was concluded. There is no historical warrant whatever for the name of "George," as appertaining to "Master William son." The fact, however,--made known by the fortunate discovery mentioned,--that "Master Williamson" was named in his will by Master Mullens as one of its "Overseers," and undoubtedly probated the will in England, puts the existence of such a person beyond reasonable doubt. That he was a person of some dignity, and of very respectable position, is shown by the facts that he was chosen as Standish's a.s.sociate, as lieutenant of the guard, on an occasion of so much importance, and was thought fit by Master Mullens, a careful and clear-headed man as his will proves,--to be named an "Overseer" of that will, charged with responsible duties to Mullens's children and property. It is practically certain that on either of the above-mentioned dates (February 21, or March 22) there were no human beings in the Colony of New Plymouth beside the pa.s.sengers of the MAY-FLOWER, her officers and crew, and the native savages. Visitors, by way of the fis.h.i.+ng vessels on the Maine coast, had not yet begun to come, as they did a little later. It is certain that no one of the name of "Williamson" was among the colonist pa.s.sengers, or indeed for several years in the colony, and we may at once dismiss both the pa.s.sengers and the savages from our consideration. This elimination renders it inevitable that "Master Williamson" must have been of the s.h.i.+p's company. It remains to determine, if possible, what position upon the MAY-FLOWER'S roster he presumably held. His selection by "Master"

Mullens as one of the "Over seers" of his will suggests the probability that, having named Governor Carver as the one upon whom he would rely for the care of his family and affairs in New England, Mr. Mullens sought as the other a proper person, soon to return to England, and hence able to exercise like personal interest in his two children and his considerable property left there? Such a suggestion points to a returning and competent officer of the s.h.i.+p. That "Master Williamson"

was above the grade of "petty officer," and ranked at least with the mates or "pilots," is clear from the fact that he is invariably styled "Master" (equivalent to Mister), and we know with certainty that he was neither captain nor mate. That he was a man of address and courage follows the fact that he was chosen by Standish as his lieutenant, while the choice in and of itself is a strong bit of presumptive proof that he held the position on the MAY-FLOWER to which he is here a.s.signed.

The only officer commonly carried by a s.h.i.+p of the MAY-FLOWER cla.s.s, whose rank, capacities, and functions would comport with every fact and feature of the case, was "the s.h.i.+p's-merchant," her accountant, factor, and usually--when such was requisite--her "interpreter," on every considerable (trading) voyage.