The Mayflower and Her Log - LightNovelsOnl.com
You're reading novel online at LightNovelsOnl.com. Please use the follow button to get notifications about your favorite novels and its latest chapters so you can come back anytime and won't miss anything.
The real animus of Weston's backwardness, it is quite probable, lay in the designs of Gorges, which were probably not yet fully matured, or, if so, involved delay as an essential part. "And so," Cushman states, "advising together, we resolved to hire a s.h.i.+p." They evidently found one that afternoon, "of sixty last" (120 tons) which was called "a fine s.h.i.+p," and which they "took liking of [Old English for trial (Dryden), equivalent to refusal] till Monday." The same afternoon they "hired another pilot . . . one Master Clarke."--of whom further.
It seems certain that by the expression, "we have hired another pilot here, one Master Clarke," etc.; that Cushman was reckoning the "pilott"
Reynolds whom he had hired and sent over to them in Holland, as shown--as at the first, and now Clarke as "another." It nowhere appears that up to this date, any other than these two had been hired, nor had there been until then, any occasion for more than one.
If Cushman had been engaged in such important negotiations as these before he wrote his letters to Carver and the Leyden friends, on Sat.u.r.day morning, he would certainly have mentioned them. As he named neither, it is clear that they had not then occurred. It is equally certain that Cushman's appeal to Weston was not made, and his renewed activity aroused, until after these letters had been dispatched and nothing of the kind could have been done without Weston.
His letter-writing of June 10 was obviously in the morning, as proven by the great day's work Cushman performed subsequently. He must have written his letters early and have taken them to such place as his messenger had suggested (Who his messenger was does not appear, but it was not John Turner, as suggested by Arber, for he did not arrive till that night.) Cushman must then have looked up Weston and had an hour or more of earnest argument with him, for he says: "at the last [as if some time was occupied] he gathered himself up a little more" [i.e. yielded somewhat.] Then came an interval of "two hours," at the end of which Weston came to him,
[It would be highly interesting to know whether, in the two hours which intervened between Cushman's call on Weston and the latter's return call, Weston consulted Gorges and got his instructions. It is certain that he came prepared to act, and that vigorously, which he had not previously been.]
and they "advised together,"--which took time. It was by this evidently somewhat past noon, a four or five hours having been consumed. They then went to look for a s.h.i.+p and found one, which, from Cushman's remark, "but a fine s.h.i.+p it is," they must (at least superficially) have examined.
While hunting for the s.h.i.+p they seem to have come across, and to have hired, John Clarke the "pilot," with whom they necessarily, as with the s.h.i.+p's people, spent some time. It is not improbable that the approach of dusk cut short their examination of the s.h.i.+p, which they hence "took liking of [refusal of] till Monday." It is therefore evident that the "refusal" of the "sixty last" s.h.i.+p was taken, and the "pilot" Clarke was "hired," on Sat.u.r.day afternoon, June 10, as on Sunday, June 11, Cushman informed the Leyden leaders of these facts by letter, as above indicated, and gave instructions as to the SPEEDWELL'S "pilott," Master Reynolds.
We are therefore able to fix, nearly to an hour, the "turning of the tide" in the affairs of the Pilgrim movement to America.
It is also altogether probable that the Pilgrims and humanity at large are still further (indirectly) indebted to Cushman's "one more trial" and resultant Sat.u.r.day afternoon's work, for the MAY-FLOWER (though not found that day), and her able commander Jones, who, whatever his faults, safely brought the Pilgrims through stormy seas to their "promised land."
Obligations of considerable and rapidly c.u.mulative cost had now been incurred, making it imperative to go forward to embarkation with all speed, and primarily, to secure the requisite larger s.h.i.+p. Evidently Weston and Cushman believed they had found one that would serve, when on Sat.u.r.day, they "took liking," as we have seen, of the "fine s.h.i.+p" of 120 tons, "till Monday." No less able authorities than Charles Deane, Goodwin, and Brown, with others, have mistakenly concluded that this s.h.i.+p was the MAY-FLOWER, and have so stated in terms. As editor of Bradford's history "Of Plimoth Plantation," Mr. Deane (in a footnote to the letter of Cushman written Sunday, June 11), after quoting the remark, "But it is a fine s.h.i.+p," mistakenly adds, "The renowned MAYFLOWER.--Ed.," thus committing himself to the common error in this regard. John Brown, in his "Pilgrim Fathers of New England," confuses the vessels, stating that, "when all was ready for the start, a pilot came over to conduct the emigrants to England, bringing also a letter from Cushman announcing that the MAYFLOWER, a vessel of one hundred and eighty tons, Thomas Jones, Master, would start from London to Southampton in a week or two," etc.
As we have seen, these statements are out of their relation. No pilot went for that purpose and none carried such a letter (certainly none from Cushman), as alleged. Cushman's letter, sent as we know by John Turner, announced the finding of an entirely different vessel, which was neither of 180 tons burden, nor had any relation to the MAY-FLOWER or her future historic freight. Neither was there in his letter any time of starting mentioned, or of the port of Southampton as the destination of any vessel to go from London, or of Jones as captain. Such loose statements are the bane of history. Goodwin, usually so accurate, stumbles unaccountably in this matter--which has been so strangely misleading to other competent men--and makes the sadly perverted statement that, "In June, John Turner was sent, and he soon returned with a petulant (sic) letter from Cushman, which, however, announced that the s.h.i.+p MAYFLOWER had been selected and in two weeks would probably leave London for Southampton." He adds, with inexcusable carelessness in the presence of the words "sixty last" (which his dictionary would have told him, at a glance, was 120 tons), that: "This vessel (Thomas Jones, master) was rated at a hundred and eighty tons . . . . Yet she was called a fine s.h.i.+p," etc. It is evident that, like Brown, he confused the two vessels, with Cushman's letter before his eyes, from failure to compute the "sixty last." He moreover quotes Cushman incorrectly. The great disparity in size, however, should alone render this confusion impossible, and Cushman is clear as to the tonnage ("sixty last"), regretting that the s.h.i.+p found is not larger, while Bradford and all other chroniclers agree that the MAY-FLOWER was of "9 score" tons burden.
It is also evident that for some reason this smaller s.h.i.+p (found on Sat.u.r.day afternoon) was not taken, probably because the larger one, the MAY-FLOWER, was immediately offered to and secured by Masters Weston and Cushman, and very probably with general approval. Just how the MAY-FLOWER was obtained may never be certainly known. It was only on Sat.u.r.day, June 10, as we have seen, that Master Weston had seriously set to work to look for a s.h.i.+p; and although the refusal of one--not wholly satisfactory--had been prudently taken that day, it was both natural and politic that as early as possible in the following week he should make first inquiry of his fellow-merchants among the Adventurers, whether any of them had available such a s.h.i.+p as was requisite, seeking to find, if possible, one more nearly of the desired capacity than that of which he had "taken the refusal" on Sat.u.r.day. It appears altogether probable that, in reply to this inquiry, Thomas Goffe, Esq., a fellow Adventurer and s.h.i.+pping-merchant of London, offered the MAY-FLOWER, which, there is ample reason to believe, then and for ten years thereafter, belonged to him.
It is quite likely that Clarke, the newly engaged "pilot," learning that his employers required a competent commander for their s.h.i.+p, brought to their notice the master of the s.h.i.+p (the FALCON) in which he had made his recent voyage to Virginia, Captain Jones, who, having powerful friends at his back in both Virginia Companies (as later appears), and large experience, was able to approve himself to the Adventurers. It is also probable that Thomas Weston engaged him himself, on the recommendation of the Earl of Warwick, at the instance of Sir Ferdinando Gorges.
As several weeks would be required to fit the s.h.i.+p for her long voyage on such service, and as she sailed from London July 15, her charter-party must certainly have been signed by June 20, 1620. The SPEEDWELL, as appears from various sources (Bradford, Winslow et al.), sailed from Delfshaven, Sat.u.r.day, July 22. She is said to have been four days on the pa.s.sage to Southampton, reaching there Wednesday, July 26. Cushman, in his letter of Thursday, August 17, from Dartmouth to Edward Southworth, says, "We lay at Southampton seven days waiting for her" (the SPEEDWELL), from which it is evident, both that Cushman came on the MAY-FLOWER from London, and that the MAY-FLOWER must have left London at least ten days before the 26th of July, the date of the SPEEDWELL'S arrival. As given traditionally, it was on the 15th, or eleven days before the SPEEDWELL'S arrival at Southampton.
By whom the charter-party of the MAY-FLOWER was signed will probably remain matter of conjecture, though we are not without intimations of some value regarding it. Captain John Smith tells us that the Merchant Adventurers (presumably one of the contracting parties) "were about seventy, . . . not a Corporation, but knit together by a voluntary combination in a Society without constraint or penalty. They have a President and Treasurer every year newly chosen by the most voices, who ordereth the affairs of their Courts and meetings; and with the a.s.sent of most of them, undertaketh all the ordinary business, but in more weighty affairs, the a.s.sent of the whole Company is required." It would seem from the foregoing--which, from so intelligent a source at a date so contemporaneous, ought to be reliable--that, not being an incorporated body, it would be essential that all the Adventurers (which Smith expressly states was their rule) should "a.s.sent" by their signatures, which alone could bind them to so important a business doc.u.ment as this charter-party. It was certainly one of their "more weighty affairs," and it may well be doubted, also, if the owner of the vessel (even though one of their number) would accept less than the signatures of all, when there was no legal status by incorporation or co-partners.h.i.+p to hold them collectively.
If the facts were indeed as stated by Smith,--whose knowledge of what he affirmed there is no reason to doubt,--there can be little question that the contract for the service of the MAY-FLOWER was signed by the entire number of the Adventurers on the one part. If so, its covenants would be equally binding upon each of them except as otherwise therein stipulated, or provided by the law of the realm. In such case, the charter-party of the MAY-FLOWER, with the autograph of each Merchant Adventurer appended, would const.i.tute, if it could be found, one of the most interesting and valuable of historical doc.u.ments. That it was not signed by any of the Leyden congregation--in any representative capacity--is well-nigh certain. Their contracts were with the Adventurers alone, and hence they were not directly concerned in the contracts of the latter, their "agents" being but co-workers with the Adventurers (under their partners.h.i.+p agreements), in finding s.h.i.+pping, collecting moneys, purchasing supplies, and in generally promoting the enterprise. That they were not signing-parties to this contract, in particular, is made very certain by the suggestion of Cushman's letter of Sunday, June 11, to the effect that he hoped that "our friends there [at Leyden] if they be quitted of the s.h.i.+p-hire [as then seemed certain, as the Adventurers would hire on general account] will be induced to venture [invest] the more." There had evidently been a grave fear on the part of the Leyden people that if they were ever to get away, they would have to hire the necessary s.h.i.+p themselves.
There is just the shadow of a doubt thrown upon the accuracy of Smith's statement as to the non-corporate status of the Adventurers, by the loose and unwieldy features which must thereby attach to their business transactions, to which it seems probable that merchants like Weston, Andrews, Beauchamp, s.h.i.+rley, Pickering, Goffe, and others would object, unless the law at that time expressly limited and defined the rights and liabilities of members in such voluntary a.s.sociations. Neither evidences of (primary) incorporation, or of such legal limitation, have, however, rewarded diligent search. There was evidently some more definite and corporate form of owners.h.i.+p in the properties and values of the Adventurers, arrived at later. A considerable reduction in the number of proprietors was effected before 1624--in most cases by the purchase of the interests of certain ones by their a.s.sociates--for we find their holdings spoken of in that year as "sixteenths," and these shares to have sometimes been attached for their owners' debts. A letter of s.h.i.+rley, Brewer et als., to Bradford, Allerton et als., dated London, April 7, 1624, says: "If it had not been apparently sold, Mr. Beauchamp, who is of the company also, unto whom he [Weston] oweth a great deal more, had long ago attached it (as he did other's 16ths)," etc. It is exceedingly difficult to reconcile these unquestionable facts with the equal certainty that, at the "Composition" of the Adventurers with the Planters in 1626, there were forty-two who signed as of the Adventurers. The weight, however, of evidence and of probability must be held to support the conclusion that in June, 1620, the organization was voluntary, and that the charter-party of the MAY-FLOWER was signed--" on the one part "--by each of the enrolled Adventurers engaged in the Leyden congregation's colonization scheme. Goodwin' alone pretends to any certain knowledge of the matter, but although a veracious usually reliable writer, he is not infallible, as already shown, and could hardly have had access to the original doc.u.ments,--which alone, in this case, could be relied on to prove his a.s.sertion that "Shortly articles were signed by both parties, Weston acting for the Adventurers." Not a particle of confirmatory evidence has anywhere been found in Pilgrim or contemporaneous literature to warrant this statement, after exhaustive search, and it must hence, until sustained by proof, be regarded as a personal inference rather than a verity. If the facts were as appears, they permit the hope that a doc.u.ment of so much prima facie importance may have escaped destruction, and will yet be found among the private papers of some of the last survivors of the Adventurers, though with the acquisition of all their interests by the Pilgrim leaders such doc.u.ments would seem, of right, to have become the property of the purchasers, and to have been transferred to the Plymouth planters.
This all-important and historic body--the company of Merchant Adventurers--is ent.i.tled to more than pa.s.sing notice. a.s.sociated to "finance" the projected transplantation of the Leyden congregation of "Independents" to the "northern parts of Virginia," under such patronage and protection of the English government and its chartered Companies as they might be able to secure, they were no doubt primarily brought together by the efforts of one of their number, Thomas Weston, Esq., the London merchant previously named, though for some obscure reason Master John Pierce (also one of them) was their "recognized" representative in dealing with the (London) Virginia Company and the Council for the Affairs of New England, in regard to their Patents.
Bradford states that Weston "was well acquainted with some of them the Leyden leaders and a furtherer of them in their former proceedings,"
and this fact is more than once referred to as ground for their grat.i.tude and generosity toward him, though where, or in what way, his friends.h.i.+p had been exercised, cannot be learned,--perhaps in the difficulties attending their escape from "the north country" to Holland. It was doubtless largely on this account, that his confident a.s.surances of all needed aid in their plans for America were so relied upon; that he was so long and so fully trusted; and that his abominable treachery and later abuse were so patiently borne.
We are indebted to the celebrated navigator, Captain John Smith, of Virginia fame, always the friend of the New England colonists, for most of what we know of the organization and purposes of this Company. His ample statement, worthy of repet.i.tion here, recites, that "the Adventurers which raised the stock to begin and supply this Plantation, were about seventy: some, Gentlemen; some, Merchants; some, handicraftsmen; some adventuring great sums, some, small; as their estates and affections served . . . . These dwell most about London.
They are not a corporation but knit together, by a voluntary combination, in a Society, with out constraint or penalty; aiming to do good and to plant Religion." Their organization, officers, and rules of conduct, as given by Smith, have already been quoted. It is to be feared from the conduct of such men as Weston, Pierce, Andrews, s.h.i.+rley, Thornell, Greene, Pickering, Alden, and others, that profitable investment, rather than desire "to do good and to plant Religion," was their chief interest.
That the higher motives mentioned by Smith governed such tried and steadfast souls as Ba.s.s, Brewer, Collier, Fletcher, Goffe, Hatherly, Ling, Mullens, Poc.o.c.k, Thomas, and a few others, there can be no doubt.
[Weston wrote Bradford, April 10, 1622, "I perceive and know as well as another ye disposition of your adventurers, whom ye hope of gaine hath drawne on to this they have done; and yet I fear ye hope will not draw them much further." While Weston's character was utterly bad, and he had then alienated his interest in both Pilgrims and Adventurers, his judgment of men was evidently good.]
No complete list of the original "seventy" has ever been found, and we are indebted for the names of forty-two, of the fifty who are now known, to the final "Composition" made with the Pilgrim colonists, through the latter's representatives, November 15/25, 1626, as given by Bradford, and to private research for the rest. The list of original members of the company of Merchant Adventurers, as ascertained to date, is as follows.
More extended mention of them appears in the notes appended to this list.
Robert Allden, Thomas Fletcher, Emanuel Altham, Thomas Goffe, Richard Andrews, Peter Gudburn, Thomas Andrews, William Greene, Lawrence Anthony, Timothy Hatherly, Edward Ba.s.s, Thomas Heath, John Beauchamp, William Hobson, Thomas Brewer, Robert Holland, Henry Browning, Thomas Hudson, William Collier, Robert Keayne, Thomas Coventry, Eliza Knight, John Knight, John Revell, Miles Knowles, Newman Rookes, John Ling, Samuel Sharpe, Christopher Martin(Treasurer pro tem.), James s.h.i.+rley (Treasurer), Thomas Millsop, William Thomas, Thomas Mott, John Thornell William Mullens, Fria Newbald, Matthew Thornell William Pennington, William Penrin. Joseph Tilden, Edward Pickering, Thomas Ward, John Pierce, John White, John Poc.o.c.k, John Wincob, Daniel Poynton, Thomas Weston, William Quarles, Richard Wright.
s.h.i.+rley, in a letter to Governor Bradford, mentions a Mr. Fogge and a Mr.
Coalson, in a way to indicate that they might have been, like himself, Collier, Thomas, Hatherly, Beauchamp, and Andrews, also of the original Merchant Adventurers, but no proof that they were such has yet been discovered. It has been suggested that Sir Edwin Sandys was one of the number, at the inception of the enterprise, but--though there is evidence to indicate that he stood the friend of the Pilgrims in many ways, possibly lending them money, etc.--there is no proof that he was ever one of the Adventurers. It is more probable that certain promoters of Higginson's and Winthrop's companies, some ten years later, were early financial sponsers of the MAY-FLOWER Pilgrims. Some of them were certainly so, and it is likely that others not known as such, in reality, were. Bradford suggests, in a connection to indicate the possibility of his having been an "Adventurer," the name of a "Mr. Denison," of whom nothing more is known. George Morton of London, merchant, and friend of the leaders from the inception, and later a colonist, is sometimes mentioned as probably of the list, but no evidence of the fact as yet appears. Sir George Farrer and his brother were among the first of the Adventurers, but withdrew themselves and their subscriptions very early, on account of some dissatisfaction.
It is impossible, in the s.p.a.ce at command, to give more than briefest mention of each of these individual Adventurers.
Allden. Was at one time unfriendly to the Pilgrims,--Bradford calls him "one of our powerfullest opposers,"--but later their ally. Little is known of him. He appears to have been of London.
Altham. Was Master of the pinnace LITTLE JAMES, belonging chiefly to Fletcher, and apparently expected to command her on her voyage to New Plymouth in 1623, as consort of the ANNE, but for some reason did not go, and William Bridge went as her Master, in his stead.
Andrews (Richard). Was one of the wealthiest and most liberal of the Adventurers. He was a haberdasher of Cheapside, London, and an Alderman of the city. He became an early proprietor and liberal benefactor of the Ma.s.sachusetts Bay Company, but most illogically gave the debt due him from Plymouth Colony (L540) to the stronger and richer Bay Colony. He had been, however, unjustly prejudiced against the Pilgrims, probably through the deceit of Pierce, Weston, s.h.i.+rley, and Allerton.
Andrews (Thomas). A Lord Mayor of London, reputed a brother of the last-named. Never very active in the Adventurers' affairs, but friendly, so far as appears.
Anthony. Little or nothing is known concerning him.
Ba.s.s. Was one of the enduring friends of the struggling Colony and loaned them money when they were in dire straits and the prospect of recovery was not good. He was of London, and considerable is known concerning him.
Beauchamp. Was one of the most active of the Company for many years.
Generally to be relied upon as the Colony's friend, but not without some sordid self seeking. Apparently a wealthy citizen and "salter"
of London.
Brewer. Is too well-known as long the partner of Brewster in the conduct of the "hidden press" at Leyden, and as a sufferer for conscience'
sake, to require identification. He was a wealthy man, a scholar, writer, printer, and publisher. Was of the University of Leyden, but removed to London after the departure of the chief of the Pilgrims. Was their stanch friend, a loyal defender of the faith, and spent most of his later life in prison, under persecution of the Bishops.
Browning. Does not appear to have been active, and little is known of him.
Collier. Was a stanch and steadfast friend. Finally cast in his lot with the Pilgrims at New Plymouth and became a leading man in the government there. His life is well known. He was a "brewer."
Coventry. Appears only as a signer, and nothing is known of him.
Fletcher. Was a well-to-do merchant of London, a warm friend and a reliance of the Pilgrims. The loss of the LITTLE JAMES was a severe blow to him financially.
Greene. Appears to have been a merchant and a partner in Holland (and perhaps at London) of Edward Pickering. They were well acquainted personally with the Pilgrims, and should have been among their most liberal and surest friends. Facts indicate, however, that they were sordid in their interest and not entirely just.
Goffe. Was a London merchant and s.h.i.+p-owner, as else where appears.
He was not only a Merchant Adventurer, but a patentee and deputy-governor of the Ma.s.sachusetts Company, and an intimate friend of Winthrop. He lost heavily by his New England ventures.
There is, as shown elsewhere, good reason to believe that he was the owner of the MAY-FLOWER on her historic voyage, as also when she came over in Higginson's and Winthrop's fleets, ten years later.
Gudburn. Appears only as a signer, so far as known.
Hatherly. Was a well-to-do friend of the Pilgrims, and after many complaints had been made against them among the "Purchasers"
--arising out of the rascality of s.h.i.+rley and Allerton--went to New England on a mission of inquiry. He was perfectly convinced of the Pilgrims' integrity and charmed with the country. He made another visit, and removed thither in 1633, to remain. He became at once prominent in the government of New Plimoth Colony.
Heath. Does not appear to have been active, and naught is known of him.
Hobson. Is known only as a signer of the "Composition."
Holland. Was a friend and ally of the Pilgrims, and one of their correspondents. He is supposed to have been of the ancient house of that name and to have lived in London.
Hudson. Was not active, and appears as a signer only.