Kitabı oku: «The Mayflower and Her Log; July 15, 1620-May 6, 1621. Volume 2»
CHAPTER III
THE MAY-FLOWER'S CHARTER AND THE ADVENTURERS
The ship MAY-FLOWER was evidently chartered about the middle of June, 1620 at London, by Masters Thomas West Robert Cushman acting together in behalf of the Merchant Adventurers (chiefly of London) and the English congregation of "Separatists" (the "Pilgrims"), at Leyden in Holland who, with certain of England associated, proposed to colony in America.
Professor Arber, when he says, in speaking of Cushman and Weston, "the hiring of the MAY-FLOWER, when they did do it, was their act alone, and the Leyden church nothing to do with it," seems to forget that Cushman and his associate Carver had no other function or authority in their conjunction with Weston and Martin, except to represent the Leyden congregation. Furthermore, it was the avowed wish of Robinson (see his letter dated June 14, 1620, to John Carver), that Weston "may [should] presently succeed in hiring" [a ship], which was equivalent to hoping that Carver and Cushman—Weston's associates representing Leyden—would aid in so doing. Moreover, Bradford expressly states that: "Articles of Agreement, drawn by themselves were, by their [the Leyden congregation's] said messenger [Carver] sent into England, who together with Robert Cushman were to receive moneys and make provisions, both for shipping, and other things for the voyage."
Up to Saturday, June 10, nothing had been effected in the way of providing shipping for the migrating planters though the undertaking had been four months afoot—beyond the purchase and refitting, in Holland, by the Leyden people themselves, of a pinnace of sixty tons (the SPEEDWELL) intended as consort to a larger ship—and the hiring of a "pilott" to refit her, as we have seen.
The Leyden leaders had apparently favored purchasing also the larger vessel still needed for the voyage, hoping, perhaps, to interest therein at least one of their friends, Master Edward Pickering, a merchant of Holland, himself one of the Adventurers, while Master Weston had, as appears, inclined to hire. From this disagreement and other causes, perhaps certain sinister reasons, Weston had become disaffected, the enterprise drooped, the outlook was dubious, and several formerly interested drew back, until shipping should be provided and the good faith of the enterprise be thus assured.
It transpires from Robinson's letter dated June 14., before quoted (in which he says: "For shipping, Master Weston, it should seem is set upon hiring"), that Robinson's own idea was to purchase, and he seems to have dominated the rest. There is perhaps a hint of his reason for this in the following clause of the same letter, where he writes: "I do not think Master Pickering [the friend previously named] will ingage, except in the course of buying ['ships?'—Arber interpolates] as in former letters specified." If he had not then "ingaged" (as Robinson intimates), as an Adventurer, he surely did later, contrary to the pastor's prediction, and the above may have been a bit of special pleading. Robinson naturally wished to keep their, affairs, so far as possible, in known and supposedly friendly hands, and had possibly some assurances that, as a merchant, Pickering would be willing to invest in a ship for which he could get a good charter for an American voyage. He proved rather an unstable friend.
Robinson is emphatic, in the letter cited, as to the imperative necessity that shipping should be immediately provided if the enterprise was to be held together and the funds subscribed were to be secured. He evidently considered this the only guaranty of good faith and of an honest intention to immediately transport the colony over sea, that would be accepted. After saying, as already noted, that those behind-hand with their payments refuse to pay in "till they see shipping provided or a course taken for it," he adds, referring to Master Weston: "That he should not have had either shipping ready before this time, or at least certain [i.e. definite] means and course, and the same known to us, for it; or have taken other order otherwise; cannot in [according to] my conscience be excused."
Bradford also states that one Master Thomas Weston a merchant of London, came to Leyden about the same time [apparently while negotiations for emigration under their auspices were pending with the Dutch, in February or March, 1620], who was "well acquainted with some of them and a furtherer of them in their former proceedings…. and persuaded them…. not to meddle with the Dutch," etc. This Robinson confirms in his letter to Carver before referred to, saying: "You know right well we depend on Master Weston alone,…. and when we had in hand another course with the Dutchman, broke it off at his motion."
On the morning of the 10th of June, 1620, Robert Cushman, one of the Leyden agents at London, after writing to his associate, Master John Carver, then at Southampton; and to the Leyden leaders—in reply to certain censorious letters received by him from both these sources— although disheartened by the difficulties and prospects before him, sought Master Weston, and by an urgent appeal so effectively wrought upon him, that, two hours later, coming to Cushman, he promised "he would not yet give it [the undertaking] up." Cushman's patience and endurance were evidently nearly "at the breaking point," for he says in his letter of Sunday, June 11, when success had begun to crown his last grand effort: "And, indeed, the many discouragements I find here [in London] together with the demurs and retirings there [at Leyden] had made me to say, 'I would give up my accounts to John Carver and at his coming from Southampton acquaint him fully with all courses [proceedings] and so leave it quite, with only the poor clothes on my back: But gathering up myself by further consideration, I resolved yet to make one trial more," etc. It was this "one trial more" which meant so much to the Pilgrims; to the cause of Religion; to America; and to Humanity. It will rank with the last heroic and successful efforts of Robert the Bruce and others, which have become historic. The effect of Cushman's appeal upon Weston cannot be doubted. It not only apparently influenced him at the time, but, after reflection and the lapse of hours, it brought him to his associate to promise further loyalty, and, what was much better, to act. 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 ship." They evidently found one that afternoon, "of sixty last" (120 tons) which was called "a fine ship," 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 Saturday 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 ship and found one, which, from Cushman's remark, "but a fine ship it is," they must (at least superficially) have examined. While hunting for the ship they seem to have come across, and to have hired, John Clarke the "pilot," with whom they necessarily, as with the ship's people, spent some time. It is not improbable that the approach of dusk cut short their examination of the ship, which they hence "took liking of [refusal of] till Monday." It is therefore evident that the "refusal" of the "sixty last" ship was taken, and the "pilot" Clarke was "hired," on Saturday 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 Saturday 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 cumulative cost had now been incurred, making it imperative to go forward to embarkation with all speed, and primarily, to secure the requisite larger ship. Evidently Weston and Cushman believed they had found one that would serve, when on Saturday, they "took liking," as we have seen, of the "fine ship" of 120 tons, "till Monday." No less able authorities than Charles Deane, Goodwin, and Brown, with others, have mistakenly concluded that this ship 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 ship," 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 ship 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 ship," 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 ship 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 ship (found on Saturday 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 Saturday, June 10, as we have seen, that Master Weston had seriously set to work to look for a ship; 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 ship 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 Saturday. It appears altogether probable that, in reply to this inquiry, Thomas Goffe, Esq., a fellow Adventurer and shipping-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 ship, brought to their notice the master of the ship (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 ship 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, Saturday, July 22. She is said to have been four days on the passage 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 assent of most of them, undertaketh all the ordinary business, but in more weighty affairs, the assent 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 "assent" by their signatures, which alone could bind them to so important a business document 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-partnership 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 constitute, if it could be found, one of the most interesting and valuable of historical documents. 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 partnership agreements), in finding shipping, 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 ship-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 ship themselves.
CHAPTER IV
THE MAY-FLOWER—THE SHIP HERSELF
Unhappily the early chroniclers familiar with the MAY-FLOWER have left us neither representation nor general description of her, and but few data from which we may reconstruct her outlines and details for ourselves. Tradition chiefly determines her place in one of the few classes into which the merchant craft of her day were divided, her tonnage and service being almost the only other authentic indices to this class.
Bradford helps us to little more than the statement, that a vessel, which could have been no other, "was hired at London, being of burden about 9 score" [tons], while the same extraordinary silence, which we have noticed as to her name, exists as to her description, with Smith, Bradford, Winslow, Morton, and the other contemporaneous or early writers of Pilgrim history. Her hundred and eighty tons register indicates in general her size, and to some extent her probable model and rig.
Long search for a reliable, coetaneous picture of one of the larger ships of the merchant service of England, in the Pilgrim period, has been rewarded by the discovery of the excel lent "cut" of such a craft, taken from M. Blundeville's "New and Necessarie Treatise of Navigation," published early in the seventeenth century. Appearing in a work of so high character, published by so competent a navigator and critic, and (approximately) in the very time of the Pilgrim "exodus," there can be no doubt that it quite correctly, if roughly and insufficiently, depicts the outlines, rig, and general cast of a vessel of the MAY-FLOWER type and time, as she appeared to those of that day, familiar therewith.
It gives us a ship corresponding, in the chief essentials, to that which careful study of the detail and minutiae of the meagre MAY-FLOWER history and its collaterals had already permitted the author and others to construct mentally, and one which confirms in general the conceptions wrought out by the best artists and students who have attempted to portray the historic ship herself.
Captain J. W. Collins, whose experience and labors in this relation are further alluded to, and whose opinion is entitled to respect, writes the author in this connection, as follows "The cut from Blundeville's treatise, which was published more or less contemporaneously with the MAYFLOWER, is, in my judgment, misleading, since it doubtless represents a ship of an earlier date, and is evidently [sic] reproduced from a representation on tapestry, of which examples are still to be seen (with similar ships) in England. The actual builder's plans, reproduced by Admiral Paris, from drawings still preserved, of ships of the MAYFLOWER'S time, seem to me to offer more correct and conclusive data for accurately determining what the famous ship of the Pilgrim Fathers was like."
Decidedly one of the larger and better vessels of the merchant class of her day, she presumably followed the prevalent lines of that class, no doubt correctly represented, in the main, by the few coeval pictures of such craft which have come down to us. No one can state with absolute authority, her exact rig, model, or dimensions; but there can be no question that all these are very closely determined from even the meagre data and the prints we possess, so nearly did the ships of each class correspond in their respective features in those days. There is a notable similarity in certain points of the MAY-FLOWER, as she has been represented by these different artists, which is evidence upon two points: first, that all delineators have been obliged to study the type of vessel to which she belonged from such representations of it as each could find, as neither picture nor description of the vessel herself was to be had; and second, that as the result of such independent study nearly all are substantially agreed as to what the salient features of her type and class were. A model of a ship [3 masts] of the MAY-FLOWER type, and called in the Society's catalogue "A Model of the MAY FLOWER, after De Bry," but itself labelled "Model of one of Sir Walter Raleigh's Ships," is (mistakenly) exhibited by the Pilgrim Society at Plymouth. It is by no means to be taken as a correct representation of the Pilgrim bark. Few of the putative pictures of the MAY-FLOWER herself are at all satisfactory,—apart from the environment or relation in which she is usually depicted,—whether considered from an historical, a nautical, or an artistic point of view. The only one of these found by the author which has commanded (general, if qualified) approval is that entitled "The MAY-FLOWER at Sea," a reproduction of which, by permission, is the frontispiece of this volume. It is from an engraving by the master hand of W. J. Linton, from a drawing by Granville Perkins, and appeared in the "New England Magazine" for April, 1898, as it has elsewhere. Its comparative fidelity to fact, and its spirited treatment, alike commend it to those familiar with the subject, as par excellence the modern artistic picture of the MAY-FLOWER, although somewhat fanciful, and its rig, as Captain Collies observes, "is that of a ship a century later than the MAY-FLOWER; a square topsail on the mizzen," he notes, "being unknown in the early part of the seventeenth century, and a jib on a ship equally rare." Halsall's picture of "The Arrival of the MAY-FLOWER in Plymouth Harbor," owned by the Pilgrim Society, of Plymouth, and hung in the Society's Hall, while presenting several historical inaccuracies, undoubtedly more correctly portrays the ship herself, in model, rig, etc., than do most of the well-known paintings which represent her. It is much to be regretted that the artist, in woeful ignorance, or disregard, of the recorded fact that the ship was not troubled with either ice or snow on her entrance (at her successful second attempt) to Plymouth harbor, should have covered and environed her with both.
Answering, as the MAY-FLOWER doubtless did, to her type, she was certainly of rather "blocky," though not unshapely, build, with high poop and forecastle, broad of beam, short in the waist, low "between decks," and modelled far more upon the lines of the great nautical prototype, the water-fowl, than the requirements of speed have permitted in the carrying trade of more recent years. That she was of the "square rig" of her time—when apparently no use was made of the "fore-and-aft" sails which have so wholly banished the former from all vessels of her size—goes without saying. She was too large for the lateen rig, so prevalent in the Mediterranean, except upon her mizzenmast, where it was no doubt employed.
The chief differences which appear in the several "counterfeit presentments" of the historic ship are in the number of her masts and the height of her poop and her forecastle. A few make her a brig or "snow" of the oldest pattern, while others depict her as a full-rigged ship, sometimes having the auxiliary rig of a small "jigger" or "dandy- mast," with square or lateen sail, on peak of stern, or on the bow sprit, or both, though usually her mizzenmast is set well aft upon the poop. There is no reason for thinking that the former of these auxiliaries existed upon the MAY-FLOWER, though quite possible. Her 180 tons measurement indicates, by the general rule of the nautical construction of that period, a length of from 90 to 100 feet, "from taffrail to knighthead," with about 24 feet beam, and with such a hull as this, three masts would be far more likely than two. The fact that she is always called a "ship"—to which name, as indicating a class, three masts technically attach—is also somewhat significant, though the term is often generically used. Mrs. Jane G. Austin calls the MAY-FLOWER a "brig," but there does not appear anywhere any warrant for so doing.
At the Smithsonian Institution (National Museum) at Washington, D. C., there is exhibited a model of the MAY-FLOWER, constructed from the ratio of measurements given in connection with the sketch and working plans of a British ship of the merchant MAY-FLOWER class of the seventeenth century, as laid down by Admiral Francois Edmond Paris, of France, in his "Souvenirs de Marine." The hull and rigging of this model were carefully worked out by, and under the supervision of Captain Joseph W. Collins (long in the service of the Smithsonian Institution, in nautical and kindred matters, and now a member of the Massachusetts Commission of Inland Fisheries and Game), but were calculated on the erroneous basis of a ship of 120 instead of 180 tons measurement. This model, which is upon a scale of 1/2 inch to 1 foot, bears a label designating it as "The 'MAYFLOWER' of the Puritans" [sic], and giving the following description (written by Captain Collins) of such a vessel as the Pilgrim ship, if of 120 tons burthen, as figured from such data as that given by Admiral Paris, must, approximately, have been. (See photographs of the model presented herewith.) "A wooden, carvel-built, keel vessel, with full bluff bow, strongly raking below water line; raking curved stem; large open head; long round (nearly log-shaped) bottom; tumble in top side; short run; very large and high square stern; quarter galleries; high forecastle, square on forward end, with open rails on each side; open bulwarks to main [spar] and quarter-decks; a succession of three quarter- decks or poops, the after one being nearly 9 feet above main [spar] deck; two boats stowed on deck; ship-rigged, with pole masts [i. e. masts in one piece]; without jibs; square sprit sail (or water sail under bowsprit); two square sails on fore and main masts, and lateen sail on mizzenmast."
Dimensions of Vessel. Length, over all, knightheads to taffrail, 82 feet; beam, 22 feet; depth, 14 feet; tonnage, 120; bowsprit, outboard, 40 feet 6 inches; spritsail yard, 34 feet 6 inches; foremast, main deck to top, 39 feet; total length, main [spar] deck to truck, 67 feet 6 inches; fore-yard, 47 feet 6 inches; foretopsail yard, 34 feet 1 2 inches; mainmast, deck to top, 46 feet; total, deck to truck, 81 feet; main yard, 53 feet; maintopsail yard, 38 feet 6 inches; mizzen mast, deck to top, 34 feet; total, deck to truck, 60 feet 6 inches; spanker yard, 54 feet 6 inches; boats, one on port side of deck, 17 feet long by 5 feet 2 inches wide; one on starboard side, 13 feet 6 inches long by 4 feet 9 inches wide. The above description "worked out" by Captain Collins, and in conformity to which his putative model of the "MAY FLOWER" was constructed, rests, of course, for its correctness, primarily, upon the assumptions (which there is no reason to question) that the "plates" of Admiral Paris, his sketches, working plans, dimensions, etc., are reliable, and that Captain Collins's mathematics are correct, in reducing and applying the Admiral's data to a ship of 120 tons. That there would be some considerable variance from the description given, in applying these data to a ship of 60 tons greater measurement (i.e. of 180 tons), goes without saying, though the changes would appear more largely in the hull dimensions than in the rigging. That the description given, and its expression in the model depicted, present, with considerable fidelity, a ship of the MAY-FLOWER'S class arid type, in her day,—though of sixty tons less register, and amenable to changes otherwise,—is altogether probable, and taken together, they afford a fairly accurate idea of the general appearance of such a craft.
In addition to mention of the enlargements which the increased tonnage certainly entails, the following features of the description seem to call for remark.
It is doubtful whether the vessels of this class had "open bulwarks to the main [spar] deck," or "a succession of three quarter-decks or poops." Many models and prints of ships of that period and class show but two. It is probable that if the jib was absent, as Captain Collins believes (though it was evidently in use upon some of the pinnaces and shallops of the time, and its utility therefore appreciated), there was a small squaresail on a "dandy" mast on the bowsprit, and very possibly the "sprit" or "water-sail" he describes. The length of the vessel as given by Captain Collins, as well as her beam, being based on a measurement of but 120 tons, are both doubtless less than they should be, the depth probably also varying slightly, though there would very likely be but few and slight departures otherwise from his proximate figures. The long- boat would be more likely to be lashed across the hatch amidships than stowed on the port side of the deck, unless in use for stowage purposes, as previously suggested. Captain Collins very interestingly notes in a letter to the author, concerning the measurements indicated by his model: "Here we meet with a difficulty, even if it is not insurmountable. This is found in the discrepancy which exists between the dimensions—length, breadth, and depth—requisite to produce a certain tonnage, as given by Admiral Paris and the British Admiralty. Whether this is due to a difference in estimating tonnage between France (or other countries) and Great Britain, I am unable to say, but it is a somewhat remarkable fact that the National Museum model, which was made for a vessel of 120 tons, as given by Admiral Paris who was a Frenchman, has almost exactly the proportions of length, depth, and breadth that an English ship of 180 tons would have, if we can accept as correct the lists of measurements from the Admiralty records published by Charnock . . . . In the third volume of Charnock's 'History of Marine Architecture,' p. 274., I find that a supply transport of 175 tons, built in 1759, and evidently a merchant ship originally, or at least a vessel of that class, was 79.4 feet long (tonnage measure), 22.6 feet beam, and 11.61 feet deep." The correspondence is noticeable and of much interest, but as the writer comments, all depends upon whether or not "the measurement of the middle of the eighteenth century materially differed in Great Britain from what it was in the early part of the previous century."
Like all vessels having high stems and sterns, she was unquestionably "a wet ship,"—upon this voyage especially so, as Bradford shows, from being overloaded, and hence lower than usual in the water. Captain John Smith says: "But being pestered [vexed] nine weeks in this leaking, unwholesome ship, lying wet in their cabins; most of them grew very weak and weary of the sea." Bradford says, quoting the master of the MAY- FLOWER and others: "As for the decks and upper works they would caulk them as well as they could, . . . though with the working of the ship, they would not long keep staunch." She was probably not an old craft, as her captain and others declared they "knew her to be strong and firm under water;" and the weakness of her upper works was doubtless due to the strain of her overload, in the heavy weather of the autumnal gales. Bradford says: "They met with many contrary winds and fierce storms with which their ship was shrewdly shaken and her upper works made very leaky." That the confidence of her master in her soundness below the water-line was well placed, is additionally proven by her excellent voyages to America, already noted, in 1629, and 1630, when she was ten years older.
That she was somewhat "blocky" above water was doubtless true of her, as of most of her class; but that she was not unshapely below the water-line is quite certain, for the re markable return passage she made to England (in ballast) shows that her lower lines must have been good. She made the run from Plymouth to London on her return voyage in just thirty-one days, a passage that even with the "clipper ships" of later days would have been respectable, and for a vessel of her model and rig was exceptionally good. She was "light" (in ballast), as we know from the correspondence of Weston and Bradford, the letter of the former to Governor Carver—who died before it was received—upbraiding him for sending her home "empty." The terrible sickness and mortality of the whole company, afloat and ashore, had, of course, made it impossible to freight her as intended with "clapboards" [stave-stock], sassafras roots, peltry, etc. No vessels of her class of that day were without the high poop and its cabin possibilities,—admirably adapting them to passenger service,—and the larger had the high and roomy topgallant forecastles so necessary for their larger crews. The breadth of beam was always considerably greater in that day than earlier, or until much later, necessitated by the proportionately greater height ("topsides"), above water, at stem and stern. The encroachments of her high poop and forecastle left but short waist-room; her waist-ribs limited the height of her "between decks;" while the "perked up" lines of her bow and stern produced the resemblance noted, to the croup and neck of the wild duck. That she was low "between decks" is demonstrated by the fact that it was necessary to "cut down" the Pilgrims' shallop—an open sloop, of certainly not over 30 feet in length, some 10 tons burden, and not very high "freeboard"—"to stow" her under the MAY-FLOWER'S spar deck. That she was "square-rigged" follows, as noted, from the fact that it was the only rig in use for ships of her class and size, and that she had "topsails" is shown by the fact that the "top-saile halliards" were pitched over board with John Howland, and saved his life. Bradford says: "A lustie yonge man (called John Howland) coming upon some occasion above ye grattings, was with a seele of ye shipe throwne into ye sea: but it pleased God yt he caught hould of ye top-saile halliards which hunge over board & rane out at length yet he held his hould . . . till he was haled up," etc. Howland had evidently just come from below upon the poop- deck (as there would be no "grattings" open in the waist to receive the heavy seas shipped). The ship was clearly experiencing "heavy weather" and a great lurch ("seele") which at the stern, and on the high, swinging, tilting poop-deck would be most severely felt, undoubtedly tossed him over the rail. The topsail halliards were probably trailing alongside and saved him, as they have others under like circumstances.
HER HISTORY:
In even the little we know of the later history of the ship, one cannot always be quite sure of her identity in the records of vessels of her name, of which there have been many. Dr. Nathaniel B. Shurtleff, of Boston, says that "a vessel bearing this name was owned in England about fifteen years or more before the voyage of our forefathers, but it would be impossible to prove or disprove its identity with the renowned MAY- FLOWER, however great such a probability might be. It is known, nevertheless, that—the identical famous vessel afterwards hailed from various English ports, such as London, Yarmouth, and Southampton, and that it was much used in transporting immigrants to this country. What eventually became of it and what was the end of its career, are equally unknown to history." Goodwin says: "It does not appear that the MAY- FLOWER ever revisited Plymouth, but in 1629 she came to Salem," with a company of the Leyden people for Plymouth, under command of Captain William Peirce, the warm friend of the Pilgrims, and in 1630 was one of the large fleet that attended John Winthrop, under a different master, discharging her passengers at Charlestown. Nothing is certainly known of her after that time. In 1648 a ship [hereinafter mentioned by Hunter] named the MAY-FLOWER was engaged in the slave trade, and the ill-informed as well as the ill-disposed have sometimes sneeringly alleged that this was our historic ship; but it is ascertained that the slaver was a vessel of three hundred and fifty tons,—nearly twice the size of our ship of happy memory. In 1588 the officials of Lynn (England) offered the "MAY- FLOWER" (150 tons) to join the fleet against the dreaded Spanish Armada. In 1657, Samuel Vassall, of London, complained that the government had twice impressed his ship, MAY-FLOWER, which he had "fitted out with sixty men, for the Straits." Rev. Joseph Hunter, author of "The Founders of New Plymouth," one of the most eminent antiquarians in England, and an indefatigable student of Pilgrim history among British archives, says: "I have not observed the name of MAY FLOWER [in which style he always writes it] before the year 1583 . . . . But the name soon became exceedingly popular among those to whom belonged the giving of the names to vessels in the merchant-service. Before the close of that century [the sixteenth] we have a MAY-FLOWER of Hastings; a MAY-FLOWER of Rie; a MAY-FLOWER of Newcastle: a MAY FLOWER of Lynn; and a MAY-FLOWER Of Yarmouth: both in 1589. Also a MAY-FLOWER of Hull, 1599; a MAY FLOWER of London of eighty tons burden, 1587, and 1594, Of which Richard Ireland was the master, and another MAY-FLOWER of the same port, of ninety tons burthen, of which Robert White was the master in 1594, and a third MAY- FLOWER of London, unless it is the same vessel with one of the two just spoken of, only with a different master, William Morecock. In 1587 there was a MAY-FLOWER Of Dover, of which John Tooke was the master. In 1593 there was a MAY-FLOWER of Yarmouth of 120 tons, of which William Musgrove was the master. In 1608 there was a MAY-FLOWER of Dartmouth, of which Nicholas Waterdonne was the master; and in 1609 a MAY-FLOWER of Middleburgh entered an English port."
Later in the century we find a MAY-FLOWER of Ipswich, and another of Newcastle in 1618; a MAY-FLOWER of York in 1621; a MAY-FLOWER of Scarborough in 1630, Robert Hadock the master; a MAY-FLOWER of Sandwich the same year, John Oliver the master; a MAY-FLOWER of Dover, 1633, Walter Finnis, master, in which two sons of the Earl of Berkshire crossed to Calais. "Which of these was the vessell which carried over the precious [Pilgrim] freight cannot perhaps be told [apparently neither, unless perhaps the MAY-FLOWER of Yarmouth of 1593, in which case her tonnage is incorrectly given], but we learn from Mr. Sherley's letter to Governor Bradford' that the same vessel was employed in 1629 in passing between the two countries, a company of the church at Leyden, who had joined in the first emigration, intending to pass in it to America; and in the same author we find that the vessel arrived in the harbour of Charlestown [N. E.] on July 1, 1630. There was a MAY-FLOWER which, in 1648, gained an unenviable notoriety as a slaver. But this was not the MAY-FLOWER which had carried over the first settlers, it being a vessel Of 350 tons, while the genuine MAY-FLOWER was of only 180 tons." Of the first of her two known visits, after her voyage with the Pilgrim company from Leyden, Goodwin says: "In August, 1629, the renowned MAY-FLOWER came from England to Salem under Plymouth's old friend [William] Peirce, and in her came thirty-five Leyden people, on their way to Plymouth." The number has been in dispute, but the large cost of bringing them, over L500, would suggest that their families must have also come, as has been alleged, but for the following from Governor Bradford's Letter Book: "These persons," he says, "were in all thirty-five, which came at this time unto us from Leyden, whose charge out of Holland into England, and in England till the ship was ready, and then their transportation hither, came to a great deal of money, for besides victuals and other expenses, they were all newly apparelled." Shirley, one of the Adventurers, writing to Governor Bradford in 1629, says: "Here are now many of your friends from Leyden coming over. With them also we have sent some servants, or in the ship that went lately (I think called the TALBOT), and this that these come in is the MAY-FLOWER." All that Higginson's journal tells of her, as noted, is, that "she was of Yarmouth;" was commanded by William Peirce, and carried provisions and passengers, but the fact that she was under command of Captain Peirce of itself tells much. On her next trip the MAY-FLOWER sailed from Southampton, in May, 1630, as part of Winthrop's fleet, and arrived at Charlestown July 1. She was, on this voyage, under command of a new master (perhaps a Captain Weatherby), Captain Peirce having, at this time, command of the ship LYON, apparently in the service of Plymouth Colony. A vessel of this name [MAY-FLOWER] was sailing between England and Boston in 1656. Young says: "The MAY-FLOWER is a ship of renown in the history of the colonization of New England. She was one of the five vessels which, in 1629, conveyed Higginson's company to Salem, and also one of the fleet which, in 1630, brought over his colony to Massachusetts Bay."
October 6, 1652, "Thomas Webber, Mr. of the good shipp called the MAYFLOWER of the burden of Two hundred Tuns or there abouts . . . . Rideing at Ancor in the Harber of Boston," sold one-sixteenth of the ship "for good & valluable Consideracons to Mr. John Pinchon of Springfield Mrchant." The next day, October 7, 1652, the same "Thomas Webber, Mr, of the good Shipp called the MAY FLOWER of Boston in New England now bound for the barbadoes and thence to London," acknowledges an indebtedness to Theodore Atkinson, a wealthy "hatter, felt-maker," and merchant of Boston, and the same day (October 7, 1652), the said "Thomas Webber, Mr. of the good shipp called the MAY FLOWER of the burthen of Two hundred tuns or thereabouts," sold "unto Theodore Atkinson felt-maker one- sixteenth part as well of said Shipp as of all & singular her masts Sails Sail-yards Ancors Cables Ropes Cords Gunns Gunpowder Shott Artillery Tackle Munition apparrell boate skiffe and furniture to the same belonging." It is of course possible that this was the historic ship, though, if so, reappearing twenty two years after her last known voyage to New England. If the same, she was apparently under both new master and owner. From the facts that she is called "of Boston in New England" and was trading between that port, "the Barbadoes" and London, it is not impossible that she may have been built at Boston—a sort of namesake descendant of the historic ship—and was that MAY-FLOWER mentioned as belonging, in 1657, to Mr. Samuel Vassall; as he had large interests alike in Boston, Barbadoes, and London. Masters of vessels were often empowered to sell their ships or shares in them. Although we know not where her keel was laid, by what master she was built, or where she laid her timbers when her work was done, by virtue of her grand service to humanity, her fame is secure, and her name written among the few, the immortal names that were not born to die.
