The Mayflower and Her Log - Chapter V



CHAPTER V.
THE OFFICERS AND CREW OF THE MAYFLOWER 

The officers and crew of the MAY-FLOWER were obviously important factors 
in the success of the Pilgrim undertaking, and it is of interest to know 
what we may concerning them. We have seen that the "pilot," John Clarke, 
was employed by Weston and Cushman, even before the vessel upon which he 
was to serve had been found, and he had hence the distinction of being the 
first man "shipped" of the MAY-FLOWER'S complement. It is evident that he 
was promptly hired on its being known that he had recently returned from a 
voyage to Virginia in the cattle-ship FALCON, as certain to be of value in 
the colonists' undertakings. 

Knowing that the Adventurers' agents were seeking both a ship and a master 
for her, it was the natural thing for the latter, that he should propose 
the Captain under whom he had last sailed, on much the same voyage as that 
now contemplated. It is an interesting fact that something of the 
uncertainty which for a time existed as to the names and features of the 
Pilgrim barks attaches the names and identity of their respective 
commanders. The "given" name of "Master" Reynolds, "pilott" and "Master" 
of the SPEED WELL, does not appear, but the assertion of Professor Arber, 
though positive enough, that "the Christian name of the Captain of the MAY-
FLOWER is not known," is not accepted by other authorities in Pilgrim 
history, though it is true that it does not find mention in the 
contemporaneous accounts of the Pilgrim ship and her voyage. 

There is no room for doubt that the Captain of the FALCON--whose release 
from arrest while under charge of piracy the Earl of Warwick procured, 
that he might take command of the above-named cattle-ship on her voyage to 
Virginia, as hereinafter shown--was Thomas Jones. The identity of this man 
and "Master Jones" who assumed command of the MAY-FLOWER--with the former 
mate of the FALCON, John Clarke, as his first officer--is abundantly 
certified by circumstantial evidence of the strongest kind, as is also the 
fact that he commanded the ship DISCOVERY a little later. 

With the powerful backing of such interested friends as the Earl of 
Warwick and Sir Ferdinando Gorges, undoubtedly already in league with 
Thomas Weston, who probably made the contract with Jones, as he had with 
Clarke, the suggestion of the latter as to the competency and availability 
of his late commander would be sure of prompt approval, and thus, in all 
probability, Captain Thomas Jones, who finds his chief place in history--
and a most important one--as Master of the MAY-FLOWER, came to that 
service. 

In 1619, as appears by Neill, the Virginia Company had one John Clarke in 
Ireland, "buying cattle for Virginia." We know that Captain Jones soon 
sailed for Virginia with cattle, in the FALCON, of 150 tons, and as this 
was the only cattle ship in a long period, we can very certainly identify 
Clarke as the newly-hired mate of the MAY-FLOWER, who, Cush man says 
(letter of June 11/21, 1620), "went last year to Virginia with a ship of 
kine." As 1620 did not begin until March 25, a ship sailing in February 
would have gone out in 1619, and Jones and Clarke could easily have made 
the voyage in time to engage for the MAY-FLOWER in the following June. 
"Six months after Jones's trip in the latter" (i.e. after his return from 
the Pilgrim voyage), Neill says, "he took the DISCOVERY (60 tons) to 
Virginia, and then northward, trading along the coast. The Council for New 
England complained of him to the Virginia Company for robbing the natives 
on this voyage. He stopped at Plymouth (1622), and, taking advantage of 
the distress for food he found there, was extortionate in his prices. In 
July, 1625, he appeared at Jamestown, Virginia, in possession of a Spanish 
frigate, which he said had been captured by one Powell, under a Dutch 
commission, but it was thought a resumption of his old buccaneering 
practices. Before investigation he sickened and died." 

That Jones was a man of large experience, and fully competent in his 
profession, is beyond dispute. His disposition, character, and deeds have 
been the subject of much discussion. By most writers he is held to have 
been a man of coarse, "unsympathetic" nature, "a rough sea-dog," capable 
of good feeling and kindly impulses at times, but neither governed by them 
nor by principle. That he was a "highwayman of the seas," a buccaneer and 
pirate, guilty of blood for gold, there can be no doubt. Certainly nothing 
could justify the estimate of him given by Professor Arber, that "he was 
both fair-minded and friendly toward the Pilgrim Fathers," and he 
certainly stands alone among writers of reputation in that opinion. 
Jones's selfishness,(*) threats, boorishness, and extortion, to say 
nothing of his exceedingly bad record as a pirate, both in East and West 
Indian waters, compel a far different estimate of him as a man, from that 
of Arber, however excellent he was as a mariner. Professor Arber dissents 
from Goodwin's conclusion that Captain Jones of the DISCOVERY was the 
former Master of the MAY- FLOWER, but the reasons of his dissent are by no 
means convincing. He argues that Jones would not have accepted the command 
of a vessel so much smaller than his last, the DISCOVERY being only one 
third the size of the MAY-FLOWER. Master-mariners, particularly when just 
returned from long and unsuccessful voyages, especially if in bad repute,--
as was Jones,-- are obliged to take such employment as offers, and are 
often glad to get a ship much smaller than their last, rather than remain 
idle. Moreover, in Jones's case, if, as appears, he was inclined to 
buccaneering, the smaller ship would serve his purpose--as it seems it did 
satisfactorily. Nor is the fact that Bradford speaks of him--although 
previously so well acquainted--as "one Captain Jones," to be taken as 
evidence, as Arber thinks, that the Master of the DISCOVERY was some other 
of the name. Bradford was writing history, and his thought just then was 
the especial Providence of God in the timely relief afforded their 
necessities by the arrival of the ships with food, without regard to the 
individuals who brought it, or the fact that one was an acquaintance of 
former years. On the other hand, Winslow--in his "Good Newes from New 
England"-- records the arrival of the two ships in August, 1622, and says, 
"the one as I take [recollect] it, was called the DISCOVERY, Captain Jones 
having command thereof," which on the same line of argument as Arber's 
might be read, "our old acquaintance Captain Jones, you know"! If the 
expression of Bradford makes against its being Captain Jones, formerly of 
the MAY- FLOWER, Winslow's certainly makes quite as much for it, while the 
fact which Winslow recites, viz. that the DISCOVERY, under Jones, was 
sailing as consort to the SPARROW, a ship of Thomas Weston,--who employed 
him for the MAY-FLOWER, was linked with him in the Gorges conspiracy, and 
had become nearly as degenerate as he,--is certainly significant. There 
are still better grounds, as will appear in the closely connected 
relations of Jones, for holding with Goodwin rather than with Arber in the 
matter. The standard authority in the case is the late Rev. E. D. Neill, 
D. D., for some years United States consul at Dublin, who made very 
considerable research into all matters pertaining to the Virginia 
Companies, consulting their original records and "transactions," the Dutch 
related documents, the "Calendars of the East India Company," etc. Upon 
him and his exhaustive work all others have largely drawn,--notably 
Professor Arber himself,--and his conclusions seem entitled to the same 
weight here which Arber gives them in other relations. Dr. Neill is 
clearly of opinion that the Captains of the MAY-FLOWER and the DISCOVERY 
were identical, and this belief is shared by such authorities in Pilgrim 
literature as Young, Prince, Goodwin, and Davis, and against this 
formidable consensus of opinion, Arber, unless better supported, can 
hardly hope to prevail. 

(* Bradford himself--whose authority in the matter will not be doubted--
says (Historie, Mass. ed. p. 112): "As this calamitie, the general 
sickness, fell among ye passengers that were to be left here to plant, and 
were basted ashore and made to drinke water, that the sea-men might have 
ye more bear [beer] and one in his sickness desiring but a small can of 
beare it was answered that if he were their own father he should have 
none." Bradford also shows (op. cit. p. 153) the rapacity of Jones, when 
in command of the DISCOVERY, in his extortionate demands upon the Plymouth 
planters, notwithstanding their necessities.)

The question of Jones's duplicity and fraud, in bringing the Pilgrims to 
land at Cape Cod instead of the "neighbor-hood of Hudson's River," has 
been much mooted and with much diversity of opinion, but in the light of 
the subjoined evidence and considerations it seems well-nigh impossible to 
acquit him of the crime--for such it was, in inception, nature, and 
results, however overruled for good. 

The specific statements of Bradford and others leave no room for doubt 
that the MAY-FLOWER Pilgrims fully intended to make their settlement 
somewhere in the region of the mouth of "Hudson's River." Morton states in 
terms that Captain Jones's "engagement was to Hudson's River." Presumably, 
as heretofore noted, the stipulation of his charter party required that he 
should complete his outward voyage in that general locality. The northern 
limits of the patents granted in the Pilgrim interest, whether that of 
John Wincob (or Wincop) sealed June 9/ 19, 1619, but never used, or the 
first one to John Pierce, of February 2/12, 1620, were, of course, brought 
within the limits of the First (London) Virginia Company's charter, which 
embraced, as is well-known, the territory between the parallels of 34 deg. 
and 41 deg. N. latitude. The most northerly of these parallels runs but 
about twenty miles to the north of the mouth of "Hudson's River." It is 
certain that the Pilgrims, after the great expense, labor, and pains of 
three years, to secure the protection of these Patents, would not 
willingly or deliberately, have planted themselves outside that 
protection, upon territory where they had none, and where, as interlopers, 
they might reasonably expect trouble with the lawful proprietors. Nor was 
there any reason why, if they so desired, they should not have gone to 
"Hudson's River" or its vicinity, unless it was that they had once seemed 
to recognize the States General of Holland as the rightful owners of that 
territory, by making petition to them, through the New Netherland Company, 
for their authority and protection in settling there. But even this fact 
constituted no moral or legal bar to such action, if desirable First, 
because it appears certain that, whatever the cause, they "broke off" 
themselves their negotiations with the Dutch,--whether on account of the 
inducements offered by Thomas Weston, or a doubt of the ability of the 
Dutch to maintain their claim to that region, and to protect there, or 
both, neither appears nor matters. Second, because the States General--
whether with knowledge that they of Leyden had so "broken off" or from 
their own doubts of their ability to maintain their claim on the Hudson 
region, does not appear--rejected the petition made to them in the 
Pilgrims' behalf. It is probable that the latter was the real reason, from 
the fact that the petition was twice rejected. 

In view of the high opinion of the Leyden brethren, entertained, as we 
know, by the Dutch, it is clear that the latter would have been pleased to 
secure them as colonists; while if at all confident of their rights to the 
territory, they must have been anxious to colonize it and thus confirm 
their hold, increase their revenues as speedily as possible, and 

Third, because it appears upon the showing of the petition itself, made by 
the New Netherland Company (to which the Leyden leaders had looked, 
doubtless on account of its pretensions, for the authority and protection 
of the States General, as they afterward did to the English Virginia 
Company for British protection), that this Company had lost its own 
charter by expiration, and hence had absolutely nothing to offer the 
Leyden people beyond the personal and associate influence of its members, 
and the prestige of a name that had once been potential. In fact, the New 
Netherland Company was using the Leyden congregation as a leverage to pry 
for itself from the States General new advantages, larger than it had 
previously enjoyed. 

Moreover it appears by the evidence of both the petition of the Directors 
of the New Netherland Company to the Prince of Orange (February 2/12, 
1619/20), and the letters of Sir Dudley Carleton, the British ambassador 
at the Hague, to the English Privy Council, dated February 5/15, 1621/22, 
that, up to this latter date the Dutch had established no colony(*) on the 
territory claimed by them at the Hudson, and had no other representation 
there than the trading-post of a commercial company whose charter had 
expired. There can be no doubt that the Leyden leaders knew, from their 
dealings with the New Netherland Company, and the study of the whole 
problem which they evidently made, that this region was open to them or 
any other parties for habitation and trade, so far as any prior grants or 
charters under the Dutch were concerned, but they required more than this. 

(* British State Papers, Holland, Bundle 165. Sir Dudley Carleton's 
Letters. "They have certain Factors there, continually resident, trading 
with savages . . . but I cannot learn of any colony, either I already 
planted there by these people, or so much as intended." Sir Dudley 
Carleton's Letters.)

To Englishmen, the English claim to the territory at "Hudson's River" was 
valid, by virtue of the discovery of the Cabots, under the law of nations 
as then recognized, not withstanding Hudson's more particular explorations 
of those parts in 1609, in the service of Holland, especially as no colony 
or permanent occupancy of the region by the Dutch had been made. 

Professor John Fiske shows that "it was not until the Protestant England 
of Elizabeth had come to a life-and-death grapple with Spain, and not 
until the discovery of America had advanced much nearer completion, so 
that its value began to be more correctly understood, that political and 
commercial motives combined in determining England to attack Spain through 
America, and to deprive her of supremacy in the colonial and maritime 
world. Then the voyages of the Cabots assumed an importance entirely new, 
and could be quoted as the basis of a prior claim on the part of the 
English Crown, to lands which it [through the Cabots] had discovered." 

Having in mind the terrible history of slaughter and reprisal between the 
Spanish and French (Huguenot) settlers in Florida in 1565-67,(*) the 
Pilgrims recognized the need of a strong power behind them, under whose 
aegis they might safely plant, and by virtue of whose might and right they 
could hope to keep their lives and possessions. The King of England had, 
in 1606, granted charters to the two Virginia Companies, covering all the 
territory in dispute, and, there could be no doubt, would protect these 
grants and British proprietorship therein, against all comers. Indeed, the 
King (James I.) by letter to Sir Dudley Carleton, his ambassador at the 
Hague, under date of December 15, 1621, expressly claimed his rights in 
the New Netherland territory and instructed him to impress upon the 
government of the States General his Majesty's claim,--"who, 'jure prime 
occupation' hath good and sufficient title to these parts." There can be 
no question that the overtures of Sandys, Weston, and others to make 
interest for them with one of these English Companies, agreed as well with 
both the preferences and convictions of the Leyden Pilgrims, as they did 
with the hopes and designs of Sir Ferdinando Gorges. In the light of these 
facts, there appears to have been neither legal nor moral bar to the 
evident intention of the Pilgrims to settle in the vicinity of "Hudson's 
River," if they so elected. In their light, also, despite the positive 
allegations of the truthful but not always reliable Morton, his charges of 
intrigue between the Dutch and Master Jones of the MAY-FLOWER, to prevent 
the settlement of his ship's company at "Hudson's River," may well be 
doubted. Writing in "New England's Memorial" in 1669, Morton says: "But 
some of the Dutch, having notice of their intentions, and having thoughts 
about the same time of erecting a plantation there likewise, they 
fraudulently hired the said Jones, by delays while they were in England, 
and now under pretence of the shoals the dangers of the Monomoy Shoals off 
Cape Cod to disappoint them in going thither." He adds: "Of this plot 
between the Dutch and Mr. Jones, I have had late and certain 
intelligence." If this intelligence was more reliable than his assertion 
concerning the responsibility of Jones for the "delays while they were in 
England," it may well be discredited, as not the faintest evidence appears 
to make him responsible for those delays, and they are amply accounted for 
without him. Without questioning the veracity of Morton (while suggesting 
his many known errors, and that the lapse of time made it easy to 
misinterpret even apparently certain facts), it must be remembered that he 
is the original sponsor for the charge of Dutch intrigue with Jones, and 
was its sole support for many years. All other writers who have accepted 
and indorsed his views are of later date, and but follow him, while 
Bradford and Winslow, who were victims of this Dutch conspiracy against 
them, if it ever existed, were entirely silent in their writings upon the 
matter, which we may be sure they would not have been, had they suspected 
the Dutch as prime movers in the treachery. That there was a conspiracy to 
accomplish the landing of the MAY-FLOWER planters at a point north of "the 
Hudson" (in fact, north of the bounds defined by the (first) Pierce 
patent, upon which they relied), i.e. north of 41 deg. N. latitude,--is 
very certain; but that it was of Dutch origin, or based upon motives which 
are attributed to the Dutch, is clearly erroneous. While the historical 
facts indicate an utter lack of motive for such an intrigue on the part of 
the Dutch, either as a government or as individuals, there was no lack of 
motive on the part of certain others, who, we can but believe, were 
responsible for the conspiracy. Moreover, the chief conspirators were 
such, that, even if the plot was ultimately suspected by the Pilgrims, a 
wise policy--indeed, self-preservation-- would have dictated their 
silence. That the Dutch were without sufficient motive or interest has 
been declared. That the States General could have had no wish to reject so 
exceptionally excellent a body of colonists as subjects, and as tenants to 
hold and develop their disputed territory--if in position to receive them 
and guarantee them protection--is clear. The sole objection that could be 
urged against them was their English birth, and with English regiments 
garrisoning the Dutch home cities, and foreigners of every nation in the 
States General's employ, by land and by sea, such an objection could have 
had no weight. Indeed, the Leyden party proposed, if they effected 
satisfactory arrangements with the States General (as stated by the 
Directors of the New Netherland Company), "to plant there [at "Hudson's 
River"] a new commonwealth, all under the order and command of your 
Princely Excellency and their High Mightinesses the States General: The 
Leyden Pilgrims were men who kept their agreements. 

(* Bancroft, History of the United States, vol. i. p. 68; Fiske, Discovery 
of America, vol. ii. p. 511 et seq. With the terrible experience of the 
Florida plantations in memory, the far-sighted leaders of the Leyden 
church proposed to plant under the shelter of an arm strong enough to 
protect them, and we find the Directors of the New Netherland Company 
stating that the Leyden party (the Pilgrims) can be induced to settle 
under Dutch auspices, "provided, they would be guarded and preserved from 
all violence on the part of other potentates, by the authority, and under 
the protection of your Princely Excellency and the High and Mighty States 
General." Petition of the Directors of the New Netherland Company to the 
Prince of Orange.)

The Dutch trading-companies, who were the only parties in the Low 
Countries who could possibly have had any motive for such a conspiracy, 
were at this time themselves without charters, and the overtures of the 
principal company, made to the government in behalf of themselves and the 
Leyden brethren, had recently, as we have seen, been twice rejected. They 
had apparently, therefore, little to hope for in the near future; 
certainly not enough to warrant expenditure and the risk of disgraceful 
exposure, in negotiations with a stranger--an obscure ship-master--to 
change his course and land his passengers in violation of the terms of his 
charter-party;--negotiations, moreover, in which neither of the parties 
could well have had any guaranty of the other's good faith. 

But, as previously asserted, there was a party--to whom such knavery was 
an ordinary affair--who had ample motive, and of whom Master Thomas Jones 
was already the very willing and subservient ally and tool, and had been 
such for years. Singularly enough, the motive governing this party was 
exactly the reverse of that attributed--though illogically and without 
reason--to the Dutch. In the case of the latter, the alleged animus was a 
desire to keep the Pilgrim planters away from their "Hudson's River" 
domain. In the case of the real conspirators, the purpose was to secure 
these planters as colonists for, and bring them to, the more northern 
territory owned by them. It is well known that Sir Ferdinando Gorges was 
the leading spirit of the "Second Virginia Company," as he also became 
(with the Earl of Warwick a close second) of "The Council for the Affairs 
of New England," of which both men were made "Governors," in November of 
1620, when the Council practically superseded the "Second Virginia 
Company." The Great Charter for "The Council of Affairs of New England," 
commonly known as "The Council for New England," issued Tuesday, November 
3/13, 1620, and it held in force till Sunday, June 7/17, 1635. 

Although not its official head, and ranked at its board by dukes and 
earls, Sir Ferdinando Gorges was--as he had been in the old Plymouth (or 
Second) Virginia Company--the leading man. This was largely from his 
superior acquaintance with, and long and varied experience in, New England 
affairs. The "Council" was composed of forty patentees, and Baxter truly 
states, that "Sir Ferdinando Gorges, at this time [1621] stood at the head 
of the Council for New England, so far as influence went; in fact, his 
hand shaped its affairs." This company, holding--by the division of 
territory made under the original charter-grants--a strip of territory one 
hundred miles wide, on the North American coast, between the parallels of 
41 deg. and 45 deg. N. latitude, had not prospered, and its efforts at 
colonization (on what is now the Maine coast), in 1607 and later, had 
proved abortive, largely through the character of its "settlers," who had 
been, in good degree, a somewhat notable mixture of two of the worst 
elements of society,--convicts and broken-down "gentlemen." 

"In 1607," says Goodwin, "Gorges and the cruel Judge Popham planted a 
colony at Phillipsburg (or Sagadahoc, as is supposed), by the mouth of the 
Kennebec. Two ships came, 'THE GIFT OF GOD' and the 'MARY AND JOHN,' 
bringing a hundred persons. Through August they found all delightful, but 
when the ships went back in December, fifty five of the number returned to 
England, weary of their experience and fearful of the cold .... With 
spring the ships returned from England; "but by this time the remainder 
were ready to leave," so every soul returned with Gilbert [the Admiral] . 
. . . For thirty years Gorges continued to push exploration and emigration 
to that region, but his ambition and liberality ever resulted in 
disappointment and loss." The annals of the time show that not a few of 
the Sagadahoc colonists were convicts, released from the English jails to 
people this colony. 

Hakluyt says: "In 1607 [this should read 1608], disheartened by the death 
of Popham, they all embarked in a ship from Exeter and in the new pynnace, 
the 'VIRGINIA,' built in the colony, and sett sail for England, and this 
was the end of that northern colony upon the river Sachadehoc [Kennebec]." 

No one knew better than the shrewd Gorges the value of such a colony as 
that of the Leyden brethren would be, to plant, populate, and develop his 
Company's great demesne. None were more facile than himself and the 
buccaneering Earl of Warwick, to plan and execute the bold, but--as it 
proved--easy coup, by which the Pilgrim colony was to be stolen bodily; 
for the benefit of the "Second Virginia Company" and its successor, "the 
Council for New England," from the "First (or London) Company," under 
whose patent (to John Pierce) and patronage they sailed. They apparently 
did not take their patent with them,--it would have been worthless if they 
had,--and they were destined to have no small trouble with Pierce, before 
they were established in their rights under the new patent granted him (in 
the interest of the Adventurers and themselves), by the "Council for New 
England." Master John Wincob's early and silent withdrawal from his 
apparently active connection with the Pilgrim movement, and the evident 
cancellation of the first patent issued to him in its interest, by the 
(London) Virginia Company, have never been satisfactorily explained. 
Wincob (or Wincop), we are told, "was a religious Gentleman, then 
belonging to the household of the Countess of Lincoln, who intended to go 
with them [the Pilgrims] but God so disposed as he never went, nor they 
ever made use of this Patent, which had cost them so much labor and 
charge." Wincob, it appears by the minutes of the (London) Virginia 
Company of Wednesday, May 26/June 5, 1619, was commended to the Company, 
for the patent he sought, by the fourth Earl of Lincoln, and it was 
doubtless through his influence that it was granted and sealed, June 9/19, 
1619. But while Wincob was a member of the household of the Dowager 
Countess of Lincoln, mother of the fourth Earl of Lincoln; John, the 
eldest son of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, had married the Earl's daughter 
(sister ?), and hence Gorges stood in a much nearer relation to the Earl 
than did his mother's friend and dependant (as Wincob evidently was), as 
well as on a much more equal social footing. By the minutes of the 
(London) Virginia Company of Wednesday, February 2/ 12, 1619/20, it 
appears that a patent was "allowed and sealed to John Pierce and his 
associates, heirs and assigns," for practically the same territory for 
which the patent to Wincob had been given but eight months before. No 
explanation was offered, and none appears of record, but the logical 
conclusion is, that the first patent had been cancelled, that Master 
Wincob's personal interest in the Pilgrim exodus had ceased, and that the 
Lincoln patronage had been withdrawn. It is a rational conjecture that Sir 
Ferdinando Gorges, through the relationship he sustained to the Earl, 
procured the withdrawal of Wincob and his patent, knowing that the success 
of his (Gorges's) plot would render the Wincob patent worthless, and that 
the theft of the colony, in his own interest, would be likely to breed 
"unpleasantness" between himself and Wincob's sponsors and friends among 
the Adventurers, many of whom were friends of the Earl of Lincoln. 

The Earl of Warwick, the man of highest social and political rank in the 
First (or London) Virginia Company, was, at about the same time, induced 
by Gorges to abandon his (the London) Company and unite with himself in 
securing from the Crown the charter of the "Council of Affairs for New 
England." The only inducements he could offer for the change must 
apparently have resided in the promised large results of plottings 
disclosed by him (Gorges), but he needed the influential and unscrupulous 
Earl for the promotion of his schemes, and won him, by some means, to an 
active partnership, which was doubtless congenial to both. The "fine 
Italian hand" of Sir Ferdinando hence appears at every stage, and in every 
phase, of the Leyden movement, from the mission of Weston to Holland, to 
the landing at Cape Cod, and every movement clearly indicates the crafty 
cunning, the skilful and brilliant manipulation, and the dogged 
determination of the man. 

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 circumstances 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 attitude 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 attitude (evidently taken insidiously) meant, on 
Weston's part, of necessity, no less than treachery to his associates 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 association 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 participant, 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 constituted 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, association 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 fishing 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 noble 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 ship as she approached 
the coast, bound for the latitude 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 shore. 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 assumption 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, entitles 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 ship 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 ambassador 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 ship fired in the 
fight, and burned,--with some of his crew,--and he was sent a prisoner to 
England in the ship 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 ship 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 
noble 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 membership 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 languishing 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 . . . ship 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 affaiis 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 ship, 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 ship's company had died before they hastened 
the ship away, and they had endured trial, hardships, and sorrows 
untellable,--although from pluck and principle they would not abandon it. 
He tells us "they hastened away their ship," 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 ship 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 associates--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 associate 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 ship 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 shipping. 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 passengers." 
While of course this is not impossible, there is, as stated, absolutely 
nothing to indicate any knowledge, participation, or need of Pierce in the 
matter, and of course the fewer there were in the secret the better. 

Unobservant 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 associates, the Adventurers 
and Planters) for a "deed-pole," or title 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 associates granted the petition 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 pass 
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 passage [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 ambassador 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 assurances 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 substituted; 

(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 shipping, etc.; 

(g) Having made sure of the Leyden party, and being in charge of the 
shipping, Weston was practically master of the situation. He and Cushman, 
who was clearly entirely innocent of the conspiracy, had the hiring of the 
ship 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 41 st parallel of north lati 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 ship 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 assured. 

To a careful and candid student of all the facts, the proofs are seemingly 
unmistakable, and the conclusion is unavoid able, that the MAY- FLOWER 
Pilgrims were designedly brought to Cape Cod by Captain Jones, and their 
landing in that latitude was effected, in pursuance of a conspiracy 
entered into by him, not with the Dutch, but with certain of the nobility 
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 shipowner. 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 noble 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 
fishinge [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 entitled 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 "fishing" 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 identity 
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-ship 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 nobles against the 
devoted band he steered, under the overruling hand of their Lord God, 
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-ship, 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 ship. 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 ship 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 ship. 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 Saturday 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 shipwreck 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 ship or 
shore, though it is known inferentially that he survived the general 
illness which attacked and carried off half of the ship'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 ship, 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 ship, 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 ship, 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 assumption 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 ship 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 asserts, 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-
shift 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 ship in the shallop, 
Wednesday, December 6, and, after varying disasters and a narrow escape 
from shipwreck--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 ship. He has passed into history only as Robert Coppin, "the second 
mate" (or "pilot") of the MAY-FLOWER. 

But one other officer in merchant ships of the MAY-FLOWER class 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 ship's-surgeon has been supposed from the fact of Dr. Fuller's 
attendance alike on her passengers and crew, and the increased mortality 
of the seamen--after his removal on shore.(*) 

(* 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 title-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 ship'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 passenger) was one of 
the ship's company, and if a "chirurgeon," the surgeon of the ship, for no 
other Englishmen, except those of the colonists and the ship'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 ship made the voyage; and in that day was known as the "ship'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 identity. 

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, Massasoit, 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 ship, 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 substituted 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 
associated next day with Standish on some military duty--came to be 
generally accepted, and Allerton's name to be even frequently substituted 
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 Massasoit. 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 Massasoit, 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 associate, 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 passengers 
of the MAY-FLOWER, her officers and crew, and the native savages. 
Visitors, by way of the fishing 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 passengers, or indeed for 
several years in the colony, and we may at once dismiss both the 
passengers and the savages from our consideration. This elimination 
renders it inevitable that "Master Williamson" must have been of the 
ship'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 ship. 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 assigned. 

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

It is altogether probable that it was in his capacity of "interpreter" (as 
Samoset and Tisquantum knew but little English), and on account of what 
knowledge of the Indian tongue he very probably possessed, that Standish 
chose Williamson as his associate for the formal reception of Massasoit. 
It is indeed altogether probable that it was this familiarity with the 
"trade lingo" of the American coast tribes which influenced-- perhaps 
determined--his employ ment as "ship's-merchant" of the MAY- FLOWER for 
her Pilgrim voyage, especially as she was expected to "load back" for 
England with the products of the country, only to be had by barter with 
the Indians. It is evident that there must naturally have been some 
provision made for communication with the natives, for the purposes of 
that trade, etc., which the Planters hoped to establish. Trading along the 
northern coast of Virginia (as the whole coast strip was then called), 
principally for furs, had been carried on pretty actively, since 1584, by 
such navigators as Raleigh's captains, Gosnold, Pring, Champlain, Smith, 
Dermer, Hunt, and the French and Dutch, and much of the "trade lingo" of 
the native tribes had doubtless been "picked up" by their different 
"ship's-merchants." It appears by Bradford' that Dermer, when coasting the 
shores of New England, in Sir Ferdinando Gorges's employ, brought the 
Indian Tisquantum with him, from England, as his interpreter, and 
doubtless from him Dermer and other ship's officers "picked up" more or 
less Indian phrases, as Tisquantum (Squanto) evidently did of English. 
Winslow, in his "Good Newes from New England," written in 1622, says of 
the Indian tongue, as spoken by the tribes about them at Plymouth, "it is 
very copious, large, and difficult. As yet we cannot attain to any great 
measure thereof, but can understand them, and explain ourselves to their 
understanding, by the help of those that daily converse with us." This 
being the case, after two years of constant communication, and noting how 
trivial knowledge of English speech Samoset and Tisquantum had, it is easy 
to understand that, if Williamson had any knowledge of the native tongue, 
Standish would be most anxious to have the benefit of it, in this prime 
and all-important effort at securing a permanent alliance with the ruling 
sachem of the region. Bradford, in "Mourt's Relation," speaking of the 
speech of Governor Carver to Massasoit, says: "He [Massasoit] liked well 
of the speech and heard it attentively, though the interpreters did not 
well express it." Probably all three, Tisquantum, Samoset, and Williamson, 
had a voice in it. 

That "Master Williamson" was a veritable person at New Plymouth, in 
February and March, 1620/21, is now beyond dispute; that he must have been 
of the ship's company of the MAY-FLOWER is logically certain; that he was 
one of her officers, and a man of character, is proven by his title of 
"Master" and his choice by Standish and Mullens for exceptional and 
honorable service; that the position of "ship's-merchant" alone answers to 
the conditions precedent, is evident; and that such an officer was 
commonly carried by ships of the MAY-FLOWER class on such voyages as hers 
is indicated by the necessity, and proven by the facts known as to other 
ships on similar New England voyages, both earlier and later. The fact 
that he was called simply "Master Williamson," in both cases where he is 
mentioned, with out other designation or identification, is highly 
significant, and clearly indicates that he was some one so familiarly 
known to all concerned that no occasion for any further designation 
apparently occurred to the minds of Mullens, Carver, or Bradford, when 
referring to him. In the case of Master John Hampden, the only other 
notable incognito of early Pilgrim literature, the description is full, 
and the only question concerning him has been of his identity with John 
Hampden, the English patriot of the Cromwellian era. It is, therefore, not 
too much to assert that the MAY-FLOWER carried a "ship's-merchant" (or 
purser), and that "Master Williamson" was that officer. If close- linked 
circumstantial evidence is ever to be relied upon, it clearly establishes 
in this case the identity of the "Master Williamson" who was Governor 
Bradford's incognito, and the person of the same name mentioned a month 
earlier in "Master" Mullens's will; as also the fact that in him we have a 
new officer of the MAY FLOWER, hitherto unknown as such to Pilgrim 
literature. If Mr. Bowman's belief as to Giles Heale (see note) proves 
correct, we have yet another, the Surgeon. 

The Carpenter, Gunner, Boatswain, Quartermaster, and "Masters-mates" are 
the only "petty officers" of the Pilgrim ship of whom any record makes 
mention. The carpenter is named several times, and was evidently, as might 
be expected, one of the most useful men of the ship's crew. Called into 
requisition, doubtless, in the conferences as to the condition of the 
SPEEDWELL, on both of her returns to port, at the inception of the voyage, 
he was especially in evidence when, in mid-ocean, "the cracking and 
bending of a great deck-beam," and the "shaken" condition of "the upper 
works" of the MAY-FLOWER, gave rise to much alarm, and it was by his 
labors and devices, and the use of the now famous "jack-screw," that the 
bending beam and leaking deck were made secure. The repairs upon the 
shallop in Cape Cod harbor also devolved upon him, and mention is made of 
his illness and the dependence placed upon him. No doubt, in the 
construction of the first dwellings and of the ordnance platform on the 
hill, etc., he was the devising and principal workman. He undoubtedly 
returned to England with the ship, and is known in history only by his 
"billet," as "the carpenter" of the MAY-FLOWER. 

The Master Gunner seems to have been a man with a proclivity for Indian 
barter, that led him to seek a place with the "third expedition" at Cape 
Cod, thereby nearly accomplishing his death, which indeed occurred later, 
in Plymouth harbor, not long before the return of the ship. 

The Boatswain is known, by Bradford's records, to have died in the general 
sickness which attacked the crew while lying in Plymouth harbor. The brief 
narrative of his sickness and death is all that we know of his 
personality. The writer says: "He was a proud young man, and would often 
curse and scoff at the passengers," but being nursed when dying, by those 
of them who remained aboard, after his shipmates had deserted him in their 
craven fear of infection, "he bewailed his former conduct," saying, "Oh! 
you, I now see, show your love like Christians indeed, one to another, but 
we let one another lie and die like dogs." 

Four Quartermasters are mentioned (probably helmsmen simply), of whom 
three are known to have died in Plymouth harbor. 

"Masters-mates" are several times mentioned, but it is pretty certain that 
the "pilots" (or mates) are intended. Bradford and Winslow, in "Mourt's 
Relation," say of the reappearance of the Indians: "So Captain Standish, 
with another [Hopkins], with their muskets, went over to them, with two of 
the masters-mates that follow them without [side?] arms, having two 
muskets with them: Who these "masters-mates" were does not appear." The 
language, "two of the masters-mates," would possibly suggest that there 
were more of them. It hardly seems probable that both the mates of the MAY-
FLOWER would thus volunteer, or thrust themselves forward in such a 
matter, and it seems doubtful if they would have been permitted (even if 
both ashore at one time, which, though unusual, did occur), to assume such 
duty. Whoever they were, they did not lack courage. 

The names of the petty officers and seamen of the MAY-FLOWER do not appear 
as such, but the discovery of the (evidently) nuncupative will of William 
Mullens--herein referred to--has perhaps given us two of them. Attached to 
John Carver's certificate of the particulars of this will, filed at 
Somerset House, London, are the names, "Giles Heale" and "Christopher 
Joanes." As Mr Mullens died Wednesday, February 21, 1620, on board the MAY-
FLOWER in Plymouth harbor, on which day we know from Bradford' that "the 
Master [Jones, whose name was Thomas] came on shore with many of his 
sailors," to land and mount the cannon on the fort, and as they had a full 
day's work to draw up the hill and mount five guns, and moreover brought 
the materials for, and stayed to eat, a considerable dinner with the 
Pilgrims, they were doubtless ashore all day. It is rational to interpret 
the known facts to indicate that in this absence of the Captain and most 
of his crew ashore, Mr. Mullens, finding himself failing fast, sent for 
Governor Carver and--unable to do more than speak --dictated to him the 
disposition of his property which he desired to make. Carver, noting this 
down from his dictation, undoubtedly called in two of the ship's company 
(Heale very likely being the ship's-surgeon), who were left aboard to 
"keep ship," to hear his notes read to Mullens and assented to by him, 
they thus becoming the witnesses to his will, to the full copy of which, 
as made by Carver (April 2), they affixed their names as such. As there 
were then at Plymouth (besides savages) only the passengers and crew of 
the MAY-FLOWER, and these men were certainly not among the passengers, it 
seems inevitable that they were of the crew. That "Christopher Joanes" was 
not the Master of the ship is clear, because Heale's is the first 
signature, and no man of the crew would have dared to sign before the 
Captain; because the Captain's name was (as demonstrated) Thomas; and 
because we know that he was ashore all that day, with most of his men. It 
is by no means improbable that Captain Jones had shipped one of his 
kinsmen in his crew, possibly as one of the "masters mates" or 
quartermasters referred to (and it is by no means certain that there were 
not more than two), though these witnesses may have been quartermasters or 
other petty officers left on board as "ship- keepers." Certain it is that 
these two witnesses must have been of the crew, and that "Christopher 
Joanes" was not the Captain, while it is equally sure, from the collateral 
evidence, that Master Mullens died on shipboard. Had he died on shore it 
is very certain that some of the leaders, Brewster, Bradford, or others, 
would have been witnesses, with such of the ship's officers as could aid 
in proving the will in England. It is equally evident that the officers of 
the ship were absent when Master Mullens dictated his will, except perhaps 
the surgeon. 

The number of seamen belonging to the ship is nowhere definitely stated. 
At least four in the employ of the Pilgrims were among the passengers and 
not enrolled upon the ships' lists. From the size of the ship, the amount 
of sail she probably carried, the weight of her anchors, and certain other 
data which appear,--such as the number allowed to leave the ship at a 
time, etc.,--it is probably not a wild estimate to place their number at 
from twenty to twenty-five. This is perhaps a somewhat larger number than 
would be essential to work the ship, and than would have been shipped if 
the voyage had been to any port of a civilized country; but on a voyage to 
a wild coast, the possibilities of long absence and of the weakening of 
the crew by death, illness, etc., demanded consideration and a larger 
number. The wisdom and necessity of carrying, on a voyage to an 
uninhabited country, some spare men, is proven by the record of Bradford, 
who says: "The disease begane to fall amongst them the seamen also, so as 
allmost halfe of their company dyed before they went away and many of 
their officers and lustyest men; as ye boatson, gunner, 3 quarter 
maisters, the cooke, and others." 

The LADY ARBELLA, the "Admiral" of Governor Winthrop's fleet, a ship of 
350 tons, carried 52 men, and it is a fair inference that the MAY-FLOWER, 
of a little more than half her tonnage, would require at least half as 
many. It is, therefore, not unlikely that the officers and crew of the MAY-
FLOWER, all told, mustered thirty men, irrespective of the sailors, four 
in number (Alderton, English, Trevore, and Ely), in the Pilgrims' employ.