Part 10 (2/2)
”July 17, 1622. A motion was made in the behaffe of Captaine Thomas Jones, Captaine of the DISCOVERY, nowe employed in Virginia for trade and fis.h.i.+nge [it proved, apparently, rather to be piracy], that he may be admitted a freeman in this Companie in reward of the good service he hath there [Virginia in general] performed. The Court liked well of the motion and condiscended thereunto.” The DISCOVERY left London at the close of November, 1621. She arrived at Jamestown, Virginia, in April, 1622. She reached Plymouth, New England, in August, 1622. Her outward voyage was not, so far as can be learned, eventful, or ent.i.tled to especial consideration or recognition, and the good store of English trading-goods she still had on hand--as Governor Bradford notices--on her arrival at Plymouth indicates no notable success up to that time, in the way of a trading-voyage, while ”fis.h.i.+ng” is not mentioned. For piracy, in which she was later more successful, she had then had neither time nor opportunity. The conclusion is irresistible, that ”the good service” recognized by the vote recorded was of the past (he had sailed only the MAY-FLOWER voyage for the ”Council” before), and that this recognition was a part of the compensation previously agreed upon, if, in the matter of the MAY-FLOWER voyage, Captain Jones did as he was bidden. Thus much of the crafty Master of the MAY-FLOWER, Captain Thomas Jones,--his Christian name and ident.i.ty both apparently beyond dispute, --whom we first know in the full tide of his piratical career, in the corsair LION in Eastern seas; whom we next find as a prisoner in London for his misconduct in the East, but soon Master of the cattle-s.h.i.+p FALCON on her Virginia voyage; whom we greet next--and best--as Admiral of the Pilgrim fleet, commander of the destiny freighted MAY-FLOWER, and though a conspirator with n.o.bles against the devoted band he steered, under the overruling hand of their Lord G.o.d, their unwitting pilot to ”imperial labors” and mighty honors, to the founding of empire, and to eternal Peace; whom we next meet--fallen, ”like Lucifer, never to hope again”
--as Captain of the little buccaneer,--the DISCOVERY, disguised as a trading-s.h.i.+p, on the Virginian and New England coasts; and lastly, in charge of his leaking prize, a Spanish frigate in West Indian waters, making his way--death-stricken--into the Virginia port of Jamestown, where (July, 1625), he ”cast anchor” for the last time, dying, as we first found him, a pirate, to whom it had meantime been given to ”minister unto saints.”
Of JOHN CLARKE, the first mate of the MAY-FLOWER, we have already learned that he had been in the employ of the First (or London) Virginia Company, and had but just returned (in June, 1620) from a voyage to Virginia with Captain Jones in the FALCON, when found and employed by Weston and Cushman for the Pilgrim s.h.i.+p. Dr. Neill quotes from the ”Minutes of the London Virginia Company,” of Wednesday, February 13/23, 1621/2, the following; which embodies considerable information concerning him:--
”February 13th, 1621. Master Deputy acquainted the Court, that one Master John Clarke being taken from Virginia long since [Arber interpolates, ”in 1612”] by a Spanish s.h.i.+p that came to discover the Plantation, that forasmuch as he hath since that time done the Company presumably the First (or London) Virginia Company good service in many voyages to Virginia; and, of late [1619] went into Ireland, for the transportation of cattle to Virginia; he was a humble suitor to this Court that he might be a Free brother of the Company, and have some shares of land bestowed upon him.”
From the foregoing he seems to have begun his American experiences as early as 1612, and to have frequently repeated them. That he was at once hired by Weston and Cushman as a valuable man, as soon as found, was not strange.
He seems to have had the ability to impress men favorably and secure their confidence, and to have been a modest and reliable man. Although of both experience and capacity, he continued an under-officer for some years after the Pilgrim voyage, when, it is fair to suppose, he might have had command of a s.h.i.+p. He seems to have lacked confidence in himself, or else the breadth of education necessary to make him trust his ability as a navigator.
He is not mentioned, in connection with the affairs of the Pilgrims, after he was hired as ”pilot,”--on Sat.u.r.day afternoon the 10th of June, 1620, at London,--until after the arrival at Cape Cod, and evidently was steadily occupied during all the experience of ”getting away” and of the voyage, in the faithful performance of his duty as first mate (or ”pilot”) of the MAY-FLOWER. It was not until the ”third party” of exploration from Cape Cod harbor was organized and set out, on Wednesday, December 6, that he appeared as one of the company who put out in the shallop, to seek the harbor which had been commended by Coppin, ”the second mate.” On this eventful voyage--when the party narrowly escaped s.h.i.+pwreck at the mouth of Plymouth harbor--they found shelter under the lee of an island, which (it being claimed traditionally that he was first to land there on) was called, in his honor, ”Clarke's Island,” which name it retains to this day. No other mention of him is made by name, in the affairs of s.h.i.+p or sh.o.r.e, though it is known inferentially that he survived the general illness which attacked and carried off half of the s.h.i.+p's company. In November, 1621,--the autumn following his return from the Pilgrim voyage,--he seems to have gone to Virginia as ”pilot” (or ”mate”) of the FLYING HART, with cattle of Daniel Gookin, and in 1623 to have attained command of a s.h.i.+p, the PROVIDENCE, belonging to Mr. Gookin, on a voyage to Virginia where he arrived April 10, 1623, but died in that colony soon after his arrival. He seems to have been a competent and faithful man, who filled well his part in life. He will always have honorable mention as the first officer of the historic MAY-FLOWER, and as sponsor at the English christening of the smiling islet in Plymouth harbor which bears his name.
Of ROBERT COPPIN, the ”second mate” (or ”pilot”) of the MAY-FLOWER, nothing is known before his voyage in the Pilgrim s.h.i.+p, except that he seems to have made a former to the coast of New England and the vicinity of Cape Cod, though under what auspices, or in what s.h.i.+p, does not transpire. Bradford says: ”Their Pilotte, one Mr. Coppin, who had been in the countrie before.” Dr. Young a suggests that Coppin was perhaps on the coast with Smith or Hunt. Mrs. Austin imaginatively makes him, of ”the whaling bark SCOTSMAN of Glasgow,” but no warrant whatever for such a conception appears.
Dr. Dexter, as elsewhere noted, has said: ”My impression is that Coppin was originally hired to go in the SPEEDWELL, . . . that he sailed with them [the Pilgrims] in the SPEED WELL, but on her final putting back was transferred to the MAY-FLOWER.” As we have seen in another relation, Dr. Dexter also believed Coppin to have been the ”pilot” sent over by Cushman to Leyden, in May, 1620, and we have found both views to be untenable. It was doubtless because of this mistaken view that Dr.
Dexter believed that Coppin was ”hired to go in the SPEEDWELL,” and, the premise being wrong, the conclusion is sequentially incorrect. But there are abundant reasons for thinking that Dexter's ”impression” is wholly mistaken. It would be unreasonable to suppose (as both vessels were expected to cross the ocean), that each had not--certainly on leaving Southampton her full complement of officers. If so, each undoubtedly had her second mate. The MAY-FLOWER'S officers and crew were, as we know, hired for the voyage, and there is no good reason to suppose that the second mate of the MAY-FLOWER was dismissed at Plymouth and Coppin put in his place which would not be equally potent for such an exchange between the first mate of the SPEEDWELL and Clarke of the MAY-FLOWER. The a.s.sumption presumes too much. In fact, there can be no doubt that Dexter's misconception was enbased upon, and arose from, the unwarranted impression that Coppin was the ”pilot” sent over to Leyden. It is not likely that, when the SPEEDWELL'S officers were so evidently anxious to escape the voyage, they would seek transfer to the MAY-FLOWER.
Charles Deane, the editor of Bradford's ”Historie” (ed.1865), makes, in indexing, the clerical error of referring to Coppin as the ”master-gunner,” an error doubtless occasioned by the fact that in the text referred to, the words, ”two of the masters-mates, Master Clarke and Master Coppin, the master-gunner,” etc., were run so near together that the mistake was readily made.
In ”Mourt's Relation” it appears that in the conferences that were held aboard the s.h.i.+p in Cape Cod harbor, as to the most desirable place for the colonists to locate, ”Robert Coppin our pilot, made relation of a great navigable river and great harbor in the headland of the Bay, almost right over against Cape Cod, being a right line not much above eight leagues distant,” etc. Mrs. Jane G. Austin a.s.serts, though absolutely without warrant of any reliable authority, known tradition, or probability, that ”Coppin's harbor . . . afterward proved to be Cut River and the site of Marshfield,” but in another place she contradicts this by stating that it was ”Jones River, Duxbury.” As Coppin described his putative harbor, called ”Thievish Harbor,” a ”great navigable river and good harbor” were in close relation, which was never true of either the Jones River or ”Cut River” localities, while any one familiar with the region knows that what Mrs. Austin knew as ”Cut River” had no existence in the Pilgrims' early days, but was the work of man, superseding a small river-mouth (Green Harbor River), which was so shallow as to have its exit closed by the sand-s.h.i.+ft of a single storm.
Young, with almost equal recklessness, says: ”The other headland of the bay,” alluded to by Coppin, was Manomet Point, and the river was probably the North River in Scituate; but there are no ”great navigable river and good harbor” in conjunction in the neighborhood of Manomet, or of the North River,--the former having no river and the latter no harbor. If Coppin had not declared that he had never seen the mouth of Plymouth harbor before (”mine eyes never saw this place before”), it might readily have been believed that Plymouth harbor was the ”Thievish Harbor” of his description, so well do they correspond.
Goodwin, the brother of Mrs. Austin, quite at variance with his sister's conclusions, states, with every probability confirming him, that the harbor Coppin sought ”may have been Boston, Ipswich, Newburyport, or Portsmouth.”
As a result of his ”relation” as to a desirable harbor, Coppin was made the ”pilot” of the ”third expedition,” which left the s.h.i.+p in the shallop, Wednesday, December 6, and, after varying disasters and a narrow escape from s.h.i.+pwreck--through Coppin's mistake--landed Friday night after dark, in the storm, on the island previously mentioned, ever since called ”Clarke's Island,” at the mouth of Plymouth harbor.
Nothing further is known of Coppin except that he returned to England with the s.h.i.+p. He has pa.s.sed into history only as Robert Coppin, ”the second mate” (or ”pilot”) of the MAY-FLOWER.
But one other officer in merchant s.h.i.+ps of the MAY-FLOWER cla.s.s in her day was dignified by the address of ”Master” (or Mister), or had rank with the Captain and Mates as a quarter-deck officer,--except in those instances where a surgeon or a chaplain was carried. That the MAY-FLOWER carried no special s.h.i.+p's-surgeon has been supposed from the fact of Dr.
Fuller's attendance alike on her pa.s.sengers and crew, and the increased mortality of the seamen--after his removal on sh.o.r.e.
[The author is greatly indebted to his esteemed friend, Mr. George Ernest Bowman, Secretary-General of the Society of MAY-FLOWER Descendants, for information of much value upon this point. He believes that he has discovered trustworthy evidence of the existence of a small volume bearing upon its t.i.tle-page an inscription that would certainly indicate that the MAY-FLOWER had her own surgeon. A copy of the inscription, which Mr. Bowman declares well attested (the book not being within reach), reads as follows:-- ”To Giles Heale Chirurgeon, from Isaac Allerton in Virginia.
Feb. 10, 1620.”
Giles Heale's name will be recognized as that of one of the witnesses to John Carver's copy of William Mullens's nuncupative will, and, if he was the s.h.i.+p's-surgeon, might very naturally appear in that relation. If book and inscription exist and the latter is genuine, it would be indubitable proof that Heale (who was surely not a MAY-FLOWER pa.s.senger) was one of the s.h.i.+p's company, and if a ”chirurgeon,” the surgeon of the s.h.i.+p, for no other Englishmen, except those of the colonists and the s.h.i.+p's company, could have been at New Plymouth, at the date given, and New England was then included in the term ”Virginia.” It is much to be hoped that Mr.
Bowman's belief may be established, and that in Giles Heale we shall have another known officer, the surgeon, of the MAY-FLOWER.]
That she had no chaplain goes without saying. The Pilgrims had their spiritual adviser with them in the person of Elder Brewster, and were not likely to tolerate a priest of either the English or the Romish church on a vessel carrying them. The officer referred to was the representative of the business interests of the owner or chartering-party, on whose account the s.h.i.+p made the voyage; and in that day was known as the ”s.h.i.+p's-merchant,” later as the ”purser,” and in some relations as the ”supercargo.” No mention of an officer thus designated, belonging to the MAY-FLOWER, has ever been made by any writer, so far as known, and it devolves upon the author to indicate his existence and to establish, so far as possible, both this and his ident.i.ty.
A certain ”Master Williamson,” whose name and presence, though but once mentioned by Governor Bradford, have greatly puzzled Pilgrim historians, seems to have filled this berth on board the MAY-FLOWER. Bradford tells us that on Thursday, March 22, 1620/21, ”Master Williamson” was designated to accompany Captain Standish--practically as an officer of the guard--to receive and escort the Pokanoket chief, Ma.s.sasoit, to Governor Carver, on the occasion of the former's first visit of state.
Prior to the recent discovery in London, by an American genealogist, of a copy of the nuncupative will of Master William Mullens, one of the MAY-FLOWER Pilgrims, clearly dictated to Governor John Carver on board the s.h.i.+p, in the harbor of New Plymouth (probably) Wednesday, February 21, 1620 (though not written out by Carver till April 2, 1620), on which day (as we learn from Bradford), Master Mullens died, no other mention of ”Master Williamson” than that above quoted was known, and his very existence was seriously questioned. In this will, as elsewhere noted, ”Master Williamson” is named as one of the ”Overseers.” By most early writers it was held that Bradford had unwittingly subst.i.tuted the name ”Williamson” for that of Allerton, and this view--apparently for no better reasons than that both names had two terminal letters in common, and that Allerton was a.s.sociated next day with Standish on some military duty--came to be generally accepted, and Allerton's name to be even frequently subst.i.tuted without question.---Miss Marcia A. Thomas, in her ”Memorials of Marshfield” (p. 75), says: ”In 1621, Master Williamson, Captain Standish, and Edward Winslow made a journey to make a treaty with Ma.s.sasoit. He is called 'Master George,' meaning probably Master George Williamson,” etc.
This is certainly most absurd, and by one not familiar with the exceptional fidelity and the conscientious work of Miss Thomas would rightly be denounced as reckless and reprehensible fabrication. Of course Williamson, Standish, and Winslow made no such journey, and made no treaty with Ma.s.sasoit, but aided simply in conducting, with due ceremonial, the first meeting between Governor John Carver and the Indian sachem at Plymouth, at which a treaty was concluded. There is no historical warrant whatever for the name of ”George,” as appertaining to ”Master William son.” The fact, however,--made known by the fortunate discovery mentioned,--that ”Master Williamson” was named in his will by Master Mullens as one of its ”Overseers,” and undoubtedly probated the will in England, puts the existence of such a person beyond reasonable doubt. That he was a person of some dignity, and of very respectable position, is shown by the facts that he was chosen as Standish's a.s.sociate, as lieutenant of the guard, on an occasion of so much importance, and was thought fit by Master Mullens, a careful and clear-headed man as his will proves,--to be named an ”Overseer” of that will, charged with responsible duties to Mullens's children and property. It is practically certain that on either of the above-mentioned dates (February 21, or March 22) there were no human beings in the Colony of New Plymouth beside the pa.s.sengers of the MAY-FLOWER, her officers and crew, and the native savages. Visitors, by way of the fis.h.i.+ng vessels on the Maine coast, had not yet begun to come, as they did a little later. It is certain that no one of the name of ”Williamson” was among the colonist pa.s.sengers, or indeed for several years in the colony, and we may at once dismiss both the pa.s.sengers and the savages from our consideration. This elimination renders it inevitable that ”Master Williamson” must have been of the s.h.i.+p's company. It remains to determine, if possible, what position upon the MAY-FLOWER'S roster he presumably held. His selection by ”Master”
Mullens as one of the ”Over seers” of his will suggests the probability that, having named Governor Carver as the one upon whom he would rely for the care of his family and affairs in New England, Mr. Mullens sought as the other a proper person, soon to return to England, and hence able to exercise like personal interest in his two children and his considerable property left there? Such a suggestion points to a returning and competent officer of the s.h.i.+p. That ”Master Williamson”
was above the grade of ”petty officer,” and ranked at least with the mates or ”pilots,” is clear from the fact that he is invariably styled ”Master” (equivalent to Mister), and we know with certainty that he was neither captain nor mate. That he was a man of address and courage follows the fact that he was chosen by Standish as his lieutenant, while the choice in and of itself is a strong bit of presumptive proof that he held the position on the MAY-FLOWER to which he is here a.s.signed.
The only officer commonly carried by a s.h.i.+p of the MAY-FLOWER cla.s.s, whose rank, capacities, and functions would comport with every fact and feature of the case, was ”the s.h.i.+p's-merchant,” her accountant, factor, and usually--when such was requisite--her ”interpreter,” on every considerable (trading) voyage.
<script>