Part 12 (1/2)

William Mullens and his family were, as shown, from Dorking in Surrey, and their home was therefore close to London, whence they sailed, beyond doubt, in the MAY-FLOWER. The discovery at Somerset House, London, by Mr. Henry F. Waters, of Salem, Ma.s.sachusetts; of what is evidently the nuncupative will of William Mullens, proves an important one in many particulars, only one of which need be referred to in this connection, but all of which will receive due consideration. It conclusively shows Mr. Mullens not to have been of the Leyden congregation, as has sometimes been claimed, but that he was a well-to-do tradesman of Dorking in Surrey, adjacent to London. It renders it certain, too, that he had been some time resident there, and had both a married daughter and a son (William), doubtless living there, which effectually overthrows the ”imaginary history” of Baird, and of that pretty story, ”Standish of Standish,”

whereby the Mullens (or Molines) family are given French (Huguenot) antecedents and the daughter is endowed with numerous airs, graces, and accomplishments, professedly French.

Dr. Griffis, in his delightful little narrative, ”The Pilgrims in their Three Homes, England, Holland, America,” cites the name ”Mullins” as a Dutch distortion of Molines or Molineaux. Without questioning that such it might be,--for the Dutch scribes were gifted in remarkable distortions of simple names, even of their own people,--they evidently had no hand in thus maltreating the patronym of William Mullens (or Mullins) of the Pilgrims, for not only is evidence entirely wanting to show that he was ever a Leyden citizen, though made such by the fertile fiction of Mrs. Austin, but Governor Carver, who knew him well, wrote it in his will ”Mullens,” while two English probate functionaries of his own home-counties wrote it respectively ”Mullens” and ”Mullins.”

Dr. Grifs speaks of ”the Mullens family” as evidently [sic] of Huguenot or Walloon birth or descent, but in doing so probably knew no other authority than Mrs. Austin's little novel, or (possibly) Dr. Baird's misstatements.

A writer in the ”New England Historic-Genealogical Register,” vol.

xlvii, p. 90, states, that ”Mrs. Jane G. Austin found her authority for saying that Priscilla Mullens was of a Huguenot family, in Dr.

Baird's 'History of Huguenot Emigration to America,' vol. i.

p. 158,” etc., referring to Rev. Charles W. Baird, D. D., New York.

The reference given is a notable specimen of very bad historical work. Of Dr. Baird, one has a right to expect better things, and the positiveness of his reckless a.s.sertion might well mislead those not wholly familiar with the facts involved, as it evidently has more than one. He states, without qualification or reservation, that ”among the pa.s.sengers in the SPEEDWELL were several of the French who had decided to cast in their lot with these English brethren. William Molines and his daughter Priscilla, afterwards the wife of John Alden and Philip Delanoy, born in Leyden of French parents, were of the number.” One stands confounded by such a combination of unwarranted errors. Not only is it not true that there ”were several of the French among the pa.s.sengers in the SPEEDWELL,” but there is no evidence whatever that there was even one. Those specifically named as there, certainly were not, and there is not the remotest proof or reason to believe, that William Mullens (or Molines) and his daughter Priscilla (to say nothing of the wife and son who accompanied him to America, whom Baird forgets) ever even saw Leyden or Delfshaven. Their home had been at Dorking in Surrey, just across the river from London, whence the MAY-FLOWER sailed for New England, and nothing could be more absurd than to a.s.sume that they were pa.s.sengers on the SPEEDWELL from Delfshaven to Southampton.

So far from Philip Delanoy (De La Noye or Delano) being a pa.s.senger on the SPEEDWELL, he was not even one of the Pilgrim company, did not go to New England till the following year (in the FORTUNE), and of course had no relation to the SPEEDWELL. Neither does Edward Winslow--the only authority for the parentage of ”Delanoy”--state that ”he was born in Leyden,” as Baird alleges, but only that ”he was born of French parents . . . and came to us from Leyden to New Plymouth,”--an essential variance in several important particulars. Scores and perhaps hundreds of people have been led to believe Priscilla Mullens a French Protestant of the Leyden congregation, and themselves--as her descendants--”of Huguenot stock,” because of these absolutely groundless a.s.sertions of Dr.

Baird. They lent themselves readily to Mrs. Austin's fertile imagination and facile pen, and as ”welcome lies” acquired a hold on the public mind, from which even the demonstrated truth will never wholly dislodge them. The comment of the intelligent writer in the ”Historic-Genealogical Register” referred to is proof of this. So fast-rooted had these a.s.sertions become in her thought as the truth, that, confronted with the evidence that Master Mullens and his family were from Dorking in England, it does not occur to her to doubt the correctness of the impression which the recklessness of Baird had created,--that they were of Leyden,--and she hence amusingly suggests that ”they must have moved from Leyden to Dorking.” These careless utterances of one who is especially bound by his position, both as a writer and as a teacher of morals, to be jealous for the truth, might be partly condoned as attributable to mistake or haste, except for the facts that they seem to have been the fountain-head of an ever-widening stream of serious error, and that they are preceded on the very page that bears them by others as to the Pilgrim exodus equally unhappy. It seems proper to suggest that it is high time that all lovers of reliable history should stand firmly together against the flood of loose statement which is deluging the public; brand the false wherever found; and call for proof from of all new and important historical propositions put forth.

Stephen Hopkins may possibly have had more than one wife before Elizabeth, who accompanied him to New England and was mother of the sea-born son Ocea.n.u.s. Hopkins's will indicates his affection for this latest wife, in unusual degree for wills of that day. With singular carelessness, both of the writer and his proof-reader, Hon.

William T. Davis states that Damaris Hopkins was born ”after the arrival” in New England. The contrary is, of course, a well established fact. Mr. Davis was probably led into this error by following Bradford's ”summary” as affecting the Hopkins family. He states therein that Hopkins ”had one son, who became a seaman and died at Barbadoes probably Caleb, and four daugh ters born here.”

To make up these ”four” daughters ”born here” Davis found it necessary to include Damaris, unmindful that Bradford names her in his list of MAY-FLOWER pa.s.sengers. It is evident, either that Bradford made a mistake in the number, or that there was some daughter who died in infancy. It is evident that Dotey and Leister, the ”servants” of Hopkins, were of English origin and accompanied their master from London.

Gilbert Winslow was a brother of Edward Winslow, a young man, said to have been a carpenter, who returned to England after ”divers years”

in New England. There is a possibility that he was at Leyden and was a pa.s.senger on the SPEEDWELL. It has been suggested that he spent the greater part of the time he was in New England, outside of the Pilgrim Colony. He took no part in its affairs.

James Chilton and his family are but little known to Pilgrim writers, except the daughter Mary, who came into notice princ.i.p.ally through her marriage with John Winslow, another brother of Governor Edward, who came over later. Their name has a.s.sumed a singular prominence in popular regard, altogether disproportionate to either their personal characteristics, station, or the importance of their early descendants. Some unaccountable glamour of romance, without any substantial foundation, is probably responsible for it. They left a married daughter behind them in England, which is the only hint we have as to their home just prior to the embarkation. There has been a disposition, not well grounded, to regard them as of Leyden.

Richard Gardiner, Goodwin unequivocally places with the English colonists (but on what authority does not fully appear), and he has been claimed, but without any better warrant, for the Leyden list.

John Billington and his family were unmistakably of the English colonists. Mrs. Billington's name has been variously given, e.g. Helen, Ellen, and Eleanor, and the same writer has used them interchangeably. One writer has made the inexcusable error of stating that ”the younger son, Francis, was born after the arrival at New Plymouth,” but his own affidavit shows him to have been born in 1606.

William Latham, a ”servant-boy” of Deacon Carver, has always been of doubtful relation, some circ.u.mstances indicating that he was of Leyden and hence was a SPEEDWELL pa.s.senger, but others--and these the more significant--rendering it probable that he was an English boy, who was obtained in London (like the More children) and apprenticed to Carver, in which case he probably came in the MAY-FLOWER from London, though he may have awaited her coming with his master at Southampton, in which case he probably originally embarked there, with him, on the SPEEDWELL, and was transferred with him, at Plymouth, to the MAY-FLOWER. There is, of course, also still the possibility that he came with Carver's family from Leyden. Governor Carver's early death necessarily changed his status somewhat, and Plymouth early records do not give much beyond suggestion as to what the change was; but all indications confirm the opinion that he was a poor boy--very likely of London or vicinity--taken by Carver as his ”servant.”

The More children, Jasper, Richard, their brother (whose given name has never transpired), and Ellen, their sister, invite more than pa.s.sing mention. The belief has always been current and confident among students of Pilgrim history that these More children, four in number, ”put” or ”indentured” to three of the Leyden leaders, were probably orphaned children of some family of the Leyden congregation, and were so ”bound” to give them a chance in the new colony, in return for such services as they could render to those they accompanied. If thus of the Leyden contingent they would, of course, be enumerated as pa.s.sengers in the SPEEDWELL from Delfshaven, but if of the English contingent they should probably be borne on the list of pa.s.sengers sailing from London in the MAY-FLOWER, certainly should be reckoned as part of the English contingent on the MAY-FLOWER at Southampton. An affidavit of Richard More, perhaps the eldest of these children, indentured to Elder Brewster, dated in 1684., found in ”Proceedings of the Provincial Court, Maryland Archives, vol. xiv. ('New England Historic-Genealogical Register,' vol 1. p. 203 ),” affirms the deponent to be then ”seaventy years or thereabouts” of age, which would have made him some six years of age, ”or thereabouts,” in 1620. He deposes ”that being in London at the house of Mr. Thomas Weston, Iron monger, in the year 1620, he was from there transported to New Plymouth in New England,” etc. This clearly identifies Richard More of the MAY FLOWER, and renders it well-nigh certain that he and his brothers and sister, ”bound out” like himself to Pilgrim leaders, were of the English company, were probably never in Leyden or on the SPEEDWELL, and were very surely pa.s.sengers on the MAY-FLOWER from London, in charge of Mr. Cushman or others. The fact that the lad was in London, and went from thence direct to New England, is good evidence that he was not of the Leyden party. The fair presump tion is that his brothers and sister were, like himself, of English birth, and humble--perhaps deceased--parents, taken because of their orphaned condition. It is highly improbable that they would be taken from London to Southampton by land, at the large expense of land travel in those days, when the MAY-FLOWER was to sail from London. That they would accompany their respective masters to their respectively a.s.signed s.h.i.+ps at Southampton is altogether likely. The phraseology of his affidavit suggests the probability that Richard More, his brothers, and sister were brought to Mr. Weston's house, to be by him sent aboard the MAY-FLOWER, about to sail. The affidavit is almost conclusive evidence as to the fact that the More children were all of the English colonists'

party, though apprenticed to Leyden families, and belonged to the London pa.s.senger list of the Pilgrim s.h.i.+p. The researches of Dr.

Neill among the MS. ”minutes” and ”transactions” of the (London) Virginia Company show germanely that, on November 17, 1619, ”the treasurer, council, and company” of this Virginia Company addressed Sir William c.o.c.kaine, Knight, Lord Mayor of the city of London, and the right worthys the aldermen, his brethren, and the worthys the ”common council of the city,” and returning thanks for the benefits conferred, in furnis.h.i.+ng out one hundred children this last year for ”the plantation in Virginia” (from what Neill calls the ”homeless boys and girls of London”), states, that, ”forasmuch as we have now resolved to send this next spring [1620] very large supplies,” etc., ”we pray your Lords.h.i.+p and the rest . . . to renew the like favors, and furnish us again with one hundred more for the next spring. Our desire is that we may have them of twelve years old and upward, with allowance of L3 apiece for their transportation, and 40s. apiece for their apparel, as was formerly granted. They shall be apprenticed; the boys till they come to 21 years of age, the girls till like age or till they be married,” etc.

A letter of Sir Edwin Sandys (dated January 28, 1620) to Sir Robert Naunton shows that ”The city of London have appointed one hundred children from the superfluous mult.i.tude to be transported to Virginia, there to be bound apprentices upon very beneficial conditions.” In view of the facts that these More children--and perhaps others--were ”apprenticed” or ”bound” to the Pilgrims (Carver, Winslow, Brewster, etc.), and that there must have been some one to make the indentures, it seems strongly probable that these four children of one family,--as Bradford shows,--very likely orphaned, were among those designated by the city of London for the benefit of the (London) Virginia Company in the spring of 1620.

They seem to have been waifs caught up in the westward-setting current, but only Richard survived the first winter. Bradford, writing in 1650, states of Richard More that his brothers and sister died, ”but he is married [1636] and hath 4 or 5 children.” William T. Davis, in his ”Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth” (p. 24), states, and Arber copies him, that ”he was afterwards called Mann; and died at Scituate, New England, in 1656.” The researches of Mr. George E.

Bowman, the able Secretary of the Ma.s.sachusetts Society of MAY-FLOWER Descendants, some time since disproved this error, but Mores affidavit quoted conclusively determines the matter.

The possible accessions to the company, at London or Southampton, of Henry Sampson and Humility Cooper, cousins of Edward Tilley and wife, would be added to the pa.s.sengers of the pinnace rather than to the MAY-FLOWER'S, if, as seems probable, their relatives were of the SPEEDWELL. If Edward Tilley and his wife were a.s.signed to the MAY FLOWER, room would doubtless also be found for these cousins on the s.h.i.+p. John Alden, the only positively known addition (except Carver) made to the list at Southampton, was, from the nature of his engagement as ”cooper,” quite likely a.s.signed to the larger s.h.i.+p. There are no known hints as to the a.s.signments of pa.s.sengers to the respective vessels at Southampton--then supposed to be final--beyond the remarks of Bradford that ”the chief [princ.i.p.al ones] of them that came from Leyden went on this s.h.i.+p [the SPEEDWELL] to give the Master content,” and his further minute, that ”Master Martin was governour in the biger s.h.i.+p and Master Cushman a.s.sistante.” It is very certain that Deacon Carver, one of the four agents of the colonists, who had ”fitted out” the voyage in England, was a pa.s.senger in the SPEEDWELL from Southampton,--as the above mentioned remark of Bradford would suggest,--and was made ”governour” of her pa.s.sengers, as he later was of the whole company, on the MAY-FLOWER. It has sometimes been queried whether, in the interim between the arrival of the SPEEDWELL at Southampton and the a.s.signment of the colonists to their respective s.h.i.+ps (especially as both vessels were taking in and transferring cargo), the pa.s.sengers remained on board or were quartered on sh.o.r.e. The same query has arisen, with even better reason, as to the pa.s.sengers of the SPEEDWELL during the stay at Dartmouth, when the consort was being carefully overhauled to find her leaks, the suggestion being made that in this case some of them might have found accommodation on board the larger s.h.i.+p. The question may be fairly considered as settled negatively, from the facts that the colonists, with few exceptions, were unable to bear such extra expense themselves; the funds of the Adventurers--if any were on hand, which appears doubtful--were not available for the purpose; while the evidence of some of the early writers renders it very certain that the Leyden party were not released from residence on s.h.i.+pboard from the time they embarked on the SPEEDWELL at Delfshaven till the final landing in the harbor of New Plimoth. Just who of the Leyden chiefs caused themselves to be a.s.signed to the smaller vessel, to encourage its cowardly Master, cannot be definitely known. It may be confidently a.s.sumed, however, that Dr. Samuel Fuller, the physician of the colonists, was transferred to the MAY-FLOWER, upon which were embarked three fourths of the entire company, including most of the women and children, with some of whom, it was evident, his services would be certainly in demand. There is little doubt that the good Elder (William Brewster) was also transferred to the larger s.h.i.+p at Southampton, while it would not be a very wild guess--in the light of Bradford's statement--to place Carver, Winslow, Bradford, Standish, Cooke, Howland, and Edward Tilley, and their families, among the pa.s.sengers on the consort. Just how many pa.s.sengers each vessel carried when they sailed from Southampton will probably never be positively known. Approximately, it may be said, on the authority of such contemporaneous evidence as is available, and such calculations as are possible from the data we have, that the SPEEDWELL had thirty (30), and the MAY-FLOWER her proportionate number, ninety (90)--a total of one hundred and twenty (120).

Captain John Smith says,

[Smith, New England's Trials, ed. 1622, London, p. 259. It is a singular error of the celebrated navigator that he makes the s.h.i.+ps to have, in less than a day's sail, got outside of Plymouth, as he indicates by his words, ”the next day,” and ”forced their return to Plymouth.” He evidently intends to speak only in general terms, as he entirely omits the (first) return to Dartmouth, and numbers the pa.s.sengers on the MAY-FLOWER, on her final departure, at but ”one hundred.” He also says they ”discharged twenty pa.s.sengers.”]

apparently without pretending to be exact, ”They left the coast of England the 23 of August, with about 120 persons, but the next day [sic]

the lesser s.h.i.+p sprung a leak that forced their return to Plymouth; where discharging her [the s.h.i.+p] and twenty pa.s.sengers, with the great s.h.i.+p and a hundred persons, besides sailors, they set sail again on the 6th of September.”