1620.]

LAND SIGHTED.

59

fortunate enough to catch this, though the waves rolled over him fathoms deep, kept his grip until hauled alongside, where he was safely fished up with a boat-hook. A short illness was the result; but John was reserved for many a year of noble service to the Colony.

Although the seeds of death had been planted in many bosoms, only one passenger died during the voyage. This was William Button, servant of Dr. Fuller, the Pilgrim surgeon. The extended meaning then given to the word "servant," and the fact that Fuller brought none of his family, lead to the supposition that Button was rather a student or professional apprentice than a domestic. For instance, Howland is mentioned as "servant" to Carver; but a man of Howland's character and standing would hardly have " served" except as secretary or general man-of-affairs. So Brewster is described by Bradford as having been in youth the "servant" of Davison, by which is clearly meant what we should call a "private secretary."

Poor Button finished his pilgrimage November 16th. The passenger list of one hundred and two was kept good, however, for Stephen and Elizabeth Hopkins at about that time became the parents of a son, who, from his birthplace, was named Oceanus Hopkins, and in after life became a sailor. Thus attended by the angels of life and of death, the weary "Mayflower" neared her goal.

On the morning of November 20th (N. S.), as Bradford's account shows the day to have been (though he squarely states the 9th O. s. [or 19th N. s.]), there came at daybreak the electric sound of "Land ho!" Hills beautifully wooded,

1 When did the "Mayflower" sight land? Bradford says, in "Mourt," "the 9th of November " (i.e., old style)," and upon the 11th of November we came to an anchor." Yet this narrative does not account for the intervening day and night. In his History, however, he mentions the discovery of land, and adds (p. 77): “And ye next day they gott into ye Cape-harbour, wher they ridd in saftie;" and he afterward says (p. 80): "Being thus arrived at Cape-Codd ye 11. of November," etc. (It further appears that the anchoring was on Saturday afternoon; and the almanac shows that Saturday was the 11th, O. s.) As "Mourt" and the History are contradictory, the author follows the latter, — which is not only more carefully prepared, but balances the time consumed with

sloping to the water's edge, made a charming contrast to the monotony of the ocean view, and caused a delight which is rarely inspired by a view of the Truro shore late in November. Jones said that he thought the land to be Cape Cod. The villain might have spoken with certainty, for he had kept faith with the Dutch merchants who bribed him to carry the Pilgrims far to the north of Manhattan.1

the work performed; while "Mourt" seems to ignore a day and a night. November 20th (N. S.) is therefore taken to be the date of making land, and “ye next day," November 21st, as the time of anchoring and going ashore on the Cape.

1 Did Jones betray the Pilgrims? The only witness is Morton, secretary of Plymouth Colony, who in 1669, in his Memorial, said: "But some of the Dutch having notice of their intention, 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, to disappoint them in their going thither." He adds: "Of this plot between the Dutch and Mr. Jones I have had late and certain intelligence." This statement is clear and strong. There is no evidence against it, and the known circumstances are in its favor. Yet Moulton, Broadhead, Hildreth, and Dr. Young have in turn sought to discredit it. The latter is especially zealous, and says that if Morton's information "had been early intelligence, it would have been more certain.” This is a wild remark. For example, the world within a half-century has gained much more of certain information concerning the Tudor and Stuart sovereigns and of the contemporary affairs of Holland and Spain than it had before. On Dr. Young's favorite subject—this very one, the Pilgrims - the amount of certain information discovered more than two hundred years after the death of Elder Brewster is very great, and in the Doctor's own eyes would have been of inestimable value. Bradford and Winslow say nothing of Jones's fraud; the objectors therefore assume that they did not know of it, and that if it had existed they would have known of it far better than their successor, Morton. But in 1665 the English, having subjugated the Dutch at New York, established as the first mayor of that place Thomas Willett, a prominent officer of Plymouth. From boyhood to manhood he had lived among the Dutch at Leyden, and was selected because in taste, sympathy, and language he was nearly as much Dutch as English, and so especially acceptable to the conquered people. He now came into possession of the secret letters, records, and accounts of the Dutch founders and rulers. He was just the one to ferret out anything in these archives which concerned his fellows at Plymouth, and to transmit it to his old associate, the colonial secretary. Thus Morton could get intelligence inaccessible at an early date, and which moreover was certain because late. Morton had no lack of weaknesses, but his veracity is above question.

Some of their neighbors in Holland having a mind themselves to settle a plantation there, secretly and sinfully contracted with the master of the ship ... to put a trick upon them.- Magnalia, book i. chap. ii. [This work, of small value when uncorroborated, is worth something as confirmatory evidence.] The Dutch by "under-contrivance . subtly deprived" the Pilgrims of their "birthright of the land." — Hubbard, 1684.

Who was Jones? It is but recently that his first name or early history has

1620.]

ARRIVAL AT CAPE COD.

61

Soon it was generally known that the land was really near the end of the already noted Cape. The ship was at once headed S. S. E., to pass around to the Hudson. After running that course half a day, she found herself in the shoals and currents off the elbow of the Cape. Many attempts were made to pass through, until toward evening, the wind hauling ahead, the ship with some difficulty sailed back to clear water to pass the night. These waters had been navigated by been known. In 1617 the coming Earl of Warwick sent two ships to the East Indies. One was the "Lion," under Captain Thomas Jones. Like many others, these ships, under pretence of cruising against pirates, did a little piracy themselves. The famous Martin Pring, sent in the "Royal James" to suppress buccaneering, caught the “Lion” and her consort pursuing a junk, and after a bloody action, in which the "Lion" was burned, with several of her crew, he sent Jones home a prisoner in the "Bull;" but Warwick obtained his release. January, 1620 (N. S.), the East India Company complained of Jones for hiring away their men for the Danish service. Jones was again arrested; but Warwick obtained his release on the ground that he was engaged to take a cargo of cattle to Virginia. The next month Jones sailed thither in the "Falcon " (150 tons), with thirty-six passengers, four mares, and fifty-two kine.

Just before that the Virginia Company had John Clark in Ireland buying cattle for Virginia. As this was the only cattle-ship in a long period, we can pretty surely identify Clark as the master's mate of the "Mayflower," who, Cushman says, went last year to Virginia with a ship of kine." As 1620 did not begin until March 25th, a ship sailing in February would have gone out in 1619. Jones and Clark could easily have made the voyage in time to engage for the "Mayflower." Six months after Jones's trip in the latter he took the "Discov ery" (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. In 1622 he stopped at Plymouth on his way home, and taking advantage of the distress there, was extortionate in his prices. In July, 1625, he appeared at Virginia in possession of a Spanish frigate, which he said had been captured by one Powell under a Dutch commission, but was thought a resumption of his old buccaneering practices. Before investigation he sickened and died. (See Rev. E. D. Neill in N. Y. Hist. Mag., January, 1869; N. E. Gen. and Hist. Reg., xxviii. 314.)

In November, 1621, Clark seems to have come to Virginia as pilot of the "Flying Hart" with the senior Gookin's cattle, and in 1623 as master of the "Providence," dying soon after his arrival. In 1612 he was captured by the Spanish while at Virginia.

think the

1 Professor Agassiz and Amos Otis-high authority certainly shoals which the "Mayflower" encountered were off Nauset Beach (Eastham); Drs. Freeman and Young think them those off Monamoy. There seems no reason to doubt the latter conclusion. Archer's Relation of Gosnold's discovery of the Cape says Tucker's Terror and Point Care were twelve leagues from the end of the Cape. From Highland Light to Pollock Rip, at the very elbow of the Cape, is just about twelve leagues; Nauset Beach is hardly half that distance. The "Mayflower" stood southerly for half a day, with apparently a good breeze,

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, 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. Reaching deep water, an anxious consultation was held. The apparent danger of the southern passage, lateness of the season, and indications of disease, led the Pilgrims to decide on putting into Cape Cod Harbor (now Provincetown), and there keeping the ship until a suitable place for settlement could be found in the neighborhood by means of the shallop. Thus they felt obliged to abandon the idea of living in the Virginia Company's territory under the patent considered so valuable. The "Mayflower" thereupon fell off, and headed for the point of the Cape.

The next day the leaders learned that some persons were advancing the idea that there would be an end of all authority as soon as the company should land. The Virginia Company had no rights in New England, and of course their patent could confer none; neither did any other body exercise authority there. The King made a general claim to the whole territory, but had delegated no power to the Pilgrims, not even authorizing them to enter the country. It was therefore asserted that as soon as they had left the ship every one would be his own master, and that all government would be at an end. It was true that, landing beyond the

before she came to the shoals, and she ought to have made twelve leagues These shoals must be the same with what Bradford in 1622 calls "the shoal of Cape Cod," south of Chatham (Hist., p. 128), and which Winslow mentions (Chron. Pil., p. 300).

Many years after this voyage Bradford (Hist., p. 77) describes the point off which the "Mayflower" found these shoals as that which Gosnold "called Point Care and Tucker's Terror; but the French and Dutch to this day call it Malabar." Archer speaks of Gosnold's doubling this point. He would not have used that expression if the "Concord" had merely given a wide berth to a shoal making out from Nauset.

1620.]

THE AGREEMENT.

63

limits of the Virginia Company, the Pilgrims would lose such rights as they might claim to derive from their patent, and would be outside of all established authority. They indeed recognized James I. as their sovereign, but he ignored them. The moment they landed north of 41° north latitude, they would become waifs and estrays, save that they would still be a voluntary church. The leaders were equal to the emergency. If England had no government for them, they would make one for themselves. If none had any claim to especial privileges, all should stand equal, and be bound by such laws of equal bearing as the majority should adopt. If the world would not provide them with a civil organization, they would present the world with a new system, of a simplicity and excellence hitherto unknown. Not that they fully comprehended the logic of their own ideas, but that in this unforeseen emergency they instinctively laid hold on great principles hitherto unrevealed to the nations of the earth. The Swiss republic was an aristocracy of birth, the Dutch republic an aristocracy of wealth. Our English yeomen and artisans could not have founded the one or the other; but the twelve leaders who were distinguished among their fellows by the then significant title of "master" would have been commended by the best English and Continental sentiment of their day if they had claimed official and social superiority. Their nobility showed itself in anticipating the day when "just and equal laws," adopted and administered by the people, should govern great nations.

The adult males of the company were summoned to the "Mayflower's" cabin, the necessities of the case explained, and the following document was drawn up and signed by all the men of the company, as follows (those in italics had the title of "Master," or "Mr."):

IN YE NAME OF GOD, AMEN! We whose names are under-writen, the loyall subjects of our dread soveraigne Lord, King James, by ye grace of God, of Great Britaine, Franc, & Ireland king, defender of ye faith, &c., haveing undertaken, for ye glorie of God and advance