APPENDIX

The publishers of this pamphlet have, in a few instances in the course of the work, made use of the traditional name, “Sparrow-Hawk.” Perhaps nice historical accuracy would object to this; but our readers, we doubt not, will excuse us, on the ground that in speaking of a person or a ship it is very convenient to make use of some proper name: and we have, therefore, used the appellation which finds its basis in a tradition of the vicinity where the wreck was found. (V. p. 25.)

The house of Miles Standish at Captain’s Hill, in Duxbury, was destroyed by fire about the year 1665. In 1856, James Hall, Esq., the proprietor of the Miles Standish estate, caused the rubbish to be removed from the cellar; here he found several pipes, once no doubt the property of the redoubtable Captain. Two of these have been kindly loaned by Mr. Hall to the proprietors of the ancient wreck; and on comparing them with the pipes found in the wreck, they are seen to be almost exactly alike, even to a series of small indentations surrounding the top of the bowl. This curious similarity serves to indicate the age of the ship, and were there no other clew, would assure us that her date is to be assigned to the time of the Pilgrims.

To remove from the public mind any distrust as to the genuineness of the relic whose history is related in the preceding pages, we insert below testimony from various sources, including letters from gentlemen whose names are widely known and honored.

Boston, Oct. 12, 1865.

Chas. W. Livermore and Leander Crosby, Esqs.

Gentlemen,—It is not surprising that a portion of the public look with suspicion upon the statement that you have in your possession the wreck of a vessel which was stranded on Cape Cod some two hundred and forty years ago. To assist you in removing such suspicion, which we regard as unfounded, permit us to say, that after a careful examination of the wreck itself; after investigating the circumstances of its position and condition when found, and the traditions concerning it; after collating with these the several accounts contained in the Histories of Governor Bradford, Secretary Morton, and Prince, the annalist,—we have been led irresistibly to the conclusion that the “Old Ship” has the antiquity which you claim for it, and are of opinion that it is the identical wreck visited by Governor Bradford in 1626,—as narrated by him in his history of Plymouth Plantation, page 217. The wreck we regard as a remarkable curiosity, and well worthy a visit by all who are in any degree interested in our early colonial history.

NATH. B. SHURTLEFF.
CHARLES DEANE.
RICHARD FROTHINGHAM.
HENRY M. DEXTER.
ROBT. C. WINTHROP.
JOHN G. PALFREY.
RICHARD H. DANA, JR.
WINSLOW LEWIS.

[For the information of persons resident in other States, who may not be informed in regard to these gentlemen, we would say, that Dr. Nathaniel B. Shurtleff is thoroughly versed in all matters of colonial history, is a member of the Board of Overseers of Harvard College, and also a member of the Massachusetts Historical Society; Charles Deane, Esq., is a prominent member of the Massachusetts Historical Society, and editor of Bradford’s “History of Plymouth Plantation,” which contains the original account of the wreck of the old ship; the Hon. Richard Frothingham is the author of the “Siege of Boston,” and of the “Life of General Joseph Warren,” now in press; the Rev. Henry M. Dexter is Corresponding Secretary of the N. E. Historic-Genealogical Society—is editor of a new edition of Mourt’s Relation, and his recent investigations in England and Holland will, no doubt, throw new light on the history of the Pilgrims prior to their emigration; the Hon. Robert C. Winthrop is President of the Massachusetts Historical Society, and the author of a Memoir of his distinguished ancestor, Governor Winthrop, of Massachusetts; Dr. John G. Palfrey is the author of a “History of New England,” and of other works; the Hon. Richard H. Dana, Jr., is the U. S. District Attorney, the author of “Two Years Before the Mast,” and the “Seaman’s Friend;” Dr. Winslow Lewis is President of the N. E. Historic-Geneal. Society.]

The following letter is from a native of Orleans,—one familiar with its localities,—the well-known President of the National Bank of the Republic:

Boston, Oct. 10, 1865.

Messrs. Crosby & Livermore:

Gentlemen,—Familiar as I am with Cape names and Cape men, I have, from the first, felt assured that the wreck exhibited by you on the Common was what it purports to be; for the testimony of well-known citizens of Cape Cod came simultaneously with the discovery which they made. Amos Otis, Esq., Cashier of the Barnstable Bank, I have long known as a sterling, sound, matter-of-fact man, whose judgment in what falls under his own observation is not easily misled. Mr. Otis (aside from the local papers) made the first published statement of the history and finding of the wreck. He saw the wreck on the beach, as did also Dr. Seabury, Mr. Drew, and many others, some of whom I know personally, and others by reputation. I have no hesitation in affirming my belief, that if human testimony can prove anything, the wreck you are now exhibiting on the Common, and which I have seen, was washed out of the Potanumaquut meadows in 1863. That is enough to establish beyond cavil the antiquity of the wreck. I need not recapitulate the historical statements set forth in your pamphlet,[10] “The Ancient Wreck:” to my mind, they seem to point unmistakably to this very wreck, as that of the vessel spoken of by Morton and Prince, and to which tradition has assigned the name of “Sparrow-Hawk.” Bradford, who gives full particulars of the voyage and loss, omitted to mention the name of the vessel. Within a few years much light has been thrown on the period of English emigration to the colonies; and it is not improbable that we may yet learn from English records the name of the ship which Captain Johnston commanded, and in which Messrs. Fells and Sibsie were passengers. The name, however, is of little consequence, compared with the identity of the ship,—and that, I think, is clearly established by the historical facts as given in your publication to which I have alluded. Eminent ship-builders who have examined the frame as now exhibited, are clearly of opinion that it dates far back in the history of naval architecture. This fact furnishes additional evidence corroborative of the opinions I have expressed above.

Hoping that your exhibition will be eminently successful,

I remain your ob’t ser’t,

DAVID SNOW.

The following testimony is from the well-known inventor of the improved rigging for ships,—a gentleman thoroughly informed in all nautical matters:

Boston, Oct. 21, 1865.

Messrs. Livermore & Crosby:

Dear Sirs,—I have visited the old wreck, on exhibition, and although I have not had leisure to examine into its history, yet, as an amateur ship-builder, I am fully convinced these remains are of very ancient date, and not a humbug.

I am very truly your ser’t,

R. B. FORBES.

At the last (October, 1865,) meeting of the Massachusetts Historical Society, the subject of the “old wreck” being under discussion, Mr. Charles Deane read the following paper, which he had prepared to show the small size of some of the “ships” used in crossing the Atlantic, both before and at the time the vessel which we call the “Sparrow-Hawk,” was stranded on Nauset Beach. Mr. Deane remarked that the list could have been much extended:

Columbus had, on his first voyage of discovery, three vessels. “Two of them were light barks, called Caravels, not superior to river and coasting craft of more modern days.” They are supposed to have been open, “and without deck in the centre, but built up high at the prow and stern, with forecastles and cabins for the accommodation of the crew. Peter Martyr, the learned contemporary of Columbus, says that only one of the three vessels was decked. The smallness of the vessels was considered an advantage by Columbus, in a voyage of discovery, enabling him to run close to the shores, and to enter shallow rivers and harbors. In his third voyage, when coasting the Gulf of Paria, he complained of the size of his ship, being nearly a hundred tons burthen.” (Irving’s Columbus, Chap. VIII.)

These three small vessels, only one of which was expressly prepared for the voyage, and was decked (the exact tonnage of neither is given), carried a company of one hundred and twenty persons, including ninety mariners.

On Sir Francis Drake’s voyage for circumnavigating the globe, in 1577, his largest vessel was of only one hundred tons burthen, and the smallest but fifteen tons. The bark in which Sir Humphrey Gilbert perished, in 1583, was of ten tons only.

Martin Pring made a voyage here in 1603, with two vessels,—one of fifty tons, carrying thirty men, and one of twenty-six tons, carrying thirteen men.

Bartholomew Gilbert came over to the southern part of Virginia the same year, in a bark of fifty tons.

Champlain and Pontgravé sailed for Canada, in the early part of the seventeenth century, with two vessels, of only twelve and fifteen tons.

On the voyage to Virginia, which resulted in the first permanent settlement of the English in the United States, in 1607, the three vessels which conveyed the colonists, were jointly but of one hundred and sixty-tons; viz., the “Susan Constant,” the Admiral, of one hundred tons, carrying seventy-one persons; the “Godspeed,” the Vice-Admiral, of only forty tons, with fifty-two persons; the “Discovery,” the pinnace, of only twenty tons, with twenty-one persons. This number of persons included the mariners.

Two of the ships with which Captain John Smith set sail for New England, in 1615, were, respectively, of fifty and sixty tons.

In a list of ships which sailed for Virginia in 1619, I find one of seventy tons, carrying fifty-one persons, and one of eighty tons, with forty-five persons.

The “Mayflower” was of “nine score” (180) tons burthen. The “Speedwell,” which brought the pilgrims from Holland to Southampton, and which was also intended for the voyage to America, but proved unseaworthy, was of sixty tons burthen. The “Fortune,” which brought twenty-nine passengers to Plymouth in 1621, was of only fifty-five tons. The “Little James,” which came in 1623, was of only forty-four tons.

It is a marvel to us that persons were willing to venture across the stormy Atlantic, at all seasons of the year, in such small craft; and a still greater marvel that so many of these voyages were successfully accomplished.

The Boston Congregationalist, of Oct. 20, 1865, publishes a condensed history of the voyage, wrecking, and discovery of the old ship, and adds:

“We advise all our readers who can make it convenient to do so, to visit this relic of our Colonial history, and to do so soon, before its removal from its present place. There is not the slightest doubt among the well-informed that she is all which is claimed for her by her exhibitors, no facts of the past being better authenticated than her record. Even such an imperfect reproduction as this is, of a ship which crossed the ocean while the Mayflower was yet on the sea, is a curiosity, to be seen, we take it, nowhere else in the world.”

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Dr. B. F. Seabury, of Orleans, who made the measurements for the first drawings.

[2] Annals, p. 163. See also Morton’s Memorial, p. 89, A. D., 1627.

[3] See Des Barres’ accurate chart of the coast.

[4] In the northwest quarter of the township, on Barnstable Bay, is Namskeket Creek, which is three quarters of a mile long, and which, as far as it runs, is the dividing line between Orleans and Harwich [now Brewster.] Description of Orleans, in 1 Mass. Hist. Coll., VIII., 188.—Ed.

[5] The beach where this ship was stranded still bears the name of Old Ship, and it is said that some portions of the wreck were to be seen about seventy years ago. See 1 Mass. Hist. Coll., viii., 144.—Ed.

[6] A more close examination of the vessel showed this to be incorrect. The charred surface of plank was found in close contact with timbers which had not been burned at all. The inference is, that the plank was partially charred, while being heated for the purpose of bending it,—the modern process of steaming, not having yet come into vogue.

[7] This was not to be, however. For, a few months after, the capricious sea exhumed her once more, when the wreck was removed beyond and above high-water mark.

In the winter of 1860–61, in a storm, a new channel of sufficient depth for fishing-boats to pass out and in, opened in the beach, a short distance south of where the wreck lay. Through this channel the tide ebbed and flowed; and such was its effect on the currents that a cove or indentation was made in the beach nearly opposite the grave of the Sparrow-Hawk. This indentation became deeper and deeper, until at length the hull revisited the glimpses of the day. At the time of this writing, the channel and the cove have disappeared; in their place is a straight line of sea-beach, and there are ten feet of sand where the old vessel lay. But for this accidental opening and consequent abrasion of the beach, the vessel might, indeed, have remained “undiscovered for ages.”

[8] The first recorded division of these meadows was in 1750.—The inference is that they were in process of formation up to that time, but had not become valuable for mowing until that date.

The salt-meadows have a certain frontage along the beach, the boundaries being usually a stake and stones. These are occasionally found outside the beach, which has travelled inland. Leander Crosby, Esq., found one of these, a cedar stake, where the tide ebbed and flowed. It was marked with the initials, “R. S.” Doubtless, Richard Sparrow.

[9] See Morse’s Universal Geography, I., 357, ed. 1793.

[10] This refers to our first edition, which comprised the first thirty-eight pages of this work

Transcriber’s Notes: