Master Christopher Martin, who was made, Bradford informs us, the
treasurer-agent of the Planter Company, Presumably about the time of
the original conclusions between the Adventurers and the Planters,
seems to have been appointed such, as Bradford states, not because
he was needed, but to give the English contingent of the Planter
body representation in the management, and to allay thereby any
suspicion or jealousy. He was, if we are to judge by the evidence
in hand concerning his contention and that of his family with the
Archdeacon, the strong testimony that Cushman bears against him in
his Dartmouth letter of August 17, and the fact that there seems to
have been early dissatisfaction with him as “governor” on the ship,
a very self-sufficient, somewhat arrogant, and decidedly contentious
individual. His selection as treasurer seems to have been very
unfortunate, as Bradford indicates that his accounts were in
unsatisfactory shape, and that he had no means of his own, while his
rather surprising selection for the office of “governor” of the
larger ship, after the unpleasant experience with him as
treasurer-agent, is difficult to account for, except that he was
evidently an active opponent of Cushman, and the latter was just
then in disfavor with the colonists. He was evidently a man in the
prime of life, an “Independent” who had the courage of his
convictions if little discretion, and much of that energy and
self-reliance which, properly restrained, are excellent elements
for a colonist. Very little beside the fact that he came from
Essex is known of him, and nothing of his wife. He has further
mention hereafter.
Solomon Prower is clearly shown by the complaint made against him by the
Archdeacon of Chelmsford, the March before he sailed on the
MAY-FLOWER, to have been quite a youth, a firm “Separatist,” and
something more than an ordinary “servant.” He seems to have been
summoned before the Archdeacon at the same time with young Martin
(a son of Christopher), and this fact suggests some nearer relation
than that of “servant.” He is sometimes spoken of as Martin’s
“son,” by what warrant does not appear, but the fact suggests that
he may have been a step-son. Bradford, in recording his death,
says: “Dec. 24, this day dies Solomon Martin.” This could, of
course, have been none other than Solomon Prower. Dr. Young, in his
“Chronicles,” speaking of Martin, says, “he brought his wife and two
children.” If this means Martin’s children, it is evidently an
error. It may refer to age only. His case is puzzling, for
Bradford makes him both “servant” and “son.” If of sufficient age
and account to be cited before the Archdeacon for discipline, it
seems strange that he should not have signed the “Compact.” Even if
a “servant” this would seem to have been no bar, as Dotey and
Leister were certainly such, yet signers. The indications are that
he was but a well-grown lad, and that his youth, or severe illness,
and not his station, accounts for the absence of his signature. If
a young foster-son or kinsman of Martin, as seems most likely, then
Martin’s signature was sufficient, as in the cases of fathers for
their sons; if really a “ser vant” then too young (like Latham and
Hooke) to be called upon, as were Dotey and Leister.
John Langemore; there is nothing (save the errors of Dr. Young) to
indicate that he was other than a “servant.”
Richard Warren was probably from Kent or Essex. Surprisingly little is
known of his antecedents, former occupation, etc.
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, Massachusetts; 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 assertion 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 passengers 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 passengers 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
assume that they were passengers on the SPEEDWELL from Delfshaven to
Southampton.
So far from Philip Delanoy (De La Noye or Delano) being a passenger
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 assertions 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 assertions 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 Oceanus. 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 passengers. 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 passenger 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 principally through
her marriage with John Winslow, another brother of Governor Edward,
who came over later. Their name has assumed 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.