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.