The Mayflower and Her Log | Page 9

disastrously her trim." He adds still more unhappily: "We
do not hear of these inveterate landsmen and townsfolk [of whom he
says, 'possibly there was not one man familiar with ships or sea life']
who were about to venture on the Atlantic, taking counsel of Dutch
builders or mariners as to the proportion of their craft." Why so
discredit the capacity and intelligence of these nation-builders? Was
their sagacity ever found unequal to the problems they met? Were the
men who commanded confidence and respect in every avenue of affairs
they entered; who talked with kings and dealt with statesmen; these
diplomats, merchants, students, artisans, and manufacturers; these men
who learned law, politics, state craft, town building, navigation,
husbandry, boat-building, and medicine, likely to deal negligently or
presumptuously with matters upon which they were not informed?
Their first act, after buying the SPEEDWELL, was to send to England
for an "expert" to take charge of all technical matters of her
"outfitting," which was done, beyond all question, in Holland. What
need had they, having done this (very probably upon the advice of
those experienced ship-merchants, their own "Adventurers" and
townsmen, Edward Pickering and William Greene), to consult Dutch
ship-builders or mariners? She was to be an English ship, under the
English flag, with English owners, and an English captain; why: should
they defer to Dutch seamen or put other than an English "expert" in
charge of her alterations, especially when England rightfully boasted
the best? But not only were these Leyden leaders not guilty of any
laches as indicted by Arber and too readily convicted by Griffis, but the
"overmasting" was of small account as compared with the deliberate
rascality of captain and crew, in the disabling of the consort, as
expressly certified by Bradford, who certainly, as an eye-witness, knew

whereof he affirmed.
Having bought a vessel, it was necessary to fit her for the severe
service in which she was to be employed; to provision her for the
voyage, etc.; and this could be done properly only by experienced
hands. The Pilgrim leaders at Leyden seem, therefore, as noted, to have
sent to their agents at London for a competent man to take charge of
this work, and were sent a "pilott" (or "mate"), doubtless presumed to
be equal to the task. Goodwin mistakenly says: "As Spring waned,
Thomas Nash went from Leyden to confer with the agents at London.
He soon returned with a pilot (doubtless [sic] Robert Coppin), who was
to conduct the Continental party to England." This is both wild and
remarkable "guessing" for the usually careful compiler of the "Pilgrim
Republic." There is no warrant whatever for this assumption, and
everything contra-indicates it, although two such excellent authorities
as Dr. Dexter and Goodwin coincide--the latter undoubtedly copying
the former--concerning Coppin; both being doubtless in error, as
hereafter shown. Dexter says "My impression is that Coppin was
originally hired to go in the SPEEDWELL, and that he was the 'pilott'
whose coming was 'a great incouragement' to the Leyden expectants, in
the last of May, or first of June, 1620 [before May 31, as shown]; that
he sailed with them in the SPEEDWELL, but on her final putting back
was transferred to the MAY-FLOWER." All the direct light any one
has upon the matter comes from the letter of the Leyden brethren of
May 31 [O.S.], 1620, previously cited, to Carver and Cushman, and the
reply of the latter thereto, of Sunday, June 11, 1620. The former as
noted, say: "We received diverse letters at the coming of Master Nash
[probably Thomas] and our pilott, which is a great incouragement unto
us . . . and indeed had you not sente him [the 'pilott,' presumably] many
would have been ready to fainte and goe backe." Neither here nor in
any other relation is there the faintest suggestion of Coppin, except as
what he was, "the second mate," or "pilott," of the MAY-FLOWER. It
is not reasonable to suppose that, for so small a craft but just purchased,
and with the expedition yet uncertain, the Leyden leaders or their
London agents had by June 11, employed both a "Master" and a "pilott"
for the SPEEDWELL, as must have been the case if this "pilott" was,
as Goodwin so confidently assumes, "doubtless Robert Coppin." For in

Robert Cushman's letter of Sunday, June 11, as if proposing (now that
the larger vessel would be at once obtained, and would, as he thought,
be "ready in fourteen days") that the "pilott" sent over to "refit" the
SPEEDWELL should be further utilized, he says: "Let Master
Reynolds tarrie there [inferentially, not return here when his work is
done, as we originally arranged] and bring the ship [the SPEEDWELL],
to Southampton." The latter service we know he performed.
The side lights upon the