The passenger list of the SPEEDWELL has given us the names of the Leyden members of the company which, with the cooperation of the associated Merchant Adventurers, was, in the summer of 1620, about to emigrate to America.

Though it is not possible, with present knowledge, positively to determine every one of those who were passengers in the MAY-FLOWER from London to Southampton, most of them can be named with certainty.

Arranged for convenience, so far as possible, by families, they were:—

Master Robert Cushman, the London agent of the Leyden company,

Mrs. Mary (Clarke)-Singleton Cushman, 2d wife,

Thomas Cushman, son (by 1st wife).

Master Christopher Martin, treasurer-agent of the colonists,

Mrs. Martin, wife,

Solomon Prower, "servant,"

John Langemore, "servant."

Master Richard Warren.

Master William Mullens,

Mrs. Alice Mullens, wife,

Joseph Mullens, 2d son,

Priscilla Mullens, 2d daughter,

Robert Carter, "servant."

Master Stephen Hopkins,

Mrs. Elizabeth (Fisher?) Hopkins, 2d wife,

Giles Hopkins, son (by former wife),

Constance Hopkins, daughter (by former wife),

Damaris Hopkins, daughter,

Edward Dotey, "servant,"

Edward Leister, "servant."

Gilbert Winslow.

James Chilton,

Mrs. Susanna (2) Chilton, wife,

Mary Chilton, daughter.

Richard Gardiner.

John Billington,

Mrs. Eleanor (or Helen) Billington, wife,

John Billington (Jr.), son,

Francis Billington, son.

William Latham, "servant-boy" to Deacon Carver.

Jasper More, "bound-boy" to Deacon Carver.

Ellen More, "little bound girl" to Master Edward Winslow.

Richard More, "bound-boy" to Elder Brewster.

–– More, "bound-boy" to Elder Brewster.

There is a possibility that Thomas Rogers and his son, Joseph, who are usually accredited to the Leyden company, were of the London contingent, and sailed from there, though this is contra-indicated by certain collateral data.

It is possible, also, of course, that any one or more of the English colonists (with a few exceptions—such as Cushman and family, Mullens and family, the More children and others—known to have left London on the MAY-FLOWER) might have joined her (as did Carver and Alden, perhaps Martin and family) at Southampton, but the strong presumption is that most of the English passengers joined the ship at London.

It is just possible, too, that the seamen, Alderton (or Allerton), English, Trevore, and Ely, were hired in London and were on board the MAY-FLOWER when she left that port, though they might have been employed and joined the ship at either Southampton, Dartmouth, or Plymouth. It is strongly probable, however, that they were part, if not all, hired in Holland, and came over to Southampton in the pinnace.

Robert Cushman—the London agent (for more than three years) of the Leyden congregation, and, in spite of the wickedly unjust criticism of Robinson and others, incompetent to judge his acts, their brave, sagacious, and faithful servant—properly heads the list.

Bradford says: "Where they find the bigger ship come from London, Mr. Jones, Master, with the rest of the company who had been waiting there with Mr. Cushman seven days." Deacon Carver, probably from being on shore, was not here named. In a note appended to the memoir of Robert Cushman (prefatory to his Discourse delivered at Plymouth, New England, on "The Sin and Danger of Self-Love") it is stated in terms as follows: "The fact is, that Mr. Cushman procured the larger vessel, the MAY-FLOWER, and its pilot, at London, and left in that vessel." The statement—though published long after the events of which it treats and by other than Mr. Cushman—we know to be substantially correct, and the presumption is that the writer, whoever he may have been, knew also.

Sailing with his wife and son (it is not probable that he had any other living child at the time), in full expectation that it was for Virginia, he encountered so much of ungrateful and abusive treatment, after the brethren met at Southampton,—especially at the hands of the insufferable Martin, who, without merit and with a most reprehensible record (as it proved), was chosen over him as "governor" of the ship,—that he was doubtless glad to return from Plymouth when the SPEEDWELL broke down. He and his family appear, therefore, as "MAY-FLOWER passengers," only between London and Plymouth during the vexatious attendance upon the scoundrelly Master of the SPEEDWELL, in his "doublings" in the English Channel. His Dartmouth letter to Edward Southworth, one of the most valuable contributions to the early literature of the Pilgrims extant, clearly demonstrates that he was suffering severely from dyspepsia and deeply wounded feelings. The course of events was his complete vindication, and impartial history to-day pronounces him second to none in his service to the Pilgrims and their undertaking. His first wife is shown by Leyden records to have been Sarah Reder, and his second marriage to have occurred May 19/June 3, 1617, [sic] about the time he first went to England in behalf of the Leyden congregation.

Mrs. Mary (Clarke)-Singleton Cushman appears only as a passenger of the MAY-FLOWER on her channel voyage, as she returned with her husband and son from Plymouth, England, in the SPEEDWELL.

Thomas Cushman, it is quite clear, must have been a son by a former wife, as he would have been but a babe, if the son of the latest wife, when he went to New England with his father, in the FORTUNE, to remain. Goodwin and others give his age as fourteen at this time, and his age at death is their warrant. Robert Cushman died in 1625, but a "Mary, wife [widow?] of Robert Cushman, and their son, Thomas," seem to have been remembered in the will of Ellen Bigge, widow, of Cranbrooke, England, proved February 12, 1638 (Archdeaconry, Canterbury, vol. lxx. leaf 482). The will intimates that the "Thomas" named was "under age" when the bequest was made. If this is unmistakably so (though there is room for doubt), then this was not the Thomas of the Pilgrims. Otherwise the evidence is convincing.

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.