==iHE FINDING OF THE
1° 1 " MAYFLOWER
}>
RENDEL HARRIS
F
68
H?58
Il9?0
Ic.l
Iroba
Manchester : AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONGMANS, GREEN & COMPANY
on, New York, Chicago, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras
1920
I
f^*
*v.
*<
*%
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2007 with funding from
Microsoft Corporation
http://www.archive.org/details/findingofmayflowOOharruoft
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER
J* }
THE UNIVERSITY PRESS (H. M. McKechnie, Secretary)
12 Lime Grove, Oxford Road, Manchester
LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO.
London : 39 Paternoster Row
New York : 443-449 Fourth Avenue and Thirtieth Street
Bombay : 8 Hornby Road
Calcutta: 6 Old Court House Street
Madbas : 167 Mount Road
THE FINDING OF THE^i
" MAYFLOWER
55
>
dtoA>
BY
RENDEL HARRIS
H
Manchester : AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONGMANS, GREEN & COMPANY
London, New York, Chicago, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras
1920
A
INTRODUCTION.
In the present volume the reader will find what, I
suppose, may be described as the culmination and crown
of my researches into the story of the Pilgrim Fathers.
The discovery here recorded will, without doubt, send
a thrill of genuine emotion and interest through the
English-speaking and the liberty-loving world. The
variation in the terms is necessary, for we cannot too
often remind ourselves that in the training of the
Pilgrims, Holland occupies as important a place as
England, and, in some respects, a more honourable
position ; for it is Holland who educated the Venturers
by freedom, where England educated by persecution ;
nor must we forget that the eleven years of sanctuary in
the beautiful city of Leyden were made possible by the
courteous refusal of the Leyden authorities to alienate
the Pilgrims at the request of King James and his
ambassador, a noble resolve on their part to share their
own hardly-won liberties with those who had not yet
reached the haven of Freedom, although, as the English
officials reported, the Dutch would rather pluck out their
eyes than displease His Majesty. So the discovery,
which we are now going to describe, will be welcomed
as warmly in Holland as in England or the United
States, and we shall tell the story in the simplest
possible manner.
A
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
CHAPTER I.
The Campo Santo of the Society of Friends
at jordans.
In the county of Buckingham there is a tract of land
which is becoming popularly known as the Milton-and-
Penn-country. It is Milton's area of remembrance,
chiefly because the village of Chalfont St. Giles con-
tains a cottage where Milton for a short time resided ;
here he had constant visits from Thomas Ellwood, the
Quaker, who had taken the house for him, and describes
it as a pretty box in Giles Chalfont, for, as is well known,
the Friends have de-sainted the Calendar,1 just as they
discount and disown the titles of nobility supplied by
the State. When I knew Giles Chalfont first, the
cottage was the residence of the village policeman,
whose symbol of authority was on the house in the
form of an attached plate ; it has since become national
property. Here, then, Ellwood found a retreat for Milton
in the time of the Great Plague ; here he took Latin
lessons from the Great Bard and learnt the Italian pro-
nunciation of the language ; here the poet gave him the
manuscript of Paradise Lost, and received when the book
was returned, the penetrating question, " Thou hast said
much here of Paradise Lost, but what hast thou to say
of Paradise Found? " Ellwood says definitely that this
1 The Church Registers of the time often do the same.
i
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
question put the poet in a muse and was the cause of
the production of what Milton strangely believed to be
his greatest work (for poets are the worst judges of the
relative stature of their offspring ; did not Wordsworth
affirm that Laodameia would rank with Lycidas?);
for Ell wood says that, at a later date, when visiting
Milton in London, "he showed me his second poem,
called Paradise Regained, and in a pleasant tone, said
to me, ' This is owing to you ; for you put it into my
head, by the question you put to me at Chalfont, which
before I had not thought of ". It cannot be doubted
that Ell wood's question was prompted, not by any de-
sire for the production of another poem, but by the
spiritual views of the Quakers who, with their leader,
George Fox, believed that it was possible to come up
into the Paradise of God, where the whole creation gets
a new smell, beyond what words can utter ! He was
putting his finger gently, lovingly, on the elder man's
pulse and recording its beatings, perhaps without a
suspicion on Milton's part as to the inwardness of the
enquiry : "Art thou re-Paradised ? " Ell wood was say-
ing.
This, then, is Milton's country ; but the appearance
of Ellwood on the scene, as house-provider, as guide,
as spiritual philosopher and friend, shows that we are
In Quaker land also : and for this reason it is called
by tourists the Penn country. It might equally have
been called the Ellwood country, or the Penington
country, but the world knows nothing, or next to noth-
ing, of Thomas Ellwood, or of Isaac Penington the
Quaker mystic ; it knows the courtier, and statesman,
and empire-builder ; so let us call it Penn's country :
and then let us note that in this very parish of Giles
Chalfont, is the old Quaker Meeting- House where these
A
^
6
o>
A
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
persons of inconsiderable quality1 worshipped and for
worshipping in which they suffered bonds and imprison-
ment In front of the Meeting- House is their open-
air Westminster Abbey, where they and theirs lie side
by side, within ear-shot, as it were, of the truths that
Friends have still to tell. No more lovely resting-place
for great labourers or great lovers in the whole country-
side, or on this side of Paradise itself! It is not sur-
prising that a steady stream of pilgrims come every year
into this gracious retreat, to absorb the stillness, and
to study the democracy of death in the tiny gravestones,
all equal and all alike, and all destitute of such human
praises, as are symbolised on monuments by a flying
Fame, with rushing wings, and a sound-filled trumpet.
Originally the " Hie Jacet" formula was even simpler ;
in the first instance, there were no memorial stones at
all (though this is not quite certain) ; and it is only
in comparatively recent times that an imperfect, uncer-
tain, incomplete attempt has been made, to say that
this is William Penn's grave and this Gulielma Penn's,
and so on. Many graves (most of them in fact) are
still anonymous. As we have said, some of them are
doubtfully identified, and in this also there lies an ad-
vantage : for when the Mayor of Philadelphia came
over to beg the bones of the founder of their city for
a shrine in the new City Hall, the Friends were able,
not only to reply with the general statement that they
do not alienate their sanctities, but also to point out
discreetly that it was not possible to say positively
which was William Penn's grave and which his first
wife's ; clearly it would never have done to embark
Gulielma Penn's bones in place of his, and enshrine
1 So described in the Episcopal returns.
3
THEgFINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
them deceitfully in silver that was not their proper
resting-place. Mayor Harrison could see that there
was no reply to that objection, unless he should volun-
teer to dig up the whole of the Campo Santo, and
replace it in Fairmount Park.
He seemed never to have known the lines in which
Freedom spoke by the mouth of Oliver Wendell
Holmes : —
An island is a world, she said,
When glory with its dust is blended ;
And Britain keeps her noble dead
Till earth and seas and skies are rended.
Keeps and will keep.
Well ! here is the picture of the graveyard ; it is our
starting point in our investigation, and may very well be
the concluding point of our first chapter.
CHAPTER II.
The Trail Found.
In our previous chapter we made a rapid reference to
the Friends' Meeting- House, and the attached grave-
yard at Jordans, in the county of Bucks. The visitor,
who leaves the Great Central Railway, in search of the
spot, will find the sign posts advertising him that this
is the way to Old Jordans : but in Ell wood's time it was
known as New Jordans, and is so described in the
account of his funeral. When I was first acquainted
with Jordans, it was seldom visited ; the chief event
was an annual pilgrimage in the month of May on the
part of the Friends attending their yearly meeting in
London. (Charles Lamb will tell us what that was
like) ; they used to come out here to " smell the air " as
4
«,
£
o>
' 8
m ;
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
the Arabs say, and verily it "smells wooingly here,"
especially after London air and London meetings ; they
came, too, to smell the past, which is again a sweet
savour of God in Christ to the wise among them, and
to those who know that what has been may be.
The annual pilgrimage has, however, fallen into in-
significance, not from lack of interest, but from the very
opposite. Quakerism in London has annexed this
centre, for purposes of colonisation, of education and of
religious revival. There is now many times more than
a single annual pilgrimage to Mecca. With wise fore-
sight they have purchased, or, to be exact, have repur-
chased the adjoining farm, in whose kitchen in the
seventeenth century Friends used to meet, before the
present Meeting- House was built in the year of grace,
(for free men and free thought), 1688: with the farm
came to them the farm buildings, of which the most
notable was a magnificent old barn, itself of the seven-
teenth century, and a bit of an old-world sunken garden,
such as might at one time have produced the flowers
which Perdita remembered to have been dropt by Pro-
serpina from Dis' waggon, or the sweet herbs and
simples with which our ancestors used to dispel all the
ills that flesh is heir to, and never trouble the doctor
about them except in such extreme cases as might
almost make a doctor superfluous. These old build-
ings were appropriated by the Friends for the purpose
of propaganda work, for summer-schools, conferences,
week-end schools, and the like, in which they have been,
in this country, the pioneers, and are still the experts.
I had the honour of opening the Old Farm as a Hos-
tel of residence on July the 13th, 191 2, when the turn-
ing key in the temporarily closed lock served to intimate
that fresh opportunities were at hand, " according," to use
5
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
the Quaker language, "as He that hath the key doth
open ".
One of the subordinate duties, in connection with the
re-appropriation of the ancient Quaker farm, was the
designation of a part of one of the fields as an extension
of the original graveyard.1 It is, as nearly as possible,
like to the simplicity of the old ; already a row of tiny
headstones tell the names and dates of those who lie
beneath. There is the grave of Silvanus Thompson,
the well-known physicist ; a literary man, too, of wide
range and real eminence. He had both qualities for
writing the Kelvin memoirs ; but the grave-stone will
not tell you that ; it is not the place to record talents
that are being judged elsewhere : you will need a
cicerone, like myself. And here is the grave of our
beloved John St. George Heath, equally simple and
equally great. He was caught away from us too soon,
in the midst of social problems and dreams of the world's
betterment ; one that came among us by a deep con-
vincement ; he was my colleague at Woodbrooke for
several years, and after that was warden of Toynbee
Hall. It was on the day of his funeral, as we stood
round the grave for our last farewells in the light of a
wintry day, when the very solstice was against us, and
the spring equinox had not re-invoked benediction upon
the earth, that some one said to me, pointing to the
adjacent barn,
1 This had already been enlarged on the 23rd of 6th month 1763
by the purchase of a strip of ground twenty-two yards by ten, by one
Samuel Vanderwell, a Dutch convert, who wanted a special sepulture
for himself and family. The piece of ground was taken from the
Garden Orchard and added to the Friends' Burial Ground (Summers,
Jordans and the Chalfonts, p. 256).
J
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
" That Barn is Built out of the Wood of the
' Mayflower '."
I was busied with thoughts elsewhere, and paid no im-
mediate attention to what was said. Later on the ob-
servation came back to me : I found my fingers closing
on a clue. Let us see where the local tradition that we
had come across is likely to lead us, or if it will lead us
anywhere.
CHAPTER III.
The Trail Followed.
When one began to look round to see whether any one
else was saying, or had said, " Mayflower," it was very
difficult to pick up the reminiscence. The difficulty
was intensified by the intervention of a mocking spirit,
that said "which Mayflower?" for, as every one knows
who has engaged in a similar investigation, there be
many " Mayflowers," some great and some little, in
every port of the kingdom, and sometimes more than
one in a single port. If anyone doubts this assertion,
let him go to the Record Office, and ask to see the
Port Books of the City of London, or of any other
British haven, and he will soon know what I mean.
If one tries to solve the problem as to what became of
the "Mayflower" by an appeal to history and to the
documents on which history is based, it will not be
found a summer's day task : as an expert once remarked
in the Record Office, "the man who says he can come
here and make a discovery in a few hours is a liar".
The search follows two lines of quest : first, an enquiry
by the aid of historical method, apart altogether from
the clue which I picked up in the graveyard: second,
7
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
the interrogation of the story of the farm and of the
farm buildings, and of the old barn itself, if we can make
it break its long silence and open its mouth in evidence.
The first method is that which I have adopted in the
little book called The Last of the Mayflower} The
main points to be kept in mind which result from the
investigation in this book are as follows: —
The captain and part-owner of the Pilgrim ship which
sailed for Virginia2 in 1620, and which made land in
New England, was one Christopher Jones, of Harwich,
who brought her from the Greenland whale-fishery into
the Thames, and there hired her to the Adventurers
who had themselves hired (and almost enslaved) the
Pilgrims to their own capitalistic advantage.
Christopher Jones died in 1622, and in 1624 the ship
was appraised by the Admiralty for the owners at a
very moderate figure, about one-fourth of her natural
value ; and this leads Mr. R. G. Marsden to suggest
that it was ship-breaker's price, and that she was ac-
cordingly broken up, either on the Thames or on the
Orwell,8 and the proceeds divided among the four owners,
of whom Christopher Jones' widow counts for one. We,
1 Published by the Manchester University Press, and by Long-
mans & Co.
2 And under a patent from the London Company of Virginia,
and not from the Plymouth Company of Virginia, a momentous
difference, upon which hung the very future of the United States.
Among the Papers of the Duke of Manchester described in the Hist.
MSS. Comm., Appendix to Sth Report, p. 37^, is a "note of the ship-
ping and provisions sent and provided for Virginia by the Earl of
Southampton and the Company this year 1620 " ; the list of ships
despatched between August, 1620, and February, 1620-21, includes
the " Mayflower ". The Company regarded her as one of their own
ventures.
3 We shall see later that it was certainly the Thames.
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
on the contrary, suggested that it was a valuation, not
for sale, but for the widow's fourth. On Mr. Marsden's
side it may be urged that almost immediately after the
Admiralty valuation, two of the owners, named Moore
and Child, proceeded to build a new " Mayflower " at
Aldeburgh, of the same tonnage, or nearly so, as the
original ship and not very far from the headquarters of
the ancient vessel. This makes it certain that they had
either broken the old one up or sold her into other
hands. Our suggestion was that she was sold to Mr.
Thomas Horth of Yarmouth, and that she went to the
Greenland whale-fishery as before. If this be the right
solution, we can trace the ship onward, almost without
a break, till 1641. In 1629 and 1630 she carried
Puritans and Pilgrims across to New England, and we
found the reason for this to lie in the fact that the
Greenland Company had in that year forbidden her
sailing, as an interference with their monopoly.1
The next time we catch sight of the ship, if it be
really the same ship, she is carrying goods to New
England for John Eliot, the Apostle to the Indians.
This is in 1653, and we have shown that she came off
from the Greenland fishery and was now owned by an
old whale-fisher named Thomas Webber : and we have
1She was accompanied on her voyage to New England in 1629
by a sister ship named the " Whale," which again suggested Green-
land. I have since found the proof of this : for among the ships
that with the " Mayflower " of Yarmouth took out letters of marque
in 1626 we find that Nathaniel Wright and others are entered as
owning the " Whale of London " of 200 tons burden and with John
Ayres as master. Nathaniel Wright is the colleague of Thomas
Horth, of Yarmouth, the owner of the " Mayflower," in the Greenland
whale-fishery (S. P. Dom., vol. cxv., p. 45). The "Mayflower"
and M Whale " are a pair of partners in whaling and in carrying
Puritans and Pilgrims to New England.
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER*.
conjectured that she was broken up soon after this,
probably in the Thames.
Thus there are three possibilities before us. First,
there is Mr. Marsden's solution, that she was probably
broken up in 1624. (He leaves it open, whether she may
have passed into other hands.) Next, there is the possi-
bility that she was broken up soon after 1641, when we
lose sight of her in the Greenland fishery. Third, she
may have come to her end in or about 1655, in which case
she would have been broken up in the Thames, where
timber is costly1 and not at Boston or Salem, where it
is very cheap. Which of these is the right solution ?
Mr. Marsden has the support of Captain John
Smith, of Virginian fame, who pours much scorn on
the Pilgrims, because they did not ask his advice, nor
take him as their leader, but chose to go across the
Atlantic in a leaky ship, and so deserved all the suffer-
ings that came upon them. Against this we have the
testimony of the crew who " knew she was sound below
the water-line," and the fact that she made almost a
record passage homeward, going from land to land in a
calendar month.
The following sentences in my book express the
final conclusion to which I came : —
"It is very doubtful if there is anything more to be
said as to the fate of the Mayflower. We traced her
1 For the timber famine in this century, due in part to the de-
velopment of the British Navy, there are significant references in the
documentary history of the time. A Proclamation, to which we
refer later, of 7 November, 1622, dealing with the manufacture of
bricks, begins by saying that timber is scarce and wanted for the
Navy. On 29 June, 1641, an Act of Parliament was drafted for
regulating the brick industry : it declares that by reason of the
scarcity of timber, there is the more use of bricks for building.
10
A<
«W
fk
r
• 0 «
*■
£
m
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
to Boston and to the year 1654; one is tempted to
conjecture that she died (in a nautical sense) not long
after. Most likely she was broken up in Boston or
perhaps in the Thames on her last voyage to London.
Neither in the one case nor the other would there have
been any zeal for the apotheosis of her fragments."
The verdict should be qualified by the omission of
Boston as the shipbreaker's yard, for reasons given
above.
In the course of the investigation we were careful
to point out the strength of Mr. Marsden's case. Is
there any way of deciding between a.d. 1624, a.d. 1641,
and a.d. 1655? We close this chapter with that
question.
CHAPTER IV.
The "Mayflower" Found.
Now let us return from the historical investigation to
the archaeological. Let us examine the old barn at
Jordans and see whether the tradition that attaches to
it can be verified.
The barn itself is a wooden structure, raised upon
a brick base ; it is ninety feet long and about twenty
feet wide. It has a rough corner-stone at the S. W.
angle, which may possibly tell the secret : but there is
no inscription over any of the four doors of the barn.
The Northern half of the building is raised somewhat
above the rest of the barn, probably on account of the
inequality in the surface of the ground and to avoid
the necessity of digging for level. If one chooses to
say that we have two barns joined together, one slightly
higher than the other, the description need not be
challenged.
11
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
When we examine the structure more carefully, we
see that it has undergone some repairs and some modern
additions. Modern windows have been let in at the
N. and S. ends respectively as well as on the E. side.
The floor is a modern piece of woodwork, with no possible
claim to antiquity. Here is a view, lengthwise, of the
whole building. It shows clearly the way in which the
structure has been put together.
Now let us make an experiment, and try to see the
barn upside down. To avoid the necessity of standing
on our heads, or rotating ourselves through two right
angles, we will turn our photograph upside down. The
result is almost startling ; the appearance of the fabric
is precisely like a ship in process of construction ; it is
half-grown ; a little more in the way of sheathing and it
will be ready to be launched.
Now let us look at the individual timbers to see if
they are new products of the British oak, or if they have
been already used in some previous structure. If it is
ship's timber we shall find the places where the bolts
have been inserted. Almost at once we verify that the
building is riddled with trenails or with the places that
the oaken trenails originally occupied ; and these have
no possible relation to the present building. The next
thing we notice is that many of the beams have mortise
holes, where beam has been let into beam, and these
have no connection with the existing building.
Continuing our examination, we find a piece of a
beam which was evidently a part of the keel or stem of
the ship ; for it has part of the iron keel-plate still attached
to it by an iron pin. All the rest of the building shows
traces of oaken pins or trenails, as stated above. This
is a very remarkable discovery. It is not a case of one
barn or building having been used to build another.
12
«,
A
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
The next thing which we test for is the presence of
curved timbers, such as are proper for the knees of a
wooden ship ; and for which the oak supplies special
material. The number of such curved beams is extra-
ordinary. Those split beams which were used in the
roof of our barn were so definitely curved that they
could not furnish a flat surface for the tiling, and their
hollows have had to be filled out with strips of planking,
before the roof could be laid on, an observation due to
my friend, W. R. Bowron, who made the first examina-
tion of the building for me.
The beams are thoroughly impregnated with salt (some
of them if not all), as experiment shows. Everything,
therefore, points to the conclusion that the old barn was
built out of the beams of a dismantled ship ; and to
that extent the current tradition is abundantly verified.
But was it a " Mayflower," and if so, was it our " May-
flower," or one of the three possible " Mayflowers " to
which we alluded in the previous chapter? Here is one
test which we can apply.
If we turn to Bradford's Journal, we shall find him,
in his all-too-brief description of the voyage, noting that
" they were incountred many times with crosse winds,
and met with many feirce stormes, with which the ship
was so shroudly shaken, and her upper works made very
leakie, and one of the maine beames in y* midd ships was
bowd and craked, which put them in some fear that ye
shipe could not be able to perform her vioage. . . .
The m(aste)r and others affirmed they knew ye ship to
be stronge and firme under water,1 and for the buckling *
1 There is no reference to the pumps, as would be the case if
the ship were really leaking. Capt. John Smith was not speaking
nautically when he called the " Mayflower " a leaky ship.
2Arber takes this to mean fastening with a loop of iron. Azel
J3
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
of the maine beame, there was [said they] a great iron
scrue ye passengers brought out of Holland, which would
raise the beame into his place, ye which being done, the
carpenter and m(aste)r affirmed that with a post put
under it, set firme in the lower deck, and otherways
bound he would make it sufficiente. And as for the
decks and upper works, they would calke them as well
as they could, etc."
Now let us examine the main-beam of our barn. A
glance will show that it has been badly cracked, either
by the contraction which often occurs in timber, or by a
definite accident. Looking more closely we see that
the rupture has been repaired by means of an iron clamp
held in position by a couple of iron screws.1 Moreover
this was apparently done before the barn was built, as it
is covered in part by the main supporting joist.2 The
question therefore arises whether this piece of cracked
timber is the cracked beam of the original " Mayflower" .
Was the clamp remedial or was it preventive?
It may be objected that this clamp is not exactly the
great iron screw which the passengers had brought with
them. Certainly the screw itself, of which Bradford
Ames is very severe on this explanation. ' ' To those familiar with
this old English word it is apparent that when Bradford used it he
intended to do so as the equivalent of bowing or bending, etc." He
affirms positively that lexicography is against Arber, from which it is
clear that he cannot have been acquainted with the Oxford Diction-
ary, which shows that both uses of the word are good Elizabethan
English. If we find anything which favours Arber's solution, we
are at liberty to accept it, in spite of Dr. Ames* dogmatic assertions
to the contrary.
1 This is very near indeed to a buckle, in the sense used by
Arber.
8 For the opposite opinion that the clamp was put on when the
barn was built or later vide infra.
14
J
•^
£
THE FINDING OF THE " MA YFLO WER ".
speaks, was not let into the beam at all : it was used to
raise the bending beam and bring it back into position,
and would be removed as soon as the upright post was
in its place. In other words it was a screw-press or
screw-jack : probably all that was left of Brewster's print-
ing house, after the types had been seized by the Leyden
authorities. It has often perplexed one to find out why
the passengers should have a great iron screw with them ;
some of the books which record the incident speak of a
passenger with a screw,1 but that is not what Bradford
said, nor what he reports the shipmen as saying. The
supposition that it was a part of the old printing press
makes it all clear. The printing house was broken up
before they left Holland. The Leyden officials had taken
the types away and prevented further complications from
that quarter with the British Government. Brewer,
who was the financial head of the printing-house, was
gone to England, there to spend the greater part of his
life in the Bishops' prisons ; Reynolds, the assistant, had
retreated to Amsterdam ; Brewster and Winslow are on
board the " Mayflower ". They are the chief printers
{Winslow being probably Brewster's master in the art),
and we can quite understand how they came to pack
up the remains of their machinery and take it with them
to America. No doubt they designed to print more
books, in days to come, in defence of their faith. They
may have had a due sense of the truth that the Press is
the lever that moves the world ; they certainly never
suspected that the lever was going to be applied in a
visible manner to keep a ship from foundering. The
Press had become a Providence, like so many other
things in the Pilgrim story.
1 So Prince, apparently quoting Bradford : "A passenger having
brought a great iron screw out of Holland ".
IS
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
CHAPTER V.
When was the Ship Broken Up?
We now come to the question as to the date when the
barn was built, that is, the date when the loads of ship's
timber were brought from the Thames waterside to
Jordans. As there does not appear to be any date upon
the building, we are obliged to transfer our attention to
the farm-house to which it belongs, and to the docu-
mentary history of its ownership. If the barn was
built at the same time as the oldest part of the farm-
house, or nearly at the same time, the question of date
can be settled at once ; otherwise it will remain un-
settled, and challenge further investigation.
The visitor to the old farm kitchen, where the
Quaker meetings were held in the middle of the seven-
teenth century, will be quick to notice the fine old fire-
place and the adjacent ovens, all or nearly all the rest
of the building appears to be modern. In the middle of
the fireplace and at the back of it is a large iron plate,
containing the royal arms. It has been restored to the
fireplace where it evidently formerly belonged.1 It was
lying about in the neighbourhood of the farm-house
when the Friends came into possession.
Here is a picture of the iron plate.
At a glance you can see that this is King James the
First's coat-of-arms. It has Scotland quartered on it,
for the first time and France, for not quite the last time.
If one has any doubt on the point, look in Burke's
Peerage, and you will see the very same arrangement of
the lilies and leopards, etc. But there need be no doubt
on the point ; for the date is here 16 — 18. So the old
1 Or perhaps it belonged to another fireplace in an adjacent room,
which fireplace is now bricked up.
16
^
£
THE FINDING OF THE " MA YFIO WER " '.
farm-house, i.e. the earliest part of it, was built, or re-
built, in 1618. It appears to have been a royal posses-
sion, or at least occupied by some one in close relation
with King James, so as to act as his representative,1
If then the barn was built at the same time, or nearly so,
as the old farm-house, then the " Mayflower " (if it really
was the " Mayflower ") was broken up after the death
of Christopher Jones, in accordance with Mr. Marsden's
theory. And in that case the " Mayflower" which re-
placed her was the one that Moore and Child built at
Aldborough, which passed almost at once into the hands
of Mr. Thomas Horth of Yarmouth.
But how can we be certain that the barn is co-eval
with the farm ? Perhaps the title-deeds may help us.
The farm itself was owned in 1671 by a Quaker farmer
of the name of William Russell. In that year he sold
to Friends (Thomas Ellwood was one of them), for the
sum of £\ 2s. 6d. a piece of land to serve as a burial
ground ; this is the present Quaker Place of Peace :
(Russell's own daughter was the first to be laid there).
It does not include the Meeting-House, which was built
in 1688, on a piece of additional land, four acres in ex-
tent, for which Friends gave the sum of £/\o. William
Russell, who sold it to them, Was the son of him that
sold the graveyard, and the heir to his father's estate.
Returning to the first vendor, we find that he was im-
prisoned and distrained upon in 1676, for non-payment
of tithes, at which time he was " near eighty and almost
blind ". Ellwood and others went to prison with him.
If, then, William Russell was almost eighty in the year
1676, it is reasonable to suppose that he had been in
1 This splendid piece of iron-work can hardly have been designed
by or for a yeoman farmer.
17 2
THE FINDING OF THE »■ MA YFLO WEE ".
possession of the farm for many years.1 So far nothing
has been brought forward which would forbid the
opinion that Russell had himself built the farm and the
great barn. But we must not travel too fast, or we may
overrun the scent. A reference to the Parish Registers
of Chalfont St. Giles will tell us that
William Russell and Cicely Redinge, maryed at
London 3 July 1623.
The reason for recording the marriage at Chalfont
is that it is a parish event : William Russell brought his
wife home, apparently from London, in 1623. At that
time it is reasonable to suppose he was in possession of
the farm-house, and about twenty-six years of age. A
possible objection may be made that perhaps he brought
his wife to some other farm-house, and that he may have
acquired Jordans at a later date. This is possible, but
not at first sight likely ; we can, if we please, reserve
judgment on the details of Mr. Russell's settlement : he
was certainly a parishioner in 1623, or his marriage
would not have been recorded.2
1 He was born in 1600 and died in 1683.
2 The Redinge family are also of the Parish : e.g. we have the
following marriages : —
Wm. Basse and Luce Redinge, 15 July 1588-
John Wilde and Katherine Redinge, 9 Sep. 1588.
Thos. Redinge and Eliz. Dontoun, 29 Nov. 1591.
Xpofer Redinge (of Farnam Royall) and widow
Redinge, 8 May 1599.
Jerome West and Suzanna Redinge, 14 Oct. 1602.
Wm. Wilkinson and Em. Reding, 6 Apr. 161 8.
Wm. Widmore and Christian Reading, 20 Jan. 161 8/1 9
Hy. Sams Jr. and Eliz. Reddinge (Lond.) 21 Oct. 1624.
Roger Maior, Gent, and Hester Reddinge, w[idow]
21 Oct. 1624.
Wm. Reading of Seare Greene and Amy Reading 21 July 1625,
18
J
THE FINDING OF THE ''MAYFLOWER".
Let us turn now to the barn and to its brick founda-
tions. These foundations are made of courses of red
brick, and the size of each brick is 8} x 4J x 2§ inches.
Brickmaking is a somewhat late development in British
industries ; it had disappeared with the Romans, and
when it re-appeared in the Middle Ages, the supply in the
brick market was mostly Dutch and continental. To-
wards the end of Elizabeth's reign, building with brick
was becoming a common art, and its manufacture a
national industry, and it passed, like the rest of our national
life, under the control of Government and Guild.
On 1 1 February, 1620, the Justices of Middlesex
acquainted the bricklayers in and near London of the
order of the Lords of the Council respecting the manu-
facture of bricks, and we observe that the brick was to
be made of a standard size ; it was to be 9 inches long
by 4J in breadth and 2\ in thickness, and the bricks
were to be sold at the price of 8s. a 1000 at the kiln.1
On 7 November, 1622, the Lords of the Council
make further regulations for brick-making, and a
Royal Proclamation is issued on the subject. The
Council say that the beauty and conveniency of brick-
building is now generally acknowledged ; so directions
must be given for the good and true making of bricks,
the size is to be 9 * 4§ * 2J inches, and the maximum
price of the controlled industry is to be 8s. the 1000 at the
kiln.2 The Proclamation which accompanies the regula-
1 Calendar of State Papers % S.P. Dora., cxii. : the Calendar says
2x4x2 inches, but this is a series of blunders. It should be as
we have written.
The reason why we have a 9-inch standard is to subdivide the
yard measure ; and the natural division cf such a length should be
4^ and 2\ inches.
2 S.P. Dom., vol. cxxxiv.
19
THE FINDING OF THE " MAYFIOWER".
tion is illuminating- : it is a Proclamation for the due
making and sizing of Brick. Timber is declared to be
scarce in England and is wanted for the Navy : so scarce
has oak become that in London they are forced to use
beech. Brick is a much better material, and reflects
great credit on the city that builds with it. After
30 November, 1622, no one is to bring within five miles
of the city bricks that are not made according to the
following regulations. In particular all burnt bricks are
to be nine inches long, four inches and a quarter and a
half a quarter broad, and two inches and a quarter thick.1
And such bricks are to be sold at the " Kill " for not
more than 8s. the iooo.2
On the 2nd of May, 1625, a further Proclamation
was issued concerning Buildings and Inmates within
the City of London and the Confines of the same ; the
orders of James and Elizabeth are referred to, and
regulations are issued for the time of the year when
brick-making is allowed and for the general processes of
manufacture.3
On 16 July, 1630, another Proclamation was issued
concerning new buildings in and about the City, etc.
The Proclamation included regulations for making and
1 I.e. 9 x 4§ x 2\ inches. The Oxford Diet, says that the
dimensions of an ordinary brick are 9 x 4§ x 2§ inches, but that the
thickness varies from 3^ (as in Birmingham) to if inches.
2 For this proclamation see Mus. Britt. 506, p. 12 (103) or
the original signed copy in the Record Office, P.S.B., 1955.
3 Mus. Britt. 506, p. 11 (40) and Record Office, P.S. 43.
This must be the document referred to in the Encycl. Britannica,
where it is said that "the bricks made in England before 1625 were
of many sizes, there being no recognised standard ; but in that year
the sizes were regulated by statute, and the present standard was
adopted, viz. 9x4-^x3 inches ". The statement does not appear
to be quite correct.
20
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
pricing bricks. The size of bricks when burned was to
be 9 x 4§ x 2 J inches, and the price 8s. per iooo
at the kiln, as in the previous Proclamation to which
reference is officially made.1
The standard brick, then, for London and the
vicinity was 9 x 4J- x 2J inches.
In 1724 an Order of Tilers and Brickl. Comp. in
the London Gazette (No. 6251/3) requires every brick
to be 9 x \\ x i\ inches.2
When we compare the controlled sizes of bricks in
the seventeenth century with those of the bricks in the
Jordans Barn, it seems clear that these latter do not
correspond to the control. They are irregular in
dimension. Two explanations suggest themselves of
the discrepancy. One is that the bricks are earlier in
date than the operating control, in which case they
should have been manufactured quite early in the
seventeenth century : the other that they are imported
bricks, say from Holland, which have not come under
control. It will be seen from the foregoing Proclama-
tions that by the end of November, 1622, such imported
brick was prohibited in the London area unless it con-
formed to the City standard. Strictly speaking the
regulations would not apply at first to the Buckingham-
shire buildings, but after a time we may take it as
certain that the standard of brick-makers in the Home
Counties would conform to the London measurements.
There is no sign of such conformity in the Jordans brick.
This suggests an early date for the foundations of the
1 This Proclamation maybe found in Mus. Britt. 506, p. 11
(137) and the signed original in the Record Office, P.S., 153.
2 The natural measure of a brick, as we have said, would be
9 x 4£ x 2 \ inches, so as to allow for half-bricks and quarter-
bricks by a change of position.
21
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFIOWEF".
barn and for-the break up of the ship. Shall we say, as
early as 1625?
CHAPTER VI.
An Expert's Opinion.
In order to test the accuracy of our judgment with
regard to the structure of the old barn at Jordans and
its relation to naval architecture, I secured the opinion
of a Thames shipbuilder, of the first rank experiment-
ally, asking^him to advise me whether the building was
built of ship's timber, without any reference to the
" Mayflower " problem. He spent a part of a day in the
examination of the building and reported to me as
follows : —
" Dear Doctor,
"As instructed I attended on the 16th April, 1920,
at Jordans Hostel, Seer Green Halt, Bucks., for the
purpose of inspecting the timber construction of the
Barn adjoining same, and beg to report as follows : —
" ' The Barn was built in my opinion more than two
hundred years ago, and is constructed of old ships'
beams and frames.
" ' These I find in beautiful preservation.
" ' The timber uprights that support the roof are bilge
timbers of a schooner : the plate on which the building
rests and the sill are of the same class of timber split
through.
" ' These have the original treenails and holes through
which oak pegs were driven to fasten the timbers to the
bottom planking of the vessel : these holes are 1 J [inches]
in diameter.
" ' The main supports to the roof are the cambered
beams of a ship, and are fitted to the uprights in a fine
22
THE FINDING OF THE " MA YFLO WER ".
workmanlike manner, all the fastening being wooden
pegs throughout the building. The hundreds of perlines
in the roof were cut from the side frames or uprights in
the ship. I noticed that one of the sill timbers was
part of the keelson of the vessel, as it still shows the
marks of the side timbers to which this part was fastened
with the treenail holes in same. The timbers or frames
of the ship must have been 1 2 [feet] apart.
■ " ' On one of the uprights is a piece of convex iron
band with square holes in same, which apparently is
part of the stem band.
" ' The dimensions of the Schooner I estimate accord-
ing to the size of the timber as being about 90 ft. long
22 ft. wide and 10 ft. deep, and would carry about 150
tons.
" ' In conclusion, the construction is beautiful to the
nautical eye, as the building, if it were possible to turn
same upside down, would resemble a timber-built
ship.
"'In the workmanship I noticed that shipwrights, or
men who were connected with the craft must have
built same, as many of the Tennons and Dovetails that
join the timbers together are the work of skilled ship-
wrights.
"'I must add that it has been a pleasure to me to
give you this report.
" Joseph Hyams
"(Marine Surveyor).
" Blackwall Lane,
" East Greenwich."
The foregoing report may be taken as final confir-
mation of our discovery that the barn was built out of
the timber of a ship (or ships). In reply to further
questions on my part, a brief supplementary report was
23
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
added. I wished to know, whether the three cross-
beams in the adjacent building, originally the farm-
stables, but now the dormitory of the Hostel, were from
the same source as that which supplied the barn. The
importance of this question lies in the fact, that, if
answered in the affirmative, we might have to imagine
a somewhat larger ship than Mr. Hyams had estimated.1
I also drew his attention to the clamped beam in the
middle of the barn, in order to find out whether it had
been cracked before the barn was built, or whether the
clamp had been inserted at the time of building as a
preventive against a possible collapse of the beam.
To these enquiries Mr. Hyams replied as follows : —
26/4/20.
"The crack in the beam referred to is a natural
' wind-shake,' and is found in oak trees where the branches
shoot from in the form of a knot. The iron clamp on
the same is a preventative from its going any further
along the beam and so causing it to break in two. It
must have been put on at the time of the construction
of the barn.
" You are perfectly in order when you state that the
same ship's timbers are used in the Hostel stables
which we inspected.
" Yours faithfully,
"Joseph Hyams.
"Blackwall Lane,
"East Greenwich.''
It will be seen from the foregoing that the ship may
have been somewhat larger than the first estimate ; it
would certainly approximate closely to the traditional
1 This is not a necessary, but only a possible consequence : the
dormitory beams need not be regarded as a prolongation of the ship.
24
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
1 80 tons of the historic Mayflower. In fact, this t nnage
is probably arrived at roughly by multiplying tc 'ether
a length of 90 ft. by a breadth of 20 ft. and a dc^th of
10 ft., and allowing 100 cubic ft. to the ton, and must
be regarded as an approximation. Mr. Hyams does
not think the beam had really been cracked before being
used for the building ; and in support of his belief that
the clamp was put on at the time of building and as
a precautionary measure, he pointed out to me that
in the supporting joist a small piece of wood had been
cut away, in order to expose one of the screw-heads.
Thus his verdict was contrary to my opinion that the
crack and the danger resulting therefrom were anterior
to the building of the barn. His judgment was not
affected, as mine might well have been, by a knowledge
of the incident in Bradford's Journal. No other beam,
however, in the building, even if cracked, shows signs
of similar precautionary clamping ; but, in view of the
expert's opinion, we must not too hastily identify the
cross-beam of the barn with the great beam amidships
in the "Mayflower".
CHAPTER VII.
A Fresh Trail Struck.
A further examination of the farm buildings raises the
question whether there are not traces in the oldest part
of the woodwork of actual representations of the flower
after which the famous ship was named. As we have
said, very little remains in the farm-house itself that can
be called ancient, except the fireplace and bake-ovens
and, perhaps, some of the beams in the immediate
neighbourhood.1 There is, however, an old door,
1 A second fireplace has apparently been bricked up and
modernised.
25
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
to which my attention was drawn by my friend, Mr.
Scott Duckers, covered with cross-pieces of roughly
carved timber, of which the following is an exact re-
presentation.
These cross-pieces are adorned with carvings of what
appears to be a rose ; a double wild-rose would perhaps
be the nearest description. It does not appear to be the
conventional Tudor rose ; indeed, in the year 1618 we
should not expect to find that ; so the question is raised
whether it may be a " Mayflower," and whether the
door, wholly or in part, may not be ship's timber, as
the great barn is, and, in that case, a Tudor rose might
be possible.
One of the first questions asked will be a botanical
one, what was, in the floral world, the " Mayflower "
of which we are speaking ? The next a nautical one :
why are so many " Mayflowers " on the sea at this time ?
Taking the second question first, we may say that
"Mayflower" stands for an original "Mary-flower"
which has been displaced. We sometimes actually
find it written " Mary-flower " in the records ; and some-
times we find, what appears to be a variant of the
common form, a ship named " Mary Rose" or " Mary-
gold ". Thus the prevalence of Mayflower names may
very well be a Catholic survival in the Mercantile
Marine. The other question is harder to answer ; there
is a multiplicity of May Flowers on land as well as at
sea. The Hawthorn is the favourite flower of the
Virgin, but we are not surprised to be told that there
are May Lilies, and May Roses, and that in Devonshire
the name is even given to the Lilac and to the Laurus-
tinus,1 while the Marigold with other flowers may also
1 See Friend, Flowers and Flower Lore, ii. 472.
26
Old Door with Floral Carvings.
[To /ace p. 26
A*
*\*\r
/.'
*
* (
-• -J
y
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
claim recognition. We do not really need to decide
the point as to which flower has the first claim to be
called Flower of the May, or Flower of Mary : for our
carving was not made for a herbal or a book of botany.
It is clearly conventional, and there is nothing to prevent
us from regarding it as a Mayflower. Apparently this
is the only bit of carved work in the older parts of the
farm buildings. That fact, alone, would be suggestive
that the carving was symbolic. It stood for something
in the place where it was first designed. If it came
from a ship, say either the prow or the stern, or from
the door of the chief cabin, we should expect, by analogy
with modern nautical life, that the flower had something
to do with the ship or her owners. She should be the
Mayflower or the Mary Rose or the Marigold.
To Mr. Duckers, also, is due the important dis-
covery, that the doorway of the farm encloses a second
piece of the keel-iron of the ship.
This shows that the farm and the barn are built (or
rebuilt) at the same time from the same materials. The
date of the one is approximately the date of the other.
CHAPTER VIII.
A " Mayflower " Inscription Found ?
It was natural that special attention should be paid to
the question of the existence of dates, inscriptions or
other marks by which the Great Barn at Jordans could
take its proper place in history. No such dates could
however be found over any of the doorways, nor does
there appear .to be one on the small rough foundation
stone at the S.W. angle. On examining the particular
beams, there did not seem to be anything to note, except
the Roman figures, or place-marks, cut on the beams to
27
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
indicate where they were to be adjusted to some other
beam similarly marked. There was, however, one cross-
beam in the south wall, where I detected what looked like
the remains of an incised inscription. In a favourable
light, it seemed clear that there were remains of letters ;
so I consulted my photographer, to whom this volume
owes so much, to see whether by artificial light or by
long exposure, the supposed script could be made visible.
Being a man of very quick vision, he saw at once what
I was after, and informed me that he could read it for
me without a photograph ; and he proceeded to show
that the inscription contained the following letters,
R. HARRIS,
and was a prophecy of my own name. This was cer-
tainly something like the introduction of Bill Stumps to
his autograph. And the worst of the comedy was that
the letters were very nearly as I had myself conjec-
tured ; the last three were doubtful, but Mr. Muir was
sure he could see a curve in the place where an S
should occur. Comedy or Tragedy or Historical Play,
there was nothing for it but to verify my autograph
by scientific appliances. The picture which resulted is
subjoined.
I can quite believe that most people will think we
are operating in dream-land, and our inscribed auto-
graphs like ourselves, such stuff as dreams are made of.
But I am confident this will not be the verdict of a
trained epigraphist. He will certainly see some letters,
if the light should be right, and will try to put them
together. Was it possible that one of my own clan
had been wood-carving on the beam ? The answer
must be negative ; what is visible is a faint survival in
a very old piece of timber ; a modern incision would
28
^
£
J
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
betray itself at once. If on the other hand it is as old,
or nearly so, as the beam, what can be said further by
way of reading or interpretation? Would it not be
better to swallow one's perplexities and say nothing ?
The explanation which occurred to me, at a some-
what later date, of the mysterious alphabetic signs is as
follows : the name which Mr. Muir read as Harris is
correct as far as the letters go except for the fourth and
sixth : we have then
HAR + I +.
Suppose we expand it as follows :
HAR[W]IC[H].
We have now the ship's port of registry ; and when
that is settled, the ship's own name must precede ; and
we write
[MAYFLOWE]R. HAR[W]IC[H].
The beam is taken, apparently, from the stern of the
ship, where we commonly find the name and the port.
The ships of the period had high and square sterns.
Now we remember Mr. R. G. Marsden's discovery,
of which he gave an account in the English Historical
Review? and to which I have made frequent reference
in my book The Last of the Mayflower, that the ship in
which the Pilgrims sailed was the " Mayflower of Har-
wich," and her captain and part-owner was Christopher
Jones of Harwich.
It is surprising that we were able to read the letters ;
the beam, as the photograph shows, is much decayed,
and has probably suffered some abrasion, which would
explain the disappearance of the rest of the name. If
the beam had been turned in the other direction, I
1 Vol. xix.
29
THE FINDING OF THE " MA YFLO WER ".
suppose no signs of lettering would have remained ; the
weather would have removed them. In the process of
rebuilding the inscription was taken into the inside of
the ship ! On closer investigation, I begin to be scepti-
cal as to the letter R, which we have suggested to be
terminal of the " Mayflower ". Perhaps it is an illusion.
In that case we must look for the traces of " Mayflower "
on some similar beam in some other part of the build-
ing. We have not yet found it.
• CHAPTER IX.
Who Brought the Ship to Jordans?
Mr. H yams' observation, that the barn was actually
built by shipwrights, is of the first importance. It is
clear that the ship was bought entire, as she lay in her
dock, or dismantled on the quay ; she did not come on
the market as broken timber ; she was taken to pieces
in such a way that she could be put together again,
and the shipwrights came with the numbered and
assorted beams to show how she might be reproduced
in an inverted position, so far as that was possible. Such
a task would require time for its accomplishment. It
means that there was some connecting link between the
Buckinghamshire country-side and the Thames water-
side, which brought the reconstruction of the ship into
the area of practical politics. Where shall we find such
a connecting link ? certainly not amongst the men of the
wharf or the woodyard. Their object would be to
break the frame up as fast as hammers and axes could
do the work, and get the money value of the woodpile at
the earliest possible date. The preservation of the ship
must find its reason in the mind of its chief owner and
financier. The capitalist must be lurking somewhere
3°
J
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
in the neighbourhood of the reconstructed ship : he must
be sought among the Puritans of Buckinghamshire, who
at that time were holding and playing the winning cards
in the great game of English Liberty. If, for example,
John Hampden, who actually visited the Plymouth
Colony in its early days, had heard that the old ship was
to be broken up, he might very well have said, " Let us
build a temple of Freedom with her beams, for they are
greatly to be had in reverence ". We have, however,
no evidence that Hampden took a part in the initial
venture, in such a way as to make a commemoration of
it on his part desirable. We have no reason to suppose
that he was one of the actual owners of the original
"Mayflower V Is it possible that amongst these owners
there was a Buckinghamshire man from the immediate
neighbourhood of the Chalfonts ? Let us see what we
know about them.
Mr. Marsden found among the Acts of the High
Court of Admiralty* the appraisement of the "May-
flower " in anticipation either of her dissolution or of a
change of ownership ; and he tells us that "about two
years after the death of Christopher Jones, on 4 May,
1624, Robert Childe, John Moore and [Joan] widow of
Christopher Jones, owners of three-fourths of the
* Mayflower,' obtained a decree in the Admiralty
Court for her appraisement. She was then, probably,
xThe suggestion arises whether, in view of the fact that
Christopher Jones was a whaler, and his ship a whaling-ship, the
missing owner might not belong to the group of financiers who sent
ships to Greenland, such as Mr. Nathaniel Wright of London, or
Mr. Thomas Horth of Great Yarmouth. Wright, for instance, spent
many years in Biscay, and his absence from home might be the
reason for his non-appearance at the appraisement. But this is
pure conjecture, we do not as yet know the fourth owner.
2 30, f. 227.
3i
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
lying in the Thames for the commission of appraise-
ment issued to four mariners and shipwrights of
Rotherhithe. The appraisement is extant. It is a
significant document as regards her age and condition.
... It is possible that the owner of the remaining one-
fourth of the ship was unwilling to contribute to the
cost of repairing her, or of fitting her out for a new
voyage, and that the other co-owners took proceedings
to compel him to contribute ; or possibly the appraise-
ment was made to fix the value of the widow Joan
Jones's one-fourth, etc."
Whatever be the explanation, the result of the
appraisement is to remove the widow from the combina-
tion, and perhaps to reduce the ownership even further.
We have found two of the owners, viz. Robert Child
and John Moore. Of these two it seems that Child
was the financial, and Moore the nautical expert, for it
appears that Moore took command, at least for a time,
of the new " Mayflower " that was laid down at
Aldeburgh, probably under his own direction.
Is there any ground for connecting either of the two
with Bucks or with the Chalfont area ? Anyone who
is familiar with the village life of South Bucks will say
that these are county names, and anyone who is familiar
with the struggles of the Puritans or the Quakers of
Bucks in the seventeenth century will confirm the ver-
dict. As I am more familiar with the Quaker story in
Bucks than with the Puritan communities amongst
whom Quakerism burst into flower, I will show that the
two names are both Quaker names, and that in particular
the name of Child has great prominence for this part
of the county.
Let us take an instance or two of what I mean.
Thomas Ell wood closes his history abruptly in the
32
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
year 1683, with the story of a raid made on the Quakers,
when they were meeting at Wooburn in Bucks, by Sir
Dennis Hampson of Taplow, in the commission of the
peace, accompanied by a troop of horse ; twenty-three
men were arrested and taken to Aylesbury Prison on a
charge of riot. After some three months in prison,
they were convicted of the riot, though, as Ellwood says,
they were only sitting peaceably together, without word
or action, and though there was no proclamation made,
nor they required to depart. Ellwood closes his account,
which can be expanded from Besses Sufferings of the
Quakers by giving the names of the criminals, and their
appropriate sentences. {Seventeen of them remained in
prison until King James s proclamation of pardon in
1686.) Among the names of the faithful company, we
find Timothy Child, Robert Moore, and Edward Moore.
Somewhat later in the century, we find, amongst
the persons prosecuted for tithes, and grossly plundered
in consequence of their refusal to pay, the name of
Henry Child, of Amersham. In the year 1698 the same
Henry Child heads the testimony against John Robbins,
who had brought dishonour on the Quaker name.1
It even stands before John Penington and Thomas
Ellwood ; we must not make too much of precedence,
but he is clearly one of the Quaker pillars. The Child
family of Amersham was come into the Quaker fold.
Here is a fragment of a table of 385 burials in the
Jordans graveyard between 1671 and 1845.
It will be seen at a glance that Child is one of the
leading Quaker names in this district.
1 The Testimony is headed : —
" From our monthly meeting holden at Hunger Hill [near Amer-
sham] for the service of the Church of Christ in the Upper Side of
the County of Bucks, this fifth day of the seventh month, 1698."
33 3
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
(The same table does not show a single Moore : the
Quaker Moores do not belong to this area.)
Now let us look back to pre-Quaker days and see
if we can find Robert Child. If he is a shipowner
or shipbuilder in the early decades of the century, we
should find him in the Amersham registers of the end
of the sixteenth century. Here are some instances of
the family name from the Marriage Records of the
Parish of Amersham.
Johes Child & Elizabeth- Tread way 4 Feb., 1571
Johes Child & Margeria Weste 28 Sep., 1572
Robert Childe & Johanna Home 9 Feb., 1576
Hy. Ball & Susanna Childe 10 Nov., 1583
Wm. Childe & Isabella Nashe 7 Sep., 1584
Robert Childe & Johanna Osborne 16 Nov., 1584
Wm. Grimsdale & Edina Childe 8 Nov., 1585
Wm. Childe & Johanna Hardinge 9 Oct., 1587
Xpofer Clarke & Jana Childe 1 June, 1590.
Waterus Bell & Anna Childe 28 Sep., 1590.
Robert Childe & Margareta
Batchiler 10 Feb., 1592
Robert Childe & Johanna
Haythorne 29 Sep., 1597
Robert Childe & Eliz. Tylliarde 25 Oct., 1597
Wm. Child & Eliz. Watkins 26 Sep., 1599
Richard Grimsdall & Marie Child t6 July, 1604.
& so on.
No one can examine this register, without coming
to the conclusion that the Child clan was strong in
Amersham,1 and that one of the family leaders was
1 1 have counted thirty-eight marriages of the Child clan in
Amersham before 1700: for High Wycombe, where the clan also is
represented, there are nine marriages in the seventeenth century. In
other places they occur sporadically.
34
/Vrefay 'Jam** /-■>( I nyrf ♦< ►*•«««>». ~y~n**K*.
t/' Mj£~r> fttt* . tpmet fi. <£&&4m4^.(*«^- *******
c
7ZZ? &}«£* ff/3. SJJC-J , •
(&£/ JZ*~* mT iiymS (tctm*. */&&* ~"*c~*#**y. '/</*'i9'tAy V*-";
fcl^l0* fai. y^i^JLU JL.
J' jCU //&&-.
0£^7*J*jU fas, jkT*£U, 4{Zfy~t -
j nam*. r/*y, s**f*> f «- — - - . . .
.........
, — tfjri* ••**<) tmtmtt 46m*y
Part of Bjrial Registkr at Jordans
[To face p. 34
THE FINDING ,0F THE j" MAYFLOWER".
Robert Child, at the very time when we were enquiring
into the ownership of the " Mayflower". We need not
spend further time over the matter ; it is a fair supposi-
tion that the chief owner of the " Mayflower " came
from the very region where the great barn was, accord-
ing to local tradition, built out of her bones. Thus the
tradition would be verified at every point. The same
records show that Robert Child was buried in 1 649 ;
as far as one can judge from the records, he was married
three times and lived to an advanced age. But there
may be some confusion between two people of the same
name.
The identification of Robert Child should also help
us to the date of the building of the barn. It cannot
have been far on in the seventeenth century. Whoever
paid for it, or erected it, whether one of the Gardiner
family, or one of the Fleetwood family who have manorial
rights over Jordans, or one of the Russell family, or
some unknown person, the date of the appraisement
determines the superior limit of time for the building.
It was, therefore, put up not long after the summer, and
perhaps in the summer of 1624. So that Mr. Marsden
was right, and I was wrong ; he stood (with some re-
servation of judgment),1 for two " Mayflowers," one of
which might have replaced the other ; I inclined to a
single long-lived ship, engaged constantly in Greenland
and Biscay ventures with occasional voyages to New
England.
1 As stated above, he thought that the unknown fourth owner
was perhaps unwilling to contribute to the repairs of the ship, and
that the appraisement was intended to force him to contribute, so
that she might undertake a fresh voyage. Evidently Mr. Marsden
was doubtful as to what became of the "Mayflower". The docu-
ments are not doubtful.
35
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
To make the position clearer, I have re-examined the
documents relative to the appraisement, and find that
there was no reason why Mr. Marsden should have
hesitated, nor why I should have accepted the alterna-
tive of a transfer of the ship to other hands after ap-
praisement. The records say positively that she was
broken up, as the next chapter will show. Meanwhile
the answer to the question at the head of the chapter
is that the " Mayflower " was probably brought to
Jordans by an agreement on the part of the owner of
the farm with one of the owners of the ship, to wit,
Robert Child.1
CHAPTER X.
The "Mayflower" Broken Up.
The papers which describe the appraisement of Christo-
pher Jones' "Mayflower" are two in number. The
first is an appeal in Latin to the Admiralty for an ap-
praisement of the ship : the second is the report of the
shipwrights and mariners to whom the appraisement was
entrusted. We give the transcription of them in order.
1 There is a possibility of finding Robert Child elsewhere. For
instance, there was a Dr. Robert Child who came to New England
twice, and who, with his brother, Major John Child, gets into a dis-
pute with-Winslow, and publishes a reply to his Hypocrisit Unmasked.
But this was in 1647. Winslow replied to him in New England's
Salamander discovered.
Then there is Robert Child, clothier, of Headington in Wilts,
the father of Francis Child, the banker of Temple Bar. Francis
was the first English banker; he was born in 1642. The curious
thing is that the bank has still a Marigold on their cheques, and on
their buildings. It is 1 said that they annexed a public-house of that
name, when they became bankers " with running cashes " instead of
goldsmiths. It is an uncanny coincidence !
36
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
High Court of Admiralty
Stats., Vol. 30, fol. 227.
26 May, 1624. Negociumappretiationis navis voca-
tae the " Mayflower " portus London
promotum per Robertum Childe
Johannem Moore et — Jones relic-
tarn Christopheri Jones defuncti
proprietarios trium quartarum par-
tium ejusdem navis.
Wyan.
Die predicto : [sc. 26 May, 1624] coram Edmundo
Pope legum doctore surrogato, etc., in camera sua, etc.
Presente me Thoma Wyan notario publico comparuit
Wyan et exhibuit procuratorium suum pro dictis parti-
bus promoventibus et fecit, etc. etc., et allegavit dictos
dominos suos esse proprietarios trium quartarum partium
dictae navis the " Mayflower," eandemque navem in
minis esse, quare ut valor ejusdem appareat petiit ean-
dem navem ejusque apparatus et accessiones auctoritate
hujus curiae appretiandam fore decerni. Quod dominus
ad ejus petitionem decrevit.
From the foregoing it appears clearly that the ship
was already broken up (in minis esse). Three of its
owners, Childe, Moore, and Widow Jones, make an
appeal through a notary public named Wyan for an
appraisement, which is officially conceded by the presid-
ing officer of the Court.
The appraisement comes back in an English docu-
ment, as follows : —
High Court of Admiralty
Libels 81. No. 167.
The appraisement or valuacion of the shippe the
"Mayflower" of London, and her tackle and furniture,
37
THE FINDING OF THE " MA YFLO WER ■
taken and made by aucthoritye of His Majesty's highe
courte of Admiraltye the 26th day of May, 1624, at the
instance of Roberte Childe, John Moore and Jones,
the relict of Christopher Jones deceased, owners of three
fowerth partes of the said shippe, by us William Craford
and Francis Birkes of Redriffe,1 Marriners, Robert
Clay and Christopher Malym of the same, shippwrightes
as followeth : —
In primis wee the said appraisers
having viewed and seene the
Hull, mastes yardes boate
Winles 2 and capstan of and be-
longing to the said shipp, Doe
estimate the same at
Item five anckors weighinge about \
25 cwt. wee value at J
Item one suite of sailes more then \
half worne, we estimate at j
Item 3 cables, 2 hawsers, the
shrowdes and stayes with all
the other rigginge more than
half worne, at
Item 8 muskettes, 6 bandeleers'i
and 6 pikes at ! (i.e. £
Item ye pitch pott and kettle xii
Item ten shovells vs
Summa totalis
1281' 08s 04d
(i.e. ^128 8 4).
1 I.e. Rotherhithe.
2 Windlass.
1"
(i.e. ^50).
XXV1'
(i.e. £*&
XV1'
(i-e. ^15).
XXXV1'
(i.e. ^35)-
Is
! IOS.)
4d
3*
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
In witnes whereof wee the said appraisers have
hereunto putt our handes
Fraunces Birks.
Wm. Craiford.
robart claye.
Christopher Malim.
It will be seen that the valuation is much less than
Mr. Marsden supposed (he says ^160) and so we see
again that it must be the break-up price. There is no
hint that it is the widow's fourth. The price, as well as
the statement that the ship was in minis, excludes the
idea, which we at first patronised, that she was to pass,
after appraisement, into other hands. As she was
already broken up, we must conclude that she was used
for building in the summer of 1624, and this date agrees
very well with the time of building of the farm and
its attached out-buildings, as well as with the character
of the bricks employed in the substructure; and since
the barn has been shown to be the work of shipwrights
and not of local builders and carpenters, the probability
is that the workmen who took her to pieces at Rother-
hithe were employed at J or dans in her reconstruction.
Her chief owner and final purchaser must have been
somewhere in the Jordans area.
CHAPTER XII.
The Owners of the Jordans Farm.
We come now to a difficult question, the identifica-
tion of the owner of the farm in the years 1618-24 when
the farm buildings and the attached barns appear to
have been erected. We showed that the Friends'
Burial Ground was acquired from an old man named
39
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
William Russell in the year 167 1.1 There was no a
priori reason against his having been the owner in 1624 ;
we found his marriage in 1623 ; but a priori reasonings
as to ownership of property are not of the nature of
evidence ; and we have to turn to legal records in search
of the actual proprietor, or occupier at the date in
question.
The name Jordans farm comes down out of the old
time, when some one of the name of Jordan was in
possession. The name appears in an Inquisition post-
mortem made on 21 January, 33 Henry VIII.
[=1541/2] at Colnbrook before Paul Darrell, esq.,
escheator.8
The jurors [named] say that William Gardyner was
seised of the manor of Grove Place, Bucks, and of 9
crofts called Wellers in Chalfont St. Giles and a mes-
suage with appurtenances called Groves Meese there
alias Jurdany, and parcels of land . . . belonging to
the said manor from old time, etc. Grove Place and
other premises in Chalfont St. Peter and Chalfont St.
Giles are held of Edward Rest wold, esq., of his manor
of Le Vache, etc.
This is the first suggestion we found of the name
of Jordan, in connection with the property.3 The
name Jordan, as a personal name, can be traced in
1 The Episcopal Returns for 1669 report that there is in Chalfont
St. Giles, in the house of William Russell, a meeting of Quakers, 60
or 70 in number, of inconsiderable quality, with Isaac Penington
for their Teacher.
5 Public Record Office, Chancery Series ii., vol. 64, No. 96. Mrs.
Sefton Jones has traced the name for several centuries earlier.
3 In the researches that involve the Record Office, Somerset
House, etc., I am greatly indebted for the help and advice of Mr.
Edward Salisbury, of the Record Office, and his sister, Miss Edith
Salisbury.
40
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
various parishes of South Bucks in the following
century.
Our next piece of evidence is more important, as it
appears to show that in the year 1635-6 tax was levied on
Chalfont St. Giles in the name of the King, and a dispute
arose as to whether Jordans Farm, stated to be in the
occupation of Thomas Russell, but owned by a member
of the Gardiner family, was subject to the tax in question.
As the document is important for our purposes, we go
into the matter at some length. It is a case of
Exchequer Depositions by Commission
(12 Car. I. No. 35 Bucks).
The writ is dated 12 February, 1 1 Charles I. [= 1635/6].
Interrogatories are made of Anthony Radcliffe esq. as
plaintiff against Hen. Sames sen., Hen. Sames jr. and
Thomas Russell, gent., as defendants.
The following questions are asked : —
1. Do you knowe of any Taxe or certaynty issuing
yearly to his matie out of the village of Chalfont St.
Giles ?
2. How has it been collected ?
3. Have the inhabitants rated the same among
themselves ?
4. Do you know that one Gardiner was owner of a
tenement called the Grove in the said parishe, and of
Jordans Far me in the same parishe and of the house the
plaintiff now dwells in ?
5. What rate did Gardiner pay ?
6. Of what value are those tenements ?
7. Have the defendants refused to pay the tax ?
8. Have divers poor inhabitants been distrained to
pay the whole tax ?
9. Has plaintiff been threatened by the sheriff with
distraint for the whole tax?
41
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
This list of questions is answered on behalf of the
plaintiff and then on behalf of the defendants by various
parishioners. The important thing for us is that
Gardiner is said to be the owner of the properties re-
ferred to ; Radcliffe the plaintiff occupies the Stone
Farm, the Sames family occupy the Grove, and Thomas
Russell occupies Jordans Farm.
It appears that Jordans Farm is not yet in possession
of the Russell family, though occupied by Thomas
Russell. The evidence is that it still belongs to the
Gardiner family. The King has some rights of taxa-
tion, but the defendants refuse to pay, and the rest of
the parish cannot agree on the subdivision of the rating.
The witnesses affirm that they never heard that the tax
in question was levied on the Grove or on Jordans.
This interesting document which is too long for
further quotation gives us an idea of the ownership of
the property in 1636. In the course of the enquiry
William Russell, of Chalfont St. Giles, yeoman, aged
59, gave evidence, and in answer to the second question,
stated that "certaine houses doe pay and certaine
houses do not pay towards the said certainty " ; he paid
2s. when it was demanded thirty years since. This
cannot be the William Russell who sold the graveyard
to the Friends, but some one of an earlier generation,
perhaps the father of our William Russell. He does
not say on what property he paid the tax in 1606.
We conclude that Jordans Farm was in the occupa-
tion of the Russell family some time before 1636, but
that they became owners of it at a later date. The
reversion of the property at this date is said to belong
to one John Gardiner.
Certainly this suggests that the Gardiner family had
been in possession since a.d. 1541/2 as we found out by
42
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
the previous Inquisition. But here is another Inquisi-
tion made in the first year of Elizabeth, 1558/9, which
says the same thing.
Inquisitio post-mortem.
(1 Eliz., C. series ii., vol. 118, No. 3)
William Gardiner.
1558/9. Inquisition taken at Whadsdon, 4 January,
1 Eliz., before Edmund Windsor and John
Christopher.
The Jurors say that William Gardyner was seised
[inter alia] of the manor of Grove Place, Bucks, 9
crofts called Wellders in Chalfont St. Giles, a messuage
called Groves Mees otherwise J or dans, etc.
Part of his will is recited, bequeathing the manor
of Grove Place, with its appurtenances, to Anne his
wife, for life, etc. He died 13 October, 1558, leaving
John his son and heir, aged 1 1 years on 1 9 September,
I558-
Thus the Gardiner family are in possession from
a.d. 1 541, to a.d. 1636 (at least), and it is probably from
them that the Russell family acquired the farm of which
they had previously been occupiers. It is very likely
that the manor rolls of the manor of the Vache, which
includes the manor of Grove Place, would tell us defin-
itely when the farm was transferred. But this is not
of immediate importance. The point ascertained is that
the Russell family passed from being tenants to actual
ownership somewhere about the middle of the seven-
teenth century. This result is entirely independent of
the hypothesis that Robert Child and perhaps John
Moore were Buckinghamshire men. It would not
be affected if they should turn up in the registers at
43
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
Harwich or Aldeburgh.1 The case for a Bucks origin
of Robert Child is, however, very strong.
As to John Moore, we find that he was designated
master of the new ship "Mayflower," built in 1625 by
Robert Child, John Totten, Michael (or Myles) White,
and others. This makes it more probable that his
home was on the waterside, either on the Thames or
in Suffolk, than that he was a financier, hailing from
Bucks, and perhaps operating in London. It also
raises the question whether the missing fourth owner of
the original ship may not have been either Totten or
White : on this point we are still in the dark, and must
not make hasty suggestions, or anticipate conclusions
which may be arrived at by closer investigation.
It would not in the least surprise me, if it should
turn out that some one from this part of Buckingham-
shire had actually joined the Pilgrims, and been amongst
those who are denominated First Comers. One
naturally looks for a Child or a Russell, but they do
not appear. Here is a curious coincidence which may
deserve some consideration.
A part of the hill that overlooks the harbour of New
Plymouth is known as Coles' Hill. It is described as
follows in the Notes on Plymouth, Mass. in Mass. Hist.
Soc. Collections, ser. ii., 3, 179.
"Cole's Hill, an open green, and pleasant spot, in
Plymouth, well-known, fronting the harbour, is the
1 Mr. Arthur J. Winn shows conclusively that they are not
Aldeburgh names. In the East Anglian Times for 17 June, 1920,
he states that he has searched for the families of Christopher Jones
and his friends in the Aldeburgh Church Register from 1580 to 1600,
and can find no trace of them ; nor do the registers of neighbouring
villages give any better result: "no more mention of Christopher
Jones and his friends than of Christopher Columbus," says Mr. Winn.
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER*.
place where it is said the dead were buried who died
the first winter, 1620."
To which Justin Winsor (Hist. iii. 273 n.) adds that
it perpetuates the name of one of the early comers,
Stephen (?) Coale.
Bartlett, Pilgrim Fathers, describes the situation as
follows : " From Ley den Street we descend rather
steeply into another, which runs parallel with the sea-
shore, and leads to the famous Forefather's Rock. On
our left is an abrupt ridge, the top of which is open, and
covered with grass, but its sides disguised by modern
edifices. This is called Cole's Hill, and was the original
burial-place of the Pilgrims during the dreadful mor-
tality of the first winter."
Justin Winsor treats it as a name of local ownership.
It will be difficult to establish this. Coale is not one
of the First Comers. On the other hand it may very
well be, like so many other names in the district, a
transplanted English name.
If we start to walk from Amersham towards Jordans,
through the Child- Russell country, we shall pass first
the Child woods, and then, one mile from Amersham,
the hill and hamlet and green that bears the name of
Coleshill. Close by is Ellwood's house, at Hunger
[Ongar] Hill, where for many years the Friends' meet-
ings used to be held alternately with Jordans. It would
be quite easy for an emigrant from this area to trans-
plant the name of Coleshill with him. But the proof
of such a transfer is not forthcoming.
Can we go any further in the search for a M May-
flower" man in the district where our enquiries have
been prosecuted? It is clear that amongst the First
Comers of the Colony, there is no one named Child and
no one named Russell. But, since neither Child nor
45
THE FINDING OF THE " MA YFLO WER \
Russell actually owned, at this time, the Jordans farm,
the question arises naturally whether there may not have
been a Gardiner among the Pilgrims ? The answer is
prompt in the affirmative ; Richard Gardiner signed the
compact in the cabin of the "Mayflower " at Cape Cod ;
he had an acre of land assigned to him at the first allot-
ment in 1623 ; and, to show that he is not an insignifi-
cant person, he writes a preface in 1622 to the book
called Mourfs Relation, which is signed R. G. and ad-
dressed to the head of the " Mayflower " adventure,
Master John Pierce. Nothing more is known of him,
except that Bradford tells us, at the end of his Journal,
that he became a seaman and died, either in England
or at sea. Here, then, is our missing link found ; the
Gardiner family are implicated in the Great Adventure.
We knew that some of the clan belonged to the early
Nonconformists, for there was a John Gardiner who
was a Protestant recusant in the twenty- ninth year of
Elizabeth (a.d. 1587), and again in the thirty-fourth
year of Elizabeth (a.d. 1592). He is described as
being of Filmer, which is only a short distance to the
south of the Chalfonts and he must belong to the same
family as owned the Jordans farm. We will see whether
we find Richard Gardiner in the local registers, or if
we can find anything more about the Gardiner clan
which may connect them with the " Mayflower".1
1 Dr. Whitley reminds me that four children of the name of
More were sent out in the "Mayflower". Three of them died the
first winter. Is it possible that they are connected with Thomas
Moore, who would thus be personally involved in the Adventure, as
the Gardiner family were?
46
THE FINDING OF THE a MAYFLOWER" .
CHAPTER XIII.
The Fourth Owner of the "Mayflower" Found.
We have shown in what precedes that the Jordans
farm with its attached ship-built barn was the property
of the Gardiner family, and that it passed from them to
the Russell family at some time in the middle of the
seventeenth century ; and we have suggested that there
may have been some connection between the Gardiner
clan and a certain Richard Gardiner who sailed in the
41 Mayflower ". At this point we find ourselves in diffi-
culties ; for the name Gardiner is a common one, but
the Gardiner clan, whom we have been detecting among
the owners of Jordans farm, does not crop up in the
Chalfonts, in the same way as the Child clan does in the
■district round Amersham. We must go outside the
county in search of their ancestry.
We showed in the previous chapter from an inquisi-
tion made on 21 January, 154 1/2 that William Gardyner
was at his death the owner of the Manor of Grove Place
and, amongst other properties, of the Jordans farm.
Let us, then, see if we can find his will. To do this,
we go to Somerset House. Here is an abstract of the
document desired : —
Somerset House, P.C.C. (i.e. Prerogative Court of
Canterbury).
Will 0/ William Gardyner, 1542 (4 Spert).
Will of William Gardyner, of Grove Place, Bucks.
Wife = Cicely.
Sons = William, John, Edmond, Edward.
Daughters = Mary, Christian, Alice, Elizabeth.
Residuary legatee * eldest son William.
47
THE FINDING 01 THE "MAYFLOWER".
Testator was a freeman of the city of London, but
forsook that freedom more than twenty years past.
Refers to "my dwelling-house in Bucklers Bery of
London," purchased of — Woodcok, and now bequeathed
to my wife Cicely.
Also " my house in Bucklersbury of London, called
the catt and the fydell " bequeathed to my second son
John.
Two houses in Buggerowe, London, bequeathed to
sons Edward and Edmond.
Executors : wife and eldest son.
Overseers : Will Mery, grocer ; John Duffilde,
brewer ; Henry Polsted, gent.
Witnesses : Henry Polsted, Thos. Thacker.
Dated: 18 Apr. 1541.
Proved : 12 Apr. 1542.
The will shows conclusively that Gardiner was a
Londoner, living in Bucklersbury (for which, and its
sweet scent in " simpling time," see Shakespeare). There
is no mention here of Jordans or the Bucks property,
but these are involved in the Inquisition of the previous
chapter, made between the death of the testator and
the probate of his will.
Our next step must be to find the will of William
Gardiner, the eldest son.
We referred in the previous chapter to the Inquisi-
tion made after his death on 4 January, 1558/9. His
will is in Somerset House (P.C.C. 36 Loftes), and the
following is an abstract : —
William Gardiner, 1561.
Will of William Gardiner, esq., of Grove Place,.
Chalfont St. Giles, Bucks, dated 3 Oct. 1558.
48
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
Wife = Anne.
Sons = John the eldest, William, Thomas, Robert.
Daughters = Frances, Anne, Margaret, Awdrye.
Father = William Gardiner, deceased whose
executor the testator is.
Sisters = Elizabeth Gardiner, — Stanbridge, — Go-
dolphin.
Ward = Sybell Newdegate, niece of Sybell Newde-
gate, gentlewoman, deceased.
Brothers = John Newdigate, Frances Newdigate,
and James Bacon, William Godolphin,
Brothers- John Gardiner, Thomas Newdegate,
in-law Antony Newdegate, Nicholas Newde-
gate, Robt. Newdegate.
Cousin = Richard Crayford, to whom the testator
sold woods in Fulmer.
Another cousin = " My ladie Perryn ".
Executors : John Newdigate, esq., Master Will.
Godolphin, James Bacon, citizen and
fishmonger of London ; brother John
Gardiner, citizen and grocer of London ;
and wife.
Overseers : Rich. Crayforde, esq. ; friend Thomas
Ball, of Beaconsfield, and servant John
Greene.
Bequeaths the Manor of Grove Place, and all
other lands in parish of Chalfont St. Giles, to his
wife, except the lease of Sylvesden, Sylvesden Crofte
and Dorsettes Farme, which go to son John. Other
lands are mentioned in co. Oxford.
Witnesses ; John Newdegate, Edward Baber,
Thomas Newdigate, John Gardiner,
Will. Godolphin, John Greene.
Date of Probate : 26 Nov. 1561.
49 4
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
The foregoing document shows that the family-
emerged from London life, and acquired county posses-
sions, not far from the city where their wealth was ac-
cumulated. There is no trace here of a Richard
Gardiner. For our enquiry the most important thing
which comes to light from this will is the relationship of
the Gardiners to the Cray ford family. Richard Cray-
forde, esq., is stated to be William Gardiners cousin,
and to have bought from him woods in Filmer (the next
parish to the Chalfonts on the south). The two families
are adjacent landowners in Bucks. Now we notice
that although the name of Gardiner is common enough,
the name of Crayford is by no means usual ; and we are
struck by the fact that it is the name of one of the ap-
praisers of the ' ' Mayflower " in 1 6 24. The coincidence is
so peculiar that we have to go back to the document of
the appraisement and see what it means. Is there any
connection genealogically or otherwise between Richard
Crayforde, esq., in 1561 and Wm. Craiford, mariner, in
1624?
The appraisement was made on behalf of four
owners of the ship, three of whom are coercing the
fourth (unless he should be absent and out of reach) :
and there are four appraisers, of whom each one naturally
represents an owner and looks after his interest. Mr.
Marsden's idea was that the anonymous owner was
being coerced by the other three to pay his share of the
refitment of the ship for a further voyage, and that the
break-up or transfer of the ship was due to his refusal
to find his share of the funds. This is not at all likely ;
one of the owners, the widow Jones, was not the person
to be spending her money patching up the ship, and
the same thing is true of Moore the mariner. If there
has been coercion, it must have been attempted by
50
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
the anonymous person, who has wished to send the
" Mayflower " to sea again, after a complete overhauling,
and cannot persuade his co-owners to co-operate.
They have settled the matter by breaking up the ship
and demanding a valuation of her materials. Suppose
we say that the fourth owner was Gardiner, and that
Crayford is his nominee on the appraisement (as
being his kinsman), we can then explain the whole
transaction, the purchase of the ship and its immediate
transfer to the Jordans farm. Three of the owners
were bought out on a forced sale and valuation by the
fourth, who may even have secured an option on the
broken-up materials. Gardiner bought the ship, because
he was part-owner, and one of the appraisers was a
distant relation of his. He bought it, as far as we can
judge, at a very modest price. When I first saw the
valuation, as given by Mr. Marsden at ,£160, and noted
his remark that it was only one-fourth of her value, I
suggested that the valuation was merely for probate and
for the widow's fourth part ; but the price is much less
than Mr. Marsden's figure, and is given in the docu-
ment as just over ^128, and it is clear that the ship
was dismantled, and not merely her value redistri-
buted.
The position that we have now reached is this : that
somewhere before 1625, Gardiner, the owner of the
Jordans farm, built a new farm-house and a new barn,
employing for that purpose the timbers of a dismantled
ship ; and that, in the year 1624, one of the appraisers
of the broken-up ship " Mayflower," was a Crayford,
who appears to belong to a family of that name, which
is closely connected with the Gardiners of Chalfont St.
Giles, and who are adjacent landowners to them. The
natural suggestion is that Crayford is Gardiner's
5*
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER" .
nominee on the appraisement, and that Gardiner is the
missing fourth owner of the " Mayflower".
Can we make the connection between the two
Crayfords and the fourth owner of the " Mayflower" and
Gardiner any closer ?
For the Crayford clan in Chalfont St. Giles we
have a good deal of evidence from the Church Registers,
for example : —
1586. Richard Craforde, the sonn of Edwarde
Craforde, baptised the 25th of Sep-
tember.
1587. Craforde Cheeke the son of Richard
Cheeke was baptised the xxist of
December. (Note that his mother was
Mistress Margaret Gardiner.)
1600. An. Craforde the wife of Ric. Craford
Esquier, was buried the first day of
August.
1603/4. Mr. Ric. Crayforde, Esquier, was buried
the xviiith of January.
16 14/ 1 5. William Alder and Jane Craiford married
15 December.
1620/21 [sic). Mrs. Crayford, widow, buried 21 July.
After which they do not appear again till 1662 when
there are many entries for Chalfont and Amersham,
with the spelling Crafford.
Here is evidence enough of the connection of Richard
Crayford ("cousin Crayford") and the Gardiners ; they
disappear from the parish records quite early in the
century. It does not really add to what we knew
already.
At the Rotherhithe end of the line the clan is still
harder to trace. Thomas Crayford of Rotherhithe is de-
52
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
scribed as a mariner, which does not take us far. I have
not succeeded in finding him, but there is a William
Craford, mariner of Ipswich, who is mentioned in one of
the Privy Signet Bills for the second year of James I.
(May, 1605). The document is as follows : —
Warrant to William Craford, John Crane, William
Hamon, John Lowe, John Chaplyn, Thomas Cock,
William Cock and partners, of Ipswich, mariners, and
Edward Howard and partners of " Olborowe," mariners,
for tonnage on the "Goodwill," "Isaac," "Diligent,"
" Swan" and " Vineyard," all of Ipswich, and the " Mary "
of Aldeburgh. " One crown of the double rose of the
value of five shillings " for every ton, in all 1 302 crowns,
to be received of William Garroway, Francis Jones and
Nicholas Salter, farmers of the customs.
The interest of the document lies in finding a Cray-
ford, a mariner, in the district from which the second
"Mayflower" came (and perhaps the first also). It
suggests the Crayford people as the reason for building
the new ship at Aldeburgh. This is shadowy enough,
but it is perhaps in such directions that the final solution
may come, and the connection between Crayford the
mariner and Gardiner the landowner and shipowner
become definitely attested.
The other direction in which to look for the link
between Gardiner, the owner of Jordans farm, and the
" Mayflower," is through Richard Gardiner who sailed
in the " Mayflower," and left the colony to die, appar-
ently at an early date. We have credited this Richard
Gardiner with an origin at Coles Hill, between Amers-
ham and the Chalfonts. This brings him very close,
indeed, to the Gardiner family of Chalfont St. Giles.
But the difficulty that arises is this, that the name Richard
53
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
Gardiner does not appear in the Inquisitions and Wills
that we have been examining. In the adjacent Chesham
district, we can find, however, another Gardiner clan,
probably related to those who own Jordans farm, and
here we come across the missing Richard Gardiner.
We can trace this family by their wills in the Arch-
deaconry of Bucks ; they appear to be freeholders, farm-
ing their own estates. In the will of John Gardiner (21
Jan. 1595/6) of White End, Great Chesham, one of the
witnesses is Richard Gardiner. This might very well
be the " Mayflower " man.
There is another Richard Gardiner, a maltster of
Great Chesham, whose will was proved on 28 September,
1 591. In the case of the Chesham Parish Registers,
we are splendidly provided with material for our quest,
in the edition of them furnished by Mr. Garrett- Pegge.
Here we find at once a great number of Gardiners,
especially those bearing the names of John and Richard.
Among the burial records, we have a possible choice
between
5 April, 1624. Richard the son of William Gardiner.
13 July, 1635. Richard Gardiner.
One of these dates may be that of the lost " Mayflower "
Pilgrim. Further investigation may make this clearer.
As the case stands, the argument is acquiring unity and
approaching completion. We may sum up our investi-
gation in the following manner : —
1. There is some tradition that the old barn at
Jordans was built out of the wood of the " Mayflower ".
2. Since the " Mayflower " of the Pilgrims was
broken up in 1624, the barn should have been built at
that time, if the tradition is correct, and if it refers to
that particular " Mayflower".
3. It is certain that the barn was built out of the
54
THE FINDING OF THE " MA YFLO WER ".
timbers of a ship of the size of the Pilgrims' " May-
flower," and that it was put together by shipwrights
from the Thames.
4. The neighbouring farm-house was rebuilt, in
part, out of the same ship's timber, and at a date 16 18
or later.
5. The barn has been raised on brick foundations,
with bricks of an earlier date than 1625.
6. It has a cracked middle beam as the " May-
flower " had, but this feature may be non-significant.
7. It has been thought to have the name of Harwich,
the port of registry of the Pilgrims' " Mayflower," on
one of its beams. This feature may be the result of
imagination.
8. The farm-house, which, as we said, employed
timber from the same ship, has an old door, which is
covered with floral emblems, which may stand for
" Mayflowers".
9. One of the principal owners of the " Mayflower,"
Robert Child, lived only a few miles from the Jordans
farm, at Amersham or in the neighbourhood. Another
of the owners, named Moore, bears a familiar county
name.
10. A passenger in the H Mayflower," named Richard
Gardiner, may be traced to the same neighbourhood j
he left the colony, returned to England, and appears to
have been buried at Chesham.
1 1 . The actual owner of the farm, named Gardiner,
was the builder of the ship-barn at Jordans, and was
related to the family of one of the persons, named Cray-
ford, who appraised the " Mayflower " when she was
broken up. Gardiner is the missing fourth owner of
the ship.
12. The appraiser, in question, had a relative at
55
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFIOWEF".
Ipswich, like himself a shipman, who may have been
responsible for the building of the second " Mayflower,"
at Aldburgh, instead of on the Thames.
The conclusion at which we arrive is, that
The ship out of which the barn was built
WAS
The " Mayflower".
CHAPTER XIV.
Concluding Remarks.
If the arguments of the foregoing pages are valid, and
we have substantiated in a satisfactory manner the
local tradition relating to the Old Barn at Jordans, then
the " Mayflower " is in the possession of the Society of
Friends. The first thing that arises in one's mind, in
view of such a conclusion is, that in that case we are
face to face with one of the ironies of history ; for it can-
not be said that the Pilgrims, if they could have willed
their property away, would have made such a bequest.
Even at New Plymouth, the Quaker invasion of the
Pilgrims which occurred nearly forty years after their
first arrival, was not received amicably. They did not,
indeed, proceed to apply Boston methods to the in-
truders, and the ancient leaven was still operative when
Isaac Robinson, the son of their founder, went into dis-
franchisement rather than become a persecutor ; but the
general criticism was hostile, and there was occasional
violence along with the expression of adverse judgment.
This is curious, in view of the fact that both the Pilgrims
and the Quakers were the victims of the same hostile
legislation. And now the Friends have the sacred
symbol oi liberty, which we know was not a Ship of
Fools, a Navis Stultifera, in their own keeping. As
56
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
we said, that is one of the ironies of history ; well, the
ironies of history are the judgments of time, and have a
sanctity of their own. A good instance, in our own day,
of a similar judgment occurred when the slaves of Jeffer-
son Davis got the ownership of their master's old farm.
These things are sometimes called the whirligig of time,
as in the Shakespearian phrase, " The whirligig of time
brings in its revenges" ; but the term is too light and
too slight to express the cyclical motion of events ; we
ought to find a better symbol than a whirligig, and the
revenge, if it is one, is agreeable to both of the parties
involved.
Now God be praised ! said Alice the nurse ;
That all comes round so just and fair.
Then, in the next place, as we have already fore-
shadowed in our remarks on the possible removal of the
bones of Penn, there is no prospect of taking this great
relic away from where it stands. It is as valuable as
Stonehenge, and must not be disturbed. Indeed there
is a limit to the extent to which appropriation of British
treasures is lawful by our friends on the other side. If
they take all our monuments away, they will presently
leave us as barren of historical interest as the Rock of
Ormuz, and have no further reason for believing that
we are, and must be, one people, bound together by the
closest spiritual and historical ties. The Friends will
keep firm hold of their end of the new Anglo-American
chain which has come to light. It is a new cable laid
between Plymouth Old and Plymouth New, and the
hinterlands of both Plymouths, along which messages
of brotherly kindness and charity and heart-felt sym-
pathies, outlasting local and temporary misunderstand-
ings, and " late unpleasantnesses " may pass and repass
for ever.
57
THE FINDING OF THE "MAYFLOWER".
The first actual greeting which the Friends allow to
pass is from Old Plymouth ; it is a great city now, of
nearly a quarter of a million inhabitants. They have
a splendid historical record (the " Mayflower " incident
being one of the stars in their firmament), but alas!
they are almost entirely destitute of the higher learning
and the facilities for it. They want to place an Anglo-
American and International College on the heights above
the town, which history has made famous. Come over
into Macedonia and help us — to help ourselves to such
a splendid consummation. Do for us what you have
done for Constantinople. Half of its halls shall bear
the names of Washington and Lincoln, and we can find
as good a site for a statue of Liberty enlightening the
world as even the harbour of New York itself.
58
ABERDEEN : THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
JUNE
v1988
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11