contra-indicates it, although two such excellent authorities as Dr. Dexter and Goodwin coincide—­the latter undoubtedly copying the former—­concerning Coppin; both being doubtless in error, as hereafter shown.  Dexter says “My impression is that Coppin was originally hired to go in the Speedwell, and that he was the ‘pilott’ whose coming was ‘a great incouragement’ to the Leyden expectants, in the last of May, or first of June, 1620 [before May 31, as shown]; that he sailed with them in the Speedwell, but on her final putting back was transferred to the may-Flower.”  All the direct light any one has upon the matter comes from the letter of the Leyden brethren of May 31 [O.S.], 1620, previously cited, to Carver and Cushman, and the reply of the latter thereto, of Sunday, June 11, 1620.  The former as noted, say:  “We received diverse letters at the coming of Master Nash [probably Thomas] and our pilott, which is a great incouragement unto us . . . and indeed had you not sente him [the ‘pilott,’ presumably] many would have been ready to fainte and goe backe.”  Neither here nor in any other relation is there the faintest suggestion of Coppin, except as what he was, “the second mate,” or “pilott,” of the may-Flower.  It is not reasonable to suppose that, for so small a craft but just purchased, and with the expedition yet uncertain, the Leyden leaders or their London agents had by June 11, employed both a “Master” and a “pilott” for the Speedwell, as must have been the case if this “pilott” was, as Goodwin so confidently assumes, “doubtless Robert Coppin.”  For in Robert Cushman’s letter of Sunday, June 11, as if proposing (now that the larger vessel would be at once obtained, and would, as he thought, be “ready in fourteen days”) that the “pilott” sent over to “refit” the Speedwell should be further utilized, he says:  “Let Master Reynolds tarrie there [inferentially, not return here when his work is done, as we originally arranged] and bring the ship [the Speedwell], to Southampton.”  The latter service we know he performed.

The side lights upon the matter show, beyond doubt:—­

(a) That a “pilott” had been sent to Holland, with Master Nash, before May 31, 1620;

(b) That unless two had been sent (of which there is no suggestion, and which is entirely improbable, for obvious reasons), Master Reynolds was the “pilott” who was thus sent;

(c) That it is clear, from Cushman’s letter of June 11/21, that Reynolds was then in Holland, for Cushman directs that “Master Reynolds tarrie there and bring the ship to Southampton;”

(d) That Master Reynolds was not originally intended to “tarrie there,” and “bring the ship,” etc., as, if he had been, there would have been no need of giving such an order; and

(e) That he had been sent there for some other purpose than to bring the Speedwell to Southampton.  Duly considering all the facts together, there can be no doubt that only one “pilott” was sent from England; that he was expected to return when the work was done for which he went (apparently the refitting of the Speedwell); that he was ordered to remain for a new duty, and that the man who performed that duty and brought the ship to Southampton (who, we know was Master Reynolds) must have been the “pilott”, sent over.