England, proved February 12, 1638
     (Archdeaconry, Canterbury, vol. lxx. leaf 482).  The will intimates
     that the “Thomas” named was “under age” when the bequest was made. 
     If this is unmistakably so (though there is room for doubt), then
     this was not the Thomas of the Pilgrims.  Otherwise the evidence is
     convincing.

Master Christopher Martin, who was made, Bradford informs us, the
     treasurer-agent of the Planter Company, Presumably about the time of
     the original conclusions between the Adventurers and the Planters,
     seems to have been appointed such, as Bradford states, not because
     he was needed, but to give the English contingent of the Planter
     body representation in the management, and to allay thereby any
     suspicion or jealousy.  He was, if we are to judge by the evidence
     in hand concerning his contention and that of his family with the
     Archdeacon, the strong testimony that Cushman bears against him in
     his Dartmouth letter of August 17, and the fact that there seems to
     have been early dissatisfaction with him as “governor” on the ship,
     a very self-sufficient, somewhat arrogant, and decidedly contentious
     individual.  His selection as treasurer seems to have been very
     unfortunate, as Bradford indicates that his accounts were in
     unsatisfactory shape, and that he had no means of his own, while his
     rather surprising selection for the office of “governor” of the
     larger ship, after the unpleasant experience with him as
     treasurer-agent, is difficult to account for, except that he was
     evidently an active opponent of Cushman, and the latter was just
     then in disfavor with the colonists.  He was evidently a man in the
     prime of life, an “Independent” who had the courage of his
     convictions if little discretion, and much of that energy and
     self-reliance which, properly restrained, are excellent elements
     for a colonist.  Very little beside the fact that he came from
     Essex is known of him, and nothing of his wife.  He has further
     mention hereafter.

Solomon Prower is clearly shown by the complaint made against him by the
     Archdeacon of Chelmsford, the March before he sailed on the
     may-Flower, to have been quite a youth, a firm “Separatist,” and
     something more than an ordinary “servant.”  He seems to have been
     summoned before the Archdeacon at the same time with young Martin
     (a son of Christopher), and this fact suggests some nearer relation
     than that of “servant.”  He is sometimes spoken of as Martin’s
     “son,” by what warrant does not appear, but the fact suggests that
     he may have been a step-son.  Bradford, in recording his death,
     says:  “Dec. 24, this day dies Solomon Martin.”  This