ial
Providence of God in the timely relief afforded their necessities by the
arrival of the ships with food, without regard to the individuals who
brought it, or the fact that one was an acquaintance of former years.
On the other hand, Winslow--in his "Good Newes from New England"
--records the arrival of the two ships in August, 1622, and says, "the one
as I take [recollect] it, was called the DISCOVERY, Captain Jones having
command thereof," which on the same line of argument as Arber's might be
read, "our old acquaintance Captain Jones, you know"! If the expression
of Bradford makes against its being Captain Jones, formerly of the
MAY-FLOWER, Winslow's certainly makes quite as much for it, while the fact
which Winslow recites, viz. that the DISCOVERY, under Jones, was sailing
as consort to the SPARROW, a ship of Thomas Weston,--who employed him for
the MAY-FLOWER, was linked with him in the Gorges conspiracy, and had
become nearly as degenerate as he,--is certainly significant. There are
still better grounds, as will appear in the closely connected relations
of Jones, for holding with Goodwin rather than with Arber in the matter.
The standard authority in the case is the late Rev. E. D. Neill, D. D.,
for some years United States consul at Dublin, who made very considerable
research into all matters pertaining to the Virginia Companies,
consulting their original records and "transactions," the Dutch related
documents, the "Calendars of the East India Company," etc. Upon him and
his exhaustive work all others have largely drawn,--notably Professor
Arber himself,--and his conclusions seem entitled to the same weight here
which Arber gives them in other relations. Dr. Neill is clearly of
opinion that the Captains of the MAY-FLOWER and the DISCOVERY were
identical, and this belief is shared by such authorities in Pilgrim
literature as Young, Prince, Goodwin, and Davis, and against this
formidable consensus of opinion, Arber, unless better supported, can
hardly hope to prevail.

The question of Jones's duplicity and fraud, in bringing the Pilgrims to
land at Cape Cod instead of the "neighbor-hood of Hudson's River," has
been much mooted and with much diversity of opinion, but in the light of
the subjoined evidence and considerations it seems well-nigh impossible
to acquit him of the crime--for such it was, in inception, nature, and
results, however overruled for good.

The specific statements of Bradford and others le