arrogant, and decidedly contentious
individual. His selection as treasurer seems to have been very
unfortunate, as Bradford indicates that his accounts were in
unsatisfactory shape, and that he had no means of his own, while his
rather surprising selection for the office of "governor" of the
larger ship, after the unpleasant experience with him as
treasurer-agent, is difficult to account for, except that he was
evidently an active opponent of Cushman, and the latter was just
then in disfavor with the colonists. He was evidently a man in the
prime of life, an "Independent" who had the courage of his
convictions if little discretion, and much of that energy and
self-reliance which, properly restrained, are excellent elements
for a colonist. Very little beside the fact that he came from
Essex is known of him, and nothing of his wife. He has further
mention hereafter.

Solomon Prower is clearly shown by the complaint made against him by the
Archdeacon of Chelmsford, the March before he sailed on the
MAY-FLOWER, to have been quite a youth, a firm "Separatist," and
something more than an ordinary "servant." He seems to have been
summoned before the Archdeacon at the same time with young Martin
(a son of Christopher), and this fact suggests some nearer relation
than that of "servant." He is sometimes spoken of as Martin's
"son," by what warrant does not appear, but the fact suggests that
he may have been a step-son. Bradford, in recording his death,
says: "Dec. 24, this day dies Solomon Martin." This could, of
course, have been none other than Solomon Prower. Dr. Young, in his
"Chronicles," speaking of Martin, says, "he brought his wife and two
children." If this means Martin's children, it is evidently an
error. It may refer to age only. His case is puzzling, for
Bradford makes him both "servant" and "son." If of sufficient age
and account to be cited before the Archdeacon for discipline, it
seems strange that he should not have signed the "Compact." Even if
a "servant" this would seem to have been no bar, as Dotey and
Leister were certainly such, yet signers. The indications are that
he was but a well-grown lad, and that his youth, or severe illness,
and not his station, accounts for the absence of his signature. If
a young foster-son or