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