A HISTORY OF CORNWALL 



get a grant of a fixed imposition on shipping when certificates of its utility were obtained. This, 

 he thought, would be easy. 1 He was taken at his word and given a similar patent to that of 1570, 

 permitting him to build the lighthouse and to keep the light burning for fifty years. 2 With a staid, 

 if unintentional, humour it gave him leave to receive any contributions voluntarily offered to him, 

 as he was doing the work ' out of Christian and charitable considerations.' Then Killigrew's 

 troubles began. By December, 1619, the tower was built and the light was burning, at a cost of 

 IO shillings a night for coal. Not only was the light burning, but so also were his neighbours, who 

 declared, 



that I take away God's grace from them ; their English meaning is that they now shall receive no 

 more benefit from shipwreck. They have been so long used to reap purchase by the calamity of the 

 ruin of shipping as they claim it hereditary. 3 



When Killigrew petitioned for his patent from the Lord Admiral he had entered into a secret 

 agreement with Sir Dudley Carleton, our ambassador at the Hague, by which Carleton was to have 

 half of all profits accruing from the light. 4 Carleton was to earn this by using his influence in 

 England to get a real patent from the crown empowering Killigrew to levy a fixed duty on English 

 shipping, and his influence in Holland to obtain a similar grant on Dutch shipping passing the Lizard. 

 These schemes both failed. Notwithstanding Carleton's pressure, the Dutch contributed nothing, 

 although certificates from Dutch skippers attesting the utility of the light were not wanting, and 

 although Dutch shipping to the value of 100,000 had been lost upon the Lizard within ten years. 

 At home there was active opposition led by the Trinity House, who objected to it, nominally, be- 

 cause they pretended to think it not only needless, but a guide to pirates and enemies ; 6 really, 

 because it would not be under their control and would not be worked for their profit ' the Trinity 

 House, who have grown insolent, oppose a patent, pretending that all lights and sea-marks belong to 

 them.' 6 In January, 1620, Killigrew made his moan to Carleton that he had spent 500 without 

 any return, and in May he had almost decided to extinguish the light, but would venture another 

 50 in coal, in hope of an arrangement with the Dutch. 7 Apparently it flickered out, for nothing 

 more is heard of it until 1622, when Sir John made another and more successful attempt. Wisely, 

 he gave an interest in the profits to Robert Mynne, a brother-in-law of Sir George Calvert, Secretary 

 of State, and with this powerful influence at work he had no difficulty in obtaining his patent. 8 It 

 recites that Killigrew, having built a suitable tower of stone and lime, should receive, subject to a 

 yearly rental of forty shillings reserved to the crown, a halfpenny a ton on all vessels, except fishing 

 boats, passing the Lizard ; of this a farthing was laid on the ship's tonnage and a farthing on the 

 cargo, and the duty was to be collected by the customs officers at the various ports. The opposi- 

 tion of the Trinity House seemed to be nullified by a clause asserting the power inherent in the 

 crown to grant such a licence notwithstanding any rights of the corporation under the statute 

 8 Eliz. c. 5. A final reservation on the part of the crown was the faculty of revoking the patent 

 if it were found to be burdensome to the shipping interest ; upon any declaration to that effect ' this 

 grant immediately becomes void.' If Killigrew thought that the patent would put an end to his 

 disappointments, he soon found out his mistake. The outcries of shipowners who objected to pay, 

 of customs officers who did not want the trouble of collecting, of the neighbouring ports which 

 would feel the tax the most heavily, and, above all, of the Trinity Brethren, who fought for their 

 profits and privileges, became fiercer than ever ; and, although the Trinity House itself did not 

 estimate the charge at more than 400 a year, 9 the opposition was finally successful. 10 



In 1631 Sir William Killigrew tried, through Carleton, to obtain a new patent, but without 

 success, 11 and then the Killigrews seem to have abandoned the enterprise. After the Restoration 

 there was a rush for lighthouse patents. Captain Edward Penruddocke was the first applicant, in 

 1 66 1, for the Lizard, 12 and then followed Sir John Coryton in 1664, who petitioned for the Lizard, 

 Falmouth, Rame Head, Torbay, Dartmouth, Portland, and the Isle of Wight, no doubt in the hope 

 of a grant of at least one of them, and who boasted his influence with the duke of York, who ' has 

 never yet denied him anything.' 13 In 1665 Coryton and Henry Brouncker petitioned for a licence 

 for the Eddystone and the Scillies ; these petitions were then, as always, referred to the Trinity 

 House, who invariably reported on them adversely, not for obvious reasons of public policy, but as 



1 S. P. Dom. Jas. I, cix, 42. At this time homeward bound vessels sought to make the Bolt as their 

 landfall. 



* Admir. Ct. Misc. Bdles. 160. The patent was dated 29 June, 1619. 



3 S. P. Dom. Jas. I, ex, 61. Most of the houses about the Lizard were built of wreck timber (Ibid. cxv. 3). 



4 Ibid. Add. xli, 113. 5 Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. viii, App. i, 239. 6 S. P. Dom. Jas. I, cxii, 90. 

 7 Ibid. 1 1 ; cxv, 3. " Pat. 1 1 Dec. 1622. " S. P. Dom. Jas. I, civ, i. 



10 Ibid. Chas. I, clxxxii, 63. There is an entry in the Plymouth Corp. MSS. of the money 'disburst for 

 the putting down of the Lizard light ' (Hist. MSS. Com. Rff. x, App. iv, 540). 



" S. P. Dom. Chas. I, clxxxii, 63. " Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. viii, App. i, 250. 



13 Ibid. 252 ; S. P. Dom. Chas. II, clxxxviii, 10. 



498 



