80 JOURNAL OF THE PLYMOUTH INSTITUTION. 
Stroud, Baron of her Majesty's Court of Exchequer, of the one 
part, and the Mayor and Commonalty of Plymouth, of the other 
part, in assessment of the damages payable to the divers owners 
and farmers along the line of the water-course, over all the grounds 
lying between the town of Plymouth and any part of the river 
Meavy. 1 
It was clear that Drake did a great deal for which he received 
no payment, especially (as appears from D'Ewes' Journal, 1584- 
1592) in passing through Parliament the Bill of 1585, so oddly 
called that "for the preservation of Plymouth Haven," as well 
as opposing the Bill of 1592-3 for the removal of the Mills, when 
the Bill was "committed to him" as one possessed of local know- 
ledge. And what happened in this case might have clearly occurred 
in the others. The Corporation Becords have omitted to mention 
that the second reading of the Bills was committed to Sir E. 
Drake, and only registered the payments made to their official 
representatives. And this was just the gist of his contention. 
The Corporation was everything — everyone else fell in the shade. 
The water at the fountain-head might have been deemed to take its 
source near the extreme boundaries of the Drake property at Yeo, 
though afterwards Walter Elford made a claim in respect of his 
property further east at Longstone, which they found had to be 
satisfied, not only after Drake's death in 1596, but after the Judges' 
assessment of damages in 1592 (July 5th), when they found the 
Elfords were awarded damages. It was remarkable that, in the 
Judges' assessment of 1592, Sir Erancis Drake himself proved to 
have been awarded damages as farmer on the grounds of Edmund 
Parker, seventeen shillings being awarded to each respectively as 
owner and farmer. This, however, in like manner, as in the case 
of the mill rents, deducted from sums payable to him for the con- 
struction of the leat, would be allowed him in part payment of 
other sums due by him to the Corporation for dues or properties 
farmed out. Hence it is evident that Drake profited little by the 
transaction, and that he made no charge in respect of the Buckland 
estate, which lay so advantageously for his work. 
But over and above the gift of the water, there was the further 
question of the bringing in of the leat. Did the Corporation in 
1 It now appears very likely that this deed is of the bogus order, and does 
not register the sums which actually passed. The sums assigned are 
manifestly like those which pass in peppercorn rents. 
