SIR FRANCIS DRAKE REHABILITATED AND MEMORIALISED. 83 
The map also figured the number of miles all the way to Plymouth. 
His second map gave the position of the six mills, and showed the 
Sourpool Meadows referred to as rented by Drake, and the third 
map gave a view of Plymouth and the Plymouth district in the 
time of Henry VIII. 
The second map. This map also referred to Drake as the engineer 
who brought in the water. It also gives the fortifications on the 
Hoe, which in 1591 were " methodised ; ' out of the platforms before 
existing, and shows enclosed within their walls St. Catherine's 
Chapel, which in the map of the "New Kiver" is represented 
destitute of any surroundings whatever. 
Taking all this in connection with the way in which the Cor- 
poration, in 1601, assign all the credit to Drake, next to themselves, 
it did seem an indication of strong bias to attribute sordid motives 
to Drake in the matter of the six mills. He had money to invest at 
home, and why should he not put it out in the several mills referred 
to in the indenture of 1634? Acknowledged as Drake thus was as 
the engineer and contractor for the Corporation, this was surely the 
least concession he could expect from them for the time. And that 
Drake might consider himself the real granter of the water, he still 
further proved from the concession of the Plymouth historian 
himself. In one passage he said, " The leat commences in Sheeps- 
tor, but so little beyond the Meavy boundary that throughout the 
record the latter parish was assigned as its place of origin." So 
much, then, for the Elford claim. 
The fact, so much relied on, of the Plymouth leat at Clearbrook 
making so long a detour simply to avoid a difference of level of 
about four feet, does not now seem likely to prove that it was 
originally, all through, the Warleigh Leat. Their ancient map 
explained it all; for it said that the great length of the water- 
course was occasioned by its " being carried everie waie to geat the 
vantage of the hills." 
Dealing with the theory as to the cost of labour and the time 
employed in the work, the lecturer said that the total cost was 
computed by the historian to have been £48, or £240 of modern 
money. He thought, however, that the style of computation 
adopted to arrive at this result resembled that of the schoolboy 
who first found out the answer to his sum, and then worked out 
the sum accordingly. Of what avail was it to compare the 
modern cost per cubic yard, supposing it correctly stated, with 
