374 JOURNAL OF THE PLYMOUTH INSTITUTION. 
carry water through," and this is a statement, confirmed by con- 
temporary historians, on which now discredit has been sought to 
be cast. Nor can it be alleged in rebuttal of this, that a writer 
cannot be deemed an antiquarian who refuses to accept the evidence 
of an old deed, re Matthews, which refers to the existence of a 
Warleigh Mill Leat in 1697, or more than 100 years after the com- 
pletion of the Plymouth Leat. The point in question is evidently 
the existence of a Warleigh Leat antecedently to the year 1592. 
The next point I have to deal with is (2nd) Drake's connexion 
or not with Drake's Island ; and it is expressly denied that he had 
anything whatever to do with it, or that he was ever governor or 
captain of St. Nicholas Island. Whether he was ever actually so 
is a moot point. But this has been clearly established, that John 
Sparke, mayor of Plymouth, and his brethren, presented a petition, 
now in the Record Office, dated 13th November, 1583, requesting 
to have their " verie ffriend and neighboure, Sir Francis Drake, 
knight, appointed captain of the isle of St. Nicholas." This in 
itself establishes a connexion between Drake and the island. The 
White Book tells us that in 1583 the Plymouth Corporation suc- 
ceeded in making good the right of appointment of the governor or 
captain of St. Nicholas Island, and whether Drake accepted the office 
or not there is a very sufficient reason for his not holding it long, 
if at all, in the fact that on 14th September, 1584 (Mr. Brokyng, 
mayor), Sir Francis Drake sailed for the West Indies with twenty- 
four ships and barks, twenty pinnaces, and 3,000 men. In the same 
year the queen gives .£39 10s. lOd. for maintaining the island. 
3rd. Was Drake the generous donor or the mercenary contractor? 
In reply to this latter imputation, it is sufficient to say that the 
further impartial inquiry is pushed into the facts of the case the 
more reason we have to believe that much, if not all, that was 
done by Drake was owing to the legal necessities of the question 
set down to the account of the Corporation. Granted that they 
may have allotted to him a special sum of £300 to give them a 
practical interest in the issue. This small sum, if ever paid by 
them from their own funds, with the aid of subscriptions from the 
Hawkins and others, was paid tardily in driblets, and by way of 
allowance to him in some instances of sums due by him in respect 
of rent. But there is a very striking light thrown upon this matter 
by the statement recorded to have been made by the Plymouth 
Corporation in the course of the Crymes' Inquiry in relation to the 
