204 TRANSACTIONS OF THE PLYMOUTH INSTITUTION. 
All the writers who mention this, so far as I have seen, alike 
attribute its occurrence to the time when the second structure 
was being built. As Smeaton does not seem to vouch for 
the accuracy of the account, I endeavoured to ascertain if any 
record of the incident was in existence either in the Archives of 
Paris or in our own Record Office. As regards the former, I was 
met with every courtesy by the French ambassador in London, 
who, although he was not in a position to ascertain directly what 
might exist in Paris on the question, suggested an application to 
the English ambassador residing in Paris. I am sorry I cannot, 
however, record my obligation to that official or to any member of 
his staff, for the simple reason that my letter of application to 
him was never even acknowledged. 
Professor Laughton and other friends ascertained for me that no 
official notice appears to have been taken of the incident on the 
part of the English Government. It was no doubt thought too 
small a matter for such notice at the Admiralty or Home Office ; 
and locally the town records did not usually note matters which 
did not in themselves concern the town itself or those in power 
in it. 
However, from a contemporary document in the archives of the 
Trinity Corporation, dated March 11th, 1706-7, it appears that 
application was made to the Secretary of the Admiralty for the 
appointment of a man-of-war for their protection. This request was 
not then acceded to, but a letter was sent to Mr. Rudyerd, stating 
that " he thinks the workmen need not fear being troubled, since 
the person that molested those formerly employed was severely 
punished by the French king, and the men sent back again." 
This document, of course, proves that the incident formerly 
mentioned really did take place, and most likely during the 
first season's work on Rudyerd's building; viz., in 1706. 
After the completion of Rudyerd's building we do not hear 
of it again until 1716, when the lease was sold by public auction, 
and purchased by three gentlemen — Messrs. Weston, Cheetham, 
and Noyes. The purchase money was subscribed by these 
persons in the proportions of three-eighths by each of the two 
former, and two-eighths by the third. 
In 1729 an incident is mentioned in the diary of Mr. Pentecost 
Barker, of Plymouth, a purser of the navy, and acting as agent 
for the Trinity House, in connection with the lighthouse, which 
