320 JOURNAL OF THE PLYMOUTH INSTITUTION. 
the Pool, and the measurage and lastage on all which discharged 
there, fines of fishing boats and pottage of fish, and the Duke 
reserving all prisage and bushelage, wrecks of sea, customs of cloth 
and leather, petty customs, goods of pirates, and maritime juris- 
diction. 
On an enquiry made during the Commonwealth (Oct. 7th, 1650) 
concerning the water and pool of Sutton, it was declared that the 
rights of the same, anchorage, keelage, measurage, bushelage, 
lastage, toll of fishing boats and pottage, had been granted for 
204 years from March 25th, 1638, for £13 6s. 8d. annually, to Sir 
John Walter, Sir James Fullerton, and Sir Thomas Treyena; that 
they in the same year had assigned their patent to Thomas Cald- 
well, from whom it passed in succession to Sir David Cunningham, 
Peter Headon, of Plympton St. Mary, and the Hospital of Orphans’ 
Aid. Houses had been built on the bank of the Pool within high 
watermark ; but the foreshore was all claimed by the Corporation 
as part of their manor of Sutton. The Pool was really then in 
the hands of the municipal authorities. At the Restoration it was 
leased by the Crown for thirty-one years to Lord Arundel at £45 
a year rent; and proceedings forthwith commenced between him 
and the Corporation. The latter were cast, and not only lost the 
Pool, which was worth £100 a year, but £2500 costs. 
Nor did litigation end here. In the first year of the reign of 
Elizabeth an Act of Parliament had fixed ‘ Hawkins’s Quay,” 
which was either built by or adjoining the property of one of the 
Hawkinses (Sir John I presume, as it afterwards came to Sir 
Richard), as the sole legal quay for landing goods. This quay in 
1664 was unprovided with a crane (probably the old one had been 
worn out); and so the customs authorities in London, pointing 
out that it was the only lawful quay, and that goods landed else- 
where were liable to seizure and confiscation, the benefit of which 
they heard ‘doth redound to the town,” required a new crane to 
be supplied ; which was done, at the cost of £19 1s. 2d. This, 
however, was a small matter to what followed. William Jennens, 
who had the general conduct of the Arundel suit on behalf of the 
town, and John Warren, another merchant, claimed Hawkins’s 
Quay as theirs—partly as Jennens’s Quay, and partly as Warren’s 
Quay—and demanded fees for landing goods. This led to more 
law. Our Quarter Sessions declared that these quays were not the 
property of Jennens and Warren, but belonged to the Corporation ; 
