Transcript

of

Recent Revisions of the Drake Chronology

Trans. Devon. Assoc., 1883, Vol XV, pp. 196-201.

by

Rev. J. Erskine Risk, M.A.

Prepared by Michael Steer

Drake's Leat, also known as Plymouth Leat, was a watercourse constructed in the late 16th century to tap the River Meavy on Dartmoor, from which it ran 17.5 miles (28.2 km) in order to supply Plymouth with water. It was one of the first municipal water supplies in the country. In 1581, Drake became Mayor of Plymouth and it was at this time that the idea for the leat was considered by its Corporation. When Elizabeth I called a parliament in 1584, the Water Bill for Plymouth was already prepared for presentation. Drake was paid £200 for the work plus another £100 for compensation to any landowners whose property the course of the leat would have to pass through. In the event he paid out only £100 for construction and £60 for compensation making a tidy £140 profit. The mill, into which the leat flowed, was leased by Drake as were all six of the new mills built in the same year. On completion of the leat it was obvious that little heed had been paid to the original clauses as the leat did not flow to the naval victualling yard at Lambhay until 1645; it was of no use for fire fighting as it avoided the built up areas of the city; it never went near Sutton Harbour, entering the sea at Millbay instead; and finally no arrangements for supplying irrigation were ever made with the taking of water from the lease being made illegal. It can therefore be seen that the primary purpose was to enable Drake to capitalise on his milling operations. Some of the excess water was made available to the public after it had driven the mill wheels but by1600 only 30 homes had been connected.The article, from a copy of a rare and much sought-after journal can be downloaded from the Internet Archive. Google has sponsored the digitisation of books from several libraries. These books, on which copyright has expired, are available for free educational and research use, both as individual books and as full collections to aid researchers.

The points to which I wish briefly to draw attention in reference to the Drake chronology are chiefly connected with the part taken by Drake in bringing the water into Plymouth. And the first point I would notice is that which concerns the part which Drake took in relation to the Bill of 1592, brought into Parliament for the avowed purpose of explaining and interpreting the Act of 1584, which was said to be “for the preservation of Plymouth Haven," but which was really designed for the purpose of removing the mills built by Sir Francis Drake for the Corporation. And first of all it will be remembered that a local historical authority, in treating of Drake and the Plymouth Corporation, would not allow that Drake had anything to do with the previous Act of 1584, and held that there was positively no room for such interference. It was soon, however, found that certain passages in Sir Simonds D'Ewes’ Journals (our only authority on this period since the destruction of the House of Commons' Journals in the great fire of London) were most conclusive in support of the part really taken by Sir Francis Drake. "The Bill," we are told, was committed, on the second reading, on 21st December, 1584, to Sir Francis Drake and others "expressly named in the House of Commons' Journal," of which D'Ewes' Journal is a transcript. On this occasion, as we find Sir Francis Drake's name first mentioned, it has been presumed that he was the Chairman of Committee, as might indeed be expected from his great local experience; and indeed, not only after the passing of the Haven Bill of 1584, but after the attempt to pass the second so-called Haven Bill - really the Mills Removal Bill of 1592- we find an entry in the Plymouth Corporation White-book, in 1594, which testifies even then to the use made by the Corporation of Sir Francis Drake's experience and advice. There, among the names of the twelve and twenty-four - corresponding to the present aldermen and councillors, who at that date passed a resolution to the effect " that the dyke from the mills to the castle should be repaired and kept open" - we find the name of Sir Francis Drake, and his name is frequently mentioned in other resolutions of the Corporation of the tima Now as the Bill of 1584 was passed under Sir Francis Drake's guidance in Committee, we have, therefore, no difficulty in inferring that his influence, which the State Papers record (vide Hist. MSS, Commission Reports, vol. vii. 5246, 8th December, 1594) (1), was very great at court, was exerted to procure the successful passage of the Bill through the Lords as well as the Commons. But when we come to study, in the light of D'Ewes' Journals, the part taken by Drake as regards the Bill of 1592 for the Removal of the Mills, we are at first in presence of a considerable difficulty of detaiL From D’Ewes' Journal it would appear that Drake was one of the Committee on this Bill; and as the Bill in this case has been also represented as having been passed (though, as we shall see presently, under a mistake as to dates), the question arises. Was the Mills Removal Bill passed, at least as far as the second reading, with Drake's concurrence or in opposition to his counsel and advice? Assuming for the moment that D'Ewes is correct as to dates and the statement of facts, I think we have every reason to hold that the fact of Drake's being a member of Committee, and even the first mentioned, is by no means tantamount to proof that what was passed by his Committee was done with his approval and assent. Judging from what takes places nowadays in the House of Commons' Committees, we should say not; for it is not an unusual thing for even an influential member of such Committee to find himself in a minority. But the case becomes stronger when we come to test the dates as given by D'Ewes, according to the recent report of the Plymouth historian. (2)

On Monday, the 19th February, 1592/3 (sic), D'Ewes tells us "the Bill for the Haven of Plymouth was read the second time . . . and was delivered to Sir Francis Drake, one of said Committees." (D'Ewes' House of Commons' Journal, p. 510.)

He (D'Ewes) next (p. 512), on the date 29th March, 1593, which was a Thursday, tells us that Mr. Broughton, Mr. Attorney of the Dutchy, Sir Thomas Dennis, and Sir Francis Godolphin, were added to the former Committee on the Bill for the Haven of Plymouth, who had been appointed on Monday, the 26th day {sic) of this instant March foregoing, and appointed to meet at two of the clock in the afternoon of this present day." I may add there is no foundation whatever for the " sics " of the Plymouth historian, which would only apply if the dates had really been both in February and in March.

Now if we compare these asserted statements of D'Ewes' Journals with other well-known facts as to the way the year then ran, and the abstract from the House of Lords’ MSS. of proposed Act of 1592 (which we find in the Report Historical MSS, Commission, vol. iii. p. 8a), it is obvious that D'Ewes (or, at any rate, his reporter, which seems more likely) must have fallen into some error in copying the private diaries or the House of Commons’ Journal. For, first, it is evidently impossible that the new Haven Bill could have been read for the second time on the 19th February, 1592/3, for the simple reason that the eighth Parliament of Elizabeth only opened on that very day; and even were there special reasons for haste, it is a thing unprecedented to read a Bill a first and second time the same day, the day assigned being also the first of a new Parliament. I may add that the Blue-book on Parliaments published in 1878 fixes the date of opening of the eighth Parliament of Elizabeth on the 19th February, 1592/3. We must also remember that the year then began on Lady-day (25th March); hence the anomaly is explained of the 20th March, say, being in 1692, and six days only afterwards, the 26th March, being reckoned in 1593. If we bear this in mind, I think we can now safely correct D’Ewe’s error as to dates, or, at any rate, his reporter's, in Plymouth Institution Transactions. The second reading of the Bill may, therefore, be put on the 19th March, instead of on the 19th February. The dates would, therefore, be Monday, 19th March; Monday, 26th March; and Thursday, 29th March. This follows plainly from the day of the week being stated to be Monday, the 19th; while the 29th March, when the other members were added to the former Committees, is dated on D'Ewes’ subsequent entry as being a Thursday. All this seems to show that the real month must have been March, and not February, as otherwise the days would not agree. Besides this, the entry quoted in the Historical MSS. “Commission Report, from the House of Lords' MS. draft of the so-called  ‘Act’ refers to the proceedings on the 20th (not the 19th), 26th, and 29th March in the House of Commons. It is not quite clear how this draft came to be found in the House of Lords' archives in its present evidently incomplete state; for in D'Ewes' Journals, after 29th March, no mention of the second Havens Bill occurs, and the House of Lords’ draft only refers to the second reading and the Committees in the House of Commons.

I had written so far as this in examination of the internal evidence as to dates, deducible from the report as to D'Ewes' dates when compared with other accessible dates from Historical MSS. Commission's Report, when I had a later account from a friend at the British Museum of his actual inspection of D'Ewes' Journal. Referring to D'Ewes' Journal, p. 510, col. 1 and 2, he finds the real reading to be 26th March, 159f, instead of 19th February, 1592/3. This, therefore, is the real date of the second reading of the Mills Removal Bill, after which no mention of further progress is anywhere to be found excepting the appointment of Committee on the 29th March.

Hence I conclude that the action of Sir Francis Drake was by no means so ambiguous as a recent historical writer has seen fit to assert. There is positively no proof whatever of the passing of the Mills Removal Bill in the House of Commons; and the allusion to the Bill in the House of Lords' MS. draft is far from conclusive as to any third reading, nothing of the kind being asserted, and the references being confined to the second reading and the appointment of a fuller Committee. I need scarcely add that the charge of double-dealing against Sir Francis Drake thus at once falls to the ground as gratuitous and unwarranted.

One more point respecting the Drake chronology and I have done. I refer to the relative dates of the assessment of damages in respect of the construction of the leat as made by the judges in 1592, and the attempt made to get rid of the leat mills altogether. The date of the indenture for assessment of damages was the 5th July, 1592; and the dates of proceedings in respect of the Mills Removal Bill we now see were 19th or 20th, 26th, and 29th March, 1592/3, the March dates thus coming last. In preparing the indenture of 5th July, 1592, the judges took evidence as to the value of the lands, and allotted damages (for which, I believe, the real sums passing were not specified in the deed, but simply representative and fictitious amounts). The judges allotted these damages, however they may have been expressed, for mining, trenching, and casting up ''rocks" and stones in track of the watercourse. It was not till the March following, 1592-93, that we find the tinners and others, including millowners, agitating against the leat mills.

Their contention was the same as that of Crymes in 1601, the controversy with whom appears to have been settled by the "composition" of the Corporation of Plymouth with Crymes in the year 1604. This composition was effected by an indenture of settlement with Crymes in 1604, and the authentic document containing the settlement is asserted to be in trustworthy keeping on behalf of the Corporation of Plymouth, of which document a copy has been published in Plymouth Institution Transactions for 1881-82.

A comparison of the sums assigned in compensation of his claims in Crymes’ indenture with the Corporation and Thomas Drake, the representative of the deceased Sir Francis Drake, and the damages assessment indenture of 5th July, 1592, with the owners and farmers or "occupiers along the watercourse," would seem to confirm the opinion which has been given by an expert as to the real value of the sums assigned in both documents. The opinion of this expert was, that the sums expressed in the assessment deed of 1592 were merely nominal considerations, as there were reasons to prevent the open publication of the sums that really passed between the contracting parties.

And there certainly does appear to be some reason for attaching much weight to this view, when we find in the very front of the composition of Crymes with the Corporation and Thomas Drake, in 1604, the sum of 12d. mentioned as a peppercorn rent, in order to secure title.

The two deeds are certainly correlated; for they were, in succession, framed to settle two very difficult and vexatious phases of the Plymouth leat controversy. If, therefore, there can be no doubt as to the meaning of the peppercorn rent of 12d. in 1604, can any doubt now remain as to the legal significance of the equally trivial amounts published in the deed of 1592 ?

And now we see that the fact of the succession of the dates in March, 1592-93, to the date of the judges' assessment in July, 1592, tells its own tale. The damages along the watercourse of the Plymouth leat had been assessed in July, 1592, whether under fictitious figures or not, and with the "very values" satisfactorily appraised or not, we may not be able at once to decide; but this, at any rate, is certain. the very next March (1592-93) the proprietors and mill-owners begin to agitate for the removal of the leat mills under the pretext of bringing in a second Havens Bill, and alleging that the mills drew off the water from the haven and the cleansing thereof. And even after the attempt was defeated, Crymes appears to have encroached on the water rights from 1601 at least and onwards, the controversy only being finally settled by the composition of 1604.

References

(1)  Sir F. Drake at Court. All ye spech is that he goeth very shortly to the Sea. Ld. Thomas and Sir Martin Frobisher also there, but Sir Francis Drake caryeth away from them all.

(2) Cf. Plym. Inst Trans, vol. vii. (1880-81) p. 516.