CASTLE
The most important event of the period
was the erection of the Liverpool Castle,
which had taken place before 1235 and
may safely be attributed to the first William de
Ferrers. (fn. 1) There had long been a castle at West
Derby; it was in ruins in 1296, (fn. 2) but it had been
in existence in 1232, (fn. 3) when
the first Ferrers took possession; when his son succeeded
him, Liverpool Castle had
been built; (fn. 4) probably the
one was intended to take the
place of the other. No record of its erection survives,
nor any account of the fabric
before a late date. It was
demolished in 1720, and no
satisfactory views or plans of it
survive. (fn. 5) It stood at the top
of the modern Lord Street;
that is, on the highest point of land in the town, immediately overlooking the entrance to the Pool. Occupying an artificially created plateau, almost exactly 50 yds.
square, it was surrounded by a moat some 20 yds.
wide, cut out of the solid rock. (fn. 6) The main fabric
consisted of (1) a great gatehouse surmounted by two
small towers, which stood at the north-eastern corner,
and looked down Castle Street; (2) three circular
towers at the three other corners; one of these,
probably that at the south-east corner, was built later
than the rest of the fabric, in 1442; the southwestern tower seems to have been regarded as the
keep of the fortress; (3) curtain walls connected the
four main towers; on the eastern side the wall rose
from the edge of the rock-plateau; on the north and
south it was recessed so as to be commanded from the
towers; on the west it formed an obtuse angle, the
angle touching the edge of the rock; (4) the hall
and a chapel probably lay respectively along the
western and southern walls, and were connected with
the south-western tower; (5) there were also a brewhouse and a bakehouse, the sites of which cannot be
determined; they may have been in the north-west
angle, near which a postern gate led to an underground passage from the moat to the edge of the
river. (fn. 7) The courtyard seems to have been divided
by a wall running from north to south. A survey
of 2 October 1559 (fn. 8) gives further interesting details
of the building. It was at the time 'in utter ruin
and decay,' there having been no lead on any of
the buildings within the memory of man. The
great tower, probably that at the south-west, had
a slated roof, and the commissioners suggested that
it should be repaired and used for the keeping of
the 'Quenes Majesties Courtes for Her Graces
Wappentacke of West Derbyshyre, being a very greate
soken,' and for the storage of the court rolls. The
'ringe walle' or curtain and the masonry of the
towers seem to have been fairly sound, and only
needed protection from the weather, and the commissioners strongly advised the putting of the castle
into substantial repair at a cost of about £100,
'otherwaies it were a grate defacement unto the said
towne of Litherpole.' No mention is made of any
moat in the report, and there is some tradition that
none existed till the Civil Wars, but no proof of this
is obtainable.
Ferrers, Earl of Derby. Vairy or and gules.
There was a dovecot under the castle wall, and an
orchard ran down the slope to the Pool on the east.
Out of this orchard Lord Street was cut in the 17th
century. Thus the first period of baronial suzerainty
had resulted in the overawing of the burgesses by a
formidable fortress.
On the rebellion and forfeiture of Robert de
Ferrers Liverpool, with other possessions between
Ribble and Mersey, passed to the hands of the
Crown. Henry III at once granted them with the
honour of Lancaster to his second son, Edmund; to
whose representatives Mary de Ferrers, wife of the
forfeited earl and niece of the king, was ordered to
surrender the castle of Liverpool in July 1266. (fn. 9)
This begins the second part of the baronial period of
Liverpool history, extending over the earldoms of
Edmund and Thomas of Lancaster, 1266–1322.
Both of these earls seem to have treated the borough
with some harshness. In the first place the lease of
the farm was not renewed. Earl Edmund took the
administration of the town into his own hands, (fn. 10) or
at least broke up the farm into several parts; and the
total yield under the new system in place of the old
rent of £10 amounted to £25 10s. in the latter
years of Earl Edmund and about £30 by the end of
the reign of Earl Thomas; the tolls of market and
fair alone brought in as much as the old rent; but
there seems reason for believing that a farm of these
tolls was held by the burgesses. (fn. 11)
The greatly increased yield of the town affords
evidence, however, that the earl was doing his best
to develop its resources, and the beginning of a period
of prosperity may perhaps be attributed to this time.
In addition to the suppression of the lease of the farm,
Edmund overrode the chartered rights of the burgesses.
In 1292 the bailiffs and community of Liverpool
were summoned on a quo warranto
(fn. 12) plea to Lancaster.
No bailiffs came; but several men came for the community, and, producing the charters of John and
Henry III, stated that they had been a free borough
with a gild, &c.; but that Earl Edmund suffered
them not to have a free borough, or to elect a bailiff
'of themselves'; wherefore they did not claim these
liberties at present. The further hearing of the case
was adjourned, but there is no record of the decision.
Whatever the decision, the burgesses did not regain
their rights till the beginning of the reign of
Edward III.
During this period the growing importance of the
town (or the power of its masters) is recognized in the
summons of burgesses from Liverpool to the Parliament
of 1295, and again to that of 1307. (fn. 13) The first
Liverpool members of Parliament were Adam son of
Richard, and Robert Pinklowe. After 1307 the
borough did not again return members to Westminster
until the middle of the 16th century.
During the earldom of Thomas of Lancaster the
steady progress of Liverpool appears to have continued.
It is to this period that we
must attribute the inclosure of
Salthouse Moor, of which no
mention is made in 1296, but
which was in occupation and
yielding rent in 1322. (fn. 14) This
is the only large approvement
from the waste of which there
is any trace, before the 17th
century. The area first inclosed amounted to 45 acres;
which were in 1346 (fn. 15) divided
among 51 free tenants and 47
tenants-at-will, and in 1322–7
yielded 40s. of rent. Most of the tenants in these new
lands already held burgages in the borough, but 32
of them were not included in the burgess roll, and
this involved that they were a new class of tenants,
not sharing in the liberties, but directly under the
control of the lord. He could hold a distinct court
for them if he wished; and though this does not
seem to have been done at this period, that was only
because the lord's steward was presiding over the
borough-court. At a later date questions of the first
importance were to arise from the existence of this
group of tenants.
Thomas, Earl of Lancaster. England with a label of France.
This was not the only new use made of the waste
by Thomas of Lancaster. In the year 1310, on a
visit to the borough, the earl granted to the burgesses (fn. 16)
6 Cheshire acres of moss 'adjoining the mill-pool of
the vill of Liverpool' at a rental of one silver penny
per annum. This was in exchange for the right
which they had previously possessed of digging peat in
Toxteth Park. Important as being the first piece of
corporate property owned by the burgesses, this patch
of moss lay at the upper end and on the eastern side
of the Pool, and formed part of the Mosslake. The
rent of it appears among the revenues of the town
during the remainder of the 14th century; in the
15th it disappeared, being merged in that general
control over the whole of the waste which the burgesses of that period quietly usurped. But in spite
of this gift the earl does not seem to have attached
much value to the borough, for in 1315 he granted
both castle and borough to Robert de Holand. But
no charter was sealed, nor did the tenants do homage; (fn. 17)
in consequence of which Holand's son, after the death
of Thomas of Lancaster, failed to obtain restitution
of the estate, though he petitioned Parliament and
obtained a favourable report from the treasurer and
the barons of the exchequer. (fn. 18)
The confusion produced by the turbulence of
Thomas of Lancaster and the weak government of
Edward II was felt at Liverpool as elsewhere. In
1315 Adam Banastre, Henry de Lea, and William
de Bradshagh raised a rebellion against the earl; and
marching from their rendezvous at Charnock by way
of Wigan, under the standard of Adam Banastre, made
an assault upon Liverpool Castle. (fn. 19) They were driven
back, and then fell upon West Derby. This is the
only occasion on which the castle is known to have
been attacked before the Civil War.
On the attainder and execution of Thomes of Lancaster royal agents reappeared in the borough. The
very full accounts (fn. 20) which they rendered from 1322
to 1327 supply some of the most valuable material for
ascertaining the condition of the town; and it is to this
time that the single court roll for the mediaeval period
—that for the year 1324—belongs. In 1323 King
Edward II himself visited Liverpool, staying for a
week in the castle between 24 and 30 October. In
preparation for him the castle was thoroughly repaired
and victualled; (fn. 21) and the sum of 1s. 8d. in particular
was expended in mending the roof of the hall. (fn. 22)
During the last troubled years of Edward II, the
bailiffs of Liverpool were kept busy carrying out
feverish orders: such as to hold ready for the king's
service all ships of sufficient burthen to carry 40 tuns
of wine, to make returns of such ships, to warn
mariners to beware of pirates, (fn. 23) to proclaim kindly
usage for Flemings. (fn. 24) When, in 1326, the situation
became really critical, the bailiffs were ordered to send
all ships of 50 tons and upwards to Portsmouth; (fn. 25) to
search all persons entering or leaving the port, and to
seize letters prejudicial to the king; (fn. 26) and to prevent
the export of horses, armour, or money. (fn. 27) So, amid
feverish feeble strife, the reign of Edward II came to
an end. With it ended an epoch for Liverpool.
The century from 1229 to 1327 had seen a serious
diminution of burghal liberties, but it had also witnessed a substantial expansion of the borough's resources. In the next age this expansion continues,
and is accompanied by a remarkable revival of the
privileges of the burgesses, which attained their highest
point at the end of the century.
The disorders which had marked the later years
of Edward II continued to disturb Liverpool in the
early years of his successor, and their echoes are
audible in the trials of the period of which record
remains. In 1332 Robert son of Thomas de Hale
slew Henry de Walton at Liverpool, in the church
before the altar; a few days later Simon son of William
de Walton struck and wounded Henry Ithell, and on the
next day his brother Richard struck and wounded Robert
the Harper. (fn. 28) In 1335 Sir William Blount, sheriff
of the county, was murdered in Liverpool while engaged in the execution of his office, (fn. 29) and four
years later five men, in consideration of their having 'gone beyond the seas' in the king's service, (fn. 30)
were pardoned for this crime and also for the murder
of Henry Baret and Roger Wildgoose. As late as
St. Valentine's Day 1345 there was a serious disturbance of the peace in Liverpool: (fn. 31) a body of lawless
men having entered the town in arms, with banners
unfurled as in war, forced their way into the court
where the king's justices were in session, and after
hurling 'insulting and contumacious words,' 'did
wickedly kill, mutilate, and plunder of their goods,
and wound very many persons there assembled, and
further did prevent the justices from showing justice … according to the tenour of their commission.' Three weeks later special justices were appointed
to deal with the offenders, and in July a large number
of persons, many of them being men of position in
the county, were pardoned at the request of the Earl
of Lancaster, on condition that they went at their
own charges for one year to do service to the king in
Gascony.
A condition of society such as is indicated by these
events could scarcely be favourable to the growth of
peaceful trade; nevertheless, the growth of Liverpool
continued. In 1338 the earl appears to have made
an addition to the approved lands in Salthouse Moor,
and enfeoffed a number of tenants at fines of 5 marks
to the acre; (fn. 32) and the details of the assessment for the
levy of a ninth in 1340 show a number of substantial persons to have been resident in the town. (fn. 33) We
now obtain the first clear indications of the extent and
nature of the trade of the town, of which something
will be said later; it would appear that Liverpool had
become one of the most considerable ports of the
west coast. As such, during the Scottish wars of the
early years of Edward III, and during the Irish wars
of the later years of his reign, it proved very useful as
a port of embarkation; and it is probably to the
attention thus directed to it that we must attribute
the revival of the town's political fortunes.
In 1327 the constable of Liverpool Castle was
ordered (fn. 34) to receive within the castle men fleeing
from the invading Scots. Next year the bailiffs of
Liverpool were ordered to have all vessels in the port
of 40 tons burthen in readiness to resist the king's
enemies from Normandy and Poitou. (fn. 35) In 1333 the
bailiffs were commanded to retain all vessels of
burthen sufficient for 50 tuns of wine, and to prepare them hastily with double equipment for the
defence of the kingdom against the Scots, (fn. 36) and the
mandate was repeated in the next year, a royal commissioner being told off to supervise the preparations. (fn. 37)
In 1335 a clerk of the Exchequer was told off to provide two ships of war fully manned and armed, to
sail from Liverpool in pursuit of a great ship loaded
with wine and arms, coming from abroad, and destined
for the aid of the king's enemies in the castle of Dumbarton. (fn. 38) These ships seem also to have been used to
carry supplies for the royal army to Skymburnesse, at
the mouth of the Solway. (fn. 39) In the same year six of
the largest ships to be found on the west coast between Liverpool and Skymburnesse were ordered to
be manned and armed and sent against the Scottish
ships. (fn. 40)
In the French wars of the middle part of the reign
Liverpool naturally took less share; (fn. 41) but the insecurity of English waters which marked the first part
of the war is indicated by the receipt of an order to
the Liverpool bailiffs not to permit vessels to leave the
port for foreign parts save in great fleets and under
escort, (fn. 42) while on more than one occasion Liverpool
ships were summoned to southern ports to help in
dealing with threatened French attacks. (fn. 43)
In the later part of the reign of Edward III, and
during the reigns of Richard II and Henry IV, Liverpool
was still more actively engaged in connexion with the
Irish wars than she had been at the commencement
of the period with the Scottish wars. In 1361 'the
whole navy of the land, competently armed,' was
brought to transport Lionel of Clarence and his army
to Ireland from Liverpool and Chester; (fn. 44) in 1372
all ships between 20 tons and 200 tons burthen
between Bristol and Liverpool were ordered to be
collected at Liverpool for the transport (fn. 45) of William
de Windsor, 'governor … of our realm of Ireland,
and of the men at arms and others about to depart
in our service in the retinue of the said William.'
In the next year all ships between Southampton and
Furness were ordered to be brought to Liverpool for
a similar purpose. (fn. 46) The port was constantly utilized for the embarkation of troops, and the Patent
Rolls contain frequent notices of the assemblage of
ships and considerable forces of men in the town on
the way to Ireland. (fn. 47)
This frequent use of the port for royal purposes,
which doubtless brought with it an expansion of trade
to both Scotland and Ireland, is beyond question the
main reason for the favour now shown to Liverpool
both by the king and by the earl. (fn. 48) The first sign of
this is the grant of the right to collect certain dues for
paving the town, first made in 1328 for a period of
three years, and renewed several times during the
century. (fn. 49) The collection of these dues and the
spending of them represent a new kind of corporate
action on the part of the burgesses, and therefore
mark a stage in the development of municipal government. The money does not seem always to have
been used for the purpose for which the grant was
made, for in 1341 a commission of investigation had
to be sent to Liverpool, as the king was informed that
much of the money collected had been misappropriated. (fn. 50) In 1333 a still more valuable favour was
received from the king in the grant of a new charter. (fn. 51)
The charter contains no new grant, being merely a
confirmation of its predecessors. But we have seen
that such a confirmation was highly necessary, and we
may assume that from this date the free exercise of
chartered liberties, prevented since the accession of
Edmund of Lancaster, recommenced.
Still more important than the charter, the lease
of the farm of the borough is gradually regained
during this period. (fn. 52) At the beginning of the reign
of Edward III the burgesses seem to have held a
lease only of the tolls of the market and fair. (fn. 53)
The first great advance is marked by the extent
of the lands of the second Henry of Lancaster,
made in 1346 after his succession to the earldom.
In this deed there is a combined farm of the
mills, tolls, and ferry for £24 per annum, which
has been held for some years by an unnamed farmer,
almost certainly representing the burgesses, and which
is henceforward to be raised to £26. (fn. 54) In 1357
there comes a highly important new lease of the
farm, (fn. 55) at a rent of £33, which was granted to eight
leading burgesses on behalf of the community. This
lease included the burgage rents and the profits of
courts, in addition to the rights covered by the
previous lease. (fn. 56) From this lease, however, the rents
of the new inclosures in Salthouse Moor seem to be
omitted, and it would appear that while the burgesses
resumed control of their own borough-court, a separate
court was now instituted for these tenants. Apart
from this, the sole reservations were the castle with
its purlieus, forfeitures of lands, and (probably) escheats.
By 1357, therefore, the burgesses had again attained
to all but the highest degree of municipal liberties.
The 1357 lease appears to have been continued
regularly until 1393, (fn. 57) when it was replaced by a still
more extensive lease granted by John of Gaunt, which
represents the highest point attained by the municipal
liberties of Liverpool during the Middle Ages. (fn. 58)
The rent was raised to £38, but the lease included a
grant of control over the whole of the waste, a power
which the burgesses were never to lose, though it is
not mentioned in later leases; it included all the
lord's jurisdictional rights (embracing, apparently, the
right of holding a court for the Salthouse Moor tenants,
which brought these tenants under the control of the
borough courts and officers); and it included the
right of taking escheats and forfeitures. In brief, the
effect of this lease was to extrude the feudal power
entirely from the borough, except within the walls of
the castle. The lease was for seventeen years, and
expired in 1410. It thus extended well into the new
period which began when, by the accession of the
House of Lancaster to the throne, the borough was
once more brought into direct relation with the
Crown.
The extension of municipal powers represented by
these leases was accompanied by a development of
the burghal system of government. In 1351 there is
the first mention of a mayor of Liverpool. (fn. 59) No
royal or ducal grant of the right to elect such an
officer survives, and the probability is that his appearance is the result of the re-acquisition of the lease of
the farm, and perhaps dates from 1346, or even earlier.
Up to that time it seems probable that the burgesses
had only elected one bailiff, (fn. 60) the other being nominated by the lord; and as the functions performed
by the latter (collection of dues and presidency of the
court) were much the more important, he would be
very definitely major ballivus. When these functions
pass into the hands of the burgesses, they elect their
own major ballivus. It was as major ballivus that the
mayor began, (fn. 61) but later he nominated a bailiff of
his own. It is instructive to find that this second
bailiff was always regarded as representing the Crown
(i.e. the lord) as well as the mayor. (fn. 62)
It is possible that the same period also saw the
institution of another element in burghal government
—the Court of Aldermen. (fn. 63) Each of the leases from
1357 was granted to a group of leading citizens, most
of whom repeatedly occupied the mayoral chair, and
who were probably selected as substantial men, able to
stand surety for the payment of the rent. In the
lease of 1393 they were formally empowered to hold
the borough courts. Both in its functions and in its
personnel, this group closely resembles the Court of
Aldermen as it is found in the 16th century, when
records begin to be abundant.
Thus the 14th century, in spite of the disorders of
its first half, and the distresses caused by plague and
war in its second half, witnessed firstly a steady growth
of the town and a steady expansion of its prosperity;
and secondly a striking revival and development of its
municipal liberties. One exception to this statement,
however, must be made. Though there is no trace of it
in the records, it would appear that the influence of the
Peasants' Revolt extended to Liverpool. One of the
demands made by the rebels was the withdrawal of the
monopoly enjoyed by the privileged burgesses in
towns; and it is probably to some such demand that we
must attribute the grant of the charter of Richard II in
1382, the year after the rising. (fn. 64) The only distinctive feature of this charter is its revocation of the
power of prohibiting trade by non-members of the
gild which had been contained in the earlier charters,
and it is inconceivable that the burgesses can have
applied for this. But in spite of this charter, clearly
the little borough was thriving; and it is possible,
through the greater abundance of material, to get
some notion of its life and working at this, the moment
of its greatest prosperity.
The burgess roll appended to the extent of 1346
shows that there were 196 householders in Liverpool
paying rent to the lord. On the usual basis of calculation, this would give a population of just under
1,000. But as the more substantial burgesses, who
held large holdings in the fields or engaged largely in
trade, must have had dependants not included in this
estimate, the population may perhaps be put down at
something like 1,200. It probably did not increase—it
may have decreased—during the second half of the
century, for Liverpool suffered severely from the
Black Death; in 1360 the deaths were so numerous
that the dead could not be buried in Walton
Churchyard, and a licence was obtained from the
Bishop of Lichfield for burials in St. Nicholas's
Churchyard. (fn. 65)
This population must be regarded as being still, for
the most part, except on market days, engaged in
agriculture. Every burgess had holdings in the fields.
The commonest holding was half a burgage, with
about 1 acre in the fields, but some of the leading
townsmen held much larger allotments. The will of
William de Liverpool, (fn. 66) the leading burgess in the
second half of the 13th century, survives, and an
inventory of his property attached to it shows that his
wealth was almost purely agricultural in character.
He has grain in his barn worth £6 13s. 4½d., and
24 selions of growing wheat in the fields, worth £7.
He has nine oxen and cows worth about 10s. apiece,
six horses worth about 7s. each, and eighteen pigs
valued at 1s. 6d. each. His domestic furniture is
valued at £7 6s. 8d. But no merchandise is included
in the inventory. As we shall see, William de Liverpool derived most of his wealth from milling.
The trade of the borough was probably mainly local
in character. The weekly market, held every Saturday,
and the annual fair on St. Martin's Day, probably
mainly dealt in agricultural produce from the neighbouring parts of Lancashire and Cheshire. The ferries
over the Mersey were of first-rate importance for this
purpose; of these there seem to have been three.
There seem to have been two ferries included in
the Liverpool farm, (fn. 67) one to Runcorn, the other
(probably) to Birkenhead. In addition, the prior of
the Benedictine monastery in Birkenhead enjoyed,
from 1330 at the latest, (fn. 68) the right of ferry from
Birkenhead to Liverpool. In
1317 (fn. 69) Edward II granted to
the prior the right of building houses of entertainment
for the use of the 'great numbers of persons wishing to
cross there,' who were 'often
hindered,' by reason of 'contrariety of weather and frequent storms.' From the record of a Quo Warranto inquiry,
to which the prior was summoned in 1354, (fn. 70) we learn
that the ferry tolls from the
Birkenhead side were: for a
man on foot, ¼d.; for man and
horse, 2d. On Liverpool market days a man on foot
was charged ½d., and if carrying baggage 1d. Probably
the fares on the Liverpool ferry were the same. The
connexion of the Birkenhead monastery with Liverpool
was intimate. The prior held in Water Street a house
and barn for the storage of corn waiting for the
market. (fn. 71) There is no evidence as to the nature of
the tolls charged in the Liverpool market and fair.
They yielded in all never less than £10 a year during
the 14th century.
Birkenhead Priory. Quarterly gules and or,
over all a crozier erect proper, in the first quarter a lion of England.
With regard to the sea-going trade of Liverpool the
evidence is equally scanty. (fn. 72) The appointment by
the Crown of the mayor as deputy steward for the
prisage of wines in the Port of Liverpool in 1364 (fn. 73)
seems to indicate that there was some importation of
wines from Gascony, and this is borne out by other
notices. Probably the sea-going trade of Liverpool at
this period, as in the 16th century, was mainly with Ireland, and consisted of an exchange of rough manufactured goods and iron, against cattle and hides. The fact
that down to the 18th century Bristol, Waterford, and
Wexford were the only ports (fn. 74) in which Liverpool
merchants claimed, and to whose traders the Liverpool
burgesses habitually conceded, that right of exemption
from dues which the charters granted in universal
terms, seems to show that it was the Irish trade which
was alone developed to any considerable extent. (fn. 75) In
1350 we get a glimpse of the nature of a Liverpool
merchant's goods from a suit in which William de
Longwro sued Adam de Longwro, his bailiff, for an
account of his stewardship during the previous year,
and his use of twenty entire woollen cloths (pieces),
10 quarters of barley, 40 quarters of oats, and iron
worth £100, and of 100s., which he had received to
trade with. (fn. 76) Lancashire and Yorkshire woollen goods,
iron from Furness, and corn seem to be the staples of
export trade. Perhaps salt from Cheshire may be
added.
Nor can much be said about the industries of the
borough. There is no trace of the existence of craft
gilds in the mediaeval period. Two such gilds are
recorded to have come into existence in the 16th
century, but they were then novelties; (fn. 77) probably
the number of craftsmen was too small—a few weavers
and smiths may have exhausted the list. Two goldsmiths are named in the burgess roll of 1346. But
the industries were doubtless merely the normal
industries of a rural market-town. Brewing seems to
have been carried on very actively. In the single
year 1324 (fn. 78) there were thirty-five prosecutions for
breaches of the assize of ale, and this involves that
many more were brewing and selling ale on legal terms.
Not only the demands of market days, but especially
the healthy thirst of the soldiers who were constantly
encamped in Liverpool during this period, makes it
natural to imagine almost every burgess as making some
profit in this way.
The mills play an important part in the life of the
borough. (fn. 79) In 1256 (fn. 80) there had been three mills,
two water-mills and a windmill, probably all at or
near the same place, on the stream which ran into
the upper end of the Pool, where a mill-dam remained
long after the mills had vanished. By 1296 one of
the water-mills had disappeared; (fn. 81) by 1323 the second
had been replaced by a horse-mill, (fn. 82) probably in
Castle Street. The single windmill was that of
Eastham, on the rising ground south-east of the Pool,
behind the modern art gallery. By 1348 (fn. 83) a second
windmill had been added. This was the Townsend
Mill, which stood close to the Eastham Mill, near the
site of the Wellington monument. The horse-mill
still survived, and the three mills were included in the
leases held by the burgess body from (at the latest)
1348; each of them being separately sub leased to a
working miller. At one or another of these mills all
inhabitants of Liverpool were bound to grind, and
they may also have been used by some of the neighbouring townships. (fn. 84) Much the most important of
the mills was that of Eastham, for which, in the next
century, twice as much rent was paid as for the
Townsend Mill. (fn. 85) In 1375 it was leased to William
son of Adam de Liverpool, the most important burgess
of the period. (fn. 86) The lessors were Richard Nunn, the
parson, and John Heathorn, who may have acted on behalf of the burgess body. The Townsend Mill, and perhaps the horse-mill, may have been held by the Moore
family, who held them both at a later date; Sir Edward
Moore, in the 17th century, claimed that his ancestors
had built the Townsend Mill. (fn. 87) Thus the mills of
the borough were probably in the hands of its two
chief families.
It would be possible to give, from the Moore and
Crosse deeds, the assessments for subsidies, and the
burgess roll of 1346, an account of a number of
principal families in the town. Some of these were
branches of important county families, or landholders
in neighbouring townships. Such were the Waltons,
lords of the manor of Walton, who held the serjeanty
of the wapentake of West Derby, (fn. 88) and provided at
least one constable for the Castle of Liverpool; (fn. 89) in
1346 Richard de Walton held four burgages in Liverpool; (fn. 90) or the Fazakerleys, or the Irelands of Hale, or
the Bootles of Kirkdale, or
the hereditary reeves of West
Derby, all of whom held lands
in Liverpool. Among the
more purely burghal families
something might be said of
the Barons, the Corvesors, the
Longwros, the Mariotsons, the
Tippups. But two families
stand out in such marked prominence as to deserve special
mention. The first of these
was the family of Liverpool,
which from the mere fact
that it habitually used the place-name as its surname may be supposed to have been settled in the
borough from a very early date. In 1346 the
various members of the family seem to hold among
them something like fifteen burgages, (fn. 91) and the
Moore and Crosse deeds show them making constant
acquisitions. The earliest notice of a member of this
family, Richard de Liverpool, occurs between 1212
and 1226; (fn. 92) and it may be his son, or grandson,
who, as Adam son of Richard, is recorded as one of the
first Liverpool members of Parliament. From the
beginning of the 14th century their genealogy can be
traced in detail. (fn. 93) Adam de Liverpool, who in 1346
held five and five-eighths burgages, had in 1332 paid a
larger sum towards the subsidy on goods than any
other person in Liverpool; (fn. 94)
and he was one of the jurors
in the Inquisition into the
earl's lands in 1346. His
father, his uncle, his brother,
and his nephews, each in their
generation appear in more or
less prominent positions. But
the most distinguished member
of the family was William son
of Adam, whose will has been
already referred to. He lived
through the period of the revival of burghal liberties, dying
in 1383, and he played a principal part in securing this
remarkable advance. He was the first recorded mayor
of Liverpool in 1351, and though the list of mayors is
far from complete, he is known to have held the
office eleven times. (fn. 95) As mayor he received, and
probably took a large part in obtaining, the writ for the
erection of the chapel of St. Nicholas in 1356. (fn. 96) In
1357 he is named first among the lessees of the great
lease of the farm of the borough which forms so remarkable a landmark in the history of burghal liberties. (fn. 97) In
1361 he was rewarded by Duke Henry, for 'the good
and free service' which he had done, by the grant of
a pension of 20s. for life from the profits of a West
Derby manor. (fn. 98) We have already seen him a tenant
of the principal mill of Liverpool. In addition he
owned a bakery in Castle Street, (fn. 99) and seems to have
controlled a fishery, probably leasing from the duke
the weir which he had erected near Toxteth Park. (fn. 100)
In short, he is at once the wealthiest and the most
public-spirited Liverpool burgess of his day. (fn. 101)
Walton or Walton. Sable three swans argent.
Liverpool. Quarterly gules and or a cross formy argent.
William de Liverpool left two sons, by different
wives, both named John, one of whom founded the
chantry of St. John in the Liverpool Chapel, (fn. 102) perhaps
in memory of his father; but his lands and his mill
presently passed into the hands of Richard de
Crosse, a son of his wife by another marriage. (fn. 103) With
him begins the connexion with Liverpool of the Crosse
family, who are to play an exceedingly prominent part
in the affairs of the borough during the next century. (fn. 104)
The other branches of the Liverpool family seem to
have adopted various surnames, especially Williamson (fn. 105) and Richardson, and to have become indistinguishably merged in the mass of burgesses.
The other principal Liverpool family of whom
mention must be made was
that of the Moores, for whom
their descendant Sir Edward
Moore claims that they were
established in Liverpool from
the earliest date. (fn. 106) This claim
is probably not without justification if, as seems likely,
they took their name (fn. 107) from
the moorish piece of ground
which lay to the north of
the upper end of the Pool,
at the end of Moor Street
or Tithebarn Street; and we
may regard them as the rivals of the Liverpool
family throughout the first three centuries of the
borough's history. Their seat, More Hall, lay at
the northern end of the house-covered area, and
its gardens ran down to the estuary. When in
the 15th century they acquired a large amount of
land in Kirkdale, (fn. 108) and built a new mansion, Bank
Hall, there, the More Hall came to be called the
Old Hall; and has given its name to a modern street.
They appear in prominent parts in the borough
affairs, contemporary with the Liverpools. In 1246
Ranulf de More appears as reeve of Liverpool, (fn. 109) and
in 1292 John de la Mor, along with Richard de
Liverpool, represented the burgesses at the Quo
Warranto plea already referred to. (fn. 110) Down to the
middle of the 14th century they are frequently found
acting as bailiffs. (fn. 111) The younger members of the
family seem often to have acted as clerks, and in that
capacity to have written and preserved many deeds of
land-transfer; (fn. 112) hence the archives of the family
included numerous deeds not relating to their own
lands. In 1346 the holdings of the family in Liverpool included sixteen and one-eighth burgages, (fn. 113) so
that they slightly surpassed the Liverpools. In 1348
it was John del Mor who held, probably on behalf of
the burgesses, the farm of the tolls, market, and mills. (fn. 114)
But after that date the leadership of the borough seems
to have been wrested from them by the Liverpools.
While William son of Adam held the mayoralty at
least eleven times, and his intimate friend and ally,
Richard de Aynsargh, nine times, the name of Moore
is conspicuously absent from the roll of mayors until
1382, (fn. 115) when William de Liverpool had practically
retired. Thereafter the Moores in their turn have
almost a monopoly of the mayoralty. (fn. 116) There seems
here to be indicated a keen rivalry between these two
leading houses, which would doubtless be accentuated
if, as has been suggested above, both were rival millers.
This rivalry found vent in the law courts when in
1374 Thomas del More sued William de Liverpool
for having dispossessed him of the Castle Street bakery,
the fishery and some turbary. (fn. 117) The matter was
compromised by William's remaining in possession,
but paying More an annual rent of 3s. These are
the dim echoes of what was probably a pretty lively
feud.
Moore or More Hall. Argent three greyhounds
courant in pale sable collared or.
Outside of the liberties of the borough, but constantly affecting its fortunes, was the castle. It was
ruled by a constable, receiving an annual salary of
£6 6s. 8d.; (fn. 118) the constable was generally, if not
always, also keeper of Toxteth Park, and sometimes
also of Croxteth and Simonswood Parks, (fn. 119) for which
he received a further salary of £2. The connexion
of Toxteth Park in particular with Liverpool was so
intimate that in the next century the Crown found it
necessary to make a special statement in the farm
leases reserving it from the farm. (fn. 120) The names of
several constables survive; (fn. 121) the office at this period
being not yet hereditary, as it became in the next
century. The constable did not usually reside in the
castle, but in a house just outside of its gate. (fn. 122) In
normal times there was no standing garrison in the
castle, and the permanent paid staff seems to have consisted of a watchman and a doorkeeper, each of whom was
paid 1½d. per diem. (fn. 123) There were, however, several
houses within the castle, (fn. 124) where there may have been
permanent rent-paying residents, though they may
have been reserved for the use of the officers of the
forces, which constantly passed through the town. A
detailed list of the castle plenishment survives; (fn. 125) it
includes 186 pallets, 107 spears, 39 lances, 15
ballistae, 2 engines, 7 'acketouns, old and weak,' 1
large vat for brewing, and a considerable amount of
domestic furniture.
The 15th century, for many English trading
ports a period of advance, was for Liverpool a period
of retrogression—in population, prosperity, and political freedom. The process of decay does not perhaps
become evident until the reign of Henry VI; but
already, before that date, the causes which were to
contribute to it were making their appearance:
namely, the weakness of the Crown, and the turbulence
of the uncontrolled nobility. In 1406 (fn. 126) Sir John
Stanley obtained licence to fortify a house in Liverpool. This was the Tower, at the bottom of Water
Street, which remained in the possession of the house
of Stanley until the Commonwealth. This is the first
appearance in the borough of a family which from that
time onward was to play a mightily important part in its
history. The reason for it was that, having acquired
the Isle of Man as a result of the forfeiture of the
Percies after the battle of Shrewsbury, Stanley needed
a base for communications with his new dominion.
The Tower seems to have been, at any rate occasionally,
used as a residence by the family; it was frequently
occupied by troops. Thus the town was burdened
by the presence of a second feudal fortress, only a
bowshot from the original castle.
By the accession of Henry IV, which united the
duchy of Lancaster to the Crown, Liverpool again
came under direct royal control. It might have been
expected that this would redound to the advantage of
the borough, but the reverse was the case. The lease of
the farm of the borough of 1393 was, it is true, confirmed by Henry IV; (fn. 127) but only for the remainder of
its term, which expired in 1410. Immediately on its
expiration serious trouble began. From an interesting
memorandum inscribed on the back of the confirmation (fn. 128) it appears that the burgesses had resolved to
apply not only for a renewal, but also for a supplementary charter, conveying to them new powers, in
particular the right to hold courts under the Statute
of Merchants and the right to make arrests for debt.
Henry V did actually grant a charter (fn. 129) in the first
year of his reign, probably as a result of this application; but it was merely a confirmation of the previous
charters, and its sole advantage was that by disregarding the charter of Richard II it restored to the burgess body the right of prohibiting non-members of
the gild to trade in the town. But it was over the
renewal of the lease that the chief difficulties arose.
It appears from the memorandum already referred to
that the mayor and leading burgesses had to face
opposition on the part of a section of the inhabitants
described as 'those that hold of the king in Liverpool,'
and, in order to frighten these recusants into line,
thought of obtaining a privy seal ordering them all to
appear before the king's council in London, unless
they came to an agreement with the mayor. 'Those
that held land of the king' can only have been the
tenants in the recent inclosure in Salthouse Moor. It
has already been suggested that these tenants had been
separately governed up till 1393, when the great lease
put them under the control of the burgess body. If
they had been since that date forced to pay 'scot
and lot,' to bear their share of burgess burdens without
being admitted to burgess privileges, it is easy to
understand why they should object to a renewal of
the lease, and should prefer to return to the state of
things before 1393. It is probably due to their
opposition that the lease was not renewed in all its
amplitude. No lease at all, indeed, survives for the
period 1411–21. But such evidence as exists goes to
show that the burgesses obtained a partial farm consisting of the market tolls, ferry and burgage-rents; the
perquisites of courts and the mills, together with other
miscellaneous rights, being reserved by the Crown and
administered by royal agents, who now reappeared in
the borough for the first time since 1393, or perhaps
since 1357. The rent paid by the burgesses seems
to have been £22 17s. 6d. (fn. 130)
But trouble at once resulted from this arrangement.
In 1413 (fn. 131) the royal agents do not appear to have
been able to collect any money at all; and in the
following years they got only £25 to £26, including
the burgesses' payments, in place of the £38 paid
under the old lease. There is no entry at all in their
accounts for perquisites of courts; the only moneys
they were able to get over and above the 'rent and
farms' which represent the burgesses' payment was
a payment for mills, generally largely swallowed
up in repairs. The explanation of this curious state
of affairs is to be found in an interesting petition sent
by the burgesses to the House of Commons in 1415, (fn. 132)
in which they ask for protection against the 'officers
and servants' of the king, who, 'since the confirmation
(of 1413) and not before … have come, usurped
and held certain courts' in the borough, in defiance
of the terms of all the burghal charters, and of the
king's own confirmation. By right of the grant of
sac and soc contained in these charters, the burgesses
claimed to 'have at all times had and continued a
court' and to 'have taken and received the perquisites
of the said court with all the profits belonging
thereto.' The assertion that the king had no claim
to the profits of burghal justice is directly contradicted by the whole preceding history of the borough:
it was only since 1357 that the burgesses had taken
these profits, and then only in virtue of a special
grant in the lease. But the episode is a striking
illustration of the difficulty of regaining rights
once conveyed by lease. One right included in the
lease of 1393 was not even claimed by the Crown,
being forgotten on both sides. This was the control
of the waste, which from this time remained burghal
property.
It is not known what was the result of the petition
to Parliament, which was referred to the king's
council. But the burgesses continued to resist the
royal agents, and to hold the courts themselves; and
apparently they also quarrelled with the Crown over
some question of tolls—possibly customs duties such
as the prisage on wine, which in later leases the Crown
is careful to define as not being covered by the lease.
At length in 1420 (fn. 133) the steward of West Derby
Hundred was ordered to summon all the mayors and
bailiffs of Liverpool for the preceding seven years to
appear before the Exchequer Court of the duchy at
Lancaster 'to render us account for the time they
have held our courts at Liverpool … and for the
tolls and other profits levied by them in the meantime.' This summons, however, had no better result.
In the next year (1421) Henry V found it necessary
to grant a lease (fn. 134) of the whole farm, without limitation, for a year, pending an inquiry into the terms on
which it ought to be held. The rent paid was £23;
that is, 2s. 6d. more than the burgesses had been
paying for their partial farm, and £15 less than they
had paid up till 1410. Before this inquiry could be
completed Henry V had died, and during the
minority of his son it was not to be expected that
rights would be enforced which the vigorous father
had failed to defend. The burgesses continued to
hold a lease, at the slightly increased figure of
£23 6s. 8d., until 1449. (fn. 135) Thus the conflict with
the Crown had ended in a burghal victory; the burgesses were left in possession of several royal rights,
above all the control of the waste and the supremacy of the Borough Court over all the inhabitants.
In the meanwhile, however, the disorder and turbulence of the district had been increasing. In 1424
a violent feud broke out between Thomas Stanley
and Sir Richard Molyneux. (fn. 136) Ralph Radcliffe and
James Holt, justices of the peace for Lancashire, were
sent by the sheriff to keep order. They found Stanley
entrenched in his father's tower in Liverpool, with
about 2,000 men, waiting for the attack of Sir Richard
Molyneux, who was advancing from West Derby with
1,000 men or more in battle array. The two protagonists were both arrested by the sheriff, and forced
to withdraw, Stanley to Kenilworth, and Molyneux
to Windsor. Record of this episode, which nearly
made the streets of the borough the scene of a pitched
battle, survives because the period of full anarchy was
not yet begun. The episodes of the age of the war
are left unrecorded. (fn. 137)
In February 1421–2 Sir Richard Molyneux obtained a grant of the constableship of Liverpool
Castle, together with the stewardship of West Derby
and Salford, and the forestership of Toxteth, Croxteth, and Simonswood. (fn. 138) In 1440–1 the offices
were renewed for the lives of Sir Richard and his
son, and five years later they were made hereditary. (fn. 139)
In 1442 the castle was further fortified by the erection
of the south-east tower. (fn. 140) The cost of the addition
was £46 13s. 10¼d. The stone was obtained from
Toxteth Park, the wood from the royal forest, now
controlled by Molyneux, and the money from the
Duchy Exchequer. Throughout the period the
expenditure in repairs of the castle was large and
constant. (fn. 141) The effect of the establishment of the
Stanleys in the tower, and of the Molyneuxes in the
castle, was to leave the borough very much at the
mercy of the two great noble houses entrenched
in their midst, especially at a period when the
Crown was perfectly incapable of maintaining order.
Simultaneously, the prosperity of the borough steadily
diminished, (fn. 142) and it was not till the beginning of the
17th century that it again stood on the level to
which it had attained at the beginning of the 15th,
either in population or in trade.
Molyneux. Azure a cross moline or.
Stanley. Argent on a bend azure three harts' heads cabossed or.
The decay is most strikingly demonstrated in the
history of the lease. The last of the continuous
series of burgess leases which followed the quarrel
with the Crown expired in 1449, and apparently
the burgesses found themselves
unable to offer to continue
it. A royal agent, Edmund
Crosse, (fn. 143) of the local family
already noticed, appears; but
could only collect a little less
than £19 in 1450, and
£15 14s. in 1452, as compared with even the reduced
rent of £23 6s. 8d. long paid
by the burgesses. The most
striking decline is in the
market-tolls, which in 1450
yield only £2, though in
1327 they had yielded £10, and in 1346 much
more. The failure of Crosse to produce increased
revenues enabled the burgesses to get a new farm
in 1454 (fn. 144) at the low rent of £17 6s. 8d., but they
were 5s. in arrears on the first year, though they
had never been in arrears when they had to pay £38.
In 1461 Edmund Crosse again rendered account (fn. 145) :
the town was at farm, whether held by himself or
by the burgess body it is not possible to say. But
it was a 'new farm,' and the rent was only £14. During the period of this lease the Crown, disregarding its
terms, made a special grant of one of the mills (fn. 146) and
of one of the two ferry-rights, (fn. 147) apparently with the
desire of increasing the yield. The burgesses held a
lease at £14 from 1466 to 1471; but for the last two
years of the period no account was rendered. The
civil war had broken out afresh after Warwick's insurrection, and the burgesses were either suffering from
its effects, or seized the opportunity to withhold payment. When Edward IV was again safely established
on his throne, he did his best to exact arrears for these
two years; but never succeeded in getting from the
poverty-stricken burgesses more than £9 of the £28
due from them. (fn. 148) He did not renew their tenure,
but granted a lease, this time unquestionably a personal lease, to Edmund Crosse (1472) at £14 2s. (fn. 149)
The burgesses never regained the lease. But even
Crosse was unable to pay so modest a figure. Three
years later (1475) his son, on having the lease renewed, (fn. 150)
got the extra 2s. knocked off again, and obtained also a
concession of the two rural mills of Ackers and Wavertree, in addition to the burghal mills. But this was
not enough. In the next year (1476) he obtained a
revised lease, (fn. 151) by which the rent was reduced to £11.
This represents probably the lowest ebb of Liverpool
prosperity. When, in 1488, the lease passed out of
the hands of the Crosses and was granted to David
Griffith, (fn. 152) the rent was raised to £14; this was increased to £14 6s. 8d. in 1528, (fn. 153) and at that figure
it remained. Evidence is lacking as to the trade of
the port during this period; but its absence is in itself
significant. And indeed it is needless to ask for more
striking evidence of the decay of the borough than that
afforded by the leases of the farm. At the same time
the very misery of the place, removing it from all
envy, saved to it some valuable privileges. (fn. 154) The
control of the burgess body over the waste, their right
to conduct their own courts, and the extension of their
governmental authority over the non-burgess inhabitants, should probably be regarded as having been established by usage in this period of helplessness and poverty.
Crosse. Quarterly gules and or a cross potent argent in the first and fourth quarters.
It is with the Tudor period that the material for
Liverpool history begins to be abundant. To the
regular records of the borough, which begin in 1555,
there is prefixed a collection of 'elder precedences,'
some of them dating from 1525; and in addition,
the national or duchy muniments provide ampler
material than before. But the reign of Henry VII,
the period of transition, is still very scantily supplied.
Substantially all that is known of this period is that
in 1488 Henry VII gave a lease of the farm to
David Griffith, (fn. 155) in whose family it remained till
1537 (fn. 156) at the increased rent of £14; that in 1492
he empowered Thomas Fazakerley (fn. 157) to form a fishing
station on the shore of the waste, between Toxteth
Park and the Pool; that in 1498 the burgesses were
summoned to a Quo Warranto
(fn. 158) plea which does not
seem to have been heard; and that in 1486 he made
to one Richard Cook (fn. 159) a grant of ferry at £3 per
annum, and for seven years, in place of a grant for life
and without rent, which had been made two years
before by Richard III. (fn. 160)
In the first half of the 16th century Liverpool
seems to have begun slowly to emerge from the
profound depression of the previous period, though
even in the second half she is still described as a
'decayed town.' Perhaps the revival was partly due
to the renewed use of the port, under Henry VIII,
for transport to Ireland. Skeffington's army in 1534
shipped from Chester and Liverpool; (fn. 161) and a
memorial of 1537 for the instruction of the king
states that the army in Ireland 'must be vitelid with
bere, biskett, flowre, butter, chease, and fleshe out of
Chestre, Lirpole, Northwales and Southwales and
Bristow.' (fn. 162) Some of the bullion required by the Irish
army was also exported through Liverpool. (fn. 163) Probably
the Irish trade of the port revived as a consequence.
Leland, in a brief note on Liverpool, (fn. 164) says that
'Irish merchants come much thither, as to a good
haven … At Liverpool is small custom paid that
causeth merchants to resort. Good merchandize at
Liverpool; and much Irish yarn, that Manchester
men do buy there.' Thus already Liverpool was
importing raw material for the nascent industries of
Lancashire, and exporting the finished product. (fn. 165) We
hear of one Liverpool merchant (fn. 166) trading with
Drogheda, who in 1538 had for sale 12 lb. of London
silks, and 12 pieces of kerseys, white, green and blue;
three of the latter sold for £15 12s. But the trade
of the reviving port extended beyond home waters.
Edmund Gee of Chester and Liverpool, who is
spoken of as the 'chief man and head merchant' of
Liverpool, (fn. 167) persuaded a Spaniard, Lope de Rivera,
to import into Liverpool large quantities of wine; (fn. 168)
in 1534 the deputy-butler for Lancashire complains
that William Collinges has imported 18 tuns of wine
into Liverpool without paying prisage; (fn. 169) while in
1545 we hear of a Biscayan ship 'stayed at Liverpoole.' (fn. 170) When the embitterment of the Reformation struggle led English traders to prey upon
Spanish ships, Liverpool sailors seem to have taken
some part in these piratical adventures: in 1555
Inigo de Baldram, a Spaniard, complained to the
Privy Council that he had been robbed by 'pirates
of Lierpole and Chester.' (fn. 171) But the Spanish trade
can only have been of the smallest proportions; even
that with Ireland, the staple of Liverpool traffic, was
humble enough.
Within the borough a modest development can be
traced. In 1516 Oldhall Street was, by agreement
with William Moore of the Oldhall, made an open
road to the fields. (fn. 172) From 1524 a deed survives (fn. 173)
in which the burgesses granted to Sir William
Molyneux at a rental of 6s. a few roods of waste land
beside the Moor Green, for the erection of a tithebarn to hold the tithes of Walton Church, which
belonged to the Molyneux family. Moor Street now
becomes Tithebarn Street. The importance of this
deed is that it shows the burgesses acting as owners of
the waste; and this is still more clearly exhibited
in a borough rental of 1523, (fn. 174) prefixed to the
Municipal Records, in which eight tenants pay
among them 7s. 5d. for patches of common. A
rental of the king's lands in Liverpool (fn. 175) dating from
1539 yields further interesting particulars. The
total value was £10 1s. 4d., which was, of course,
included in the lease of the farm. It is significant that
only 3¾ burgages are enumerated; which appears
to indicate that the burgage as a distinctive holding
was passing out of use. Twenty-six burgages were
included among the endowments of the four chantries
in 1546. (fn. 176)
The early years of the century saw the establishment of the last of the chantries, that of the priest John
Crosse, who provided that the chaplain should also
teach a school. (fn. 177) His will contains also a bequest to
the 'mayor and his brethren with the burgesses' of
the 'new [house] called our Ladie house to kepe their
courtes and such busynes as they shall thynke most
expedient.' Thus by one act the borough became
possessed of a school and a town hall.
The period, however, witnessed a number of disputes between the burgesses and the Crown or the
lessees of the farm. In 1514 (David Griffith with
his wife and son being then the lessees) (fn. 178) a commission (fn. 179) was appointed by the Crown 'on the behalf of our farmer of our toll within our said town
of Liverpool' to inquire whether 'the Mayor and
Burgesses … for their own singular lucre and
advantage now of late have made many and divers
foreign men not resident nor abiding in the said
town to be burgesses of the same town to the intent
to defraud us and our right of toll there.' The result
of this inquiry (which was probably due to dissatisfaction with the yield of the farm) is not known.
But it shows the burgesses trying to recoup themselves for the loss of the farm by taking payments
for the admission of non-burgesses to that exemption
from dues which was their chartered privilege. In
1528 (fn. 180) another commission was appointed to
'survey search and examine the concealments and
subtraction of all and every such tolls customs and
forfeitures as to us rightfully should belong … of any
goods … conveyed to or from our port of Liverpool.' In the next year a new cause of quarrel
appears. Thirteen men had been working a ferry
from Liverpool to Runcorn. This ferry-right the
lessee, Henry Ackers, claimed to be covered by the
farm; and as a result of his complaint to the Crown, the
mayor was ordered (fn. 181) to put an end to this illegal
ferry. The order seems to have been neglected, for
in the next year Ackers petitioned the Chancellor of
the Duchy for redress. (fn. 182) The dispute was settled
by the lessee granting a sub-lease (fn. 183) to the burgess
body, whereby they undertook to collect all the
customs, tolls, and ferry-dues, and pay half of the total
proceeds and £10. The royal rents of £10 and
the mills (separately leased at 50s.) (fn. 184) were excluded
from this sub-lease; and as the sub-lease must have
yielded to the lessor at least £20, his income from
the town must have amounted to over £32, yielding
him a handsome profit after he had paid his £14 6s. 8d.
to the Crown. Incidentally these figures show that
the town was regaining much of its prosperity, and
approximating to the conditions of 1394, when the
rent was £38; though it should be remembered
that the value of money had in the meantime
materially declined.
Of the effects of the first stages of the Reformation
there is little to record. The only monastic property
connected with the borough
was the house and barn in
Water Street and the ferryright over the Mersey, which
belonged to the Priors of Birkenhead, and passed with the
manor of Birkenhead to Ralph
Worsley. But the later confiscation of the chantries affected Liverpool deeply. There
were now four chantries in the
chapel of St. Nicholas; their
lands in 1546 had been worth
£21 11s. 3d., (fn. 185) paying in
chief rents to the king 10s. 3d. (fn. 186)
The lands of two of these chantries—those of the
High Altar and of St. John—were sold, though the
priests attached to them seem to have remained resident in the town. (fn. 187) Among the purchasers (fn. 188) were
many of the burgesses of Liverpool, who were thus to
some extent committed to support of the Reformation.
The lands of the chantries of St. Nicholas and St.
Katherine remained in the hands of the Crown, and
their revenues were respectively devoted to the maintenance of a priest for the Liverpool chapel and of a
schoolmaster for the parish of Walton, (fn. 189) the pre-suppression
chantry priests remaining to perform these
functions. (fn. 190) In 1565 the administration of these lands
seems to have been transferred from the Duchy officers
to the mayor and burgesses, (fn. 191) who added further
revenues raised among themselves, (fn. 192) and henceforth
controlled the appointment both of the priest and of
the schoolmaster of the town.
Worsley. Argent a cheveron sable between three falcons of the last beaked legged and belled or.
Difference of opinion on the religious question may
have helped to precipitate a serious quarrel between
the borough and the lessee of the farm. This had
been since 1537 in the hands of Sir William Molyneux (fn. 193) and his son Sir Richard, who however had
continued the arrangement of their predecessors
whereby the burgesses administered the various powers
and collected the dues, (fn. 194) retaining half of them on
payment of £10 per annum. In 1552 a mysterious
lease was issued by Edward VI to one James Bedyll. (fn. 195)
It never took effect, but it may have been intended as
an attack by the Protestant court upon the Roman
Catholic Molyneuxes. If we suppose the burgesses
to have been concerned in obtaining this lease, the
quarrel with Molyneux which broke out immediately
on the accession of Mary is easier to understand. Molyneux obtained a renewal (fn. 196) of his lease, though his
previous lease was still unexpired, and, the sub-lease
to the burgesses having expired, (fn. 197) he put in his own
officers to collect the dues and hold the portmoot.
The burgesses on their side obtained a confirmation
of their charters, (fn. 198) though, having apparently overlooked the charter of Henry V, (fn. 199) it was the less favourable charter of Richard II of which they obtained a
renewal. They seem to have trusted to this to justify
their claim to collect the dues and hold the portmoot,
which they proceeded to do in spite of the lessee, even
throwing his agents into prison. (fn. 200) The question was
tried before the Chancery Court of the Duchy (fn. 201)
which gave its award on every point in favour of the
lessees, awarding them 'all and singular tolls and other
profits in any wise appertaining to the said town,'
whether paid by freemen or by strangers, and also
definitely declaring that the lessee had the right to
'keep courts within the said town . . after such sort
… as the courts . . have been used to be kept,'
and that suit at these courts must be rendered by all
inhabitants. (fn. 202) This was a serious blow to the burgesses; and, while space does not permit of an examination of the question, it seems clear that the burgesses
were deprived of some rights which justly belonged to
them. (fn. 203) Two years later, on the intercession of Lord
Strange and the attorney of the Duchy court, the
quarrel was compromised by the renewal to the burgesses of the old sub-lease, which seems to have been
continued throughout the remainder of the century. (fn. 204)
The municipal records from 1555 enable a clear
account to be given of the mode of government to
which the burgesses had now attained. At an assembly of burgesses held on St. Luke's Day, 18 October,
a mayor and one bailiff were elected, a second bailiff
being nominated by the new mayor at the same
meeting. (fn. 205) Other assemblies were held as occasion
demanded. (fn. 206) Attendance was compulsory on all burgesses on penalty of a fine of 1s. (fn. 207) The assembly
elected freemen, (fn. 208) and occasionally expelled them
from the liberties. (fn. 209) Distinct from the assembly was
the Portmoot and Great Leet, held twice yearly.
The Great Portmoot immediately followed the annual
assembly, and elected all the minor officers, among
whom may be named the serjeant at mace, two
churchwardens, two leve-lookers, two moss-reeves,
four mise-cessors and prysors, two stewards of the
common-hall, a water-bailiff, a hayward, two aletesters. (fn. 210) The portmoot was the lineal descendant
of the old manorial court, and as such the right to
hold it was claimed by the lessee of the farm. When
this right was exercised, as in 1555, portmoot and
assembly were at war, (fn. 211) but normally almost all
business was indifferently transacted at either. At
the portmoot presentments of breaches of burghal
custom were made by a jury of twenty-four or twelve
burgesses impanelled by the bailiffs; they also 'appointed and set down' all sorts of orders or by-laws,
indistinguishable in character from those passed by the
assembly of burgesses, and including many affairs not
properly coming within the sphere of a manorial court,
but rather belonging to the sphere of the gildmerchant.
The mayor exercised supreme control over the
whole executive business of the borough, the bailiffs
and other officers being under his orders. He was
always either a leading merchant, or a country gentleman of the neighbourhood. He presided over the
ordinary sessions of the borough court, now called the
mayor's court, which does not seem to have been
claimed by the lessees. With him acted 'the Mayor's
Brethren' or aldermen, who were not popularly
elected, but seem to have consisted of the ex-mayors.
It is clear that this system of government was breaking
down; and it was to undergo great changes in the
next period.
In the second half of the century it becomes possible to trace in more detail the movement of population and the development of trade. In 1565 there
were 144 names on the burgess rolls, (fn. 212) but some of
these were non-resident, and the number of resident
burgesses was probably about 120. In the same year
the number of householders is given as 138. (fn. 213) In
1572, (fn. 214) of 159 names in the burgess roll about 130
may have been resident, while in 1589 (fn. 215) there were
190 names on the roll, of whom over 150 were
resident. The number of houses rated for a subsidy
in 1581 was 202. (fn. 216) Including therefore resident
burgesses and other non-burgess inhabitants, we may
estimate the population at about 700 or 800 in the
middle of the century, increasing slowly to about
1,000 or 1,200 at its close. In other words, the 16th
century only succeeded in bringing the population
back to the figure it had already attained in 1346.
The explanation of this slow growth is to be found
largely in the ravages of the plague which repeatedly
attacked Liverpool during the period. The visitation
of 1558 was so virulent that the fair was dropped in
that year, no markets were held for three months, and
over 240 persons, or one-fourth of the population,
are said to have died. (fn. 217)
The progress of shipping was equally unsatisfactory.
A return of 1557 (fn. 218) shows that there were in the port
one ship of 100 tons and one of 50 tons, (fn. 219) together
with seven smaller vessels, while four vessels of
between 10 and 30 tons were at sea; there were 200
sailors connected with the port. In 1565 (fn. 220) there
were fifteen vessels, three of which belonged to
Wallasey; the largest was of 40 tons burthen, and
the number of seamen was about eighty. In 1586 (fn. 221)
sixteen vessels can be counted in the entrances and
clearances for a single month; probably the list is
not exhaustive. The character of the port's trade
continued unchanged. Manchester, Bolton, and
Blackburn men frequented the market to buy Irish
yarns, (fn. 222) and sell 'Manchester cottons' (coatings); (fn. 223)
the outgoing trade was mainly to Ireland, and consisted
of mixed cargoes of coals, woollens, Sheffield knives,
leather goods, and small wares. The return cargoes
from Dublin, Drogheda, and Carlingford were invariably of yarns, hides, and sheep skins or fells. The
foreign trade was of small proportions, and seems
mainly to have been conducted by foreigners. But we
hear of a Lancashire family sending to Liverpool to buy
'44 quarts of sack, 85 quarts of claret, 4 cwt. of iron,
4 lb. of pitch.' (fn. 224) French and Spanish ships were
sometimes brought as prizes into Liverpool, but not
by Liverpool captains. (fn. 225) Piracy was rampant, and
government had much ado to keep it in check even in
the Irish Sea. (fn. 226) There were, it is true, one or two
merchants in Liverpool who traded with Spain; (fn. 227)
one of these spent twelve months in a Spanish prison
in 1585–6, and on returning was the first to give
details of the preparation of the Armada. (fn. 228) But the
trade with Spain was on so small a scale that when
the monopolist Spanish trading company was established in 1578, (fn. 229) the Liverpool merchants were contemptuously excused from submission to its regulations
on the ground that they were only engaged in small
retail trade. Even from the payment of tonnage and
poundage duties Liverpool was exempt until the
reign of Elizabeth, (fn. 230) no doubt because the yield
would be so small as not to be worth the cost of
collection.
It was probably for this reason that during the
reign of Elizabeth the central government treated
Liverpool as part of a large customs district which
included the ports of North Wales, and had its centre
at Chester. Orders of various sorts were frequently
transmitted to the Mayor of Liverpool through the
Mayor of Chester; (fn. 231) in one writ Liverpool and
Chester were treated as a single port, (fn. 232) while in
another Liverpool was actually catalogued with Chester
and 'Ilbrye' as one of the ports of Cheshire. (fn. 233) This
was made the basis of a claim on the part of Chester
to superiority over Liverpool. This was not merely
due to the claim of the Mayor of Chester to be viceadmiral of Lancashire and Cheshire; (fn. 234) Chester
claimed that Liverpool was only 'a creek within its
port,' and that all ships entering the Mersey should
pay dues through Chester. This claim, first formally
advanced in 1565, (fn. 235) was, in spite of backing from
London, entirely repudiated by the Liverpool burgesses. (fn. 236) They petitioned the Crown for protection;
and eventually a commission sent down to investigate
reported in Liverpool's favour. (fn. 237) When Chester in
1578 made the more limited claim of supremacy over
the Cheshire shore of the Mersey, (fn. 238) equal vigour was
shown in repudiation. The question was not settled
during this century; it reappeared in the early part
of the 17th century, (fn. 239) and was not disposed of till in
1658 (fn. 240) an award was given in favour of Liverpool by
the Surveyor-General of Customs—an award which
was later confirmed by the first Restoration SurveyorGeneral in 1660. (fn. 241)
The administrative arrangement which gave to
Chester the pretext for this claim had been dictated
largely by convenience in organizing the transport of
troops to Ireland, which went on with great vigour
throughout the period. In 1573 Essex and part of
his army were transported from Liverpool, (fn. 242) and substantial forces also left the port in 1565, (fn. 243) 1574, (fn. 244)
1579, (fn. 245) 1588, (fn. 246) 1595, (fn. 247) and 1596. (fn. 248) The transport of these troops was not unprofitable; 2s. a head
was allowed for food during the passage, (fn. 249) and the
cost of transport was more than £1 a head, (fn. 250) while
during the stay of the troops in Liverpool, which
lasted sometimes for a long period, (fn. 251) 3d. a head was
allowed for each meal, and 4d. a day for a horse's
fodder. (fn. 252) But the visits of the troops were troublesome. Quarters and food had to be compulsorily
provided. Even when they were promptly paid for,
it must have been difficult for a town of less than 200
houses to provide for large forces; but the payment
was often long delayed. (fn. 253) Moreover the troops were
often riotous. The town records give a vivid account
of an affray which broke out among Lord Essex' men
in 1573, (fn. 254) and which brought out all the burgesses
in battle array on the heath, while in 1581 there was
a formidable mutiny (fn. 255) which was only suppressed
after sharp and exemplary punishment. A third inconvenience arose from the fact that the shipping of
the port was often withdrawn from trade and detained
for long periods in harbour, waiting for troops which
never came. In 1593 it was only the intercession of
Lord Derby (fn. 256) for 'the poor masters and owners of
vessels stayed at Liverpool' which obtained their
release, though no troops were nearly ready.
This was by no means the only occasion on which
Lord Derby came to the aid of the burgesses. He
was almost officially described by Walsingham as the
'patron of the poor town of Liverpool,' (fn. 257) and was
appealed to on every occasion. One of the seats in
Parliament (to which Liverpool had resumed the
right of election in 1545), (fn. 258) was always reserved for
his nominee; the other was usually placed at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Duchy, from whom, in
all probability, Francis Bacon received the nomination
which made him member for Liverpool in the session
of 1588–9. (fn. 259) When in 1562 (fn. 260) the burgesses celebrated their reconciliation with Sir Richard Molyneux
by nominating him to the seat usually reserved for the
Chancellor, that official was so angry that he made a
separate return, so that two sets of Liverpool members
appear in the lists for that year, (fn. 261) and it was only the
protection of Lord Derby which reassured the town
against his direful threats. Nothing can exceed the
pitiful submissiveness of the burgesses when they have
the misfortune to offend Lord Derby, (fn. 262) nor the
lavish enthusiasm with which they welcomed him in
his visits to the town. (fn. 263) He was their one protector
against aggressive lessees, greedy rival towns, crushing
monopolist companies or angry chancellors.
It follows from the use they made of their Parliamentary privilege that the burgesses took small interest
in the progress of national affairs. They lit bonfires
on the Queen's birthdays, (fn. 264) but the only reflection of
the excitement of 1588 which their records contain
is the note of the erection of one gun on the Nabbe
at the entrance to the Pool. (fn. 265) Even the change of
religious opinion is but faintly reflected in the records.
As time went on they became more and more Protestant; their patron, the fourth Earl of Derby, was one
of the keenest of Protestants by profession, offering
the use of the Tower for the safe-keeping of recusants. (fn. 266) Towards the end of the century we find the
burgesses ordering the closing of all ale-houses on the
'Sabbath' day, demanding a sermon or homily every
Sunday, and engaging, in addition to the 'minister,'
a zealous and faithful preacher at £4 per annum. (fn. 267)
For the burgesses indeed, the development of their
own institutions (which now entered on a striking
new phase) was more vital than political or religious
events. Probably it was the series of disputes into
which they had been drawn, and which had so seriously threatened their liberties, that led to the development of an executive committee within the
assembly of burgesses, hitherto supreme. (fn. 268) The
assembly was unsuited to carry on these struggles, (fn. 269)
and after several experiments with councils elected for
a limited period, which all failed through the jealousy
of the burgess body, in 1580 a permanent self-renewing council of twenty-four ordinary members with
twelve aldermen was appointed. (fn. 270) Though it was to
go through some vicissitudes, this body remained in
control of the borough till 1835.
The records of this period present a very vivid
picture of the social condition and customs of the
borough. Space does not permit of any summary of
these, but something must be said on the methods of
conducting trade. (fn. 271) The regulation of trade was in
the hands of the mayor and aldermen, acting under
by-laws laid down by the portmoot or the assembly
of burgesses. In the weekly market for local traffic
no outsider was allowed to purchase corn until the
wants of the burgesses had been satisfied. Forestalling
and regrating were severely punished. Ingate and outgate dues were charged for goods brought to or from
the market; from these the burgesses and also the inhabitants of Altcar and Prescot were free. The masters
of ships bringing cargoes into the Mersey, after paying
anchorage dues, had to obtain permission from the
mayor before offering their goods for sale. First the
mayor determined whether he should offer to take
the whole cargo as a 'town's bargain.' If he decided
to do this, a sum was offered which had been estimated by the merchant prysors. If the importer
refused this offer he must either leave the port or
agree with the mayor as to the sum he must pay to
'make his best market,' i.e. to offer his goods for sale
in open market. It was a system of high protection
for the burgesses and minute regulation, so vexatious
and hampering to trade that it was already breaking
down by the end of the century.
The first three decades of the 17th century saw
the prosperity and the burghal liberties of Liverpool
safely re-established. The port was largely used for
transport to Ireland during the reigns of James I and
Charles I (fn. 272) —more largely now than Chester. In 1625
five transports containing 550 men were wrecked on
the coast of Holyhead on the way to Carrickfergus,
and less than two hundred men were saved. (fn. 273) The
loss of five vessels was a serious blow to a small port,
and the mayor feared that 'unless the king compassionates the town, it will be the utter overthrow of
that corporation.' Pirates, too, still haunted the Irish
seas; frequent levies of money had to be raised for
dealing with them, (fn. 274) and even under the firm rule of
Wentworth in Ireland a 'Biscayan Spanish rogue'
took up his station off Dublin Bay, 'outbraved the
two kingdoms,' and captured two Liverpool vessels,
one of which had cargo to the value of £3,000, while
another bore 'a trunk of damask' belonging to the
lord-lieutenant himself. (fn. 275) Nevertheless the prosperity
of the port steadily increased, and gained especially
from the development of Irish industries under Wentworth. In 1618 the number of vessels in the port (fn. 276)
was twenty-four, with a total tonnage of 462. In
the next year Chester had to represent to the Crown
that it possessed no ships, trading only in small barks. (fn. 277)
The superior rival of the previous century had been
distanced; and this being so, it is not surprising that
Liverpool should have repudiated, with even greater
vigour than in 1565, the claim of Chester to supremacy,
which was revived in 1619. (fn. 278) To retain a share of
the trade in Irish yarn, Chester had to make special
treaties with Irish exporters; (fn. 279) but even then Liverpool more than held its own. (fn. 280) Foreign trade as
well as Irish trade was increasing, (fn. 281) especially with
Spain; a part of the salt of Cheshire, hitherto almost
monopolized by Chester, came to supply outgoing
cargoes; malt was brought from Tewkesbury to Liverpool by the Severn and the sea; (fn. 282) and there is even
a record of one cargo of tobacco (fn. 283) brought direct
from the Indies—the beginning of Liverpool's American trade.
This growing prosperity is reflected in a growth
of population, despite a visitation of the plague in
1609. (fn. 284) The number of freemen rose from 190 in
1589 to 256 in 1620 and to 450 in 1645. (fn. 285) Though
some of these were non-resident, there was also a considerable non-freeman population in the borough, and
the population on the eve of the Civil War may, perhaps, be estimated at 2,000 or 2,500. At the same
time the corporate revenue undergoes a remarkable
expansion. In 1603 it was £55; in 1650 it had
risen to £273. (fn. 286)
The borough was comparatively little troubled
during the early years of the century by the difficulties by which it had been faced in the preceding
age. In 1617 the copyholders of West Derby,
instigated by Sir Richard Molyneux, raised a claim
to a part of the Liverpool waste, (fn. 287) now administered
by the borough; but the mayor and bailiffs were
instructed to 'make known unto them … that
time out of mind the liberties which we claim have
belonged to our town, and that we have evidence to
maintain the same,' and the question was not pressed.
In 1620 there was an obscure dispute with Sir Richard
over the levying of prisage duties on wine, (fn. 288) the issue
of which is unknown. Several times during the period
the borough authorities came in conflict with the
Duchy courts on the question of the competence of
the borough courts to try all cases arising within the
liberties, (fn. 289) a right which was vigorously and successfully maintained. But the questions which occupy
most space in the records are internal disputes, especially concerning the powers and duties of the burghal
officers. From 1633 to 1637 a fierce controversy
raged with the town-clerk, (fn. 290) Robert Dobson, who,
having paid £70 for his office, considered himself
irremovable, and bore himself with intolerable insolence towards the mayor and bailiffs. This controversy
eventually led to a dispute with the Chancery Court
of the Duchy, to which Dobson tried to remove his
case. There were disputes also with the bailiffs. The
bailiffs of 1626 (fn. 291) were imprisoned in the Common
Hall for refusing to carry out the instructions of the
Town Council; the bailiffs of 1629 (fn. 292) brought an
action against the corporation in the King's Bench,
for which one of them was deprived of the freedom.
Probably the cause of these disputes was the control
exercised by the new Town Council over officials,
who, before its establishment, had been accustomed
to uncontrolled authority. During this period the
Town Council seems to have remained on good
terms with the body of burgesses; (fn. 293) partly because
its meetings were open; partly because it appears to
have been the practice for the bailiffs, elected on the
annual election day, to become thereafter members of
the council for life. (fn. 294) This gave to the burgesss-body
some control over the membership of the council, and
probably left few places to be filled up by the council
itself.
But the most striking sign of the growing independence of the borough is to be seen in the use
made of its privilege of electing to Parliament. Lord
Derby still occasionally nominated one member, but
the Chancellor of the Duchy lost his right; always
one, and sometimes both, of the members were now
genuinely elected by the borough, wages were paid to
them, and care was taken that they earned them. In the
elections all freemen took part, and, probably because
the Town Council was so recently established and
because national politics were beginning to be interesting, this power was never usurped from the
freemen by the council. An illustration of the mode
of treatment of their members by the burgesses may
be quoted. In 1611 Mr. Brook (fn. 295) sent in a bill for
£28 10s. for the wages of his attendance during the
previous session. Of this he had already 'received in
allowance and payments £14 5s. 7d., and so rested
due to him £14 4s. 5d., which 4s. 5d. was deducted
in regard of his stay in Chester about his own business
four days, and so he was allowed £14 absolutely, provided he delivered first the New Charter.'
Mr. Brook did not produce a charter, and we are
left to infer that his wages were not paid. This is
one of a series of applications for a charter which
occur at frequent intervals in the later years of the
16th century and the first quarter of the 17th,
inspired by the sense of insecurity in their privileges
to which the controversies of the previous fifty years
had given rise. There survives a memorandum, (fn. 296)
dating from about 1580, in which the Recorder gives
it as his opinion that the borough had never in any
of its charters been incorporated in express words, and
that all its privileges must remain insecure until this
was rectified. Applications in 1603, (fn. 297) 1611, (fn. 298) and
1617 (fn. 299) were unsuccessful; but at length in 1626 (fn. 300)
a new charter was purchased from Charles I, then
embarrassed by the war with Spain and by the quarrel
with Parliament.
The charter of Charles I is the most important
of the series, after that of Henry III. It definitely
incorporated the borough; confirmed it in all the
powers it exercised, whether enjoyed by grant or by
usurpation; vested in the burgess body full powers of
legislation not only for themselves but for all inhabitants of the borough; and granted, probably for
the first time, (fn. 301) the right to hold a court under the
Statute of Merchants. The charter did not even
name the town council, which was thus left at the
mercy of the burgess body; but in the next year the
existing council was re-elected, and as there is no
trace of any discussion of the question until the
second half of the century, it would seem that no
attack on the powers of the council was intended.
The existence of the bench of aldermen is only incidentally recognized by the appointment of the
senior alderman for the time being as a justice of
the peace. The charter thus gave ground for a good
deal of dispute, though none seems to have arisen. But
it was an invaluable grant, for it secured the burgesses
in the possession of all the vague rights which they
had usurped since 1394, but which had been threatened
since the Molyneuxes obtained possession of the lease
of the farm; particularly the ownership of the waste
and the sovereignty of the borough officers over the
whole population of the borough. It left unsettled,
however, several questions at issue between the borough
and the lessees of the farm which had remained
dormant since 1555.
It was fortunate that the charter had been obtained
before 1628, for in that year Charles I sold Liverpool, (fn. 302) with some three hundred other manors, to
trustees on behalf of the citizens of London, in
acquittance of a number of loans. So long as the
Molyneux lease lasted the Londoners' ownership of
the lordship meant nothing beyond the right of
receiving the £14 6s. 8d. of farm rent, which
had to be at once paid over to the Crown, the sale
having been made subject to an annual rent-charge of
this amount. The lordship was therefore worthless
to the Londoners; it was valuable only to Sir Richard
Molyneux, who by buying it from them for £400 in
1636 (fn. 303) obtained in perpetuity and in freehold the
rights he had previously enjoyed by lease, as well as
any other rights that might be construed as coming
under the lordship. This placed the burgesses more
fully than ever at his mercy. In 1638 he commenced
an action in the Court of Wards (fn. 304) to prohibit the
burgesses from working an illicit ferry and mill which
had somehow got into their possession. The burgesses, resisting, petitioned the Crown for a grant of
the lease of the farm to themselves; (fn. 305) but this, although
the king 'made a most gracious answer,' was obviously
out of his power since the sale, and they found it
necessary to come to an agreement, (fn. 306) whereby they
were to pay Molyneux £20 per annum without
prejudice to their rights. Before the question could
be raised again, and before Molyneux could attempt
to press home other claims, the Civil War had broken
out, and the later stages of the dispute were postponed
until after the Restoration.
The side which Liverpool was likely to take in the
great struggle would not have been easy to predict
from its action during the preceding years. On the
whole the temper of the burgesses, in religious matters,
seems to have been Puritan. Thus it was found
necessary to have, in addition to the incumbent of the
chapel, a 'preacher of the Word of God,' (fn. 307) who received £20 or £30 per annum together with 'a
reasonable milk cow,' which was to be 'changed at the
discretion of the Council;' and in 1629 the mayor
petitioned the Bishop of Chester, Bridgeman, for permission to arrange 'once a month two sermons upon
a week-day.' (fn. 308) The list of preachers arranged for
the following year in accordance with the licence then
obtained, is significant. It includes Kay, Vicar of
Walton, who later became a Presbyterian, and Richard
Mather, minister of the Ancient Chapel of Toxteth
Park, who was driven to America by Laud in 1636.
Probably the presence in Toxteth of a little group of
Puritan farmers, planted there by Sir Richard Molyneux when the park was brought under cultivation in
1604, (fn. 309) had considerable influence upon the Puritan
temper of the borough.
On the other hand, the influence of the surrounding gentry was exercised almost entirely on the Royalist
side. The Royalism of West Derby Hundred was
even stronger than the Parliamentarianism of Salford
Hundred, and the centre and support of it was the
special patron of Liverpool, Lord Strange, who during
the incapacity of his father, until he succeeded to the
title in 1642, represented the house of Stanley. The
only considerable family in the district which took the
Parliamentarian side was that of the Moores, of Liverpool, (fn. 310) and, local as they were, they could not balance
the Derby influence. Thus torn asunder, the borough
followed an extremely vacillating course. To the
Parliament of 1623 two Royalist members were returned. (fn. 311) In that of 1625 the Puritan, Edward
Moore, was balanced by Lord Strange. (fn. 312) In the
Petition of Right Parliament there were again two
strong Royalist members. (fn. 313) Thus in the first period
of the national controversy, the influence of the neighbouring gentry was able to outweigh the Puritan
tendencies of the borough. But during the eleven
years of personal government, the tide of opinion
turned. On the first levy of ship-money in 1634,
Liverpool was required to pay £15 as its share of the
cost of a ship of 400 tons, to be raised by the maritime counties of Wales, by Cheshire, Lancashire, and
Cumberland; (fn. 314) the same sum was assessed by a committee of mayors and sheriffs upon Carlisle, while
Chester had to pay £100. The burden was a light
enough one for a town which a little later raised without difficulty £160 to fight a single law-suit; (fn. 315)
but there was keen opposition, (fn. 316) several burgesses declined to pay, and threatened the bailiffs with actions
at law if they should attempt distraints; the Town
Council had to resolve that the costs of such actions
should be borne at the town's expense, but there were
two members of the council itself who protested against
this. In the next year John Moore, the regicide, was
elected mayor, and on the second levy of ship-money
there were similar difficulties. (fn. 317)
When the meeting of the Short Parliament ended
the period of personal government, both of the Liverpool members were in the opposition; (fn. 318) while to the
Long Parliament Liverpool returned the acrid Puritan,
John Moore, along with Sir Richard Wynne, (fn. 319) who,
though he had accompanied Charles I on his journey
to Spain, was by no means a staunch Royalist: he
voted against the attainder of Strafford, but he was a
member of the deputation to present the Grand Remonstrance to the king. (fn. 320) It is tolerably clear that
had the burgesses been left to themselves, without the
influence of Lord Derby and others, Liverpool, like
other ports, would have been enrolled on the Parliamentarian side.
When, on the outbreak of war, the Parliamentarian
party in Lancashire began to organize their resistance
against the vigorous action of Lord Strange, John
Moore of Liverpool was the only gentleman of West
Derby Hundred whom they could find to include in
their list of deputy-lieutenants. Even he was apparently helpless in Liverpool, for he is found with the
other Parliamentarian leaders at Manchester in the
middle of 1642. (fn. 321) Liverpool, controlled by the
Molyneux Castle and the Stanley Tower, was defenceless against the Royalist party. Lord Strange was able
to seize the large stock of powder which lay in the
town, (fn. 322) and to garrison both castle and tower. He
was actively supported by the mayor, John Walker, (fn. 323)
who received a royal letter of commendation for his
action; but the presence of a considerable Parliamentarian party in the town is indicated by the note that
the mayor had been threatened, perhaps by John
Moore, with imprisonment and transportation from
the country. (fn. 324) Colonel Edward Norris, of Speke, became governor, (fn. 325) and thirty barrels of gunpowder were
sent into the town from Warrington. (fn. 326) Nothing,
however, seems to have been done to strengthen the
defence of the town. It remained under Royalist
control so long as Lord Derby's strength was sufficient
to hold the western half of the county. When, in the
early months of 1643, his main force was called off for
service in the midlands, the Parliamentarian forces
from Manchester rapidly overran the western half of
the county, and by May, Lathom House and Liverpool
were the only Royalist strongholds left. Colonel
Tyldesley, with the remnant of the Royalist forces,
fell back upon Liverpool; (fn. 327) but he was hotly followed
by Assheton with the Manchester Parliamentarians, (fn. 328)
while a Parliamentarian ship entering the Mersey cut
off retreat in that direction. (fn. 329) After two days' fighting
Assheton had captured the whole line of Dale Street
and also the chapel of St. Nicholas, in the tower of
which guns were mounted which commanded the
town. Tyldesley was forced to treat, asking for a free
retreat to Wigan with arms and artillery. These terms
were refused, and an assault completely routed the
Royalists, who lost eighty dead and 300 prisoners, while
the loss of the attacking force was only seven killed. (fn. 330)
the date of this first siege is unknown, but it was probably at the end of May 1643.
The Parliamentarians, now masters of Liverpool,
proceeded to make very effective use of their capture.
Lieut.-Col. Venables was appointed governor, (fn. 331) with
martial powers overriding the town council. On his
recall, early in 1644, he was succeeded, as a result of
a petition from the burgesses, by Colonel John
Moore, (fn. 332) who remained in command until the town
fell before Rupert. The German engineer Rosworm
was brought from Manchester to reconstruct the fortifications, (fn. 333) which were, however, not very skilfully
laid out. A ditch 36 ft. wide and 9 ft. deep was cut
from the river, (fn. 334) north of the Old Hall, to the Pool.
Behind it ran a high earthen rampart, which was
broken by gates where it was crossed by Oldhall Street,
Tithebarn Street, and Dale Street, each gate being
protected by cannon. Earthworks with batteries
guarded the line of the Pool, and a strong battery of
eight guns was placed at the angle of the Pool, below
the castle. In addition, a number of guns were
placed on the castle. A regular garrison, consisting
of a regiment of foot and a troop of horse, (fn. 335) was kept
in the town; but in addition military service was
required of the burgesses, for whose use 100 muskets,
100 bandoliers, and 100 rests were delivered to the
mayor and aldermen, (fn. 336) a fine of 1s. being imposed on
any burgess who failed to turn out for duty 'at the
beating of the drum.' (fn. 337) During the period of military
occupation the authority of the governor overrode that
of the town council. He was present at its meetings, (fn. 338)
and most of his officers were admitted to the freedom.
John Moore seems to have been far from successful as
a governor. Adam Martindale, who served as his
chaplain, (fn. 339) gives a terrible picture of the governor's
entourage, though he praises (fn. 340) the 'religious officers of
the company' with whom he 'enjoyed sweet communion,' as they met 'every night at one another's
quarters, by turnes, to read scriptures, to confer of good
things, and to pray together.'
The functions which Liverpool had to perform
were threefold. On land, the garrison had to hold
a Royalist district in check, and to take part in the
siege of Lathom House. In addition it had to keep
in touch with the Parliamentarian forces in Cheshire,
and be prepared to deal with movements of the Royalist garrison of Chester. On the sea the function of
Liverpool was still more important. It was the 'only
haven' (fn. 341) of the Parliamentarians on the west coast,
and it therefore became the base of naval movements
intended to prevent communication between Ormond,
in Ireland, and the English Royalists. (fn. 342) For this purpose part of the fleet was stationed here as early as
June 1643, (fn. 343) and five months later this force amounted
to six men-of-war, (fn. 344) and Colonel Moore, Governor of
Liverpool, became Vice-Admiral for Lancashire and
Westmorland. (fn. 345) It was under the command of one
Captain Danks or Dansk, (fn. 346) and though the prevalent
north-west winds sometimes shut him into the Mersey,
he was able very seriously to harass the Royalists, intercepting supplies (fn. 347) upon which the Irish Royalists were
dependent, and preventing the transport of troops.
Royalist vessels from Bristol, indeed, disputed with the
Liverpool ships the command of the Irish Sea, (fn. 348) but
not very effectively; the Puritan sailors of Bristol were
half-hearted in the service, and one Bristol ship laden
with arms and supplies for Chester deserted and sailed
into the Mersey. (fn. 349) Ormond felt the position to be
so serious for himself that he wrote to the Royalist
forces in Cheshire, (fn. 350) 'earnestly recommending' them
to attack Liverpool 'as soon as they possibly can,' and
urging that 'no service to my apprehension can at
once so much advantage this place (Dublin) and
Chester, and make them so useful to each other.' The
same urgent advice was given by Archbishop Williams, (fn. 351)
in command at Conway. The capture of Liverpool
was one of the immediate objectives of Byron's force of
3,000 Irish, which landed in Cheshire in November
1643, and on its arrival supplies were sent in to
Liverpool, (fn. 352) and forces called up to its aid. (fn. 353) The
defeat of Byron in January 1644 left the Liverpool
garrison free to press the siege of Lathom (fn. 354) in conjunction with Assheton's forces from Bolton. But the
straits of Lathom formed an additional reason for a
vigorous blow from the Royalist side. Lord Derby
was urgent (fn. 355) upon Prince Rupert to relieve Lathom.
and to seize Liverpool, 'which your highness took
notice of in the map the last evening I was with you,
for there is not at this time fifty men in the garrison.'
Urged by these motives, the capture of Liverpool
was one of the tasks which Rupert set himself on his
northward march, in May and June, to the relief of
Newcastle in York. His approach caused Moore to
retreat hastily to Liverpool, while the garrison was
reinforced by 400 men sent from Manchester; (fn. 356) the
ships in the Mersey were drawn up in the port to
assist in repelling the attack; (fn. 357) women, children, and
suspects were removed from the town, (fn. 358) and all who
remained 'were resolute to defend' the place.
It was on 9 June that Rupert, fresh from a brilliant
success over the Parliamentarians, came down over the
hill which overlooked and commanded the little town.
'A mere crow's nest,' he is said to have called it,
'which a parcel of boys might take.' (fn. 359) But two
furious assaults of the kind which had carried all
before them at Bolton were alike unsuccessful, (fn. 360) the
loss to the besieging force being stated at 1,500.
Rupert had then to throw up earthworks (fn. 361) and bring
up his artillery, which during several days' cannonade
cost 'a hundred barrels of munition, which,' says a
correspondent of Lord Ormond, 'makes Prince Rupert
march ill-provided.' (fn. 362) At length a night attack was
led by Caryll, brother of Lord Molyneux, (fn. 363) whose
local knowledge brought the surprise party through the
fields on the north to the outhouses of the Old Hall,
the family mansion of the governor of the town,
which they reached at three o'clock in the morning.
They found the ramparts deserted by the regular
garrison, which had been drawn off by Colonel
Moore during the night, and embarked with the
military stores on the shipping in the Pool. (fn. 364) About
400 men of the garrison, however, still remained, and
these offered a vigorous resistance. Street fighting
went on for several hours; though there seems to have
been some sort of surrender, 'Prince Rupert's men
did slay almost all they met with, to the number of
360, and among others … some that had never
borne arms, … yea, one poor blind man'; (fn. 365)
Caryll Molyneux, according to Sir Edward Moore,
the runaway Colonel's son, killing 'seven or eight
poor men with his own hands.' (fn. 366) The remainder of
the garrison surrendered at the High Cross. They
were imprisoned in the tower and the chapel, while
Rupert took up his quarters in the castle, and the town
was given over to sack. The number of the killed is
indicated by the fact that six months later every household had to provide a man to aid in 'better covering
the dead bodies of our murthered neighbours' of the
'great company of our inhabitants murthered and
slain by Prince Rupert's forces.' (fn. 367)
The capture of the town probably took place on
14 or 15 June; it is mentioned in the Mercurius
Britannicus of 17 June. (fn. 368) Rupert remained in the
castle till the 19th, (fn. 369) when he marched for Lathom.
The intervening days were probably spent in drawing
up proposals for the refortification of the town, which
was intrusted to a Spanish engineer, de Gomme. His
excellent plan survives, but was never carried out.
The defeat of Rupert at Marston Moor probably
gave pause to these elaborate schemes. On his retreat
he was expected to call at Liverpool, (fn. 370) but does not
seem to have done so. Liverpool was now again,
except Lathom, the only Royalist stronghold in Lancashire. (fn. 371) To garrison it Sir Robert Byron had been left
with a large force of English and Irish troops; (fn. 372)
there was also a considerable number of cattle within
the walls, (fn. 373) while guns had been mounted on 'Worrall side' (probably near the modern New Brighton)
to prevent the approach of Parliamentary ships. (fn. 374)
To deal with Liverpool and Lathom 1,000 horse
were detached by Lord Fairfax from the main army on
8 August to join the Lancashire Parliamentarian levies, (fn. 375)
and the whole force was placed under the command of
Sir John Meldrum. During August the Royalists
were strong enough to keep the field, and there was a
good deal of fighting between Liverpool and Lathom.
But after 20 August, when the Royalists were severely
defeated at Ormskirk, (fn. 376) it is probable that the formal
siege of Liverpool began. Meldrum did not waste
men on assaults, but sat down before the town and
drew formal lines of entrenchment. (fn. 377) He was assisted by a fleet in the river under Colonel Moore, (fn. 378)
probably the same with which he had escaped in June;
and 'the sad inhabitants from both sides are deeply
distressed.' The Royalist forces in the neighbourhood strained every nerve to effect a relief; a new
force raised by Lord Derby had to be beaten back on
10 September; (fn. 379) the Chester garrison had to be
strictly blockaded to prevent its sending relief; and on
17 September a force of 4,000 men was met by the
Parliamentarians at Oswestry (fn. 380) marching to the relief of Liverpool. It was doubtless the value of
Liverpool as a point of contact between Ireland and
the northern Royalists which accounted for the importance attached to it. Well provisioned and
strongly garrisoned, the town held out for nearly two
months. In the last days of October fifty of the
English soldiers in the garrison, fearing to share
the fate threatened to the Irish, deserted, (fn. 381) driving
with them into Meldrum's camp the greater part of
the cattle in the town. On 1 November the remainder of the garrison mutinied, imprisoned their
officers, and surrendered the town at discretion. (fn. 382) An
attempt to imitate Moore's example by shipping supplies and ammunition in some vessels in the river
was checked by the commander of the besieging force,
who sent out rowing-boats to capture the ships.
During the remainder of the war Liverpool remained at peace, but for some years seems to have
been used as one of the principal places of arms in
the county. (fn. 383) Colonel Moore for a time resumed
command; but his prestige was ruined by his behaviour during Rupert's siege; and though Meldrum
exonerated him from blame, (fn. 384) the townsmen themselves felt that the town had been needlessly abandoned, and petitioned Parliament to inquire as to
whose was the 'neglect or default.' (fn. 385) Moore left for
Ireland, and was replaced by another governor. His
family never recovered from the discredit into which
he had brought it, or from the financial difficulties in
which he involved himself. As a recompense for its
services and sufferings the town obtained several important grants from the Commonwealth government;
money for the relief of widows and orphans, (fn. 386) licence
to cut timber from the Molyneux and Derby estates
for the rebuilding of the town, (fn. 387) the abolition of the
Molyneux tenancy of the lease, (fn. 388) and a grant of
£10,000 worth of land, at first assigned from the
estates of 'malignants,' in Galway, (fn. 389) which, however, turned out to be entirely illusory. At the same
time the Tower passed from the possession of the house
of Stanley, being sequestrated, and on 19 September
1646 sold by the Committee for Compounding. (fn. 390)
The period of the Civil War thus saw the borough released from the feudal superiority which had so long
oppressed it; and though this came back at the
Restoration it was less patiently endured, and lasted
but a short time. The period also saw the division
of the burgesses into two acrimonious political and
religious parties, whose strife was to give a new character to the political development of the next epoch.
In the second half of the 17th century the development of Liverpool, which had begun in the first half
of the century and been checked by the Civil Wars,
received a remarkable impetus; so that in 1699 the
borough could claim (fn. 391) that 'from scarce paying the
salary of the officers of the Customs, it is now the
third port of the trade of England, and pays upwards
of £50,000 per annum to the king.' In 1673 the topographer Blome (fn. 392) found that it contained 'divers eminent merchants and tradesmen, whose trade and traffic,
especially unto the West Indies, make it famous.'
When in 1689 the Commissioners of Customs were
asked to report as to the ports which could best supply
shipping for transport to Ireland, they stated (fn. 393) that
while Chester had 'not above 20 sail of small burden
from 25 to 60 tons,' Liverpool had '60 to 70 good
ships of from 50 to 200 ton burden, but because they
drive a universal foreign trade to the Plantations and
elsewhere,' it was impossible to tell how many of them
would be available.
The port continued to control the larger share of
the Irish trade. It still maintained a considerable
traffic to France and Spain, and also to Denmark and
Norway. (fn. 394) But, as the statements above quoted show,
it was the opening out of a lucrative trade with 'the
plantations,' especially the West Indies and Virginia,
in sugar, tobacco, and cotton, which made this period
mark the beginning of Liverpool's greatness. Several
causes conspired to assist this development. The
industries of Manchester were undergoing a rapid
development, so that, in the words of Blome, (fn. 395) the
situation of Liverpool 'afforded in greater plenty and
at reasonabler rates than most places in England, such
exported commodities proper for the West Indies.'
The plague and fire of London had caused 'several
ingenious men' to settle in Liverpool, 'which caused
them to trade to the plantations,' (fn. 396) while when the
French wars began in 1689 London traders found
that 'their vessels might come safer north about
Ireland, unload their effects at Liverpool, and be at
charge of land-carriage from thence to London than
run the hazard of having their ships taken by the
enemy,' (fn. 397) and Liverpool profited accordingly. As
early as 1668 a 'Mr. Smith, a great sugar-baker
at London,' was bargaining with Sir Edward
Moore (fn. 398) for land on which to build 'a sugar-baker's
house … forty feet square and four stories
high'; and Sir Edward Moore expected this
to 'bring a trade of at least £40,000 a year from
the Barbadoes, which formerly this town never
knew.' Even more important than the establishment of a sugar-refining industry was the tobacco
trade, which grew to large dimensions in these years.
In 1701 it was asserted (fn. 399) that a threatened interference with the tobacco trade would 'destroy half the
shipping in Liverpool'; (fn. 400) it was 'one of the chiefest
trades in England,' and 'we are sadly envyed, God
knows, especially the tobacco trade, at home and
abroad.' (fn. 401) All the tobacco of Scotland, Ireland, and
the north of England was supposed to come to Liverpool. (fn. 402) The result of this growing trade was a
remarkably rapid increase of shipping; in the twelve
years between 1689 and 1701 the number of vessels
in the port had grown from '60 or 70' to 102,
which compares not unfavourably with the 165
vessels owned by Bristol in the same year. Shipping
brought with it several new industries, and in particular rope-walks began to be a feature of the town,
and remained so for more than a century to come.
Many new families of importance begin to appear;
the Claytons, the Clevelands, the Cunliffes, the
Earles, the Rathbones, the Tarletons, and the Johnsons, (fn. 403) win the superiority in municipal affairs from
the Moores and the Crosses; 'many gentlemen's sons
of Lancashire, Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Staffordshire,
Cheshire, and North Wales are put apprentices in the
town,' (fn. 404) and a new set of names appears in the records. The population was steadily increasing. The
ravages of the war, together with outbreaks of plague
in 1647 and 1650, (fn. 405) had kept it down, so that in 1673
only 252 householders were assessed for the hearth
tax, (fn. 406) giving a total population (allowing for exemptions) of about 1,500; but by the beginning
of the 18th century the number was well over
5,000. (fn. 407) And now, for the first time, new streets
began to be made in addition to the original seven:
Moor Street, Fenwick Street, Fenwick Alley, and
Bridge's Alley (fn. 408) having been cut by Sir Edward
Moore out of his own lands, while Lord Street was
cut by Lord Molyneux in 1668 through the castle
orchard to the Pool, and Preeson's Row, Pool Lane
(South Castle Street), and several other thoroughfares
were being built upon. (fn. 409) Public improvements on a
large scale began to be carried out or talked of. In
1673 a new town hall was built, 'placed on pillars
and arches of hewn stone, and underneath the public
exchange for the merchants.' (fn. 410) This building replaced the old thatched common hall with which the
burgesses had been content since it was bequeathed to
them by John Crosse; it stood immediately in
front of the modern town hall. The difficulty of
accommodating the growing shipping of the port was
already felt, and among the modes suggested for relieving the pressure was the deepening of the Pool, (fn. 411)
a scheme which, in a modified form, ultimately led to
the creation of the first dock. Proposals for improving
the navigation of the Weaver (fn. 412) to facilitate the
Cheshire trade, and for erecting lighthouses (fn. 413) on the
coast, met indeed with keen opposition at first from
the burgesses, who feared to see trade carried past
their wharves; but they were to be converted to both
of these schemes before half a century had passed. In
the meantime an improvement in the navigation of
the Mersey below Warrington, carried out by Mr.
Thomas Patten, (fn. 414) of the latter place, led to a material
increase of Liverpool's trade, and was the first of a
series of such improvements which were pushed forward during the next period.
The rapid growth of the town, and the influx of a
new and thriving population unused to the influences
by which the town had been so long dominated,
reflects itself in a rapid shaking-off of old connexions,
which had already been seriously weakened by the
Civil War and its consequences. This is perhaps
clearest in the case of the Moores, so long the leading
family of the town; for Sir Edward Moore, son of
the regicide and runagate Colonel John Moore, has
left, in the form of instructions to his son, an elaborate
description (fn. 415) of his own properties in the town and
of his relations to its leaders which is invaluable as an
elucidation of this period of transition. Deeply embarrassed by the debts incurred by his father, his
estates had only been saved from confiscation by the
fact that his wife, Dorothy Fenwick, was the daughter
of a noted Royalist; he suffered also, doubtless, from
the shadow which hung over his father's name since
his desertion in the siege of 1644. Soured by his
misfortunes, he was on the worst of terms with the
burgess-body, whose records are full of quarrels with
him. (fn. 416) Moore had a clear prevision of the growth
of the port, and hoped by its means to rehabilitate the
fortunes of his house; but the Town Council checked
more than one of his schemes. Worse than this, the
burgesses refused to elect him either to the mayoralty
or as a representative of the borough in Parliament,
and this he regarded as ingratitude to his family, as
well as a direct injury to his fortunes. His Rental is
full of bitterness on this score. 'They have deceived
me twice, even to the ruin of my name and family,
had not God in mercy saved me; though there was
none at the same time could profess more kindness to
me than they did, and acknowledge in their very own
memories what great patrons my father and grandfather were to the town . . . . Have a care you
never trust them … for such a nest of rogues was
never educated in one town of that bigness.' (fn. 417) He
exhausts an extensive vocabulary for epithets to
characterize those who were 'against him,' 'either for
parliament man or mayor.' One of his greatest
troubles was the difficulty which he experienced in
enforcing the use of his mill. The ancient feudal
milling rights had now quite broken down, and it was
only by inserting a special clause in his leases that
Moore, though lessee of two of the principal mills,
could enforce the use of them even upon his own
tenants. (fn. 418) Sir Edward Moore died in 1678, a worn-out old man at the age of forty-four. His son, Sir
Cleave Moore, a 'useless spark,' (fn. 419) was the last representative of the family in Liverpool; in 1712 he
allowed a foreclosure to be made on his heavily mortgaged Liverpool lands and retired to estates in the
south of England which he had got by marriage. (fn. 420)
The departure of the Moores was the breach of one
of the last links with the past of a town rapidly
reshaping itself.
The same period which saw the departure of the
Moores saw also the final settlement of the long feud
with the Molyneuxes. At the Restoration the confiscation of their lordship during the Commonwealth
was of course annulled. Immediately on taking
possession, Caryll Lord Molyneux renewed the
action (fn. 421) which his father had brought against the
burgesses for invasion of his rights as lord of the
manor. The burgesses, knowing that the case would
go against them, made an accommodation similar to
that which they had made in 1639, whereby they
paid £20 per annum for a lease of all the lordship
rights. But this did not settle the dispute. Lord
Molyneux claimed that the burgesses were bound to
pay the rent-charge of £14 6s. 8d. due from him to
the Crown over and above the £20; they, on their
side, contended that this sum was included in the £20.
This dispute presently merged in another. (fn. 422) In
1668 Lord Molyneux had made a thoroughfare
through the castle orchard to the Pool. Wishing to
continue it, he consulted counsel, who advised him
that as lord of the manor he was owner of the waste
and had a right to make a thoroughfare over it. He
therefore erected a bridge, thus raising the whole
question of the ownership of the waste. The mayor
and burgesses pulled down the bridge; Molyneux
replied with a whole series of actions at law, concerning 'the interests and title of the Corporation of
Liverpool as to their claim in the waste grounds of
Liverpool,' and also raising anew the old questions of
tolls and dues. Had the question been fought out (as
the burgesses were prepared to fight it) they would
probably have won; for the charter of Charles I,
antedating the sale of the lordship, with its grant of
all lands, &c. which they then held, however obtained,
certainly covered the waste. After two years' fighting,
however, a compromise was arranged, by which
Molyneux was allowed to build his bridge on payment of a nominal rent of 2d. per annum in recognition of the borough's ownership of the waste; while
on the other hand he granted to the borough a lease
of all the rights of lordship except the ferry and the
burgage-rents (which he still had to pay to the
Crown) for 1,000 years at £30 per annum. (fn. 423) In
1777 the lease was bought up from the then Lord
Sefton, and this purchase included ferry and burgagerents, which the Molyneuxes had previously purchased
from the Crown. (fn. 424) Thus the ancient connexion of
this family with the government of the borough came
to an end; and with it feudal superiority vanished
from the borough.
Molyneux, indeed, remained hereditary constable
of the castle, (fn. 425) which was still outside the liberties of
the borough, and received the tithes payable to the
parochial church of Walton. But both of these
powers also vanished during this period. The castle
had been partially dismantled between 1660 and
1678, (fn. 426) and it was now mainly used by a number of
poor tenants who were allowed to remain within its
walls, (fn. 427) beyond the control of the borough authorities.
But when in 1688 and 1689 Lord Molyneux, actively
supporting James II, made use of the castle for stores
and arms, (fn. 428) and when in 1694 he was suspected of
being concerned in the organization of a Jacobite
rising, (fn. 429) he was confiscated, and the constableship
passed out of his hands. (fn. 430) In 1699 the burgesses
obtained a lease of the castle for a year, (fn. 431) thus for the
first time bringing its precincts under their control.
In 1704 they obtained from the Crown a lease (fn. 432)
of the castle and its site for fifty years with power to
demolish its ruins. Disputes with Lord Molyneux,
who still claimed the hereditary constableship, delayed
the settlement, and it was not until 1726 that the
last relics, the wall at the top of Lord Street, disappeared. (fn. 433) The acquisition of the lordship and of
the castle by the burgesses marks the conclusion of the
period of struggle with feudal superiors which has
hitherto been the staple of burghal history; and, no
less than the great development of trade, makes this
period the real beginning of modern Liverpool.
The establishment of Liverpool as a separate parish
is another sign of the same tendency. The arrangement whereby the tithes paid by Liverpool to Lord
Molyneux had during the Commonwealth period been
devoted to the provision of a minister for the new
parish of Liverpool had, of course, with other Commonwealth arrangements, been suppressed at the
Restoration. But the rapid growth of the town made
some readjustment inevitable. In 1673 Blome noted (fn. 434)
that the chapel of St. Nicholas, though large, was too
small to hold the inhabitants of the town, and this
inadequacy became accentuated as the influx of population continued. In 1699, in response to a petition
from the Corporation, (fn. 435) Liverpool was cut off from
the parish of Walton, and created into a separate
parish with two rectors appointed and paid by the
Corporation. Compensation to the rector of Walton
and to Lord Molyneux was also paid by the Corporation. (fn. 436) The borough thus became ecclesiastically as
well as administratively independent. Under the same
Act which constituted the parish, a new church, that of
St. Peter, was erected on the continuation of Lord
Molyneux's road across the waste, henceforth to be
known as Church Street. But the creation of the
parish involved the institution of the vestry as a
separate poor-law authority, levying its own rates; (fn. 437)
and this marks the beginning of a subdivision of
administrative authority which was to be greatly
extended during the next century.
The new temper of the burgesses, induced by their
prosperity, is further exhibited in the use they made
during the period of their Parliamentary franchise.
Contested elections had been rare before the Restoration, but almost every election after 1660 was acrimoniously contested. Lord Derby, who had once
regularly nominated to one of the seats, was still
influential, and his support often sufficed to turn the
scale; but he was now only one of a group of magnates who wrote to use their influence at elections, (fn. 438)
and after the Revolution his preferences were entirely
disregarded. The wealthy merchants who now controlled Liverpool were not to be dictated to. Party
feeling had run high, and influence in elections now
mainly took the form of bribery, which became
rampant in this period.
The bitter feud of two organized parties is indeed
the chief feature of municipal history during these
years. Since the fever of the Civil War the great
issues which divided the nation affected the town as
they had never done before; and under the stress of
strife between Puritans and Cavaliers, or Whigs and
Tories, the forms of borough government underwent
a series of remarkable changes, always influenced by
the synchronous events in national history. The
rising port had emerged from its backwater into the
full stream of national life.
Puritanism had been strong in Liverpool, and continued to be strong under Charles II. The Act of
Uniformity drove forth two of the ministers of Walton and Liverpool; but there remained a substantial
number of Nonconformists. (fn. 439) No less than five aldermen and seven councilmen, together with the town
clerk, refused to take the oaths in 1662–3, (fn. 440) being
almost one in three of the council; though many
who were Puritan in sympathy, like Colonel Birch, (fn. 441)
who had been governor of the town under the Commonwealth, made no difficulty about accepting the
oaths. Wandering Nonconformist preachers like
Thomas Jolly (fn. 442) found 'many opportunities' and
'much comfort' when they came to Liverpool; and
on the issue of the Declaration of Indulgence a
licence was obtained for a Presbyterian conventicle in
'the house of Thomas Christian,' as well as for two
chapels in Toxteth Park. (fn. 443) The rector of Walton
writes in 1693 of the presence in Liverpool of 'a
number of fanatics from whom a churchman can
expect little justice.' (fn. 444)
The presence of this substantial element of declared
Nonconformists, backed by a number of Conformists
who were Puritan in their sympathies in both political and religious affairs, brought it about that Liverpool was the scene of acute and acrimonious party strife
down to, and even after, the Revolution. In 1662 a
batch of thirty-eight new freemen were admitted, (fn. 445)
nearly all powerful local landowners, and presumably
good church and king men, and the object of this was
doubtless to modify the Puritan complexion of the
borough. But in spite of this it seems clear that the
Puritans (or, as it will be more convenient and more
accurate to call them, the Whigs) remained in a standing
majority in the burgess body, throughout the period, and
for a time held their own even in the carefully purified
council. (fn. 446) This is especially indicated in the mayoral
elections, the only function now left by the council
to the burgess body at large. In 1669 a mayor was
elected who had refused to take the oaths in 1662; (fn. 447)
and when a petition against his election was sent to
the Privy Council, a majority of the Town Council
voted in favour of paying the costs of resistance. From
this it would appear that in 1669 the Whigs were still
strong in the council. So long as the bailiffs continued to be elected, under the terms of the Charter
of Charles I, by the burgess body, and to become
thereafter life members of the council, it seemed
impossible for Tory predominance to be established.
Applications for a new charter were made in 1664 (fn. 448)
and 1667; (fn. 449) and as the influence of Lord Derby, that
sound Cavalier, was enlisted in favour of these applications, it is reasonable to suppose that their object was
to obtain a revision in a sense favourable to the Tories.
The non-success of these applications may be attributed
to the fact that Charles II, until the secession of
Shaftesbury in 1672, hoped for Puritan support in his
monarchic aims, and was unwilling therefore to weaken
Puritan power.
In 1672 the Tories, now in a majority in the
council though not in the assembly, and led by a
Tory mayor, took the law into their own hands. They
appear to have assumed the right of nominating the
bailiffs; and when a protest was made, it was comdemned as 'very scandalous and of bad consequence,'
and a resolution was passed deposing any of the (Whig)
members of council who should be proved to have
been concerned in it. (fn. 450) At the next electoral assembly
the outgoing mayor, having declared his successor duly
elected, adjourned the meeting seemingly without
proceeding to the election of bailiffs. (fn. 451) A number of
the burgesses, however, refused to be adjourned, and
forcing the mayor to continue in the chair, transacted
business for two hours, until the mayor was relieved by
force. There is no record of their proceedings, which
were regarded as illegal. They may have held that
the result of the mayoral election was not truly
declared; they may have demanded an election of
bailiffs; and they may also have insisted upon exercising
their chartered right of passing by-laws. For this
riotous conduct twenty-six men were deprived of the
freedom. In 1676, however, there was again a Whig
mayor; (fn. 452) who in conjunction with three Whig
aldermen, proceeded to admit a number of new freemen without consulting the council, doubtless for the
purpose of affecting the next elections. The council
refused to recognize these freemen; and when in 1677
another Whig mayor was elected, declared his election
void on the ground that he had been struck off the
commission of the peace for the county. (fn. 453) It is worth
noting that these events occurred at the time when
the Crown was engaged in its death-grapple with
Shaftesbury.
On 18 July 1677 the council at last succeeded in
obtaining from Charles II a new charter. (fn. 454) In the
charter of William III, by which its main provisions
were repealed, this charter is described as having been
obtained 'by a few of the burgesses by a combination
among themselves, and without a surrender of the
previous charter or any judgement of quo warranta or
otherwise given against the same.' (fn. 455) This doubtless
means that the application was made by the Tory
majority of the council, without confirmation by the
assembly, to which under the charter of Charles I full
governing powers belonged. The main purpose of
the new charter was to secure the predominance of the
council, unmentioned in the Charles I charter, and
its control over the whole borough government. The
number of the council was raised from forty to sixty in
order to permit of the inclusion of 'fifteen … burgesses of the said town dwelling without that town, 'i.e.
fifteen good Tory country gentlemen who would secure
the Tory majority. The charter also transferred from
the assembly to the council the right of electing both the
mayor and the bailiffs, as well as the nomination of freemen. As the election of the mayor and bailiffs was
the sole municipal power remaining in the hands of
the body of burgesses, this provision deprived them of
any shadow of power over the government of the town.
Their only remaining function was that of electing
members of Parliament, and the right of nominating
freemen gave control even over these elections
ultimately into the hands of the council. Thus the
result of this charter was to place the absolute control
of the borough in the hands of a small self-electing
Tory oligarchy.
The action of the council in the restless strife of
the later years of Charles II was what might have
been predicted. They passed vigorous loyal addresses
against the Exclusion Bill (fn. 456) and in condemnation
of the Rye-house Plot; (fn. 457) the latter address contains an interesting allusion to Dryden's Absalom and
Achitophel, which shows how keenly the movement of
national affairs was now followed in the borough.
But there is visible in the addresses also an undercurrent of nervousness; their fear of 'Popish contrivances,' and their 'adherence to the true Protestant
religion' is a little too loudly insisted upon. This
may explain why it was thought necessary to include
Liverpool in the list of general revisions of municipal
charters at the end of the reign of Charles II and the
beginning of that of James II. Issued in the first
year of James II, the new charter (fn. 458) simply confirmed
its predecessor, but it contained also two new clauses,
one reserving to the Crown the right of removing any
member of the council or any borough official: the
other conveying the power of exacting from any
freeman the oaths hitherto required only from councillors, and thus rendering possible a further purification of the burgess body, still predominantly Whig.
Under the terms of this charter, the deputy-mayor
and the senior alderman (both Tories) were removed (fn. 459)
by the Crown for persisting in prosecuting two Catholics, a surgeon and a schoolmistress, for pursuing their
professions, in spite of a licence issued by the Crown.
This indicates that in Liverpool, as elsewhere, the
loyalty of the Tories to the Crown was limited by
their loyalty to the Church. Tory as it was, the
council never willingly accepted this charter, which
indeed would appear never to have had legal force. (fn. 460)
The increasing restiveness of the council is still more
clearly shown in the answer given (fn. 461) to commissioners
who were in 1687 sent round to obtain promises of
aid in securing a Parliament favourable to the repeal
of the Test Act. The mayor answered 'that what is
required by his Majesty is a very weighty and new
thing; and that he was not prepared to give any
answer but this: when it shall please the King to call
a new Parliament, he proposed to vote for such persons as he hoped would serve the just interests both of
his Majesty and the nation.' Only 'four or five
customs officers' were ready to promise their votes. (fn. 462)
The borough as a whole was thus ready to welcome, and even the ruling oligarchy was ready to
accept, the Revolution. A small force of royal troops
were for a time in Liverpool, (fn. 463) and Lord Molyneux,
Constable of the castle, took a vigorous part for
James as Lord Lieutenant of the county; (fn. 464) but the
attitude of Lord Derby, who, Tory as he was, after
some wavering, threw himself on the side of the
Prince of Orange, (fn. 465) had more to do with determining the attitude of the town; and one of the things
he protested against was the 'extravagant methods
practised by the new magistrates in the ancient loyal
corporations' of Wigan, Liverpool, and Preston, into
which he urged that inquiry should be made. (fn. 466)
Though some of the townsmen made some difficulty
about accepting the oaths to the new monarchs, (fn. 467) on
the whole the Revolution was most enthusiastically
received in Liverpool; and during 1689 the port
was very actively employed in the transport of troops
for the Irish campaign, (fn. 468) General Kirke being for a
time in command in the town, (fn. 469) while Schomberg
passed through it (fn. 470) on his way to embark at Hoylake. So great was the demand for shipping that the
merchants complained that they were being ruined. (fn. 471)
The Revolution brought about a temporary reconciliation between the two parties in the town. Not
only the Tory magistrates removed by the Crown, (fn. 472)
but some of the Whigs who had declined the oaths
in 1678, (fn. 473) returned to the council. The charter of
James II was dropped by common consent, if it had
ever come into force, and in 1690 an inspeximus and
confirmation (fn. 474) of the charter of Charles II was
obtained from William and Mary. In the first
Parliament of the Revolution Liverpool was represented (fn. 475) by Lord Colchester, son-in-law of Lord
Derby and a sound Tory, and by Thomas Norris, a
strong Whig.
But it was inevitable that the Whigs, in a majority
in the burgess-body, should desire power in the town
government, and the reconciliation did not last long.
In 1694, Lord Colchester being called up to the
House of Peers, a Whig was elected in his place by
400 votes against 15 cast for his Tory opponent, (fn. 476)
in spite of the support given by Lord Derby to the
latter. The Tory mayor went so far as to declare the
defeated candidate elected, (fn. 477) for which he was reprimanded by the House of Commons. This election
was regarded as a triumph for the party which was
anxious to overturn the charter of Charles II; and
the two members, Jasper Maudit and Thomas Norris,
worked actively (fn. 478) to obtain a new charter. The
Town Council voted funds for the defence of the
Charles II charter, (fn. 479) and appealed to Roger Kenyon,
member for Clitheroe, and to Lord Derby, to fight
their case for them at Westminster. (fn. 480) In 1605,
however, a new charter (fn. 481) was granted, which first
declared the Charles II charter invalid on the grounds
already noted, then recited and confirmed the Charles I
charter, and went on to reduce the number of the
Town Council to forty. This charter remained the
governing charter of the borough until 1835. Its
general principle (in consonance with the conservative
character of the whole revolution of which it was a
part) was to restore the system of government as it
was supposed to have been before the recent changes.
But it was badly drafted; and left open several vital
questions over which there was much discussion during the next century—notably the question whether
it was within the power of the burgess body at its
pleasure to override the powers of the Town
Council. (fn. 482)
The Whigs were now in power in the council as
well as in the assembly; and though the Tories
refused to accept the new charter, (fn. 483) and the exmayor (deposed from the council) refused to yield
up the town plate, (fn. 484) they were powerless; and the
Whig predominance remained unshaken until the
middle of the 18th century. An attempt to obtain
the revocation of the William III charter, made by
the Tories during the period of Tory ascendancy in
national councils in 1710, was unsuccessful; (fn. 485) as
were also sundry attacks in a different form upon the
dominant Whigs, to which we shall have to allude in
the next section. The Liverpool members of Parliament during this period were also steadily Whig.
The chief of them, Sir Thomas Johnson, sat for
Liverpool from 1701 to 1727, (fn. 486) and all attacks upon
his seat were unsuccessful. (fn. 487) He and his father had
been the leaders in the struggle against the Tory
supremacy. A representative of the new class of
Liverpool merchants, he was assiduous in his attentions to the interests of the town, (fn. 488) and deserves to
be regarded as one of the principal fosterers of its
new prosperity. He died a poor man after a laborious life, and his memory now survives only in the
name of Sir Thomas Street. (fn. 489)
Fairly launched on its upward career by 1700,
Liverpool was to enjoy during the course of the 18th
century a rapidly increasing prosperity, the course
of which it will be impossible to follow in any detail.
Staunchly loyal to the Protestant succession, the town
enjoyed the favour of the Whig party. Its Whiggism
may be illustrated by the fact that in 1714 it forwarded an address to the Crown, asking for the
punishment of the Tory ministers of Anne, who had
endeavoured to restore the exiled Stuarts; (fn. 490) by the
fact that in 1709 it was the only provincial town to
offer hospitality to the exiled 'Palatines,' of whom
it took 130 families; (fn. 491) and above all by the fact
that in the rebellion of 1715, during which it was
the single stronghold of Whiggism in Lancashire, it
threw itself vigorously into a state of defence. (fn. 492)
When the rebellion was crushed it was not unnaturally
chosen as the venue for many of the trials; (fn. 493) two of
the unfortunate prisoners were executed on the
gallows in London Road, while many hundreds were
transported, to the no small profit of the Liverpool
traders who took them out. The later rebellion of
1745 found Liverpool equally loyal; a regiment of
foot was raised and equipped by public subscription, (fn. 494)
and after having a brush with the Highlanders near
Warrington, it played a useful part in garrisoning
Carlisle, during the Duke of Cumberland's northward
advance, its conduct earning warm praise. (fn. 495) When
the rising was over, the party feeling of the town
burst forth in mob riots, in the course of which the
only Roman Catholic chapel was burnt. (fn. 496) As might
be expected in a town so vigorously Whig, the
ascendancy of the Whig party remained almost
unshaken both in municipal politics and in the
Parliamentary elections. Liverpool was generally
regarded as a safe Whig borough, (fn. 497) and the power of
electing new freemen, hitherto pretty generously
exercised, now began to be used by the Town
Council for the purpose of securing party ascendancy. (fn. 498) Under these circumstances the Tory party,
extruded from power, made themselves the advocates
of the rights of the burgess body as against the Town
Council—rights of which they had formerly been the
principal opponents. The election of Sir Thomas
Bootle as one of the members for the borough from
1727 to 1734 (fn. 499) represents the partial triumph of
this interest. During the same period, and largely
under Bootle's influence, a vigorous attack was made
on the ascendancy of the Town Council, (fn. 500) which was
for some years quite overridden, the government of
the town being assumed, in accordance with the
popular interpretation of a clause in the William III
charter, by a succession of popular mayors acting
through the assembly of burgesses. In 1734 Lord
Derby was elected mayor, and under his powerful
direction, an attempt was made to regularize the
position of the assembly, and to establish its right of
passing by-laws and electing freemen. Lord Derby
died before the end of his year of office; and after
his death the agitation quietly and completely died
out. There was a partial revival of the controversy
in 1757, when Mr. Joseph Clegg, (fn. 501) one of the aldermen who had been mayor in 1748, led a renewed
attack upon the council. But though the council
tried in vain to obtain a new charter (fn. 502) establishing
beyond question its control of borough government
Clegg's attack came to nothing, and the challenge of
the council's authority was not again renewed until
the time of the French Revolution. The chief
interest of this struggle is the demonstration which it
affords that the ascendancy of the Whigs was as
narrowly oligarchic as that of the Tories had been
after the Restoration. Indeed, it was even more so;
for it is to this period that we must attribute an
increasing chariness in granting the freedom of the
borough to new-comers. (fn. 503) Up to the beginning of
the 18th century it would appear that almost all residents obtained the freedom without difficulty. By
the middle of the century it was rarely granted to
new-comers except for the purpose of influencing
elections; and finally in 1777 the rule was laid
down (fn. 504) that none but apprentices and sons of freemen
should be admitted to the freedom. Thus in the
second half of the century a minority of the principal
merchants of the town exercised political rights in it.
This increasing restriction was peculiarly unfortunate
at a period when, owing to the rapid growth of trade,
the population was increasing with unheard-of rapidity.
But it is probably to be attributed to the very fact of
this increase of trade, the town council being
unwilling to sacrifice the large revenue which they
derived from the dues paid by non-freemen. These
dues were now for the first time becoming very
valuable; and hence arose a new series of struggles,
due to the attempt of boroughs such as London,
Bristol and Lancaster, to obtain exemption from the
payment of dues in Liverpool under the mediaeval
charters which freed them from the payment of dues
throughout the kingdom. One such question had
already been raised by the London cheesemongers in
1690; (fn. 505) it was revived at intervals during the century, (fn. 506) both on behalf of the freemen of London, and
on behalf of those of other towns, and was not finally
determined till 1799, (fn. 507) when after a long trial, it
was laid down that only 'freemen residing within the
liberties' of the borough which put forward the claim
were entitled to the exemption.
All these disputes were in themselves evidences of
the growing wealth to which they were due. The
secret of this rising prosperity was that Liverpool was
in this period obtaining an increasingly large share of
the trade which was then the richest in the world—
that with the West Indies, whence almost all the
sugar, tobacco, and other 'colonial produce' consumed
by Europe was derived. In comparison with the
West India trade, the trade with the American
colonies was of very small importance, and as late as
1752 only one Liverpool vessel is said to have plied
to New York. (fn. 508) Not only was there the direct trade
with the British West Indies, but, even more lucrative,
a large irregular smuggling trade with Spanish
America was carried on, in spite of the prohibition of
the Spanish government. In this traffic, the southern
ports of Bristol and London possessed at the end of
the 17th century a very great advantage. During
the early years of the 18th century Liverpool rapidly
gained at their expense. For this two reasons are
alleged. The first is that her ships were largely
manned with apprentices who received next to no
wages until they reached the age of twenty-one, and
that the customary rate of pay for the captains and
officers was lower than the rate which held in the
southern ports. (fn. 509) More important was the second
cause: namely, that the coarse stuffs of mixed linen
and cotton, or linen and woollen (linsey woolsey)
which were produced by the looms of Manchester
were in great request in the West Indian markets,
and were produced more cheaply than the corresponding German goods with which the southern traders
endeavoured to supply the market. (fn. 510) Thus, as
always, the growth of Liverpool trade was concurrent
with the growth of Manchester industry. The
smuggling trade with the Spanish colonies, and the
frequent conflicts with Spanish guarda costas to which
it gave rise, ultimately led to the Spanish war of 1739,
and was almost brought to an end by an Act of
Parliament of 1747, which forbade foreign vessels to
frequent British West India ports. (fn. 511) But while it
was at its height (about 1730) this branch of trade
alone is said to have brought into Liverpool an
annual profit of £250,000 and to have consumed over
£500,000 worth of Manchester goods. (fn. 512)
The legitimate and illegitimate trade of the West
Indies and South America equally led on the traders
who engaged in it to the still more lucrative African
trade which could be worked in combination with it.
It was in this period that Liverpool first entered upon
the slave trade, out of which she was to draw, during
the century, fabulous riches; and which was to earn
for her a highly unsavoury reputation. At the end
of the century the greatness of Liverpool was generally
attributed—by her own citizens as well as by others (fn. 513)
—entirely to the slave trade. Yet it was not until
the fourth decade of the century, when Liverpool
was already rapidly overtaking Bristol, that this line
of trade began to be seriously developed; and she
had long been preceded in it by the two great
southern ports. Up to 1698 the monopoly of the
African trade had been held by the Assiento Company of London. In that year its formal monopoly
was abolished, (fn. 514) though it still retained the sole right
of importing slaves into the Spanish dominions. In
the early years of the eighteenth century Bristol
began to compete with London—led on, as Liverpool
was later to be, from the West Indies to the source
of their labour supply. Indeed the Bristol merchants
seem to have been driven to the African trade largely
by the successful competition of Liverpool in the
Spanish smuggling trade. (fn. 515) In 1709 one Liverpool
vessel of 30 tons burthen was dispatched to Africa; (fn. 516)
but the venture does not seem to have been successful, probably owing to the jealousy of the Bristol and
London men, for it was not repeated for twenty
years. In 1730 an Act of Parliament for the regulation of the African trade (fn. 517) established an open
company to which any person trading to Africa
might belong on payment of 40s. The money was
to be used for the up-keep of factories on the African
coast; and the administration of these was entrusted
to a committee of nine, consisting of three members
elected by the merchants of each of the three ports,
London, Bristol, and Liverpool. At once, under the
new system, Liverpool threw herself energetically into
the trade. In the same year, 1730, fifteen vessels of
1,111 tons were dispatched to Africa. (fn. 518) In 1752
the number had risen to eighty-eight vessels accommodating nearly 25,000 slaves, (fn. 519) though it
had sunk by 1760 to seventy-four vessels of 8,178
tons. (fn. 520) In 1751 a separate Liverpool company was
established (fn. 521) by Act of Parliament. The Act states
that there were 101 African merchants in Liverpool,
but though there were 135 in London and 157 in
Bristol, 'their trade to Africa is not so extensive as
the merchants of Liverpool.' The methods and
development of this trade cannot here be described.
The materials for its history have been fully marshalled by Mr. Gomer Williams, to whose valuable
book (fn. 522) the reader who is inquisitive on this subject
may be referred. But it should be noted that the
immensely lucrative character of this traffic is to be
attributed to the fact that a treble profit was made on
every voyage. The cheap guns, ornaments, and stuffs
which formed the outward cargo were exchanged for
slaves at an average cost of about £15; the slaves
were then shipped to Virginia or (more often) to
Kingston, Jamaica (where the Liverpool merchants
combined to maintain permanent agents) and sold at
a price which varied from £60 upwards; the ships
were then loaded with sugar, tobacco, and other highly
saleable West Indian produce for the homeward
voyage. Comparatively few slaves were brought
home to England, though occasional advertisements
in the Liverpool papers show that a few were imported before 1772, when the Somerset case made
such importations illegal. This 'great triangle' of
trade was probably the most lucrative in the history
of commerce, for its profits were not only very large
but rapid. Thus vast fortunes were made, and a
vast capital accumulated in Liverpool, much of which
went to develop other lines of trade, or to aid those
works, now beginning to be undertaken, for the improvement of the equipment of the port and its communications with inland markets.
Of these activities the most important was the
creation of the first dock. The idea of deepening
the Pool which curved round the town and turning
it into a more effective harbour had long been entertained by some of the more enterprising townsmen;
it is alluded to by Sir Edward Moore as early as
1668. (fn. 523) But in the first years of the 18th century
the necessity of some such provision for the increasing
shipping became obvious. The first project, put forward in 1708 by a Mr. Henry Hun of Derby, (fn. 524) was
one for simply deepening and walling in the whole
length of the Pool. But in the next year Mr.
Thomas Steers, an engineer brought from London by
Sir Thomas Johnson, proposed the alternative scheme
of making a square dock with gates in the mouth of
the Pool. This proposal was accepted, and an Act
of Parliament obtained to empower the Town Council
to borrow the necessary funds and to raise dock dues
for the payment of the interest thereon. (fn. 525) The construction of the dock was begun in 1710 under the
direction of Steers. It took longer, and cost more
to build, than had been anticipated; it was opened
for use on 31 August 1715, but was not then completed, and a second Act had to be obtained in
1716 (fn. 526) to empower the council to raise additional
funds for the completion of the works. A 'dry
dock' or basin was added two years later. (fn. 527) From
the first the dock (whose site is now represented by
the Custom House) was fully used, but it was not
until 1734 (fn. 528) that the creation of a new dock, known
as the South or Salthouse Dock, was begun. This,
as there was no natural inlet to facilitate the work,
took nineteen years to build, and was not opened
until 1753. (fn. 529)
The beginning of the dock estate marks an epoch
in the history of the town; it is the beginning of
modern Liverpool. The Pool, the characteristic
feature of mediaeval Liverpool, now vanishes from
the maps, leaving as its sole trace the irregularity of
the directions of the streets that had been compressed
into the triangle between it and the river. But the
creation of docks was not the only enterprise of this
period for the improvement of the port's trading
facilities. The channel of the river was buoyed and
charted; (fn. 530) lighthouses were erected, (fn. 531) the first good
carriage roads out of the town were made with the
aid of the Town Council; (fn. 532) the streams running
into the Mersey estuary were deepened so as to make
them navigable: the Weaver (not without opposition) in 1720, (fn. 533) the Mersey and the Irwell also in
1720, (fn. 534) and the Sankey Brook in 1755; (fn. 535) while
the deepening of the Douglas from Wigan to the
Ribble (fn. 536) cheapened the transport of coal. The
Sankey navigation, carried out seemingly by a Liverpool engineer, and largely financed by Liverpool
men, (fn. 537) departed frankly from the line of the original
brook, and so foreshadowed the era of canals.
The increment of trade which produced all these
activities may be indicated by the single fact that
during the first half of the 18th century the shipping
of the port rose from seventy ships with 800 men (in
1700) to 220 ships with 3,319 men in 1751. (fn. 538)
In the same period the population rose from 5,000
(est.) in 1700 to 18,000 (est.) in 1750. (fn. 539) New
local industries were also created or greatly developed
in this period: shipbuilding, sugar refining, ropemaking, iron-working, watch-making, and pottery, all
flourished. (fn. 540) In pottery, in particular, Liverpool
enjoyed in this age a brief eminence. By the middle
of the 18th century, therefore, the town was already
vigorous and thriving; rejoicing especially in its recently acquired mastery of the most lucrative trade in
the world.
In the second half of the 18th century the commercial triumph of Liverpool was secured. This
was due to several causes, the first of which was the
effect of the wars which almost filled this age.
In the Spanish War of 1739 and the War of the
Austrian Succession into which it merged, Liverpool
seems to have taken comparatively little part, though
she had shared so largely in the irregular traffic of the
South Seas from which it sprang. Four or five
privateers are known to have plied from the town,
and they made a number of valuable captures; (fn. 541)
but the non-existence of local newspapers during this
period makes it difficult to discover the exact extent
of these privateering activities. On the other hand
103 Liverpool vessels are known to have been captured by the enemy. (fn. 542) Nevertheless the port profited
exceedingly from the war, owing to the comparative
security of the route through the Irish Sea. A local
observer writes in 1753 that the war had brought
such wealth that if it had lasted 'seven years longer
it would have enlarged the size and riches of the
town to a prodigious degree … Trade since the
late peace has not been so brisk as formerly.' (fn. 543) War
therefore was welcomed in Liverpool.
From the Seven Years' War the town derived even
greater advantages. Though Thurot, (fn. 544) a brilliant
French privateer, found his way into the Irish Sea,
and in 1758 and 1759 caused much alarm in the
Mersey, rendering necessary the fortification of the
port, (fn. 545) and though ninety-eight Liverpool vessels
were during the course of the war captured by the
French, (fn. 546) the activity of the Liverpool traders in
privateering was vastly greater than it had ever been
before, and their captures were on the whole exceedingly valuable. It is not possible to state the exact
number of ships employed; (fn. 547) but it was very large,
and these years in particular were distinguished by
the activity of William Hutchinson, perhaps the
boldest and most successful of Liverpool privateers. (fn. 548)
The result of the war was practically to sweep French
commerce from Atlantic waters, and to establish
English ascendancy in the West Indies almost as
completely as on the North American continent.
In the commercial gains which thus accrued Liverpool
had the lion's share.
In the War of the American Revolution the port
suffered very seriously. Not only was trade with the
revolted colonies practically stopped, but American
privateers made West Indian waters unsafe, and under
Paul Jones even ravaged the coasts of Britain, (fn. 549)
while the commerce of the Americans themselves was
of such negligible amount as to make privateering useless. (fn. 550) 'Our once extensive trade with Africa is at a
stand; all commerce with America is at an end,' and
the 'gallant ships' were 'laid up and useless' in the
docks. (fn. 551) During the war the population actually decreased, and the shipping of the port diminished from
84,792 to 79,450 tons. (fn. 552) The distress thus caused
led to grave riots, the most serious of which broke out
in 1775, when 3,000 unemployed sailors laid siege to
the Town Hall, and terrorized the town for a week. (fn. 553)
The regular troops of the garrison had to be distributed through the town. (fn. 554) Nevertheless the town
took a vigorous and patriotic part in the war. A
large fort with barracks was erected on the north
shore, where the Prince's Dock now is; (fn. 555) a regiment
of regular troops known as the Liverpool Blues was
raised, mainly at the cost of the Corporation—it was
employed in the garrisoning of Jamaica; (fn. 556) a corps of
local volunteers was also raised in 1782; (fn. 557) while the
pressgang found a field in Liverpool for its unpopular
activity. (fn. 558) When in 1778 France and later Spain
and Holland joined in the war, privateering once
more became a profitable pursuit, and provided employment for idle ships; no less than 120 privateers, (fn. 559)
of 31,000 tons, were plying from Liverpool within a
year of the French declaration of war, and nearly
9,000 sailors thus found employment. (fn. 560) The years
from 1778 to 1782 were the period of Liverpool's
greatest activity in privateering; (fn. 561) 'the merchants
of Liverpool,' we are told, 'have entered more
into the spirit of arming ships than any others in
England'; (fn. 562) and many brilliant feats are recorded,
of which no account can here be given. Some hundreds of French prisoners occupied during these years
the old tower and the powder magazine in Brownlow
Hill. (fn. 563)
The profits of privateering, however, great as they
were, were a poor consolation for the almost complete destruction of trade. The declaration of peace
was immediately followed by a great revival, and the
decade, 1783–93, was an era of amazingly rapid
advance. (fn. 564) The French Revolutionary War did not
at first interrupt this advance, but rather accentuated it. Though it at first caused a commercial panic,
which rendered necessary the issue of Corporation
notes under Parliamentary powers, (fn. 565) this was temporary only; and the port gained far more by the
destruction of French trade than it lost by the dislocation of its commerce caused by the war. At the
outset of the war privateering was again actively undertaken; (fn. 566) but it never attained the same dimensions
as during the American War, because there were not
so many idle vessels to welcome this mode of employment; and after a few years privateering almost
ceased, for the very satisfactory reason that there
were so few ships belonging to France and her allies
on the seas as to make it an unprofitable enterprise. (fn. 567) French privateers made the seas dangerous,
and trading vessels had to be prepared to fight
unless they sailed in large convoys; (fn. 568) many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Liverpool sailors were
captured by the enemy and peopled French prisons,
from which they sometimes made daring escapes (fn. 569)
On the other hand French prisoners in large numbers (4,009 in 1799) were immured in the gaol in
Great Howard Street, and formed a feature of Liverpool life. (fn. 570)
Deprived to a large extent of the excitement of
privateering, the military enthusiasm of the turbulent
Liverpool population found other vents. The pressgang was a continual terror, and its ravages frequently
passed all reasonable bounds. (fn. 571) The fort was strengthened and armed with fifty guns, while batteries were
erected at the mouths of the docks. (fn. 572) Large forces of
volunteers and yeomanry were raised; (fn. 573) in 1804
180 officers and 3,686 men were reviewed. (fn. 574) A
regiment of regulars was, after the peace of Amiens, enlisted in the town at the expense of Mr. John Bolton, (fn. 575)
a wealthy merchant; and the Duke of Gloucester (fn. 576)
took up his quarters at San Domingo House, Everton,
to command all these forces.
The first part of the war unquestionably told
heavily in favour of Liverpool trade, in spite of the
commercial insecurity caused by the ever-present risk
of capture. In the second period Napoleon's continental system inflicted grave hardship, especially severely
felt by the poor of the town; (fn. 577) and its result, the
American War of 1812, which produced a swarm of
dangerous American privateers, (fn. 578) was disastrous in its
effects: the number of ships entering the port declining from 6,729 in 1810 to 4,599 in 1812. (fn. 579) Yet
even this struggle ultimately tended to the increase of
Liverpool's trade, by driving finally all rival shipping
from the seas; at the end of the period of war in
1815, Liverpool found herself practically absolute
mistress of the trade between America and Europe.
While the wars were securing to Liverpool the
dominance of the Atlantic trade, the other main
source of her wealth, the industries of Lancashire,
were being transformed. The amazing story of the
great inventions and the great development of roads
and canals of this period concern Lancashire at large
and the whole of England. But it should be noted
that no town more directly profited by these developments than Liverpool, for almost the whole of the
districts most affected by the new inventions lay within a hundred miles of her harbour; while the canals
and roads made communication with them easy, and
for the first time overcame that geographical isolation
which had been the main obstacle to her progress.
For this reason the merchants at Liverpool took an
immense part in devising and carrying through these
enterprises, and much of the capital for the new canals
was supplied by the wealth earned in the slave trade
or the trade with America.
Concurrently with these movements, the same
period saw a remarkable development of foreign markets. The great expansion of the United States into
the Middle West (fn. 580) began in the last years of the 18th
century, and was much stimulated by the Louisiana
purchase; emigration on a large scale, caused by the
distress which accompanied the Industrial Revolution,
helped to fill up these lands; they provided new
sources of raw materials, and it was in this period, in
particular, that the supply of raw cotton began to be
derived mainly from the Southern States; as late as
1784 it was so exclusively drawn from the West
Indies that a custom-house officer is said to have seized
a small consignment brought in an American vessel
on the ground that its importation was an infringement of the Navigation Acts. (fn. 581) At the end of the
period (in 1813) the trade with the East Indies,
hitherto confined to the East India Company, was
thrown open, and in 1814 the first Liverpool ships
rounded the Cape of Good Hope. (fn. 582) In a few years
India had become one of the principal markets for the
goods exported from Liverpool. The period of the
Revolutionary wars also saw Spanish America thrown
open to trade. When Napoleon took possession of
Spain the Spanish colonies declined to accept his rule,
threw off the close restrictions which the mothercountry had imposed upon their trade; and, on the
restoration of peace, declined to return to their allegiance, mainly because they were unwilling to sacrifice
their newly-acquired commercial freedom. From the
first Liverpool controlled the bulk of this rapidly expanding South American trade, (fn. 583) which she has held
ever since; and it is more than a coincidence that
Canning, the minister responsible for the British
recognition of the Spanish-American colonies in 1825,
had himself been member for Liverpool for ten years
(1812–22). Thus during the years when the commerce of rival nations was being driven from the
Atlantic mainly to the advantage of Liverpool, the unexampled development of the industrial and mineral
advantages of Lancashire and the northern midlands
was supplying the Liverpool merchants with an inexhaustible supply of goods for export, and the expansion of America and the opening of trade to India and
South America were providing enormous new markets.
It is not surprising that the trade of the port advanced
with a rapidity hitherto unknown in English history,
and that the population of the port grew concurrently.
The growth of trade during this period is indicated
by the fact that the gross tonnage owned in the port,
19,175 in 1751, had risen to 72,730 in 1787, to
129,470 in 1801. Other figures tell the same tale.
During the period 1756–1815 four new docks and
two tidal basins were opened. The dock area of the
port, less than 30 acres in 1756, had risen to over
50 acres in 1815. Still more rapid was the expansion
of the next period, as the table on p. 42 will show.
During the same period several local industries rose to
their highest prosperity, and then decayed and
vanished—destroyed mainly by that localization of
industrial functions and that growing ease of communication which were the principal causes of Liverpool's commercial ascendancy. Thus shipbuilding was
at its height in the last quarter of the 18th century; (fn. 584)
it decayed thereafter. The Greenland fishery, (fn. 585)
which began for Liverpool in 1764, and in 1788
employed 21 ships, had almost vanished by 1815, as
had the oil-refining industry to which it gave birth.
The curing-houses for herring, (fn. 586) which carried on a
large export trade with the Mediterranean, were at
their height about 1770, but had almost vanished by
1815. Two or three iron foundries existed in the
town in the same period; (fn. 587) they were driven out of
work by the competition of the coalfield towns. The
pottery industry also came to an end during these
years. (fn. 588)
The destruction of productive industries is indeed
a feature of this period. It did not interfere with the
growth of the town's wealth or population, but it left
it entirely dependent upon sea-borne commerce, and
imposed upon it the specific social characteristics involved in that fact.
The growth of population in this period was very
rapid. About 20,000 in 1751, it was 60,000 in
1791, 77,000 in 1801, 94,000 in 1811, 118,000 in
1821. The last two figures do not fully represent
the actual growth, for the town had by this time
overpassed the limits of the old township, especially
on the south and on the north-east, and very populous suburbs had been created in Toxteth and
Everton, which contained in 1831 a population of
40,000.
The great inrush of new inhabitants represented by
these figures came from all parts of the United Kingdom. A writer of 1795 notes 'the great influx of
Irish and Welsh, of whom the majority of the inhabitants at present consists.' (fn. 589) There were also many
Scots, especially among the captains of ships and the
heads of great trading-houses. Irish immigration
became still more vigorous after the rising of 1798,
though it was not to reach its height until the potatofamine of 1846. Though the town was expanding
geographically with great rapidity, building did not
go on fast enough to accommodate the numerous immigrants. They were crowded together in the most
horrible way in the older part of the town; in 1790
it was calculated (fn. 590) that over one-ninth of the population lived in cellars, at the rate of four persons to
each cellar. (fn. 591) In the new quarters built for the reception of these immigrants the building was so shoddy
that a storm in 1823 blew many of the houses
down; (fn. 592) there were no building regulations, and the
houses were erected back to back, without adequate
provision for air and light, and almost without any
sanitary arrangements; it is with these slum areas
that the government of the city has been struggling
ever since. Most of the streets were unsewered. The
water supply was exceedingly scanty; before 1800
water was sold from carts; (fn. 593) after the institution of
the two water companies in 1799 (fn. 594) and 1802, (fn. 595) the
supply, being conducted for a commercial profit, was
naturally inadequate in the poorer quarters. Publichouses were extraordinarily numerous; as early as
1772 the Town Council had to urge the magistrates
to reduce the number, (fn. 596) and in 1795 it was calculated that one house in every seven was licensed for
the sale of strong drink. (fn. 597)
Overcrowded, unhealthy, dirty and drunken, the
population of the town was also very turbulent, as
might be expected from the influence upon them of
the slave traders and the privateers-men. The police
arrangements were quite inadequate. Under an Act
of 1748, (fn. 598) which established a commission, independent of the Town Council, for the watching, lighting,
and cleansing of the town, the police force consisted
of sixty night watchmen; the number was increased
under the Act of 1788, (fn. 599) but no day police was provided until 1811, when the Town Council divided
the borough into seven districts and allotted three
constables to each. (fn. 600)
Thus the evils which had followed the sudden
growth of wealth and population seemed to outweigh
its advantages. This was in part due to the fact that
the system of borough government had been in no
way adapted to the new conditions. (fn. 601) The selfelected Town Council still continued in absolute control of the corporate estate, including the docks, and
still possessed the power of regulating the trade of the
port. It regarded itself merely as the trustee of the
body of freemen, which now formed only a small
part, and by no means the most important part, of
the population. Even the freemen's privileges, however, were limited to the right of voting in the election of mayor, bailiffs, and members of Parliament,
and to exemption from the payment of town dues.
They were admitted to no further share in the
government of the borough, and hence arose, under
the influence of the French Revolution, a new challenge to the authority of the council, and a new
attempt to establish that of the assembly of burgesses.
Begun in 1791, (fn. 602) it was brought into the law courts,
where a verdict was three times given in favour of
the claims of the assembly. The council, however,
was always able to claim a new trial on technical
grounds, and in the end the attack on their position
was abandoned, partly because private resources were
unable to stand the conflict with public funds, partly
because the reaction against the French Revolution
distracted support from this quasi-democratic movement. Liverpool had, indeed, by this time become
very firmly Tory, and the change in its politics from
the Whiggism of the previous age is one of the most
curious features of the period. It seems to have
begun in the early years of George III, when the
Town Council took the side of the king in the
Wilkes struggle, sending up addresses of support. (fn. 603)
The body of burgesses still, however, remained predominantly Whig, as is shown by the continual election of Sir William Meredith as member until 1780.
At the outset of the American struggle addresses of
protest against the policy of government were sent
from Liverpool, (fn. 604) but the Town Council and the
mass of the burgesses very loyally supported the war, (fn. 605)
and in spite of the distress which it caused, its progress only made the town more Tory. (fn. 606) The first
events of the French Revolution revived Whiggism
for a time, (fn. 607) but the reaction after the September
massacres completed the Tory victory; and the group
of leading Whigs who surrounded Roscoe had to
withdraw from public life. (fn. 608) In the first years of the
new century Whiggism held up its head again.
Roscoe was returned to Parliament in 1806, (fn. 609) but
mainly on the ground of his local popularity, and the
votes which he cast against the slave trade and for
Catholic emancipation earned him an unpopularity
which expressed itself in riots on his return to Liverpool. (fn. 610) During the struggle on the slave trade question, indeed, Liverpool had been absolutely committed
to the support of the party from which alone it had
any prospect of the maintenance of its most lucrative
traffic, (fn. 611) while the inrush of Catholic Irish, having
produced already the characteristic Orangeism of the
Protestant population, formed another motive to
Toryism. Not even the unpopularity of the Orders
in Council sufficed to enable Brougham (who had
been mainly identified with the opposition to them)
to defeat Canning in the fiercely-fought election of
1812, (fn. 612) and Liverpool remained steadily Tory down
to the eve of the Reform Act.
Alongside of its more unpleasant developments,
this period witnessed the rise of many promising
movements. The administration of the Poor Law (fn. 613)
was undertaken with exceptional vigour and enlightenment, and while in other suddenly-grown industrial
and commercial towns the old administrative fabric of
the annual Easter vestry and the elected overseers
broke down completely, in Liverpool there was
gradually developed a system of government through
an annually elected committee, which regulated extralegally the work of the overseers with such success
that Liverpool has been described as the model urban
poor-law district of this period. The chief credit for
the successful establishment of this system, which had
assumed its final form by 1775, belongs to Mr. Joseph
Brooks, who as unpaid treasurer from 1768 to 1788
exercised almost absolute authority over the affairs of
the parish. It was under his direction that in 1770
the new workhouse in Brownlow Hill was erected; (fn. 614)
it was on the whole so well administered that the poor
rates—in a town where poverty was more widespread
than in most others—never rose beyond 3s. 9d. (fn. 615) in
the £ even in the height of the Revolutionary war.
The committee, that is to say, kept itself free from the
extravagant and mischievous methods of indiscriminate
relief which were general throughout England from
1795 onwards. This remarkable success is mainly to
be attributed to the work of a group of public-spirited
citizens, among whom may be named Dr. Currie, the
friend of Roscoe. (fn. 616)
The Evangelical revival affected Liverpool deeply.
Wesley visited the town several times, (fn. 617) with considerable effect, and within the Church of England the
Evangelical party became dominant in the town. (fn. 618)
This was a period of great activity in church building,
as will be seen later. It was also a period of considerable activity in the provision of schools for the
poor, (fn. 619) a movement which was carried on in Liverpool in the last twenty years of the century with a
concerted activity greater than was displayed in most
other towns. An eager charity, too, was born, (fn. 620) the
expression of that new humanitarian spirit, born of
the Evangelical revival, of which another expression
was to be found in the movement for the abolition
of the slave trade. In Roscoe, William Rathbone,
Currie, Rushton, and others, Liverpool provided
some of the most vigorous apostles of this reform;
their courage is the more noteworthy because the
popular feeling of the town was, naturally, intensely
strong on the other side.
The period witnessed also a remarkable intellectual
revival. This showed itself in the wit and humour of
the numerous squibs issued during parliamentary elections, (fn. 621) many of which still retain some of their salt;
it showed itself in that keen interest in the history and
antiquities of the borough which produced no less
than four Histories of Liverpool between 1770 and
1823, (fn. 622) and was still more profitably displayed in the
learning of Henry Brown (fn. 623) the attorney, which illuminates the trials on the powers of the Town Council
in 1791, in the researches of Matthew Gregson,
whose Portfolio of Fragments was published in 1819,
and above all in the monumental collections made by
Charles Okill, which are still preserved in the municipal archives and have formed the basis of all later
work on the history of the borough. But above all
these newborn intellectual interests were fostered by
the circle of illuminati which surrounded William
Roscoe, and of which no detailed account can here
be given. (fn. 624) Roscoe himself wrote lives of Lorenzo
de' Medici and of Leo X which were hailed with
delight throughout Europe; he produced also a great
monograph on the Monandrian plants, a good deal of
verse, and a large number of pamphlets, including
some very enlightened speculations on Penal Jurisprudence; he took a profound interest in the fine
arts, and himself did some etching; he threw himself
into the movement for agricultural improvements; he
corresponded with many of the leading men of his
day; he formed a noble library and a fine collection
of pictures. His friend William Shepherd, (fn. 625) Unitarian minister of Gateacre, wrote a life of
Poggio Bracciolini which is still valuable. Dr.
James Currie, (fn. 626) besides taking up poor-law admini
stration, was the friend and biographer of Burns.
Others also might be named if space allowed. (fn. 627)
Under the encouragement of this group of friends
Liverpool became for a time a centre of fine printing
and of exquisite bookbinding; (fn. 628) Roscoe had his own
books printed in his own town. From this intellectual revival proceeded a remarkable group of public
institutions. The Liverpool Library, founded as early
as 1758, (fn. 629) became a thriving institution. (fn. 630) The
Athenaeum was founded in 1798 (fn. 631) as a library for
scholars, and was later enriched by many of Roscoe's
books. The Botanic Gardens were instituted in
1803. (fn. 632) The Medical Library came to birth in
1775. (fn. 633) Finally, the Royal Institution, meant to be
the focus for every kind of intellectual interest, was
projected in 1813 and opened in 1817. (fn. 634) These
promising beginnings did not lead to any very striking
results; partly, no doubt, because they were not
spontaneous, but were due to the accidental presence
in uncongenial surroundings of a group of fine spirits;
partly because they were swamped by the flood of
growing wealth; partly because the coming of the
railway imposed, during the greater part of the
19th century, the intellectual dominance of the
metropolis upon the provincial towns.
The twenty years which followed the great war saw
a steady expansion of foreign trade—less swift, indeed,
than had been expected; but more steady in Liverpool than in England at large. The course of this
expansion may be best indicated by the figures of
entrances and clearances (fn. 635) of vessels engaged in the
foreign trade :—
|
|
Year |
Entrances |
Clearances |
Total |
| Ships |
Tonnage |
Ships |
Tonnage |
Ships |
Tonnage
|
|
1816 |
1,340 |
300,673 |
1,606 |
341,390 |
2,946 |
642,063 |
| 1821 |
1,770 |
391,473 |
1,913 |
403,626 |
3,683 |
795,159 |
| 1826 |
2,067 |
480,944 |
2,132 |
479,409 |
4,199 |
960,353 |
| 1831 |
2,840 |
678,965 |
3,037 |
718,987 |
5,877 |
1,397,952 |
| 1835 |
2,978 |
787,009 |
3,065 |
796,766 |
6,043 |
1,583,775 |
But the principal interest of these years is to be
found rather in the signs of coming political change
which they exhibited, and which resulted from the
expansion of the earlier period, than in the proof
that the earlier causes of prosperity were still at
work. Though Liverpool remained predominantly
Tory in sentiment until the eve of the Reform Bill,
the twenty years which followed the war saw many
movements towards change, and an increasingly clear
realization of the necessity of recasting the traditional
system of administration. It was, indeed, with the
left or progressive wing of the Tory party that the
town was associated; as is shown by the election of
Canning by large majorities from 1812 to 1822 and of
Huskisson from 1822 to 1830—beyond comparison the
most distinguished politicians who have ever represented Liverpool. (fn. 636) The steady growth of the population of the town, which, with its suburbs, had reached
the figure of 205,000 in 1831, and the expansion of
trade, which has been already summarized, made the
earlier system of administration impossible. These
years witnessed an awakening on the part of the Town
Council to a keener sense of its responsibilities, as is
shown by the large schemes of public improvements
for which parliamentary authority was obtained; (fn. 637) by
the establishment in 1826 of two elementary schools
in the north and south of the borough, (fn. 638) at the expense of the corporation, as a sort of compensation for
the old grammar school which had been suppressed in
1802; (fn. 639) by the purchase of lands on a large scale in
Birkenhead (fn. 640) with a view to preventing the creation
of a rival port, and providing for the possible future
requirements of Liverpool trade; and by great activity
in the extension of the docks, which were increased
between 1815 and 1835 from 50 acres to 80 acres
of area. The rise of a demand for change is perhaps
most clearly seen in the discussions on the administration of the Dock Estate, hitherto under the absolute
control of the corporation, which led in 1825 to the
addition to the Dock Committee of representatives of
ratepayers using the docks. (fn. 641) The same kind of discontent was shown in the attempt of a number of
non-freemen ratepayers to escape from the payment of
town dues, which led to long litigation extending
from 1830 to 1833. (fn. 642) But the most serious aspect
of the situation was the fact that the council, regarding itself simply as the trustee for the property of the
body of freemen, had allowed many of the main
functions of urban government to slip, wholly or
partially, out of its hands. Thus the control of the
watching, lighting, and cleansing of the streets had
been since 1748 under the control of a separate commission (fn. 643) consisting partly of the mayor and some of
the borough magistrates, partly of representatives
of the ratepayers elected at the annual Easter vestry;
while the control of sewerage, except in the 'old
streets,' had recently been vested in another commission. (fn. 644)
The corporation had since the 17th century
ceased to raise rates, and all public functions which
necessitated the raising of rates were performed by
other public bodies of limited powers, so that there
was no single body responsible for the general oversight of the health and well-being of the town. The
corporation, while, as we have seen, it retained control of public improvements and of the dock estate,
had to perform these functions out of the revenue
from its estate and from the town dues and other traditional payments, and as these were inadequate to the
purpose these functions had not been fully performed,
while their partial performance had formed so grave a
strain upon the resources of the corporation that the
value of the borough estate had been seriously diminished. (fn. 645) But for this condition of things the borough
might very well have been the owner of the greater
part of the land on which it was built; as it was, a
large part of the corporate estate, secured originally by
the burgesses' usurpation of the waste in the 15th
century, had been sold to meet the corporate debt. (fn. 646)
Finally, the exclusive political privileges of the freemen and their exemption from the payment of town
dues had become an anomaly and an injustice, because the body of freemen, which since 1777 had
not been increased except by the customary modes
of inheritance or service, no longer at all represented the community. There were in 1833 only
3,000 freemen (fn. 647) out of a population of 165,000,
and many of the 3,000 were non-resident. This
number included few of the principal merchants,
and only seven out of the 200 doctors practising
in the town. (fn. 648) It was composed principally of
artisans, to whom their privileges were chiefly valuable for the money to be made out of them in
bribes at elections. Hence Liverpool had become
so notorious for its political corruption that in 1830
a bill for the disfranchisement of the borough was
only prevented by the prorogation of Parliament from
passing into law. (fn. 649)
The unsatisfactoriness of the old institutions was
shown also in the sphere of poor-law administration,
which had been perhaps the most efficient department
of borough government. The committee which had
for so long controlled the administration of the Poor
Law was not recognized by law, and was liable at any
time to be overridden by the overseers, if they chose
to disregard its orders. In 1814 the committee tried
in vain to persuade the open vestry to make an
application for a private Act legalizing their position; (fn. 650) after two years' discussion the proposal was
rejected, (fn. 651) and in 1817 a Mr. Dennison, being elected
overseer, justified these fears by paying no attention
to the committee, and launching upon lavish expenditure. (fn. 652) The Sturges-Bourne Act of 1819 (fn. 653) came
in the nick of time to prevent the breakdown of the
system, for its adoption legalized the position of the
committee by turning it into a select vestry, and for
some years it was able to do admirable work. (fn. 654) But
in the excitement of the agitation for the Reform
Act party feeling crept in here also and showed
itself by constant appeals to the open vestry
and to polls of the whole body of ratepayers on
the smallest points. (fn. 655) The survival of the open
vestry in so large a population was a nuisance and
a danger.
Liverpool was thus ready for the Reform movement,
and it is not surprising that in the reforming Parliament of 1830 and in its successor the Tory town was
for the nonce represented by Whig members. The
Reform Act of 1832 itself began the process of local
reconstitution. Not only did it enfranchise the ratepayers, placing them on a level, for the purposes of
parliamentary elections, with the freemen, but, for
the same purpose, it enlarged the borough's boundaries, including within them the populous suburbs
of Everton and Kirkdale, the northern half of Toxtexth, and part of West Derby, (fn. 656) and thus foreshadowing the full absorption of these districts for municipal
purposes also.
But the legislation which followed the Reform Act
was of far greater local import. The two great
commissions—that on the Poor Laws and that on the
Municipal Corporations—which the Reformed Parliament sent out to investigate the condition of local
government both reported not unfavourably on Liverpool: the Poor Law Commission found the town,
indeed, to be among the best administered in
England, (fn. 657) while the Municipal Corporations Commission, though it disclosed many grave defects, found
no evidence of serious maladministration. (fn. 658) But the
changes introduced by the two great Acts were of
such a character as to mark the beginning of a new
epoch. The terms of the new Poor Law did not,
indeed, involve any such wide change in Liverpool as
in other places; it established finally the authority of
the popularly elected select vestry, and put an end to
the defects and uncertainties of the Sturges-Bourne
Act; but the authority of this body was still confined
to the limits of the old township and parish, the new
and populous outlying districts being left to the
administration of the Toxteth Board of Guardians
or the West Derby Union. The Municipal Reform
Act was far more serious in its results. It made the
Town Council for the first time in its history a
popularly elected body. It placed the election in
the hands of the body of ratepayers, to whose level
the freemen were now in practice reduced. It
empowered the council to take over the functions of
the Watching, Lighting, and Cleansing Board; that
is to say, it turned it from being the mere administrator of the estate of a privileged minority into a
body responsible for the health and general well-being
of the whole community, and thus rendered possible,
and indeed suggested, an indefinite enlargement of
municipal functions. Finally, in one of its schedules,
it enlarged the boundaries of the municipal borough so
as to correspond with those of the parliamentary
borough as fixed in 1832.
The history of Liverpool since 1835 has been one
of rapid and steady development on all sides, unmarked by outstanding or conspicuous episodes. It
is impossible to follow its course in detail; and it will
be most convenient to summarize it under headings,
in a more or less tabular form.