WEST DERBY HUNDRED 



spending holdings in the fields ; for, as the Moore and 

 Crosse deeds abundantly show, these could be separ- 

 ately sold or let by the tenant, still being ' acquitted ' 

 so far as the lord was concerned by the burgage to 

 which they were originally attached. The I zd. rent, 

 together with suit at the borough court, constituted 

 the whole of the 'service' due from the tenants." 

 There is no evidence for the payment of a heriot, 

 such as was exacted in Salford. 23 



The privileges which John promised to the occu- 

 pants of the burgages are included under the general 

 phrase ' all the liberties and free customs which any 

 free borough on the sea has in our land.' This, if 

 taken literally, would place Liverpool from the outset 

 at the same level of burghal liberties as Bristol and 

 Southampton ; but probably nothing of the sort was 

 intended, 24 and the phrase is to be taken merely as 

 securing to the burgesses personal liberty, freedom 

 from service, free tenure of land, and exemption from 

 the payment of tolls within the limits of the borough, 

 though seemingly not beyond them. The grants of 

 John are essentially promises to individuals, not formal 

 concessions of powers to an organized community. 

 During the next twenty-two years the borough was 

 doubtless governed by a royal bailiff or steward, and 

 the burgesses were represented, as in the rural period, 

 by a reeve. 85 Probably, however, 1207 saw also the 

 establishment of a weekly market and an annual fair, 

 the erection of a mill, 16 and perhaps of a chapel.* 7 



The gradual progress of the new borough is best 

 illustrated by the history of its yield to the royal 

 exchequer. From 1211 to 1219 the profits of Liver- 

 pool seem to have been included in those of West 

 Derby, from which it may be inferred that the borough 

 was administered in these years by the steward of the 

 neighbouring manor. In 1222 and the following 

 years " an assized rent of 9 was charged on the 

 borough, being answered for by William de Ferrers as 

 sheriff of Lancaster. How much was covered by this 

 rent it is not easy to determine, 29 but if it included 

 mills, ferry, and courts as well as the burgage rents 

 the borough must have been poor enough, or the 

 sheriff have made a substantial profit. Possibly the 

 burgesses may themselves have paid the assized rent, 

 but more probably the borough was farmed for this 

 sum by the sheriff. The tallages assessed on the 

 borough during the early years of Henry III show, 

 however, a steady advance. In 1 2 1 9 30 Liverpool 

 paid half a mark, West Derby a mark, Preston 10 



LIVERPOOL 



marks. In 1222" Liverpool paid 5 marks, West 

 Derby I mark, Preston 15 marks. In 1227" Liver- 

 pool paid 1 1 marks js. 8</., West Derby 7 marks 

 4/. Afd., Preston 15 marks 6V. In these years the 

 parent manor of West Derby had been completely 

 outstripped, while the new borough was rapidly over- 

 taking Preston. 



A very important step forward was taken when on 

 24 March 1229 Henry III granted a charter" to 

 Liverpool, the burgesses paying for it 10 marks. The 

 payment shows that they had learnt to take common 

 action ; perhaps they had formed an illicit gild. The 

 charter of Henry III is of the first importance, as 

 it remained the governing charter of the borough 

 down to 1626, all the intervening charters being 

 merely confirmations with or without modifications. 

 The charter is on the most ample scale. It opens by 

 conceding that Liverpool should be a free borough 

 (liber burgus], for ever ; but this, though it secured, 

 probably did not extend the privileges already con- 

 ferred by John. In the second place it grants inde- 

 pendent jurisdiction to the borough court in the 

 regular formula of sac and soc, thol and theam, and in- 

 fangenethef, and exempts the burgesses from suit at 

 shire and hundred-courts for their holdings in the 

 borough. In regard to trade, the exemption from 

 tolls in the Liverpool market granted by King John 

 was now extended to all markets within the king's 

 dominions, and the Liverpool traders were thus placed 

 on a level with the burgesses of the most favoured 

 boroughs. But the most important concession of the 

 charter was the right to have ' a gild merchant with a 

 hansa and all the liberties and free customs pertaining 

 to that gild ' ; the privileges of trade, previously con- 

 fined to holders of burgages, being now limited to 

 members of the gild, while in future no one might be 

 permitted to trade in the borough without licence of 

 the gild. No evidence whatsoever survives as to the 

 mode of organization of the gild thus granted, or its 

 relation to the ordinary governmental machinery of 

 the borough. Doubtless all holders of burgages were 

 entitled to membership. 34 



During the first century of the borough's existence 

 it is as difficult to say anything definite about the 

 borough government as about the gild. With regard 

 to officers, in 1246 the 'vill' was represented at the 

 eyre of the justices by twelve jurors, including 

 ' Ranulf de Moore, reeve of the vill,' 35 but this seems 

 to be the only mention of a reeve ; probably he was 



22 Add. MS. 32103 ; Reg. St. Wer- 

 burgh Hall MS. 1965, fol. xviii. 



28 For discussion of this, see Hist. 

 Munic. Go-vt. in Liv. 1 3 n. 3. 



24 Ibid. 15-17. 



25 A reeve is mentioned in I 246 ; As- 

 size R. 1404, m. 1 6. 



26 The mills certainly existed from 

 1256, and probably from 1229. 



a ? The small chapel of St. Mary del Key 

 was in existence before 1257 ; see below. 



28 Pipe R. 10 Hen. Ill ; Hist. Munic. 

 Go-vt. in Li-v. Z95. 



29 Trans. Hist. Soc. (new sen), xxi, 6, 7. 



80 Pipe R. 3 Hen. Ill, m. 12 d. 



81 Ibid. 6 Hen. Ill, m. 5 d. 



82 Ibid. II Hen. Ill, m. I. 



88 Orig. in Liv. Munic. Archives ; 

 Chart. R. 13 Hen. Ill, m. 9; Hist. Munic. 

 Go-vt. in Liv. 155. 



84 In the 1 6th century it had become 

 the practice to admit to the freedom of 

 the gild all sons and apprentices of free- 



men (Munic. Rec. passim) on payment of a 

 small fixed fee, whether they held bur- 

 gages or not ; and as early as 1525 non- 

 resident merchants were admitted in large 

 numbers ; Duchy of Lane. Misc. vol. 

 95, fol. 36^ ; Hist. Munic. Govt. in Li-v. 

 402. Whether or no this practice 

 existed from the beginning it is impossible 

 to say ; but in any case the grant of gild- 

 powers rendered possible the admission to 

 trading privileges of persons other than 

 burgage holders, and thus prevented the 

 limitation of these privileges to a narrow 

 landholding oligarchy. But the non- 

 burgess members of the gild, in so small 

 a borough, must always have been few ; 

 and there can have been little distinction 

 between the burgess body proper and the 

 gild. Hence it is probable that, as in 

 other cases (Gross, Gild Merchant, i, chap, 

 v.), a single assembly and a single set of 

 officers served for both. 



There is, indeed, throughout the Middle 



Age no allusion in any document to 

 separate officers of the gild. In the i6th 

 century gild business and borough busi- 

 ness were indifferently transacted in the 

 same assemblies and by the same officers. 

 In 1551 there were elected two 'sene- 

 schals of the Gild Court ' (Munic. Rec. i, 

 za. But they were then only keepers of 

 the gildhall), whose existence suggests 

 that there had once been a distinctive 

 court for the enforcement of trade regula- 

 tions, which would not naturally fall 

 under the review of the borough-court. 

 But that is the only mention of any such 

 officials. Probably, therefore, the gild 

 added little to the complexity of burghal 

 organization ; and it should be regarded, 

 not as a distinct body, but rather as simply 

 adding certain new executive and legisla- 

 tive powers to the existing ruling bodies 

 of the borough. The question is dis- 

 cussed at length in Hht. Munic. Go-vt. in 

 Liv. 31-6. 86 Assize R. 404, m. 16. 



