A HISTORY OF LANCASHIRE 



being forgotten on both sides. This was the control 

 of the waste, which from this time remained burghal 



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 property. 



described as ' those that hold of the king in Liverpool/ Itjs not known what was the^ result of the petition 

 and, in order to frighten these recusants into line, 

 hought 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 con- 

 sisting 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 17*. 6J."* 



But trouble at once resulted from this arrangement. 

 In 1 41 3 m the royal agents do not appear to have 

 been able to collect any money at all ; and in the 

 following years they got only 2$ 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 141 5,'" 

 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 contra- 

 dicted 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, 



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"" 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 mean- 

 time.' This summons, however, had no better result. 

 In the next year (1421) Henry V found it necessary 

 to grant a lease '" of the whole farm, without limita- 

 tion, 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 npt 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. 8</., until I449- 178 Thus the conflict with 

 the Crown had ended in a burghal victory ; the bur- 

 gesses were left in possession of several royal rights, 

 above all the control of the waste and the supre- 

 macy of the Borough Court over all the inhabi- 

 tants. 



In the meanwhile, however, the disorder and tur- 

 bulence of the district had been increasing. In 1424 

 a violent feud broke out between Thomas Stanley 

 and Sir Richard Molyneux. 179 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 pro- 

 tagonists 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. 180 



In February 1421-2 Sir Richard Molyneux ob- 

 tained a grant of the constableship of Liverpool 

 Castle, together with the stewardship of West Derby 

 and Salford, and the forestership of Toxteth, Crox- 

 teth, and Simonswood. 181 In 1440-1 the offices 

 were renewed for the lives of Sir Richard and his 

 son, and five years later they were made hereditary. 181 

 In 1442 the castle was further fortified by the erection 



1 ' 8 Duchy of Lane. Min. Accts. bdle. 

 731, no. 1202 id; Hist. Munic. Govt. in 

 Li-v. 56 n. 4, and 58 n. I. 



^Mins. Accti. B 731, 12017, 1*019*, 

 12027. 



" s Rot. Par/, iv, 55 ; Hitt. Munic. Govt. 

 in Li-v, 399. 



176 Duchy of Lane. Misc. vol. 17, fol. 

 87. 



17 " Ibid. fol. loo. 



V* Ming. Accts. bdles. 117, 732, 733 ; 

 Hist. Munic. Go-vt. in Liv. 112, 717. 



Dods. MSS. 87, 89. 



180 The outrage at Bewsey in 1437 in 



12 



which the leader, Pooie, is described as a 

 Liverpool man, it another significant 

 episode. 



181 Reg. Due. Lane. Bk. 17, fol. 

 75- 



183 Ibid. ; Com. Hen. VI, fol. 57*; 

 Okill Transcripts, iv, 275. 



