WEST DERBY HUNDRED 



LIVERPOOL 



the 15 th century they acquired a large amount of 

 land in Kirkdale,"' 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,"' and 

 in 1292 John de la Mor, along with Richard de 

 Liverpool, represented the burgesses at the Q1.0 

 Warranto plea already referred to.'" Down to the 

 middle of the 14th century they are frequently found 

 acting as bailifB."* 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 ; "' hence the archives of the family 

 included numerous deeds not relating to their own 

 lands. In 1346 the holdings of the family in Liver- 

 pool included sixteen and one-eighth burgages,"* 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.'" 

 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,'" when William de Liverpool had practically 

 retired. Thereafter the Moores in their turn have 

 almost a monopoly of the mayoralty.'*' 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.'™ The matter was 

 compromised by William's remaining in possession, 

 but paying More an annual rent of 3/. These are 

 the dim echoes of what was probably a pretty lively 

 feud. 



Outside of the liberties of the borough, but con- 

 stantly affecting its fortunes, was the castle. It was 

 ruled by a constable, receiving an annual salary of 

 £6 6s. id. ;'" the constable was generally, if not 

 always, also keeper of Toxteth Park, and sometimes 

 also of Croxteth and Simonswood Parks,'*" 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.'*' The names of 

 several constables survive ; '" 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.'*' In 

 normal times there was no standing garrison in the 

 castle, and the permanent paid staff seems to have con- 



sisted of a watchman and a doorkeeper, each of whom was 

 paid l\d. per diem.'** There were, however, several 

 houses within the castle,'*' 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 ; '** it 

 includes 186 pallets, 107 spears, 39 lances, 15 

 ballistae, 2 engines, 7 ' acketouns, old and weak,' I 

 large vat for brewing, and a considerable amount of 

 domestic furniture. 



The 15 th century, for many English trading 

 ports a period of advance, was for Liverpool a period 

 of retrogression — in population, prosperity, and politi- 

 cal 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'*' Sir John 

 Stanley obtained licence to fortify a house in Liver- 

 pool. 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, con- 

 firmed by Henry IV ; "" 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 confirma- 

 tion '" it appears that the burgesses had resolved to 

 apply not only for a renewal, but also for a supple- 

 mentary 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 "^ in the first 

 year of his reign, probably as a result of this applica- 

 tion ; but it was merely a confirmation of the previous 

 charters, and its sole advantage was that by disregard- 

 ing the charter of Richard II it restored to the bur- 

 gess 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. 



^^^ See under Bootle and Kirkdale for 

 the lands of the Moores outside of 

 Liverpool, 



152 Assize R. 1404, m. 1 6. 



15' Plac. de Quo IVar. (Rec. Com.), 381. 



15' Moore D. passim. '5° Ibid. 



156 Extent of 1 346, loc. cit. 



W Duchy of Lane, Accts, various, bdle. 

 32, no. 17. 



158 Elton, loc, cit. ; Moore D. 255, 



"»lbid, Thomas del More held the 



mayoralty at least i6 times — more often 

 than any other Liverpool man has ever 

 done. 



1™ Moore D, 190, 230, 231, 257. 



1*1 e.g. Harl. Cod. 433, fol. 317a. 



1*2 e.g. Reg. Due. Lane. 46 Edw. Ill, 

 foL 50, 232 ; 14 Hen. IV, fol. 29. 



168 Duchy of Lane, Mins, Accts. bdle. 

 117, no. 1934. 



"< A partial list is given in Gregson's 

 Fragments, 



II 



"5 Moore D. 452 (16911). 



"* L.T.R, Enr. Accts. Misc. 14, m. 



77- 



1*7 Duchy of Lane. Book of Orders, &c, 

 Edw. IV, 140. 



188 L.T.R. Enr. Accts. loc. cit. 



"9 Pat. 7 Hen. IV, pt. ii, m. 14. 



l?" Hist. Munic. Goiit. in Liv. 308. 



l?i Original lost ; printed in Gregson's 

 Fragments, 352 \Uist.Munlc. Govt, in Li-v. 

 309. 172 Ibid. 161. 



Digitized by IVIicrosoft® 



