WEST DERBY HUNDRED 



LIVERPOOL 



and ' Ilbrye ' as one of the ports of Cheshire."^ 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 vice- 

 admiral of Lancashire and Cheshire ; "' 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,"' was, in spite of backing from 

 London, entirely repudiated by the Liverpool bur- 

 gesses."' They petitioned the Crown for protection ; 

 and eventually a commission sent down to investigate 

 reported in Liverpool's favour.'™ When Chester in 

 1578 made the more limited claim of supremacy over 

 the Cheshire shore of the Mersey,'" equal vigour was 

 shown in repudiation. The question was not settled 

 during this century ; it reappeared in the early part 

 of the 1 7th century,'" and was not disposed of till in 

 1658"' an award was given in favour of Liverpool by 

 the Surveyor-General of Customs — an award which 

 was later confirmed by the first Restoration Surveyor- 

 General in 1660.'°* 



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,*'' and sub- 

 stantial forces also left the port in 1565,'^ IS74.'" 

 1579,'*' 1588,"' 1595,"" and 1596.'" The trans- 

 port of these troops was not unprofitable ; zs. a head 

 was allowed for food during the passage,'" and the 

 cost of transport was more than ^\ a head,''^ while 

 during the stay of the troops in Liverpool, which 

 lasted sometimes for a long period,'" 3<^. a head was 

 allowed for each meal, and \d. a day for a horse's 

 fodder.'" But the visits of the troops were trouble- 

 some. 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."' 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,'" and which brought out all the burgesses 

 in battle array on the heath, while in 1 5 8 1 there was 

 a formidable mutiny"' which was only suppressed 

 after sharp and exemplary punishment. A third in- 

 convenience 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 '" 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,' '"'' and was 

 appealed to on every occasion. One of the seats in 

 Parliament (to which Liverpool had resumed the 

 right of election in 1545),"" was always reserved for 

 his nominee ; the other was usually placed at the dis- 

 posal 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."" When in 1562'°' the burgesses cele- 

 brated 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,'"* 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,'"' nor the 

 lavish enthusiasm with which they welcomed him in 

 his visits to the town."" 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 Parlia- 

 mentary privilege that the burgesses took small interest 

 in the progress of national affairs. They lit bonfires 

 on the Queen's birthdays,"" but the only reflection of 

 the excitement of 1 5 8 8 which their records contain 

 is the note of the erection of one gun on the Nabbe 

 at the entrance to the Pool."" Even the change of 

 religious opinion is but faintly reflected in the records. 

 As time went on they became more and more Protes- 

 tant ; 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 recu- 

 sants."" 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 faithfial preacher at ^^4 per annum."" 



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 seri- 

 ously threatened their liberties, that led to the de- 

 velopment of an executive committee within the 

 assembly of burgesses, hitherto supreme.'" The 

 assembly was unsuited to carry on these struggles,'" 

 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-renew- 

 ing council of twenty-four ordinary members with 



276 Acts ofP.C. 1558-70, p. 288. 

 *77 Cal. S.P. Dom. 1625-6, p. 430. 



278 Muaic. Rec. i, 143*. 



279 Ibid, i, 1593; ii, 31. 

 »8»Ibid. i, 156a. 



^^ Picton, Munic. Rec. i, 37. 



"3" Cal. S.P. Dom. 1619-23, pp. 24, 34, 



43- 



>8» Picton, Munic. Rec. 1, 153. 



'"Ibid. 306. The award is printed 

 in full by Baines, Hist. Li-v. 242 n. 



ass Acts ofP.C. 1571-5, p. "3' 



286 Ibid. 1558-70, p. 264. 



287 Ibid. 1571-5, p. 279. 



288 Ibid. 1578-80,?. 223. 



289 Ibid. 1588, p. 331. 



29" Ibid. 1595-6, pp. 280, 314, 422. 



291 Ibid. 1596-7, pp. 165, 478. 



•93 Hart. MS. 1926, Art. 10, fol. 



29. 



»9« Acts ofP.C. 1588, p. 331. 



29<Ibid. 1578-80, p. 296; 1571-5, 



• 279- 



295 Ibid. p. 296. 



296 Ibid. 1571-5, p. 279. 



297 Picton, Munic. Rec. i, 109. 



298 Acts ofP.C. 1580-1, pp. 64, 96. 



299 Ibid. 1592-3, p. 439. 



8»» Picton, Munic. Rec. i, 44. 



»°i Pink and Beavan, Parly. Rep. of 



17 



Lanes. 350. In this work will be found 

 a full list of the members, with biograph- 

 ical notes. 



8»2 Ibid. 184. 



808 Picton, Munic. Rec. i, 62 ff. 



8"* Return of Memb. of Pari. 438. 



895 Munic. Rec. i, 43. 



806 Ibid. 48 and passim. 



807 Ibid. 48. 



808 Ibid. 93. 



809 Acts of P.C. 1580-1, p. 270. 

 8'0 Munic. Rec. passim. 



811 On this movement see Hist. Munic* 

 Govt, in Liv. 79-86. 



812 Picton, Munic. Rtc. i, 68. 



Digitized by Microsoft® 



