A HISTORY OF LANCASHIRE 



twelve aldermen was appointed.'" 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.'" 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 out- 

 gate dues were charged for goods brought to or from 

 the market ; from these the burgesses and also the in- 

 habitants 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 es- 

 timated 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-estal5lished. The port was largely used for 

 transport to Ireland during the reigns of James I and 

 Charles I "' — 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.'" The 

 loss of five vessels was a serious blow to a small port, 

 and the mayor feared that ' unless the king compas- 

 sionates 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,"' 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.'" Nevertheless the prosperity 

 of the port steadily increased, and gained especially 

 from the development of Irish industries under Went- 

 worth. In 1 6 1 8 the number of vessels in the port '" 

 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."* 

 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 1 5 6 5 , the claim of Chester to supremacy, 

 which was revived in 161 9.'" To retain a share of 

 the trade in Irish yarn, Chester had to make special 

 treaties with Irish exporters ; '^ but even then Liver- 

 pool more than held its own.'" Foreign trade as 

 well as Irish trade was increasing,'" 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 Liver- 

 pool by the Severn and the sea ; '" and there is even 

 a record of one cargo of tobacco "^ brought direct 

 from the Indies — the beginning of Liverpool's Ameri- 

 can trade. 



This growing prosperity is reflected in a growth 

 of population, despite a visitation of the plague in 

 1609.'" The number of freemen rose from 190 in 

 158910 256 in 1620 and to 450 in 1645.'" Though 

 some of these were non-resident, there was also a con- 

 siderable non-freeman population in the borough, and 

 the population on the eve of the Civil War may, per- 

 haps, 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 £27 2.'" 



The borough was comparatively little troubled 

 during the early years of the century by the diffi- 

 culties by which it had been faced in the preceding 

 age. In 161 7 the copyholders of West Derby, 

 instigated by Sir Richard Molyneux, raised a claim 

 to a part of the Liverpool waste,'"' now administered 

 by the borough ; but the mayor and bailifls were 

 instructed to 'make known untc 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 i6zo there was an obscure dispute with Sir Richard 

 over the levying of prisagt duties on wine,'" the issue 

 of which is unknown. Several times during the period 

 the borough authoritiei 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,'" a right which was vigorously and success- 

 fully maintained. But the questions which occupy 

 most space in the records are internal disputes, espe- 

 cially concerning the powers and duties of the burghal 

 officers. From 1633 to 1637 a fierce controversy 

 raged with the town-clerk,'" Robert Dobson, who, 

 having paid j^70 for his office, considered himself 

 irremovable, and bore himself with intolerable inso- 

 lence 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 

 bailifis of 1626"^ were imprisoned in the Common 

 Hall for refiising to carry out the instructions of the 

 Tovra Council; the bailiffs of 1629'" brought an 

 action against the corporation in the King's Bench, 

 for which one of them was deprived of the freedom. 



8IS Picton, Munic. Rec. i, 51 ; and Hist. 

 Muitic. Govt. 85. 



sn Munic. Rec. passim ; the detailed 

 regulations of trade occupy perhaps a 

 larger amount of space in the records than 

 any other single subject. 



81' Liv. Munic. Rec. passim ; Hist. 

 MSS. Com. Rep. viii, App. i, 380^6*5 

 ibid, iv, 2, 3, 6 i ibid, v, 350 ; Cal. S.P. 

 Dom. 1625-6, p. 40, &c. 



*i« Cal. S.P. Dom. 1625-6, pp. 5, 6, 8. 



"W Ibid. 1619-23, pp. 24, 43. 



f^'Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. xii, App. 

 ii, 10. 



«" S.P. Dom. Jas. I, cijt, 9 (i). 



'^ Cal. S.P. Dam. 1619-23, p. 24. 



'^ Ibid. pp. 34, 104. 



»M Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. viii, App. i, 

 381*. 



'^ Ibid. 399a. 



»" Liv. Munic. Rec passim. 



835 Picton, Lw. Munic. Rec. i, 181. 



«» Ibid. 



^V Shuttleviorth Accounts (Chet. Soc. 

 xiiv), 186 5 Hist. MSS. Com, Rep. x, 

 App. iv, 62. 



8!B Picton, Liv. Munic. Rec. i, 124. 



»M Ibid. 174. 



»«» Ibid. 169. 



Kil Ibid. 274. 



•" Ibid. 136, 13:, 165, 171. 



"» Ibid. 161 fF. 



»« Ibid. 126. BSSibij. 



Digitized by IVIicrosoft® 



