A HISTORY OF LANCASHIRE 



series of such improvements which were pushed for- 

 ward during the next period. 



The rapid growth of the town, and the influx of a 

 new and thriving population unused to the influences 

 by which the town had been so long dominated, 

 reflects itself in a rapid shaidng-ofF of old connexions, 

 which had akeady been seriously weakened by the 

 Civil War and its consequences. This is perhaps 

 clearest in the case of the Moores, so long the leading 

 family of the town ; for Sir Edward Moore, son of 

 the regicide and runagate Colonel John Moore, has 

 left, in the form of instructions to his son, an elaborate 

 description "' of his own properties in the town and 

 of his relations to its leaders which is invaluable as an 

 elucidation of this period of transition. Deeply em- 

 barrassed by the debts incurred by his father, his 

 estates had only been saved from confiscation by the 

 fact that his wife, Dorothy Fenwick, was the daughter 

 of a noted Royalist ; he suffered also, doubtless, from 

 the shadow which hung over his father's name since 

 his desertion in the siege of 1644. Soured by his 

 misfortunes, he was on the worst of terms with the 

 burgess-body, whose records are full of quarrels with 

 him."' Moore had a clear prevision of the growth 

 of the port, and hoped by its means to rehabilitate the 

 fortunes of his house ; but the Town Council checked 

 more than one of his schemes. Worse than this, the 

 burgesses refused to elect him either to the mayoralty 

 or as a representative of the borough in Parliament, 

 and this he regarded as ingratitude to his family, as 

 well as a direct injury to his fortunes. His Rental is 

 full of bitterness on this score. ' They have deceived 

 me twice, even to the ruin of my name and family, 

 had not God in mercy saved me ; though there was 

 none at the same time could profess more kindness to 

 me than they did, and acknowledge in their very own 

 memories what great patrons my father and grand- 

 father were to the town .... Have a care you 

 never trust them ... for such a nest of rogues was 

 never educated in one town of that bigness.' *" He 

 exhausts an extensive vocabulary for epithets to 

 characterize those who were ' against him,' ' either for 

 parliament man or mayor.' One of his greatest 

 troubles was the difficulty which he experienced in 

 enforcing the use of his mill. The ancient feudal 

 milling rights had now quite broken down, and it was 

 only by inserting a special clause in his leases that 

 Moore, though lessee of two of the principal mills, 

 could enforce the use of them even upon his own 

 tenants."* Sir Edward Moore died in 1678, a worn- 

 out old man at the age of forty-four. His son. Sir 

 Cleave Moore, a ' useless spark,' **' was the last repre- 

 sentative of the family in Liverpool; in 171 2 he 

 allowed a foreclosure to be made on his heavily mort- 

 gaged Liverpool lands and retired to estates in the 

 south of England which he had got by marriage.*™ 

 The departure of the Moores was the breach of one 

 of the last links with the past of a town rapidly 

 reshaping itself. 



The same period which saw the departure of the 

 Moores saw also the final settlement of the long feud 



with the Molyneuxes. At the Restoration the con- 

 fiscation of their lordship during the Commonwealth 

 was of course annulled. Immediately on taking 

 possession, Caryll Lord Molyneux renewed the 

 action"' which his father had brought against the 

 burgesses for invasion of his rights as lord of the 

 manor. The burgesses, knowing that the case would 

 go against them, made an accommodation similar to 

 that which they had made in 1 639, whereby they 

 paid _^zo per annum for a lease of all the lordship 

 rights. But this did not settle the dispute. Lord 

 Molyneux claimed that the burgesses were bound to 

 pay the rent-charge of ;^ 1 4 6s. id. due from him to 

 the Crown over and above the ^^20 ; they, on their 

 side, contended that this sum was included in the £20. 

 This dispute presently merged in another.*^' In 

 1668 Lord Molyneux had made a thoroughfare 

 through the castle orchard to the Pool. Wishing to 

 continue it, he consulted counsel, who advised him 

 that as lord of the manor he was owner of the waste 

 and had a right to make a thoroughfare over it. He 

 therefore erected a bridge, thus raising the whole 

 question of the ownership of the waste. The mayor 

 and burgesses pulled down the bridge ; Molyneux 

 replied with a whole series of actions at law, con- 

 cerning ' the interests and title of the Corporation of 

 Liverpool as to ' their claim in the waste grounds of 

 Liverpool,' and also raising anew the old questions of 

 tolls and dues. Had the question been fought out (as 

 the burgesses were prepared to fight it) they would 

 probably have won ; for the charter of Charles I, 

 antedating the sale of the lordship, with its grant of 

 all lands, &c. which they then held, however obtained, 

 certainly covered the waste. After two years' fighting, 

 however, a compromise was arranged, by which 

 Molyneux was allowed to build his bridge on pay- 

 ment of a nominal rent of 2d. per annum in recog- 

 nition of the borough's ownership of the waste ; while 

 on the other hand he granted to the borough a lease 

 of all the rights of lordship except the ferry and the 

 burgage-rents (which he still had to pay to the 

 Crown) for 1,000 years at ^^30 per annum.*^ In 

 1777 the lease was bought up from the then Lord 

 Sefton, and this purchase included ferry and burgage- 

 rents, which the Molyneuxes had previously purchased 

 from the Crown ."* Thus the ancient connexion of 

 this family with the government of the borough came 

 to an end ; and with it feudal superiority vanished 

 from the borough. 



Molyneux, indeed, remained hereditary constable 

 of the castle,"' which was still outside the liberties of 

 the borough, and received the tithes payable to the 

 parochial church of Walton. But both of these 

 powers also vanished during this period. The castle 

 had been partially dismantled between 1660 and 

 1678,"' and it was now mainly used by a number of 

 poor tenants who were allowed to remain within its 

 walls,"' beyond the control of the borough authorities. 

 But when in 1688 and 1689 Lord Molyneux, actively 

 supporting James II, made use of the castle for stores 

 and arms,*^' and when in 1694 he was suspected of 



455 The Moore Rental, already quoted, 

 ha3 been published by W. F. Irvine, under 

 the title of Li-uerpool in King Charles II's 

 Time ; also by the Chetham Society 

 (vol. iv). 



456 picton, Li-v. Munie. Rec. i, 154 ff. 

 *^^ Moore Rental (ed. W. F. Irvine), 



10, II. 



*^^ Ibid. 64 and passim. 

 *=9 Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. xiv, App. iv, 

 284. 



«0 Moore Rental (ed. W. F. Irvine), 



XXX. 



<^^ Picton, Liv. Munic. Rec. i, 34. 

 «' Ibid, i, 275-81. 



24 



*^^ These documents are printed in 

 Hist. Munic. Govt, in Liv. 391 fF. 

 *^ Ibid. 395, 227. 

 *55 Picton, Liv. Munic. Rec. ii, 371?. 

 «' Ibid, i Cox, Liv. Castle. 

 *'? Picton, Liv. Munic. Rec. ii, 40. 

 «s Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. xiv, App. iv. 



Digitized by IVIicrosoft® 



