A HISTORY OF LANCASHIRE 



batch of thirty-eight new freemen were admitted/*' 

 nearly all powerful local landowners, and presumably 

 good church and king men, and the object of this was 

 doubtless to modify the Puritan complexion of the 

 borough. But in spite of this it seems clear that the 

 Puritans (or, as it will be more convenient and more 

 accurate to call them, the Whigs) remained in a standing 

 majority in the burgess body, throughout the period, and 

 for a time held their own even in the carefully purified 

 council.*^ This is especially indicated in the mayoral 

 elections, the only function now left by the council 

 to the burgess body at large. In 1669 a mayor was 

 elected who had refused to take the oaths in 1662 ;**' 

 and when a petition against his election was sent to 

 the Privy Council, a majority of the Town Council 

 voted in favour of paying the costs of resistance. From 

 this it would appear that in 1 669 the Whigs were still 

 strong in the council. So long as the bailiffs con- 

 tinued to be elected, under the terms of the Charter 

 of Charles I, by the burgess body, and to become 

 thereafter life members of the council, it seemed 

 impossible for Tory predominance to be established. 



Applications for a new charter were made in 1 664 *™ 

 and 1 667 ; '"' and as the influence of Lord Derby, that 

 sound Cavalier, was enlisted in favour of these appli- 

 cations, it is reasonable to suppose that their object was 

 to obtain a revision in a sense favourable to the Tories. 

 The non-success of these applications may be attributed 

 to the fact that Charles II, until the secession of 

 Shaftesbury in 1672, hoped for Puritan support in his 

 monarchic aims, and was unwilling therefore to weaken 

 Puritan power. 



In 1672 the Tories, now in a majority in the 

 council though not in the assembly, and led by a 

 Tory mayor, took the law into their own hands. They 

 appear to have assumed the right of nominating the 

 bailiffs ; and when a protest was made, it was com- 

 demned as ' very scandalous and of bad consequence,' 

 and a resolution was passed deposing any of the (Whig) 

 members of council who should be proved to have 

 been concerned in it.'"' At the next electoral assembly 

 the outgoing mayor, having declared his successor duly 

 elected, adjourned the meeting seemingly without 

 proceeding to the election of bailiffs.*'' A number of 

 the burgesses, however, refused to be adjourned, and 

 forcing the mayor to continue in the chair, transacted 

 business for two hours, until the mayor was relieved by 

 force. There is no record of their proceedings, which 

 were regarded as illegal. They may have held that 

 the result of the mayoral election was not truly 

 declared ; they may have demanded an election of 

 bailiffs ; and they may also have insisted upon exercising 

 their chartered right of passing by-laws. For this 

 riotous conduct twenty-six men were deprived of the 

 freedom. In 1676, however, there was again a Whig 

 mayor ;"" who in conjunction with three Whig 

 aldermen, proceeded to admit a number of new free- 

 men without consulting the council, doubtless for the 

 purpose of affecting the next elections. The council 

 refused to recognize these freemen ; and when in 1677 



another Whig mayor was elected, declared his election 

 void on the ground that he had been struck off the 

 commission of the peace for the county."^ It is worth 

 noting that these events occurred at the time when 

 the Crown was engaged in its death-grapple with 

 Shaftesbury. 



On 18 July 1677 the council at last succeeded in 

 obtaining from Charles II a new charter."' In the 

 charter of William III, by which its main provisions 

 were repealed, this charter is described as having been 

 obtained ' by a few of the burgesses by a combination 

 among themselves, and without a surrender of the 

 previous charter or any judgement of fuo viarranto or 

 otherwise given against the same."'' This doubtless 

 means that the application was made by the Tory 

 majority of the council, without confirmation by the 

 assembly, to which under the charter of Charles I full 

 governing powers belonged. The main purpose of 

 the new charter was to secure the predominance of the 

 council, unmentioned in the Charles I charter, and 

 its control over the whole borough government. The 

 number of the council was raised from forty to sixty in 

 order to permit of the inclusion of ' fifteen . . . bur- 

 gesses of the iaid.X.o'wa dwelling without that town, 'I.e. 

 fifteen good Tory country gentlemen who would secure 

 the Tory majority. The charter also transferred from 

 the assembly to the council the right of electing both the 

 mayor and the bailiffs, as well as the nomination of free- 

 men. As the election of the mayor and bailiffs was 

 the sole municipal power remaining in the hands of 

 the body of burgesses, this provision deprived them of 

 any shadow of power over the government of the town. 

 Their only remaining function was that of electing 

 members of Parliament, and the right of nominating 

 freemen gave control even over these elections 

 ultimately into the hands of the council. Thus the 

 result of this charter was to place the absolute control 

 of the borough in the hands of a small self-electing 

 Tory oligarchy. 



The action of the council in the restless strife of 

 the later years of Charles II was what might have 

 been predicted. They passed vigorous loyal addresses 

 against the Exclusion Bill *'* and in condemnation 

 of the Rye-house Plot ; *" the latter address con- 

 tains an interesting allusion to Dryden's Absalom and 

 Jchitophel, which shows how keenly the movement of 

 national affairs was now followed in the borough. 

 But there is visible in the addresses also an under- 

 current of nervousness ; their fear of ' Popish contri- 

 vances,' and their ' adherence to the true Protestant 

 religion ' is a little too loudly insisted upon. This 

 may explain why it was thought necessary to include 

 Liverpool in the list of general revisions of municipal 

 charters at the end of the reign of Charles II and the 

 beginning of that of James II. Issued in the first 

 year of James II, the new charter*'* simply confirmed 

 its predecessor, but it contained also two new clauses, 

 one reserving to the Crown the right of removing any 

 member of the council or any borough ofiicial : the 

 other conveying the power of exacting from any 



483 Picton, Liv. Munic. Rec. i, 240. 



^84 On this point see Hist. Munk. Govt, 

 in Liv, 102, 103. 



••85 Picton, Liv. Munic. Rec. i, 245. 



^86 Munic. Rec. iii, 779. A 'ley 'of ^80 

 ■was raised for the purpose, 



<87 Ibid. 837, 847. 



■«88 Picton, Li-v. Munic. Rec. i, 246. 

 ^' Ibid. 247 ; and Hist. Munic. Govt, in 



Li-v. 102-3, 'wlicre this curious episode is 

 discussed. 



49" Picton, Liv. Munic. Rec. i, 248. 



"'i Ibid. 



*S2 Hist. Munic. Govt, in Liv. i 9 1 flF. 



■■ss Ibid. 237. The only alluiion to 

 the episode in the Council minutes is 

 a resolution on 1 Nov, 1676 authorizing 

 the mayor *to take care about renewing 



26 



of our charter, taking to his assistance 

 such as he shall think meet at the charge 

 of this Corporation.' Munic, Reciv, 137. 

 Clearly the assembly of burgesses had not 

 been consulted, 



■"■' Picton, Liv, Munic. Rec. i, 2<i. 



<95 Ibid, 253. 



«' Hist. Munic. Govt, in Liv. 207 S, 



Digitized by Microsoft® 



