length incompatible with the limited nature of this work; and I am therefore compelled to confine my observations to a few leading points in the history of the place, and dwell only on its most prominent objects.

A magnanimous and liberal spirit has certainly impelled the corporate body, and many individuals of this town, to the adop tion and prosecution of several schemes, of great local advantage and public good. In the course of the present essay, I shall have ample occasion to illustrate and establish this proposition.

"Far as the eye can trace the prospect round,
The splendid tracks of opulence are found:
Yet scarce an hundred annual rounds have run,
Since first the fabric of this power begun;
His noble waves inglorious, Mersey roll'd,
Nor felt his waves by labouring art control'd.
Along his side a few small cots were spread,
His finny brood their humble tenants fed;
At op'ning dawn, with frandful nets supply'd,

The padding skiff would brave his specious tide,

Ply round the shiores, nor tempt the dang'rous main,
But seek ere night the friendly port again*."

A history of Liverpool must be an account of the people rather than that of the place; for if the town be divested of its complicated traffic, increased shipping, and nautical erections, it presents little else to recompence enquiry, or gratify curiosity.

Concerning the original name of this place, and the different modes in which that has been written at various periods, it would neither be very amusing, or useful, to enter into particulars: for though all the topographers of Liverpool have said a good deal on this subject, they have not developed much substantial information by their dissertations †. It may, however, be safely

asserted

* W. ROSCOE from a descriptive poem entitled Mount-Pleasant.

t. Some writers have deduced the name from the Saxon word Lither-pool:

asserted that there is more reason in deriving the original name of places from peculiarity of situation, than from Patronymic distinction; for though this may be frequently the case in distinctive appellations, yet it will generally be found that families have rather derived their names from places, than on the contrary. The ancient history of Liverpool is extremely meagre; and it can scarcely lay claim to one object of antiquity. Camden states, that Roger de Poictiers, who had lands given him, in this part of the county, by William the Conqueror, built a Castle here, "the custody of which," he says, "has now, for a long time, belonged to the noble and knightly family of Molyneaux, whose chief seat is in the neighbourhood of Sefton, which Roger, aforesaid, in the early Norman times, gave to Vivan de Molyneaux, This Roger held, as appears by Domesday-book, all the lands between the rivers Ribble and Mersey." The statement of Camden, relating to the original castle at Liverpool, is extremely equivocal; but it is probable that Prince John, son of Henry the Second, erected a fortress here. For that monarch having granted his son the Lordship of Ireland, with its dependencies, and as the newly constituted port of "Lyrpul" was most conveniently situated for shipping stores, &c. for that island, it became necessary to secure the place by a military establishment. Besides, it appears that the town had acquired some comparative distinction, as Henry the Second, in the year 1173, granted it a charter, wherein it is stated, "that the whole estuary of the Mersey shall be for ever a port of the sea, with all liberties to a port of the sea belonging; and that place which the men of Lyrpul call Litherpul, near to Toxteth, from each side of the water they may come and return with their ships and merchandize freely, and without obstruction*." In this document we reM 3 cognize

others from a bird called Liver or Lever, though no such bird has been found here. Another author derives it from a species of the Hepatica, or Liverwort; and another from a family named Lever, who were settled here at an early period.

* Translation of the Charter in a late "History of Liverpool." There

cognize the origin of a town, which was then a place of trifling import, and which continued so for many centuries. Yet in different subsequent charters, it is spoken of by each monarch as "our borough or vill" of Liverpool; and mention is made of persons holding burgages under the crown. A second charter was granted to the town by king John, in the ninth year of his reign, A. D. 1209*, who is therein styled "Lord of Ireland,” a place that was not mentioned in the preceding charter. This only alludes to burgage houses, and the free possession of the same by any of the king's "faithful subjects." In the next reign, (Henry the Third), the burgesses renewed their charter, but were obliged to pay "a fine of ten marks in money;" and "a merchant-guild, or society," was then established. It was stipulated that "no strangers should then carry on business in the town, without the consent of the burgesses." This prohibitory and impolitic clause seems to have continued in force till about the middle of the reign of George the Second, when strangers were allowed to settle in the town, upon the payment of a small fiue. "Since the beginning of the present century this demand has been discontinued; and the town, although a borough, may be considered as perfectly free, for the purpose of commerce, to all the world."

In adopting this wise principle, the burgesses of Liverpool have set an example peculiarly worthy of imitation; for by encouraging the industrious and speculating tradesman to settle here, the town consequently increases its population, commerce, and riches. Whilst the selfish and slothful proprietors of those

boroughs,

appears some ambiguity relating to this Charter; for in a petition from the corporation to the king, 1751, the petitioners state that Liverpool “ is a very ancient borough by prescription, long before the time of king John, who granted its first charter."

* In the history of Liverpool now publishing in numbers, there appears some confusion respecting this date: as at page 42 it is said that the Charter of John is dated A. D. 1207; afterwards it appears to be given in the 9th year of his reign, (1209,) and in the next page it is said to be "granted to Liverpool in the year 1203."

boroughs, whose chartered laws entitle them to exclude all strangers, are gradually sinking to poverty and shame, the inhabitants of the free town are stimulated to energy by competition, and are advanced to riches and honor by laudable industry and unrestrained talent. These remarks could be satisfactorily elucidated by reference to numerous boroughs, which are notorious for their venality, corruption, and impoverished appearance.

The following concise notice by Leland, will furnish us with some idea of the place during the reign of Henry the Eighth.

"Lyrpole, alias Lyverpoole, a paved towne, hath but a chapel. Walton, a iiii miles off, not far from the Le, is paroche chirch. The king hath a castelet ther, and the Erle of Darbe hath a stonehouse ther. Irish marchaunts come much thither as to a good haven. Good marchandis at Lyrpool, and much Yrish yarn that Manchester men do by ther. At Lyrpole is smaule custume payd, that causith marchauntes to resorte *."

From this early and accurate tourist, we learn that Liverpool was a paved town when he visited it, much resorted to by Irish merchants, &c. and that its small port duties were then deemed attractions to traders. This account is rather vague, and from the town record of November 1565, which is more decisive, we find that the merchandize and commerce of the place were then much reduced, or had not been previously of that extent which Leland's terms imply. According to this document, Liverpool contained only 138 householders and cottagers. Besides, in a petition from the inhabitants to Queen Elizabeth, in 1571, the place is styled "her Majesty's poor decayed toun of Liverpool." The term decayed indicates that, from some cause unrecorded, and unknown, the town had suffered some material losses, and its remaining inhabitants had to deplore its former comparative prosperity. At this period there were only twelve barks, or vessels, with seventy-five men, belonging to this port, M 4

* Itinerary, Vol. VII, fo. 56.

and

and the whole estimated at 223 tons burthen*. By going further back, we find an order from Edward the Third, commanding this sea-port town to " provide all its vessels, in a sufficient manner, with men, arms, and stores," to assist in a foreign expedition: and "about the same time," says Macpherson, "the community of Liverpool were repeatedly empowered to levy duties for paving their streets +." Wanting satisfactory records to explain the causes of these apparent fluctuations in the early history of the place, it would be futile to enter into a conjectural dissertation on the subject. Suffice it to observe, that in consequence of the extended increase of the town, it was found necessary, in the reign of king William the Third, to obtain an act of parliament for making Liverpool a distinct and separate parish from that of Walton on the hill. From this period we shall find the town gradually and rapidly advance in population, buildings, commerce, and riches. This is amply illustrated by the titles and objects of the several public and private acts of parliaments that have been obtained at different periods; and the number of charters that have been granted by the following monarchs, is a further evidence of the increasing consequence of the town. Most of these charters are still preserved among the Archives of the corporation : -I. Henry the Second; in which he is styled Duke of Aquitain, and Earl of Anjou and it is known that King John afterwards lost those possessions.-II. John.-III. Henry the Third.—IV. Edward the Third.-V. Richard the Second; an ancient copy of this charter was lately preserved at Speke-Hall.-VI. Henry the Fourth.-VII. Henry the Fifth; 2 charters.-VIII. Philip and Mary

* On the opposite banks of the Mersey, in Cheshire, was a small sea-port called Wellasey, which, at this time, possessed three barks, of sixty tons burthen, and manned with fourteen seamen.

"Annals of Commerce," Vol. I. p. 514, 516. [Rot. pet. second of Edward the Third; prim. seventh of Edward the Third, m, 27; prim. tenth of Edward the Third, m. 43.]