ec tion V year the Council ordered that " all or any per ~ ons h 1 th hall 1 f d i :s w o la or s purchase any parce 0 groun or ?midi ng _on, under Mrs . Clayton's lease, bein part of the field out of which she IS Iay 1 'ng out 1 · t d d s g 1er n ew m en e quare, may have separat~ Leases m their ovv n names fo r their Ov\n three liv es they severally paymg to the Co rpo ra tion the yearly ground re nt of rzd~ per yard for the fronts of t~eir builc:lin gs and premises, provided such pers?ns c?me and tak~ up their leases whilst all the lives in her said Lea se are In bemg and In SIX ?1onths after their respective houses or buildings are erected, first pr od ucmg their title to the ground." Appare~tly thi~ invitat ion to pa rcel out the land for building purposes did not find unm ediate favour with speculators, for in 1760 only two houses had _been erec ted , and it was not until 1770 th at sepa rat e Leases began to be Issued to the purchasers of the various building plots. The Square was formed in front of Mrs. Clayton's hou se (now represented by the Prince of Wales Theatre), and Parker Street was cut through as an access thereto. Th ere was no exit from the Square on the East side, Elliot Street not being opened out until r8zz, and it thus, for many years, formed a secluded and select re si de nt ial quarter. The large houses erected, now used as offices and hotels, speak eloquently of the elevated intentions of the builders or proprietors at th e time of laying out this new Square. GALLEY V. CLEGG A careful reader will have ob se rved from what has been detailed that the Corporation from the earliest times lost no opportunity of annexing the Waste- no ma n's land -a round the town and permanently securing it as part of the Corporate Estate. There was, of course, no other body or person who could presume to do such a thing, or if they did would be immediately challenged, and hence this accretion took what may be termed a natural course. As we have seen, not only did the Corporation lay hands upon the waste lands within the boundaries of the town, but went further and claimed the sea shore or strand along the river, notwithstanding the refusal of the Crown to grant it in the Charter, and as the town developed into an important seaport, this acquisition proved probably more valuable for dock purposes even than the waste did for estate extension. It must also be remembered that at this time (I752) the waters of the Mersey north of the old Dock washed nearly up to the bottom of Water Street, the ·whole of the shore down to the present river wall being subsequently reclaimed fop the formation of the docks. Boat building was then a thriving industry carried on at this place, and the builders ~pparently considered the shale upon which they built the~ boats or vessels, If n.ot their. own by title, belonpd to no one else but the1r assumed own,rship conung under notice the Corporation st~pped in an~ upset tlie c~culations of. the occupiers by talring measures to protect 1ts presumed nghts. A claun was made to a ~ of the shore in this Vl'dnity by a boat builder nar.ned l)ll~- i · fi.llllt))~ lie ~thout tiQn,. from the ~<*l~ , resu~M ~. ~~ The Rise and l'rogres.~ · of Li v trpool Action bei ng insti tut ed known as " (;allt ~y 11. Cl egg." < , ;tllt;y wa, , 1 I I I 1 . 1 •l SIJ I• tenant of one Thomas W a ms cy, w 10 c ~llllC< part. of t lt f· St r~ • n d <t t tlu· f oo t of Water S tr ee t , but under ~ h at 11 t1 c do cs n ot. ap p<::• r, a. rHL Clc ,~; be ing Mayor. in 17 48 , when th e d1 s putc arost', wm; sued as H!f>rf'!=.cmt~ 1 g the Corporation. Th e proc ee dings as r eco rde d. arc some wh at. c on ~ p l ica t e d a.wl in a gu:a. t measure obsc ur e, but the foll o wm g extracts will fmrl y chJ cH l atc UH! cnuse of contention and d esc ribe th e progress of th e case, and at th e same; t nne shew th e determination wi th whi ch th e Corporation prosecuted what th ey no do ubt co nsidered their righteous cla im. For th is v urp osc it wil l be n ec essary to re tr ace o ur steps for a fe w years. Th e disp ut e appears to have been ra ised by a re so lution c ,i the · Co u ncil passed on th e rst February, 1748 (m entioned in Section IV.), as fo ll ows: - "That n ot ice be given to Thoma s Ga l1 ey that he mu st re:move his Tim~ r laid on t he Wast La nd he now occ up ies a t t he bottom of Wa ter St reet as a Tim be r Yard, within th e Sp ace of tw en ty one d ay s, Ot herwise th at Mr. Mayor be d es ired to o rd er th e sa me t o be removed of th e s aid La nd it being th e Corpor at ion Estate." This action on th e pa rt of th e Co rpora ti on no doubt caus ed Mr. 'Valmsley (Galley's landlord) to t ake meas ur es to prot ect him sel f. In the meantime a Spe ci al Co uncil was held on th e 4th May, 174 9, to c onsider the matter, and th e following minute was r eco rd e d: - "Wh ereas Mr. Thom as Wa lm sl ey ha th l ate ly s ctt up a Cl aim to a par cel of W as te Land o pp osite th e O ld Cu sto m H ouse Ya rd in thi s Town which land thi s Council a ppr ehe nd is th e und o ub te d Ri ght of th e M ayo r Ba ili ff s and Bur gesses of thi s Corpo rati on And wh er eas several per so ns ha ve by th e Cons ent Permi ssi on or Approbation of th e Common Co un cil of thi s C orp oratio n s et several Ships on the said Land to be built or Repaired a nd Also may ha ve in lik e ma nn er laid Rub bis h. Tim be r, St on es or other thin gs th ereon It is t herefore now Ord er ed by thi s Council that in Case any Ac tion or Suit s shall be br o ugh t aga in st a ny P erson or Persons for so do in g or who hath or s hall so do for th e futur e, till o th erwise Ordered by thi s Council, Shall be Support ed and Defe nd ed th erein at t he expense of t his Corporation. And that in ca se Mr. Walm sley or a ny P er so n or Pe rsons shall inclose or tak e up the said Land , that then Mr. Ma yor for th e tim e be in g be authorized to Employ Per so ns to Pull down and remove t he sa me, wh o shall in lik e manner be defended. , The vigorous measures proposed to be taken were not empty threats, but were persisted in, for at the end of the same month it was ordered that ~Mayor be desired to employ persons to remove the Boats, Timber, and tlUnp off the waste land at the bottom of Water Street claimed by Mr. Wabnlley ~UJ.d laid thereon by his tenants or under-tenants. The en~ ry t~ seta out the curious method adopted by Mr. WalmsJey for assertilll his cla im, u follows:- Section V Land Mark ~>n tl1e St.'a Shor~ or S trand opposiic t.11crc Pulled up , on which sa id w .a lm sley WJthout Conuncncmg a ny Suit. agai n !;t. any Persons for pulling up the ~ru d ~tone or ~and. M ar k, then ca u sed tho said LeH crs, ffigurcs and Word ~ to be Jn scn bed on ht s sru. d Hou se Wall or b uildin g~:~." Presumably the initial le tt ers were intended to represent " Thomas \Valmsl ey's Land Mark." This dis pute h ad evidently been sustained fo r some little time wjth a show of determination on both sides and was now about to bear fruit. The next mov~ was mad e by the Co uncil on th e 6th Jun e, 1750, when a Committee was appomted to consider the evidence to be given in the cau se for the Corporation and to consult the R eco rder ther eo n. Th e Corporation had certainly exercised proprietary rights over the shore by le tting portions of the same for shipbuilding purposes, several in st ances of which have already b ee n given, but beyond this and their presumptive right to the was te as the Local Authority no other title could be deduced. To provide the evidence ju st mentioned it was necessary to engage the services of some members of th e Corporate body, but before these could become competent witnesses th ey had to be disfranchised, that is, to resign their freedoms, so as to be in a position to tender independent evidence. As a result the formal disfranchi se me nt of 35 Alde rm en and Councillors is recorded at a special meeting of the Council held on the sth March, 1752, but as three of the Aldermen's names appeared amongst those prese nt at that Meeting, the Council held another special Meeting two da ys afterwar ds and resolved that in order to avoid disputes as to the disfranchisement of Messrs. Pole, Gildart, and Hornby, who, although regularly disfr an chised at the last Council day, were entered in the list of Members attending that Meeting, their names and additions be struck out, which was accordingly done. A month afterwards all were severally restored to their original positions, and these tactics were repeated from tim e to tim e as the case proceeded. The Treasurer was authorised to provide Counsels' Fees-25 guineas to the Senior and 20 guineas to the Junior-and the Mayor was instructed to take the Charters, and other documents out of the Chest for production on the trial. At the same time the Mayor and members of the Council present were given power to enter into any accommodation or agreement that might be offered ei~her here or at Lancaster, not derogatory to the interest of the Corporation. The importance of this action may be gauged from these warlike ~arations and by the following entry of the 15th April, 1752 :- " It is likewise ordered that the Town Clerk Do Take Proper Advice ud --..urea to obtain a Trial at the Bar of the ~ourt of King's Bench on behalf of the ~in their cause Clegg at the Swt of Galley as it is a Cause of gre&t ~~, and tb4 Corporation greatly interested therein.,, ~..,. ;•••* fir,e for ~time this action at length settled down into ·9;~bi eaae. prolaobl)' neither party being sure of their pnmc~ .. ......, , ... ~ -• 11Ut, ,o.X1$!J tB Recorder, Aldermen Traifotd ad na.~t. ud Section V in 1753 granted him a Lease for son years at a rental of I s .. a year during one life and after h er decease at t he yearly rent of £ro. r2s. Two years later Mr \V nlmsley petitioned the Council for a reduction of t hat rent on th e curious ground th at his Arbitrator h ad mi sta ken the extent of the frontage of the land, an d the Co un ci l considering 11 th e circumstances of his case were t oo hard on h im" generously accepted a Surrender of his Lease and gran ted a fresh one for th e same t erm at half t he ground rent. This was the final settleme nt of a very interesting a nd important dispute, a nd Walmsley co nt inued in the enjoyment of the land under his Lease until the reversion was purchased from him some 20 years after for dock purposes, Galley remaining his und er-tenant. The business of boat- building at this particular centre soon became, to some ext e nt , a nuisance, and we find t hat on the 5th December, 1759, co mplaints were made in Council that the road or passage from Water Street End along the sea shore towards the docks was being filled and almost blocked up with boats and timber. It was th erefore ordered that Thomas Galley, boatbuilder, and all other persons who had laid any boats, t imber, or other lumber, should immediately remove the same, a nd that Mr. Walmsley's land be staked out and the wall at Water St reet End or such part thereof as was necessary, be taken down in order to make a good Road over the sea shore from Water Street End ; and Mr. Hutchinson (who was Dock Master at this time, 1759) was instructed to take care to keep the shore clear a nd open. Two years later it was again ordered that Mr. Walmsley's land on the sea shore be sta ked p ut and that a street of fourteen yards wide be left t o the Westward of him. This gives a fairly good idea of the state at that time of our present excelle nt river approaches. SHIPBUILDING We have had occasion in our previous pages to point out that th e Corporation, in s tead of preventing persons from doing certain things contrary to the Bye-laws or usages of the town, allowed the work to proceed until the stoppage of that work imposed an avoidable hardship upon the party transgressing. A rather peculiar, though not isolated, case of this description is recorded in April, 1752, when it was ordered as follows:- u It is ordered that Mr. Mayor have Power to Employ Persons to remove the Ship now in Building on the Ground or Key of the New Dock being the Cor- porations Land or Estate by Mr. John Okill, which he hathdone,andhathfrequently Pulled Down the Dock Wall in ord er to Launch his Ships, against repeated Orders of Council Made and Notice given him not to Do the like for the ffuture and that the Council be desired to attend Mr. Mayor on this affaire." It appears from this entry that Mr. Okill had been a frequent delinquent in this matter, but, regardless of the Council's impotent orders, he still continued a practice which the Council had ample time and opportunities to frustrat~ had they been so inclined. The culminating point of the Couueil' • patience or forbearance had, however, been reached form tle ~ of the. the fQUowing note :- ' Kr. lttf.e.yor Attended and wa'd have pnw• the : Stt:;teb when Ml'. OkUl Attead,.S a.U ittlltf :~, -. a : 1 .. t.: GM~1i.