THE LAND TAX AND HUNDRED 1780-1831 G. J. Wilson, B.A.

HE land tax returns made between 1780 and 1831 have T survived for most parts of the country and have attracted the attentions of many researchers.1 Investigation of the returns has tended to concentrate upon what they reveal about developments in the composition and structure of agricultural land holding. Other aspects of the tax have been comparatively neglected. This article attempts to provide an overall view of its operation within an important and highly diverse region, and also to consider what light this sheds upon problems concerning its use. The tax evolved during the final decade of the seventeenth century. A General Aid of i6g2 2 had set out to tax personal estates including salaries, profits, lands, tenements, tithes, mines and mortgages. Its encompassing nature has been interpreted as an experiment to create a primitive type of income tax but in the event the experiment failed.3 Subsequent re-enactments during the decade yielded progressively smaller sums and, to prevent the steady attrition of its revenue, parliament eventually laid down that the tax had both to yield the same rate as in 1692, and had to be raised from each district according to the proportion that it had paid in 1692. Inequalities that had probably existed from the start were exacerbated by decades of change and development and its unfairness became notorious among the land-owning community. Early records survived in a fairly haphazard fashion but in 1780* a new act required that a copy of each return be sent to the clerk of the peace to assist in establishing the right of individuals to the franchise. By this time the tax had been levied for some years at a rate of 43. in the pound from which it was never to be reduced. Until 1831 when the act was repealed a largely complete record of the returns was maintained. Interpreting the large body of information, available for most counties, has created controversy and some conclusions, once confidently drawn, have been called into question. West Derby 64 G. J. Wilson Hundred presents the usual difficulties and has one problem which is less common.

ROMAN CATHOLICS AND THE LAND TAX The era in which the tax developed was one of militant anti- Catholicism, at least on the part of the legislature. The land tax reflected this for the original 1692 Act stipulated that:

every papist or reputed papist shall yield and pay unto their majesties double the sums and rates why by force or virtue of any clause in this Act before mentioned or contained he or she should or ought to be charged with.

At the time of its enactment it would have been hard to find an area with more Papists than West Derby Hundred. The clause should have had a significant impact upon the area but as with so much anti-Catholic legislation it is difficult to assess exactly how rigorously it was enforced. On the 1781 returns only ten5 of the one hundred and three townships enumerated Catholics as a distinct group. When the tax commenced in the 16gos Catholic landowners were present in far more than just ten townships and though their numbers had diminished by the 17805 they were still to be found in townships which were not declaring them in 1781.° By this date, at least, certain townships were not complying with the terms of the original legislation. Such compliance as there was diminished as the decade continued. By 1786 Aughton, , and Ince Blundell, had ceased to distinguish Catholics from the general body of landholders and the practice was being gradually dis­ continued in other townships. With regard to the matter of double rating in only three of the ten returns of 1781 in which Catholics were distinguished was it specifically stated that they were being double assessed. When the twenty-eight payments at Aughton were incorporated with the rest of the return there was no marked change in the levels of assessment. A number of Catholics had reductions of a few pence but for others there were none at all. At Great Crosby and Ince Blundell too, land tax contributions remained virtually unaltered. Indeed when in the case of Ince Blundell, its tax system was revised in the early 17905' some Catholics finished by paying more on their land tax assessments. In these townships Catholics were frequently involved in the administration of the tax acting as assessors and collectors. While it seems unlikely that their assessments were really double at this time there is evidence that other townships, particularly Bickerstaffe, Burscough, and Scaris- Land Tax 65 brick, were more rigorous in their actions. They maintained the distinction between Protestants and Catholics into the early i ygos. When Scarisbrick finally ceased to do so in 1793 some of its Catholic payments were considerably reduced. Thomas Eccleston's demesne taxation fell from £22 8s. 8d. to £14 i8s. 7|d. In the same year, Bickerstaffe and Burscough continued to differentiate between their landholders but Catholic assessments nevertheless fell significantly by almost half in some cases. These townships had anticipated the government's attempt in I7948 to abolish double rating, perhaps they had been influenced by the 1791 Toleration Act. The extent to which anti-Catholic clauses in the land tax were being enforced during this period seems to have varied from one township to another depending on local circumstances. The choice of terminology, from the somewhat pejorative 'Papists' at Aughton and 'Romanists' at Leigh, to the more respectful 'Roman Catholics' at Ince Blundell (where they clearly enjoyed some considerable preponderance) also indicates a variety of local attitudes. Despite this lack of uniformity Mingay's reference9 to a land tax record from Aughton earlier in the eighteenth century was unfortunate. The inconsistencies which he noted might well have had their origin in the religious clauses discussed, though his overall point was probably quite valid. While it is difficult to speak with confidence of the effect of double rating within townships throughout the eighteenth century, the situation is even less certain with regard to its effect on their comparative standing. Some of the township assessments had, presumably, been increased by the presence of Catholic land­ holders in the 16gos though their number and importance varied considerably.10 The majority of areas seem to have contained some Catholic landholders and in several cases virtually the entire township was in Catholic hands. It is noticeable that the town­ ships still recording Catholics in the 17805 were situated in the west of the hundred where some major Catholic demesne holders still remained. There had been more of these in the iGgos in particular the Molyneuxs, later earls of Sefton, who had held land in many places. It seems likely that such powerful figures would have attempted to mitigate the unwelcome religious pro­ visions, especially since the assessments were made locally by local people. It is possible that such strongholds had fared better in respect of avoiding heavier taxation than more scattered Catholic landholders in other parts of the hundred. The overall situation can only be a matter of speculation but the maximum distortion that could have been created by the special Catholic rating would have been a doubling of the normal township sum. Allowing for 66 G. J. Wilson the varying numbers of Catholics within townships and the influence of powerful Catholic land-owning interests, the effect on 'average' was liable to have been much less. Nevertheless the total contributions of townships within West Derby Hundred, and indeed any area which contained Catholics in the 16905, must be approached with caution. Even assuming that the 1692 assessments were made in a proper, or at least comparable, manner across the hundred (and that is to assume a great deal), they would provide an unreliable guide to the com­ parative economic importance of the townships.

AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE LAND TAX Table I (see Appendix) shows the contributions of townships within the hundred based on the returns of 1781. There were obviously wide differences between the assessments. In 1692 coal mining was likely to have been of significance within only a small number of townships11 and outside a few market towns and centres of local industry such as , and Warring- ton the main economic activities must have been concerned with agriculture and some cottage industry. The latter would have been difficult to incorporate into the tax12 and it seems likely that the assessments of the majority of townships reflected their agri­ cultural basis. The most obvious factor determining the extent of agriculture was the size of the townships. Table II provides a ratio of the acreage of the townships to their land tax contri­ butions.13 There was a tremendous range of acres to the pound. At one extreme Prescot, Ormskirk and as market towns can be readily explained, while at the other extreme , Bickerstaffe and were townships situated in exceptionally inhospitable marsh and heath lands. Grouping the townships into sections does clarify the figures to some extent. Almost eighty per cent of the townships fall between twenty and sixty acres to the pound but this is still a considerable range and is too great to be accounted for by the effect of the Catholic double rating clauses. Two of the more extreme ratios Bickerstaffe and were both likely to have been among the penalised districts and presumably penalties would have moved them nearer to the norm. E. Davies' ideas14 concerning the correlation between the acreage and assessment of parishes within certain counties was unlikely to have had any application within even this small section of . The quality and state of development of the land within a township was probably of greater importance in determining its land tax contribution than the mere acreage. This must have placed townships that were comparatively Land Tax 67 underdeveloped in 1692 in a favourable situation as the eighteenth century progressed. Land reclamation certainly occurred during those years.15 The pressure of a rapidly increasing local market for food at must have been a potent factor in the pro­ gress of those townships which were not in any immediate way involved in the process of large-scale industrial growth. It is noticeable in Table II that many townships with lower ratios of acres to the pound were situated near Liverpool which was grow­ ing in 1692 and which must have already started to encourage local agricultural development. Capacity for expansion was likely, even by 1692, to have been more limited than say at Rainford, Lathom or Bickerstaffe which were further away and had less favourable topographical conditions. Assuming that land was assessed as it became significantly productive then tax-paying farmers were likely to have gained as their townships agricultural acreage grew and the burden of the tax was spread. That such was the case is possibly reflected in Table III. Here the assessment for each township and its population for 1801 have been converted into a ratio.16 Townships that were still largely agricultural often show wide divergence. It is noticeable that those paying lower amounts per head in 1801 had often paid smaller amounts per acre in 1692. Burscough, Bickerstaffe, Lathom and Rainford could be compared with , Speke, Roby and Tarbock.17 It would indicate that the former group had seen a more rapid rate of population increase during the eighteenth century. This was probably due, in part at least, to the greater opportunities available for agricultural expansion.18 There is some detailed evidence for Rainford which tends to corroborate this view. Describing developments in Lancashire's agriculture in 1795, John Holt devotes several pages to the activi­ ties of a gentleman farmer, John Chorley.19 In 1780 he had rented an area of Rainford Moss from the and set about draining and farming it. After great expense and some set­ backs he had succeeded by 1795 in cultivating thirty large acres (probably Cheshire acres equivalent to about sixty-three statute acres), potatoes being the principal crop. He planned to continue this expansion and 'he has at least thirty persons employed, men, women, girls and boys at this work'. To accommodate this work force he had built nine cottages. It is a pertinent example of how agricultural development could help to expand the population of an area and affect land values at the same time. Chorley's activi­ ties, though obviously fairly spectacular in Holt's view, were not likely to have been unique.20 They did not escape the attention of the local land tax assessors. His assessment rose from 173. gd. to £i is. 3d. between 1788 and 1795. By 1797 it was £i 2s. 6d. 68 G. J. Wilson The latter sum made him one of the township's higher tax payers. This kind of agricultural expansion onto previously barren land partly explains why Rainford was paying such a very low rate per pound value on its land tax assessments in the early nineteenth century.21 It implies that agricultural development might create notable differences in the acreage rate of assessment and the value rate of assessment between townships within quite a small area.

THE LAND TAX AND INDUSTRY The impression gained from contemporary commentators and even from later ones was that the land tax quickly became, almost exclusively, a tax on agriculture.22 Even within the majority of townships in West Derby Hundred most of the tax was apparently paid on agricultural property, however, this seems to have been a reflection of the type of economy to be found there rather than a consequence of any change in its operation. Townships that had experienced industrial and commercial development were cer­ tainly taxing such activities and were, in some cases, gaining a high proportion of their land tax revenue from them much to the relief of local landowners. Coal mining was the most prominent industry to be found on the 1781 returns. Orrell and Haigh were particularly noteworthy in this respect. At Haigh several mines were yielding £17 16s. 3d. out of a township total of £47 iss. od., while at Orrell four mines were paying £11 16s. id. out of a township total of £47 8s. 8d. There were other significant contributors. In Sutton a Copper Works and a Glass Factory were yielding £3 75. od and £3 os. od. respectively. In the same township the taxation of three public salaries (excise officials) was yielding £36. These sources of taxa­ tion in Sutton had been created by the growth of industry after 1760. At Hale four incomes were assessed at a total of £24 which thus yielded over forty per cent of the total required. Penketh derived £7 73. 7|d. from the Sankey navigation which was nearly a third of its entire assessment. There are numerous other examples to be found on the 1781 returns though those mentioned are probably the most significant. For a largely amateur administrative body the assessment of industrial and commercial activities must have presented prob­ lems. Calculating and taxing profits seemed to have been beyond their competence. There was a definite tendency for fixed sums to be applied though there was some flexibility. By 1786 the Sutton 'glass house' payment had been reduced to £2 but the copper works was yielding £3 153. The reduction in the former's pay­ ment was almost certainly occasioned by business difficulties Land Tax 69 since it ceased operating for a time around I785-23 With these large operations occasional readjustments according to the general level of business seem to have been employed. On a smaller scale, with small workshops, mills, etc., there can be little doubt that they were being charged according to the value of the property. In Prescot, with its numerous workshops, commercial and indus­ trial properties were apparently charged according to size rather than earning potential. A smithy paid less than many houses. In 1786 William Chapman paid for his house but two empty stables were tax free. Paupers were noted and generally excused payment altogether, the land tax operating much like any local rate. With regard to mines the situation was more complicated. In Orrell the practice had arisen of taxing the mines on the basis of the number of their employees, at the rate of 6s. 3d. each. In this way, easily operated, the taxation of mining kept pace with its expansion. This mode of assessment seems to have been used in some other townships; there is some evidence for it in Windle and Sutton. At Haigh a fixed charge system was used which meant that ordinary pits paid I2S. 6d. while cannel pits paid £i i is. 3d. each; the latter were owned by the earl of Balcarres who was the township's major landowner. These different systems were to operate well into the nineteenth century. The rapid expansion of the mining industry in the final decades of the eighteenth century meant that the employee based system was certain to produce a greatly increased contribution towards a township's land tax. In Orrell there were five different mining proprietors while in Haigh the earl of Balcarres owned much of the land and most of the mines. It suited the latter for the bulk of the tax to be paid by leasehold tenants rather than from mines which were in direct ownership. At Orrell the employee rate produced remarkable dividends for the rest of the township. By 1797 there had been such expansion that the mines alone were yielding £49 135. gd when the total required for the whole township was only £47 8s. 8d. The rest of the township contributed a mere £27 6s. iofd., creating a total overcollection of £30 tos. 8|d. The collection of significantly greater sums than were actually required could have had few precedents in fiscal history but it was not unusual within the hundred. In areas of urban and indus­ trial growth it was fairly common. At Warrington £412 was collected in 1797 when only £296 175. 6d. was needed while at Prescot a more modest surplus of about ten pounds (£58 45. i i^d. as compared with £47 173. 8^d.) was gathered. Some townships seemed to have concealed this embarras de richesse by abandon­ ing the practice of totalling their collection. The returns offer no explanation for the overpayment nor do 70 G. J. Wilson they explain what happened to the extra money. Almost certainly it was absorbed into parochial funds. In urban regions assessing the rate of tax for many hundreds of properties, ever increasing in number, so that the sum collected was exactly the right amount would have been a major annual task. As will be seen, in these industrial townships the land tax was, by the 17905, only a minor part of the total taxation burden.24 For these areas getting the land tax calculations exactly right was not normally worth the effort.

THE LAND TAX AND THE 1798 REFORMS Throughout the eighteenth century the land tax remained assessable, in a strict legal sense, upon most forms of property and income. By 1798 the pressure of war was forcing the government of the day to increase its revenue by devising new methods of taxation. The land tax, yielding approximately £2,000,000, was almost a trifle but to increase it above 45. rate was politically in­ expedient. It was possibly seen, at this time, to constitute an un­ welcome complication in the creation of new, effective, forms of taxation. Pitt's solution was to divide the tax into two parts. A distinc­ tion was drawn between what was essentially its real estate element and its personal property and income aspects. The former was made perpetual with the important proviso that it could be re­ deemed, or bought off property, at what were intended to be attractive terms. Its other aspects 'sums of money charged... upon any estate in ready money, Debts, goods, wares, merchan­ dises or personal estate or upon any person or persons in respect of any public office' were not included in the redemption scheme but were put to one side to await later decision. The workings of the 1798 Act25 are too complex to consider in detail here. The money paid to purchase exemption was intended to reduce the size of the national debt so it was hoped that the tax would be largely sold off. Expectations were sadly disappointed. For a number of years parliament extended the period available for interested parties to purchase redemption but they never reached the level that had been hoped for. Despite this the changes in the law necessitated a reappaisal of assessments in certain townships, particularly the industrial ones. The cost of purchasing redemption was based on the amount of tax a property was paying and commissioners had to be able to quote realistic values to potential redeemers, who would not buy if they felt they were paying for a greater share than their holding warranted. Striking evidence for this can be seen in the industrial Land Tax ft townships which had been over-collecting. In 1799 Warrington, Prescot and Orrell all gathered the 'correct' amounts of money. In Orrell the employee rate for the mines was halved but there was still room for a considerable reduction in the amounts paid by the landholders in the township, whose contribution fell from £27 6s. zofd. in 1797 to only £20 IDS. 4jd. in 1799. Everyone benefited from the reduced assessments. In Prescot individual assessments had been falling gradually over the years but they fell quite sharply, by an average of about twenty per cent, in 1799. Even less prominent townships were affected. The small township of underwent a similar experience which will be discussed at length later. In the majority of townships, however, the tax continued much as before save for the redemptions which occurred. It has been asserted by several commentators that the 1798 legislation removed a section of landowners from the returns, namely those with property worth less than twenty shillings.28 There is little agreement about its significance only that it did happen. However, the original 1692 Act stated: Provided that no poor person shall be charged with or liable to the pound rate imposed by this Act upon Lands Tenements or Heredita­ ments that are not of the yearly value of Twenty shillings in the whole.27 This was a fairly standard provision in such seventeenth century legislation the Hearth Tax contained a similar condition. It would appear, therefore, that the 1798 clause was not an innova­ tion and should not in itself have had any marked influence upon the operation of the tax. It is hard to find evidence of removals from the land tax in West Derby Hundred. In most townships the total number of assessments was at least maintained and generally increased comparing the 1799 totals with those of 1797. Checking a number of returns for properties of lowest assessment in 1797 revealed that they had not disappeared from the 1799 returns. It has to be said, however, that examining a range of leases and surveys from the area, shows that property valued at less than sos. was virtually non-existent. It is possible that the earlier provision had been overlooked or ignored in some parts of the country but this would have to be demonstrated before any 1798 vanishing act could be assumed. Establishing a pattern for redemptions across the hundred is difficult. In some townships a considerable proportion of the property was eventually freed from the tax while in others there was very little. At Simonswood, Orrell and Haigh there were no redemptions. At the other extreme in Kenyon, Ince Blundell and Childwall redemptions varied from about seventy-five per cent to 72 G. J. Wilson ninety-eight per cent. There were townships at every level in between. Although parliament required townships to include exonerated property on the returns several failed to do so and industrial townships frequently failed to total their assessments. These omissions hamper an overall appraisal, but there does seem to have been a tendency for a higher proportion of redemptions to have taken place in the more rural townships. Of the three categories of people allowed to exonerate, land owners were the most likely to have taken the opportunity since they were given the most favourable terms. That many did not avail themselves was doubtless related to a variety of considera­ tions, including personal circumstances. In some industrial town­ ships the tax was probably at such a low level that it was not worth the trouble of redemption: at the same time the weight of the land tax was probably diminishing on individual properties as the local economy and population expanded. This would have rendered redemption at the 1798 level unwise since the assess­ ment was liable to reduce as the years passed. There is evidence for this as the nineteenth century progressed and some townships began to include the annual value of properties on their returns. At Westleigh in 1830 unexonerated assessments were at the rate of 6|d. in the pound. Values were also given for exonerated sums and for these the rate being applied at the time of exoneration seems to have been significantly higher.

Annual Value Proprietor Occupier Sum £ * d. i a Rev J. Topping ' P.Newton 8. o. 79 John Hods of Knowsley himself 2.13. i. 18 John Walmesley R. Clevent 12. o.

Assuming that the properties themselves had not been revalued then the rate they had been paying at redemption was about 8d. in the pound. Similar examples can be found on other returns. The expectation of a diminishing burden might explain the low level of redemption in some areas. Of course this argument could work both ways. In some town­ ships property assessments might conceivably increase. In 1798, when making the land tax on real estate perpetual, parliament had postponed making an immediate decision on its other aspects and perhaps gave the impression that some change in their opera­ tion was likely;28 an alarming prospect in townships where a high proportion of the total revenue was being raised from them. This was particularly true of Hale which by the end of the eighteenth century was raising £31 of its total assessment of £54 from four Land Tax 73 public salaries which left the landholders with just £23 to provide between them. If such salaries became exempt they would have to bear the full weight of the tax. They apparently lost no time in redeeming their properties while terms were still highly favour­ able. By the time the 1799 return was made all but two assess­ ments had been exonerated the tithe and what was probably a cottage. The combined speed and extent of the Hale redemptions seem to have been unequalled within the hundred. As it happened it was eventually decided to continue with the other aspects of the land tax.29 Technically speaking the returns were being made under two separate acts of parliament during the nineteenth century though this had no practical effect on their administration.

THE OPERATION OF THE LAND TAX AND THE POOR RATE The land tax was only one form of taxation to which property was subject. The poor rate, the county rate, and the hundred rate were some of the others that were collected within townships. Table IV shows the sums gathered during the financial year 1801 for the poor rate.30 Although this rate could fluctuate quite markedly from year to year, it is clear that local taxes were far more significant, by this time, than the land tax in the majority of townships.31 In only a few of the rural townships could the two be compared. The large over-collections which had taken place in some of the highly urban and industrial townships have already hinted at a close connection between the taxation systems. The assumption that the surplus funds were being put towards local needs would indicate that the land tax was raised on very similar lines to local property tax. A significant divergence between the modes of assessment would have inevitably been inequitable to some tax­ payers. It is therefore likely that the land tax returns in such townships were being drawn up on the basis of local rate books. Administrative convenience if nothing else would have been served by such a policy. There is some confirmation for this view from the small town­ ship of Cronton, whose poor rate books have survived for the period 1796 to i8o8.32 The poor rate books were employed there three times a year usually during March, June and September. The June and September entries were identical being based on 'An assessment of is. per £ for the use of the Poor and Constable' while the March collection was based on a 6d. rate i.e. half the other rates. The poor rate sheet for June 1797 provides an interesting 74 G. J. comparison with the land tax return made in July of that year. Both documents list 47 assessments arranged in identical order. The poor rate provides just one set of names corresponding exactly with the proprietor column on the land tax. As the extract below demonstrates there was a simple relationship between the two. Poor Rate Land Tax £ s. d. £ s. d. Richard Willis esq. 4. o. o. a. 13. 4. Do. Pemberton 6. o. 4. o. Hen Stanistreet 2. 6. i. 8. Bryan Riding 2. 18. o. i. 18. 8. Do. 13. o. 8. 8. Miss Bold Corn Tythe 2. o. o. i. 6. 8. Ed Daniels 8. o. 5. 4.

The land tax was being collected at two thirds of the is. valuation on all properties. However at is. in the pound the poor rate yielded a total of £59 6s. and two-thirds of this gathered for the land tax provided £39 IDS. 8d., which was £6 75. 6d. more than was required. Significantly Cronton did not provide a total for its land tax collection. Quite evidently the land tax was operated as an offshoot of the poor rate and a fairly rough and ready one at that. The overseers of the township, Ackers and Hall, were both involved in collecting and assessing the land tax. The 1798 Act had obviously created problems for the assessors. Their response by 1799 was to adjust the poor rate within the township so that it yielded £66 75. at is. in the pound. This pro­ vided an easy relationship to the land tax which could henceforth be collected at half the is. rate. Their adjustment had been a very crude affair. The majority of properties were kept at the same valuation while the bulk of the increased poor rate was taken by two property owners. Richard Wright's property was raised from £5 igs. 6d. in 1797 to £9 los. and Thomas Lyons' increased from £4 145. to £6. The consequence of this was that while most assessments for the 1799 land tax fell significantly theirs did not. Indeed Richard Wright's showed a considerable increase. Richard Willis paid only £2 on the 1799 return while Wright's payment rose from £3 igs. 8d. in 1797 to £4 155. in 1799. One small proprietor, William Parr, was omitted from the land tax return made 25 June 1799, whereas he was included on the poor rate assessment of the 29 June 1799. Presumably this was done to balance the 'books'. The manner in which Cronton arranged its financial affairs was curious indeed. The close connection between the poor rate and the land tax was certainly not confined to the more industrialised townships. Land Tax 75 There was a similar correspondence in at least some rural town­ ships. In 1793 an order was made by quarter sessions: Upon the appeal of the Inhabitants of the Township of Ince Blundell in the said county to the Rate or assessment made for the Relief of the poor within the same township.33 It proceeded to command an 'impartial valuation' of all taxable property of which a return was to be made to the court. Although the petition was concerned solely with the poor rate the re-evaluation that emerged from the survey clearly had its effect on the land tax assessments of property.34 Variations in the amounts per pound valuation which had been charged in 1793 were replaced by an almost uniform assessment of 6|d. in the pound.35 Henry Blundell the demesne holder seems to have fared better than the norm; his rate was nearer 6d. It would seem that both before and after the valuation Ince Blundell's land tax had been based upon its poor rate. There had been a similar sequence of events at Roby in 1790. Without petitioning quarter sessions a group of inhabitants (mainly Lord Derby's tenants) met and agreed that a survey of the township should be made affirming that: we do agree to abide by and be bound for ourselves and each of our heirs and execs, administrators and assigns to a proportion of all leys, taxes and assessments in equal proportion to the said yearly value.36 It is interesting to note that from the start the survey was to be used for a variety of taxation purposes. Again a comparison of the 1690 and iGgi 37 returns for the township shows that the survey had occasioned a major reassessment of the property with­ in Roby. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the land tax was indistinguishable in its methods of rating and assessment from local taxes. In view of the greater sums involved in the latter they were liable to have dominated the assessment procedures within townships. Altogether, it would imply that the operation of the national tax was only as efficient and equitable as purely local circumstances directed. Another implication is that evidence of inequalities in the assessment of the poor rate was likely to apply with equal force to the land tax. The arbitrary readjustments which were made at Cronton do not inspire confidence in the rating procedures being used there. It has already been seen that rating at both Ince Blundell and Roby was sufficiently unsatisfactory to bring about a major re­ assessment. A. F. Davie has demonstrated that these situations were far from uncommon.38 Quarter sessions was receiving fre­ quent complaints about the unfairness of townships' rating 76 G. J. Wilson systems. The complaints were sufficiently serious for the justices to order a major re-rating of the entire county in 1815 and to lay down the procedures which were to be used. They tried to estab­ lish a system that would produce: a full and fair total annual value of the several Estates and taxable property within each parish township or place charged or assessed in the assessment for the duties on property.39 They were to go through a similar procedure in 1828 when, it is evident, they were again dissatisfied with rating systems. It was plainly stated that the poor rate would be the basis of the county rate,40 that is 'a full and fair annual value of the messuages lands and tenements and Heriditaments rateable to the relief of the poor therein'. The justices of course had particular responsibility for the poor and county rate but, as demonstrated, they were likely to have had a significant effect upon land tax assessments. As a result of the re-rating ordered in 1815 the total rateable value of property within each township was made known. These figures provide a useful means of assessing the likely burden of the land tax within each township. Table V41 shows the number of pence per pound of total rateable value that the land tax should have been assessed at within the various townships of the hundred by 1815. It is of course a deduced rate but it provides evidence of the considerable variation in the incidence of the tax by this time. Agricultural townships such as Bickerstaffe 2.id., Childwall 3-5d., Speke 6-3d., Ince Blundell 4.id., Little Crosby 6.3d., Halsall 2.8d., Tarbock 7.id., Altcar 5-6d., 9-4d., and Simonswood i6.8d. show quite marked variations. Simonswood's ratio is quite remarkable and is probably the product of a high Catholic rating combined with very slow development during the eighteenth century.*2 Clearly even within this small section of Lancashire the tax was not equitably levied by the second decade of the nineteenth century. It should not be assumed, however, that the re-rating did in fact introduce a new more rational system of assessment into the townships. By the later 18205 a number of areas were including rental values of the properties being assessed on their returns. In some cases there can be little doubt the 1815 valuations were being applied. Checking six assessments at Aintree provides rates per pound varying between g.2d. and g.8d. which is very close to the 94d. rate which was deduced. The rates being applied at Rainford, Downholland and Ormskirk were also very close to the Table V values. However other townships were evidently using a different rating system. At Lathom Landside and Lathom West- Land Tax 77 headside, both owned largely by Lord Scarisbrick, a rate of 9-5d. of the quoted values seems to have been generally applied. This was much higher than the 2.sd. which has been deduced. At Scarisbrick itself, where a rate of 3-45d. was deduced, 9-5d. again seems to have been the general rule. Many other townships show wide divergencies they were apparently using valuation systems of their own. Where townships quote annual rentals for property the assess­ ments made are generally rational, being very close to each other in terms of the pence per pound being charged. This is not always so however. At Abram the assessors apparently disregarded the rental values of the properties being assessed. The land tax return for 1828 contains the following entries.

Rentals Proprietor Occupier Assessment £ s. d. 70 Rev. Chamberlyn Rich Taylor 2 o. i£ (6.8) 30 John Lord John Hill 7. loj (3.1) 35 Thorn. Moorfield Ralph Hill 14. a| (4.8) go Thorn. Tickle Peter Gerrard I. i. 3 (8.5) 26 Charles Walmesley Rich Abbott 19. 11 (9.1)

The rates per pound of rental value are indicated in brackets. The disparity is much too wide to be explained by poor arithmetic. Examining the Abram returns between 1813 and 1828 gives the impression that land tax assessments within the township had frozen assuming the nature of a fixed tax upon property. Similar impressions can be gained from other townships by this time, for example Knowsley, though the inevitable changes of personalities over a long period makes conclusions uncertain. By contrast, a comparison of the Aintree returns around 1815 indi­ cates that it was still altering the property valuations and its land tax assessments. All in all the early nineteenth century reform that attempted to rationalise the poor and county rate assessment systems had only a limited influence on the land tax assessments and was so variable as to make generalisation impossible. Perhaps the land tax returns reflect the overall response of townships to the 1815 local government reforms. The magistrates did not agree with quite a number of the valuation totals which they received and they consequently increased them.43 It is pos­ sible that townships paid the county rate sum according to the prescribed total valuation but retained their own internal system. Alternatively some townships may have been treating the land tax differently by this time. Fixing it upon properties could have been a response to the problem of exonerations and changing 78 G. J. Wilson valuations. Definite conclusions cannot be drawn but the lack of uniformity in the systems of assessment being used in the 18203 is very clear.

THE RELIABILITY OF THE LAND TAX RETURNS IN WEST DERBY HUNDRED In view of the wide differences between townships in the rate per pound at which the land tax was being assessed by 1815, any attempt to compare the size or value of properties from several areas on the basis of their land tax contributions would be unwise. It seems unlikely that all of the variations had arisen in the immediate past and so the kind of statistical exercise which has been carried out for some counties would have little value in this part of Lancashire." Indeed the problems concerning the internal rating system, might indicate that the land tax returns are not a very accurate guide to property ownership even within a township. Detailed comparison of land tax returns with township and estate surveys tends to confirm this view. The survey ordered by the magistrates at Ince Blundell in 1793 has already been mentioned. It allows comparisons to be made either side of the re-rating.45 It is clear from Table VI46 that assessments were based on the value of property which was not always closely connected with its size. By 1795 the return was a very accurate guide to land values and indeed had been reason­ ably accurate in 1793. The six largest property owners in the township showed marked variation in the assessment per acre in 1793 which reflected the variation in land values. Payment varied from an average of I3d. an acre to 23d. The effect of the survey was to narrow the average difference between the amounts being paid per acre but variations were still quite marked. While a rank order of land tax assessments would correspond closely with a rank order of holdings by acreage, deductions made about the actual size of the holding, based on the land tax assessments alone, could be misleading. This applies to a much greater degree in Roby which was also the subject of a survey in 1790. Values were not quoted on the survey but the impression is gained that the quality of land varied considerably.47 In contrast to Ince Blundell the effect of a survey was to widen the differences between the average amounts being paid per acre. The five largest properties were assessed at between 2id. and 2gd. per acre in 1790 but by 1791 they ranged from i7d. to 36^d. Rank orders of land tax assessments in 1791 would be wildly misleading about both the comparative and absolute Land Tax 79 size of properties. It can be seen that the 1790 return includes a much larger contribution from the constable than the 1791. Here too, township finances were evidently dealt with as a whole, shortfalls in one area being topped up by general funds. It seems likely that the rating system in use for the poor rate did not bear a simple relationship to the land tax and so this adjustment was necessary. It could be argued that these townships were fairly exceptional since they did re-order their assessments. At Knowsley, another agricultural township, a survey and valuation of the Derby properties was made in 1789, for estate purposes. The earl did not seem to own all of the township though his holdings were very considerable. The survey did not include his demesne lands which further limits its use but nevertheless it can be seen48 that varia­ tions in both the value ratios and acreage ratios were greater than at Ince Blundell in 1793, yet they did not occasion a re-rating. Clearly close consistency even within agricultural townships can never be assumed.'19 Even the application of the criteria, advocated by J. M. Martin, for calculating an acceptable correlation between land tax assess­ ment and acreage would indicate that the tax was not a reliable guide within these townships. At Ince Blundell in 1793 thirteen of the twenty-four detailed properties were outside the margin of 20 per cent error. This included three of the six estates over one hundred acres. By 1795 reassessment had reduced the total of unacceptable 'outsiders' to eight, but by then four of the six hundred acre properties were over the 20 per cent error margin. At Roby the 1790 return contained only five outside the 20 per cent rate, but reassessment had increased this to eleven in 1791, which included three of the largest estates. At Knowsley in 1790 no fewer than twenty-two out of thirty-two detailed properties were over the 20 per cent limit. Considering the total of seventy- six assessments, an unacceptable degree of error could be said to exist in from thirty-five to forty-six of them at varying times. Of course, the 20 per cent margin operates either side of a notional figure and might thus be considered an extremely generous statistical measure. It means when the Roby return of 1791 includes two properties of almost identical size, occupied by Thomas Brownbill and Nehemiah Hornby, and taxes them at £ i 143. 6d. and £2 55. respectively, that it is operating within the 20 per cent margin in both cases. Townships, when they were attempting to operate a rational system, were clearly looking to the value of property. It is likely that the internal political situation affected their response, or lack of response, to local taxation arrangements. 8o G. J. Wilson Knowsley was dominated by one extremely powerful landlord, the earl of Derby, whose stewards probably controlled the town­ ship's affairs closely. On the other hand Ince Blundell was divided between at least two influential figures, Henry Blundell and the earl of Sefton. Similarly Roby was divided between the earl of Derby's holdings and a group of freeholders of long standing. Mrs Williamson was one of the latter and she did not do well out of the re-rating while some Derby tenants prospered. The surveys provide an indication of another problem concern­ ing the returns. They are not necessarily an accurate reflection of the people holding an interest in property within a township. It is frequently difficult to match surveys and land tax returns which were made very close to each other. A Miss Tatlock holding four and half acres, and a Mr Travis owning eight and half acres on the Roby survey made in 1790, are absent from both the 1790 and 1791 land tax returns which were made either side of it.50 In Netherton a partial survey of the Sefton Estates61 made in 1800 reveals that several properties were apparently not mentioned on the returns. At least five life leaseholders: James Hallwood with two properties of total yearly value £65 45. yd.; Thomas Shaw with one property £2 IDS. yearly value; Samuel Warren with one property yearly value £6; James Travers with one property yearly value £ 16; John Glover with two small properties yearly value £3 155.; were all missing from the 1799, 1800, and 1801 returns. These discrepancies were possibly caused by complications in the leasing of property. One lease for Altcar involved four parties.52 A life lease held by William Cross from the earl of Sefton had been sold for his life to Messrs Fryer and Fleetwood who in turn leased it to William Brown and Richard Brown for the term of the original lease. On the Altcar return for 1800 William Brown was returned as proprietor. Neither surveys nor land tax returns reflect such a degree of complexity which did occur in property holding. Furthermore the returns sometimes gather properties together for the purpose of assessment which might have suited administrative convenience but disguises the actual land holding situation. Again the phrase 'himself and others' occurs quite frequently and is impossible to interpret.63 In some cases it seems fairly clear that properties were being simply omitted. The Ince Blundell survey indicates that at least seven dwellings, some with gardens and land varying in value from £i 55. to £4 annually were not on the 1793 return. In addition four rack rented holdings and one leasehold tenure were not specifically mentioned. That these omissions were a com­ pound of error and deliberate policy seems to be substantiated by the 1795 return for the township. By this time two of the large Land Tax 81 rack rented holdings in the hands of Francis Morley and James Goore were being entered, as was the leasehold of William South. Three of the higher value dwellings held by Richard Hewett, James Tyrer and Edmund Cockshoot had also been added but Margery Blundell's cottage £1 55., Sarah Hunter's £i, John Almond's £4 and Richard Pye's £i were still missing. It is un­ likely that all of these people had died or moved out by 1795 and so some must have been deliberately omitted. Similarly at Knowsley at least two small properties, probably cottages and gardens, do not appear on the returns though they were valued at £2 and £3. They were held by George Green and Henry Tyndsly respectively on leases for several lives. All in all omission of at least some of the cottagers does not seem unusual even though the properties were worth more than 2os. annually. Per­ haps this was connected with the operation of the poor rate. Problems of interpreting the returns within agricultural town­ ships clearly abound. Even for the purposes for which the returns were copied between 1780 and 1831 they can only have been of limited use. The legislation of i78o54 had specified the format in which the returns were to be laid out. Three columns, one for the proprietor, one for the occupier and one for the sum assessed were to be used, though for a time during the 17803 a small number of townships simply returned one list of names. However, the term proprietor was not very precise. The Knowsley survey of 1789 included details of the way in which land was held. A comparison with the land tax returns shows that life tenants were classified as pro­ prietors while those with other tenures either for years or at rack were classified as occupiers. This was the common practice across the hundred and probably throughout the country.55 It makes conclusions about the 'ownership' of land and any status that went with it problematic.56 Proprietors on the returns cannot be considered as a homogeneous group since they included free­ holders, copyholders and life leaseholders.57 As the eighteenth century drew to its close the granting of life tenancies began to diminish and they were generally replaced by terms of years. The effect of this on the land tax returns of certain areas was to replace large numbers of varied proprietors by one or two predominant land owners. Thus on the 1781 return for Roby there is no mention of the earl of Derby but by 1830 his number of proprietorships had risen to eighteen. At Knowsley in 1781 the earl held only eleven of eighty-nine assessed properties which by 1791 had increased to twenty-two, and was to reach sixty-four out of one hundred and three assessments by 1830. In these areas the advance of the great land owners which the returns seemed to 82 G. J. Wilson witness was not so much a matter of land purchase but rather the change from one type of lease to another. Of course individuals frequently held lands as both proprietor and occupier within the same township,58 or held land in different ways in several town­ ships. Imputing any markedly different social or economic stand­ ing to landholders on the grounds of their classification on the land tax returns can therefore be misleading. At a time when life leases were not being renewed their significance in relation to leases of years is hard to assess anyway. Altogether it seems possible that too much can be read into the land tax returns. They present a simplified view of landholding within an area and were not framed to reflect the complexities which often occurred. This criticism is not confined to the returns. Surveys, whether of estates or townships, were designed for parti­ cular purposes and in providing certain types of information they omit others which might be necessary to gain an overall view of landholding within a region.69 Nevertheless the availability of the land tax records and their apparently comprehensive nature have made them an attractive source for researchers who, sometimes, do not seem to have been fully aware of the complications that surround them. The question of Catholic ratings, the possible ramifications of the 1798 legis­ lation, and their relationship to local taxes have been given little detailed attention. Because the land tax was a national system of taxation perhaps there has been a tendency to assume that it operated in the same fashion across wide areas and could be used as a short cut to answer questions about landholding patterns in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. However, the various aspects of the land tax which have been examined in West Derby Hundred all seem to indicate that the forces affecting its operation were almost entirely local. In fixing the tax upon areas Parliament had virtually abandoned the problems of assessment and collection, leaving it to the localities to determine their own systems. In this region it meant that the land tax was absorbed into parochial fiscal arrangements whose nature was frequently so idiosyncratic as to preclude modern assumptions about rational assessment. It is unlikely that this process was confined to West Derby Hundred.60 While the returns provide an interesting picture of the variety of factors which could influence a tax they present too many problems to be used as a very worthwhile source in themselves. Land Tax 83

NOTES

1 Some of the major studies are: E. Davies: 'The Small Landowner, 1780-1832, in the light of the Land Tax Assessments', Ec.H.R. i (1927), 87-1 13. G. E. Mingay: 'The Land Tax Assessments and the Small Landowner' Ec.H.R. Second Series, 17 (1964-5), 381-8. J. M. Martin: 'Land Ownership and the Land Tax Returns' Agric. Hist. Rev. 14 (1966), 96-103. For the North-West: C. S. Davies: The Agricultural History of Cheshire 1750-1850, Chet- ham Society, Vol. X, Third Series (1960); contains numerous refer­ ences to the returns. 2 4 William and Mary, C.I (1692). 3 This is the view expressed by W. Kennedy, English Taxation 1 640-7799 (1913), p. 43. 4 20 George III C.I7 (1780). 5 Aughton, Bickerstaffe, Lathom Landside and Westheadside, Scarisbrick, West Leigh, , Burscough, Ince Blundell and Great Crosby. 6 for example where the Lancaster family still had an estate. 7 See Table VI in the Appendix. 8 W. R. Ward, The English Land Tax in the Eighteenth Century (Oxford, 1953), p. 130. 9 G. E. Mingay, op. cit. p. 385. It is however only one of several examples deployed. 10 The registration of Papists estates required by the Act of i George i.C-55 (1715) constitutes the best single guide to Catholic land hold­ ings. Leases for several lives being common at that time means that returns made in 1717 are probably a reasonable approximation of the situation in the 16905, particularly since there were no conversions of major demesne holders in the intervening period. For the returns see R. Sharpe-France, ed., The Registers of Estates of Lancashire Papists, I 7I 7~I 788, I, II, III. Rec. Soc. Lanes. Ches. 98 (1945), 108 (1960), 11 J. Langton, 'Coal Output in South -, 1590-1799', Ec.H.R. Second Series, 25 (1972), 28-54. This article suggests the existence of twenty collieries in total p. 40. However several townships would have contained more than one colliery. 12 Cottage industry seems to have been developing rapidly in some parts of the hundred by the late i6gos but to judge from a very large number of Probate Inventories that have been examined the value of any 'industrial' stock and equipment was generally much less than that of agricultural items. It is by no means certain that a serious attempt was ever made to tax anything but real estate. 13 Acreage figures are taken from W. Farrer, ed., Victoria County , II (1907). 14 E. Davies, op. cit. p. 88. 15 T. W. Fletcher, 'The Agrarian Revolution in Arable Lancashire', Trans. Lanes. Ches. Antiq. Soc. 72 (1962), pp. 95-7. 16 Population figures, Victoria County History, II (1907). 17 The instances cited are unlikely to have been created by Catholic double rating. Childwall, Speke, Roby and Tarbock all appear to have contained significantly fewer Catholic landholders than the other four 84 G. J. Wilson townships. See Sharpe-France, Lanes. Ches. Rec. Soc. 98, 108 and 117, op. cit. 18 Of course this assumes some very rough correlation between the popu­ lation of a township in 1692 and its land tax contribution. In view of the basis of the tax such a link seems reasonable. 19 John Holt, A General View of the Agriculture of the County of Lancaster produced for the Board of Agriculture 1795. (David and Charles Reprints 1969), pp. 99-102. 20 John Holt, op. cit. p. 8. Talking of the lands between the Kibble and Mersey 'there are many large tracts which come under the denomina­ tion of mosses and some stiff, but not obdurate clay lands'. Later he notes that marsh was being improved. 21 See Table V in the Appendix. 22 E. Davies, op. cit. p. 88. 'By 1733 with the exception of a few isolated and easily detected taxes on offices, it had become a pure land tax'. Also P. Mathias, The First Industrial Nation (1974). 'Ricardo thought that landowners deserved a small fixed duty on corn to compensate them for the burden of the land tax', p. 292. 23 T. C. Barker and J. R. Harris, St. Helens: A Town in the Industrial Revolution, 1750-7900 (1954), p. 115. 'In 1784. . .the great works lay idle, apart from the blowing of small plate and casting had still not been resumed a year later'. 24 Table IV in the Appendix. 25 38 George III C.6o (1798). 26 Mingay, op. cit. made this point. J. M. Martin, op. cit. p. 97, com­ mented, 'The difficulty of dealing with small cottagers who suddenly made their appearance after an enclosure and just as abruptly dis­ appeared following the legislation of 1798 is well known and com­ monly taken into account by students'. However doubt about the effectiveness of this Act has been expressed. M. E. Turner, 'Parlia­ mentary Enclosures and Land Ownership Changes in Buckinghamshire', Ec.H.R. Second Series, 28 (1975), p. 570. 27 4 William and Mary C.i. XLIII (1692). 28 38 George III C.6o. Referring to public salaries etc. the act said 'After 25th March 1799 be ascertained raised levied collected and paid according to the direction of any Act or Acts to be passed for that purpose'. 29 39 and 40 George III, C.i ii. 30 These figures are taken from CTV/3/ii, CTV/3/I2 and CTV/3/I3 Lancashire Record Office. 31 In most townships these figures are significantly higher than the sums spent directly on the poor. The rate was being used for several pur­ poses as the townships are at pains to point out. See Reference above. 32 L.R.O. P.R.620 Cronton Poor Rate Books 1796-1808. 33 L.R.O. Quarter Sessions Order Book, Q.S.0.72/153, 1793. 34 L.R.O. DDIN 63/80. 35 See Table VI in the Appendix. 36 This extract is taken from a note pinned to a survey of Roby township. L.R.O. DDK 1541-5. In fact valuations were not included in the survey. 37 These and all other references to the land tax returns are to be found under QDL WD followed by the year concerned. L.R.O. 38 A. F. Davie, The Government of Lancashire 1798-1838. Unpublished M.A. thesis 1966. University of Manchester. Land Tax 85 39 Extracts taken from The Court of Annual General Session Minutes 1798-1890 QSG/i/i and 2. 40 'Up to 1844 the churchwardens and overseers were required to pay the county rate out of the poor rate for their parishes'. A. F. Davie, 'The administration of Lancashire 1838-1884', in Victorian Lancashire, ed. S. P. Bell (1974), p. 22. 41 This table is based on the figures from L.R.O. County Rate Assessment BooksQAF/5/i. 42 Simonswood had been held by the Catholic Molyneuxs in the 16903. It was still being cleared and developed in 1907. 'A large patch of moss still exists to the east of the township. . . peat is dug, dried and stacked ready for fuel, the grounds thus cleared being converted into valuable arable fields'. Victoria County History, III (1907), p. 56. Problems with the appointment of township officials are also mentioned perhaps the 1692 assessment was made by an outsider. 43 L.R.O. QSG i/i. The minute books contain a reference to the un­ satisfactory nature of many valuations returned from the townships and the intention to increase them. October 1815. 44 E. Davies, op. cit. 45 L.R.O. DDIN/63/8o. The 1794 return was missing so QDL WD 1795 Ince Blundell has been used. 46 This is not the complete township for which there are over ninety entries on the 1793 L.T. return. It includes all the major assessments and a selection of the less important. Acres are the local customary acres quoted on the survey (Cheshire acre = 2.1 approx. of a statute acre). 47 Table VII in the Appendix. Complete township based on the 1791 return which shows a few changes in personalities from 1790. Acres are Cheshire acres. 48 Table VIII in the Appendix. This is only a part of the land tax return for 1790. The demesne property was not included on the survey. There were 92 assessments and the phrase 'and others' is used frequently which renders interpretation of some entries too uncertain to include. Again Cheshire acres are used. 49 Defining an agricultural township creates problems. West Derby Hundred could certainly not be termed agricultural but individual townships within the area show typical agricultural demographic trends throughout the nineteenth century while many others were still free from industry and urban development well into the early part of that century. The surveys of the Ince Blundell and Roby provide detailed descriptions of the properties and the only applicable general description arising from them would be 'agricultural'. Perhaps density of population could be considered as a rough guide. Two parishes which J. M. Martin, op. cit. p. 102, clearly considers agricultural were Cubbington and Harbury in Warwickshire. For the first two decades of the nineteenth century they show the following density figures expressed in acres per inhabitant. Knowsley, Roby and Ince Blundell are included for purposes of comparison. 1801 1811 1821 Cubbington 4.8 3.88 3.48 Harbury 3.96 3.75 3.25 Knowsley 6.84 5.54 4.3 Ince Blundell 5.53 5.6 4.9 Roby 4.8 4.3 3.5 86 G. J. Wilson It can be seen that those three were less densely populated than their Warwickshire counterparts during this period though they were by no means exceptionally sparse for West Derby Hundred. Altcar and Simonswood could boast 15.5 and 9.5 acres per person in 1801. 50 A process of elimination makes it possible to identify the properties for the purpose of Table VII. 51 L.R.O. DDM/I4/I4 and 15. 52 L.R.O. DDBL/i/i and 2. 53 See note 48. 54 See note 4. 55 E. Davies, op. cit. pp. 89-90. 56 This hasn't always been fully appreciated. C. S. Davies, op. cit. pp. 23-4, 'having regard to what has been found at... has prompted the suspicion that leases for lives have been included in the number of "proprietors" '. 57 Of course only freeholders could vote so the proprietor column could not in itself establish a right to the franchise. 58 The 1791 L.T. return Roby. Ibid. Roger Riding, Elizabeth Tarleton and Nehemiah Hornby. 59 The Ince Blundell survey gives detailed descriptions of the holdings concerned but only distinguishes properties at rack. The Knowsley Survey 1789 does not describe properties but provides considerable information about the lease. 60 W. R. Ward, op. cit. pp. 142-3. Land Tax

APPENDIX

TABLE I TABLE II TABLE III TABLE IV TABLE V £ * d. £ Altcar 91. 5. 6. 46-0 80 -sd 267 5-6d Aughton 136. 4. n. 33'5 33'5d 256 3- 7d Allerton 44. 14. o. 35'5 60 -od 147 2-6d Childwall 37- 18- 3- 22'5 58-od 47 3'5d Garston 96.17. 9. 17-0 5O'5d 212 4-id Hale 54- 2. o. 30-5 24-od n.a. 5-id 115.17. 2. 33'5 35'5d n.a. 4-2d Speke 125. o. o. 2O-O 8o-od 132 6-5d 48. 12. O. 38-0 I3'5d 158 i-od Little 70. o. o. 20-0 40-od 239 4-id Much Woolton 33.14. o. 29-O i8-od 1 88 2-od Croxteth Park 48. o. o. 2O-O ?82-5d 22 n.a. Downholland 61.18. 8. 55-o 3i-od IOO 3-id Halsall 99- 2. 4. 70-5 3 I-5d 186 2-8d Lydiate 81. 2. 4. 24-5 s6'5d 40 5'2d 54- 7- 6. 38-5 24-od 195 3'4d Melling 80. 1 6. o. 26-5 48-od 224 4-8d 115. 16. 2. 15-0 45'5d 1 4-7d 188 Roby 57.18. i. 19-0 54'5d J 4-3d Knowsley 145- 13- 5- 35-0 47-od 129 4-od Tarbock 145. i. o. 17-0 84-od 336 7-id Astley 82. 16. o. 32-5 i3-od 733 4-8d Atherton 70. i. o. 29-5 5-od 566 2'2d Bedford 82. 16. o. 34-0 io-od 443 3'2d Pennington 79- 5- ii- 19-0 lo-sd 669 3'4d 57.11. 8. 43-0 4'5d 732 2-od West Leigh 66. o. 6. 21-0 15'od 561 2-8d Meols N. "1 112.14. 3. 116-5 ii-od 594 3 -3d Birkdale J BickerstafTe 61. 8. o. 106-0 i8-od 169 2-id Burscough 82. 18. 10. 60-0 i7-od 247 2-id Lathom 132. i. o. 66-0 i7-od 578 2-2d Ormskirk 97. 18. o. 6-0 g-od 2914 3-od Scarisbrick 172. 4. 4. 49-0 36-od 3'4d 46. 12. O. 4i'5 26-5d 159 4-id Bold 65- 13- 7- 68-5 22-od 443 2-id Cronton 33- 3- 2. 34'5 25'5d 217 3*4d Cuerdley 31. o. o. 50-5 2Q* ^d 1 80 2'3d Ditton 56- 5- 2. 34-0 QQ- CQ 164 3-id Eccleston 76. o. o. 47-0 I3'od 397 i-8d Parr 49. 16. 2. 32-5 io-od 267 i-8d Penketh 23. 6. 10. 43'5 i7-5d 258 2-7d Prescot 47- 5- i- 6-0 3-od 1698 i-6d Rainford 43. 18. o. 136-5 8-5d 410 i-5d Rainhill 39- 5- io- 42-0 23-od 265 2-od Sankey Great 43-19- 9- 44-0 24-od 165 2-8d 88 G. J. Wilson TABLE I TABLE II TABLE III TABLE IV TABLE V

Sutton 137. 9. 10. 27-0 i8. 5d 1274 2-6d Whiston 60. 9. o. 30-0 23-od 620 2 ^d 70. 14. 9. 44-0 i6-od 360 3'4d Windle 62. 16. 9. 50-0 4'5d 1015 i-2d Aintree 48. 12. O. 17-5 49-od 35 g-4d Great Crosby 49. 1 8. 4. 50-0 28-od 100 3-6d Little Crosby 63. 10. o. 30-0 48-od 137 6-3d Ince Blundell 75.18. 8. 30-5 43'5d 1 86 4-id 32. i. 8. 40-0 i4-od 1 60 3'4d 18. 10. o. 26-0 68-od 25 6-od Netherton 52. 4. i. 21-5 70 -od 50 7-od Orrel & Ford 47. 8. 8. 27-0 8i-5d "34 8-8d Sefton 80. 9. 2. 15-5 8o-5d 75 9-6d Thornton 32. 3. 6. 24-0 22'5d n.a. 4-2d Bootle 34. i. o. 46-5 7>2d 149 i-gd Fazakerley 49- 4- o. 35'0 2g-od 1 20 2-8d 77- 5- 8. 97-0 i7-5d 272 4-3d 99- 13- °- 42-0 20-od 221 4-id Simonswood 108. 2. 8. 24-0 63-od 23 i6-8d Walton 102. 8. 6. 19-0 i7-5d 161 2-4d 93- 7- 3- 45-o 23'5d 387 T^d Poulton 34- 4- 4- 39-o ii-Sd 233 2-5dj Rixton 67. i. i. 45-o i8-od 549 s-gd Warrington 296. 15. o. 10-0 4'3d 2345 2-4d Woolston 39- 8. 11. 40-0 i6- 5d 211 3'3d Abram 50. 12. 10. 39-o 25'5d 258 3'6d Billinge Ch. End 31.12. 5. 37-0 "I1 209 3 -6d Billinge High i3'5d End 31. 12. 5. 50.0 J 239 3'2d Dalton 42. 14. 8. 49-o 2g-od 233 2-gd Haigh 47. 12. o. 45'0 14-od 528 3-id Hindley 85. 6. 2. 3°'5 8-5d 618 3-4d Ince 57- i3- 9- 40-0 i4-od 1055 3-od Orrel 47. 8. 8. 34-0 6-od 628 i-od Pemberton 116. 3. 2. 25-0 i2-od 1126 3- 7d Upholland 56. 19. 6. 55-o 6-od 530 i-4d Winstanley 31. 4.11. 60-0 ii-5d 354 2-od Ashton 219. 17. 4. 28-5 i4-od 1417 3 -2d Culceth 15'- 7- Si- 35-5 ig-sd 59i 4-8d Golborne 43- 7- o. 39-o i i-od 424 2-8d Haydock 43- 9- o. 55-5 i4-od 272 i-gd Houghton 23. 12. IO. 36-0 ig-od 134 3-6d Kenyon 29. 8. 9. 57-o i8-od Si? 3-od Lowton 41. 7. 2. 44-0 7-od 705 2 -ad Newton in. 4. o. 28-0 i8-od 432 4-3d Southworth 48.19. 4. 38'5 I2'Od 1 60 3'3d Win wick 78. o. 8. 18-5 32'5d 206 4'3d Everton 26. 19. o. 26-0 7-od ii9 o-6d Kirkdale 35- 1 8. o. 25-5 23-od 169 i-6d (, Liverpool, and some townships in the vicinity of Liverpool have not been included). TABLE vi Ince Blundell, Extracts from Land Tax Assessments 1793 and 1795 Proprietor Occupier Size Value I793L.T. A/L.T. d/£ I795L.T. A/L.T. dl£ A. R. P. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ j. d. Henry Blundell himself 223. 3. o. 759. 10. 10. 21. 14. 64 23-0 6-8 18. 19- 9i- 20-5 6-0 Henry Blundell James Kaye 88. 0. 0. 2OO. O. O. 4- 19- ii- I3-5 5'9 5- 7. 10. '4-5 6-4 Henry Blundell Richard Parker i. 2.15. 4- 9- 3- 0. 2. 8. 20-0 7-1 o. 2. 4J. 18-5 6-4 Richard Tristram himself & others 49- 2. 22. 150. 12. 4f. 3. 6. o. 16-0 5'2 4- i. ii. 20-0 6-4 Henry Blundell Tho. Banister 1 8. I. 4. 43- 17- Joi- I. O. IOJ. 12-5 i. 3- 8i. 16-0 6-5 James Shepherd James Shepherd 12. 3-33- 31. 17. 2j. o. 17. 4. 16-0 6-5 0. 16. iof. 15-5 6-3 Richard Goole John Atherton 1 6. 3- '9- 48. 5. loj. I. 0. 0. 14-0 4'9 i. 6. o. 17-5 6-0 James Marly himself I. IO. I. 3. 14. o. o. 7. 6-0 o. o. 7i- 6-4 Mrs Aspinall Thomas Cross 2. 2.14. o. 3- 3- 15-0 8-3 0. 2. 6i. I2-O 6-5 W. Robinson John Atherton I. 2. 0. 4. 4. o. O. 2. 5. I9-5 6-9 0. 2. 3i- 18-5 6-5 Joseph Gilbertson himself I. 3- 3- 4. 1 6. 6. 0. 2. 6. 17-0 6-2 o. 2. 7i- 18-0 6-5 John Blanchard himself & others 49- o. 25. 131. 12. 114. 3- 17- 3- 18-5 7-0 3- IO. II. 17-5 6-4 James Norris Eliz. Jump i. 3- 22. 7- 3- 2i- o. 6. 6. 42-0 10-8 0. 3- i°i- 25-0 6-4 Mary Darwin herself & others 18. o. 18. 40. 2. 4. o. 1 8. o. I2-O 5'3 i. i. 7. I4-5 6-4 John Gilbertson himself & others IO. 3- 7- 32. 8. 2. o. 16. 8. 18-5 6-1 o. 17- 5i- 19-5 6-4 Mr Brettargh himself 48. O. I. 150. 12. I. 3. 16. 10. I9-5 6-1 4- i. ii. 20-0 6-4 Mr Tho. Cross himself 2. 2.30. 4- 19- Si- o. 3. 10. 17-0 9-2 o. 2. 84. I2-O 6-5 Robert Lovelady himself 12. O. IO. Si. 5. nj. o. 19. o. ig-5 7-6 o. 16. loj. 16-5 6-4 Henry Blundell Robert Lovelady 5- 0-35- 13.11. 3. O. 2. O4- 47-0 1-8 o. 7- 3i- 17-0 6-4 Jas. Watkinson himself 2. 3. 12. 7. 6. 104. o. 6. o. 25-5 9-8 o. 3- "i- 17-0 6-4 6-4 Rev Cross Ed. Ally 2. 3-3'- 7- 5- 3i- o. 4. o. 16-5 6-6 o. 3.11. 16-0 Th. Seel esq. Eliz. 115- 0. 22. 220. 7. 4. 6. 5. 8. 13-0 6-8 5- 1 8. 8. 12-5 6-4 Anthony Holme James Rimmer 8. 2. 4. 19- 3- Si- o. 7. 8. I I'D 4-8 o. 10. 4. '4'5 6-4 John Shepherd Robert Lovelady 13- 3- 2. 36, ii. 9. i. 4. 4. 22-O 7'9 o. 19. 84. 17-0 6-5 Thorn. Hayes Jas. Gilbertson o. 29. ii. 7. lof. o. 6. o. I4-O 6-3 o. 6. if. 14-0 6-4 A/L.T. = Number of pence (d) per acre. d/£ = Number of pence (d) per £ valuation. TABLE vii Roby Land Tax 1790 and Proprietor Occupier Size L.T. 1790 A! L.T. L.T. ,79i A/L.T. A. R. P. £ s. d. d. £ s. d. d. Earl of Derby Thorn. Folding 92- 2.38. 8. 2. 8. 2I-O 6. II. 3- 17-0 Earl of Derby Thorn. Brownbill 17- 1.27 i. 18. 8. 26-5 i. 14. 6. Earl of Derby Jos. Webster 20. i- 5 2. 13- 4- SI'5 2. 9- 6. 29-0 Earl of Derby Eliz. Tarleton 15- 2.30 2. o. o. 2. I. 3- 3^5 Earl of Sefton John Rigby Tithe 3- 6. 8. 3- 7- 6. Mrs Williamson Herself 46. o. 4 5- IO. 8. 29-O 7- o. 36-5 Mrs Stanley Roger Riding 70. 1.14. 6. I. 4. 2O'5 5- 7- 3- 18-5 Mrs Robinson John Tunstall 59- o-37 5- 14. 8. 23-0 5- 14. 8. 23-0 Mrs Waring Thorn. Booth 18. i- 5 i. 14. 4. 22-5 2. 5- 0. 29-5 Mr R. Hill Henry Horobin 36. 3. 16 3- 1 8. 8. 25-5 4- '3- o. 30-5 Mr W. Ainsworth R. Cartwright 8. 3- 1 7 i. i. 4- 29-0 i. IO. 9- 42-0 Mr Th. Jameson Himself 8. 2. 13 i. i. 4- 29-5 i. 4- 9- 34'5 Mr W. Stanistreet Nehemiah Hornby 17- 2. 2 i. 12. 8. 22'5 2. 5- 0. 31-0 Nehemiah Hornby Himself 20. 3-37 2. 8. 8. 28-0 2. 7- 3- 27-5 Roger Riding Will. Smith 14. 2.30 2. 6. 8. 38-0 2. 8. 9- 40-0 Wm. Marsh Himself 2. 2.14 O. 14. 8. 67-0 O. n. 3- 52-0 Eliz. Tarleton Herself 7- I. 21 O. 17- 4- 28-5 I. 2. 6. 37-0 Wm. Meeke Himself 8. a. 7 O. 17- 4. 24-5 I. 4- 9- 35-0 R. Bordoaks ; ! Ann Pearson Public House O. 8. o. O. 6. o. Tho. Seel esq James Wharton o. i-33 O. 4- o. O. 4- 6. Nehem. Bolton John Bramhall i. 3.11 0. 9- 4- 62-0 O. 9- o. 60-0 Wm. Marsh Will. Gore o. o. 24 O. 3- o. O. 3- o. Jam. Moulsdale Himself 4. 2. I O. 9- 4- 25-0 O. 12. o. 32-0 Will. Naylor Thorn. Bushel 0. 0. 10 0. 2. 8. O. 3- 0. Thorn. Woods Himself 13- o. 24 I. 12. o. 29-5 I. IO. o. 27-5 Paid by Constable 2. 7- 5- O. 9- I. Cheshire Acres Used. (a- 1 of a statute acre apprffl?.) A/L. T. = Number of pence (d) per acre. Land Tax TABLE vin Extracts from Knowsley Land Tax i"jgo Proprietor Occupier Land Tax Acreage A\L. T. Value