ate of its value. If the
importers did not care to sell at the price, they had to haggle with the
town respecting the sum to be paid for leave to sell in the open market;
and any merchant or trader who treated with them on his own account was
liable to heavy penalties.[13]

We have previously given a sample of original methods of administering
justice at Liverpool, and much might be written of its curious penal
code, which embraced such offences as eavesdropping. Hence the protest
embodied in the following presentment of the Grand Jury on March 31,
1651, may well express the inner thought of many preceding generations
of culprits:

"Item, wee p'sent William Mee for saying and cursing in the court,
pointing His finger towards Mr. Mayor and the Jurie, 'If such men as
those can give anie judgment, the Divell goe with you and all the acts
you have done.' Amerced in five pounds."

We need not recur to the topic of trained bands, and will only remark
that in this and other respects Liverpool obtained a degree of
self-sufficiency and independence surpassing anything known at the
present time, and, apparently, far beyond the common standard even of
mediaeval towns. It might therefore have stood forth as an object not so
much of envy as of imitation. In point of fact, Liverpool--owing, no
doubt, to its comparatively late rise and geographical situation--was
not one of those towns whose customs were widely copied. In Wales the
custom of Hereford held the field, and in the south-west the custom of
Winchester, which, through transmission to Newcastle, prevailed also in
Northumberland and Scotland. The customs of York and the Cinque Ports
attracted smaller groups, while the custom of London was not only mother
of the custom of Oxford, but grandmother of the custom of Bedford, since
the citizens of Oxford were called in by the last-named town to
adjudicate on obscure points, and they themselves repaired to London, as
the fountain-head, in the event of any internal dispute. The court of
appeal, when mother and daughter towns were at variance on the subject
of privileges, was the King and Council.

In England the powers of the mother-town were purely advisory, whereas
on the Continent some towns appear to have exercised coercive
jurisdiction over those whose laws were derived from them. Perhaps this
circumstance, that the process was one of adoption rather than
subjection, was the chief reason why English towns were so careful not