genæ, had we not found the same state of things to exist in Strathclyde, where the Britons were so long not only the most numerous, but the dominant race; and yet in the course of a few generations, there is little to distinguish the Strathclydians from the Saxon people of the neighbouring counties. Wherever a Celtic people have remained isolated, as the Welsh, the Highlanders of Scotland, and the Irish, they have preserved with wonderful fidelity the characteristics peculiar to their race; but where they have mingled with alien tribes, they have invariably received the impress of those with whom they came in contact, rather than imbued those with any portion of their own national peculiarities. Of the British communities between the Mersey and the Clyde, the only people who preserved anything of their Gælic features, a century after the Conquest, were the Galwegians, and these, though of a cognate race, appear to have been less the descendents of the ancient British population, than of the Pictish immigrants of the eighth century. Their intercourse with other districts was, from the nature of their position, extremely limited, and even after their nominal subjection to Scotland, they remained under the immediate dominion of their own lords.

In Lancashire the case was very different. So long as the "Terra inter Ripham et Mersham" remained a part of Northumberland, the communication with other parts of that state was indeed difficult, separated by a ridge of lofty moors which were not then rendered accessible by the skill and science of engineers; but the circumstances were completely changed when it was annexed to the same state to which the neighbouring county of Chester belonged. No greater obstacle then existed to the utmost freedom of communication, than a river easily passable at all points, in boats, and in its upper portion by fords or bridges. A little later, the same facilities which enabled Saxon enterprise to cross the Mersey into South Lancashire were extended to its further progress across the Ribble into Amounderness, when that district also was severed from the Northumbrian earldom, and placed under the central government of England. If in the Earldom of Carlisle, in which the authority of the central government was neither exercised nor acknowledged, the language and usages of the Britons had yielded to Saxon influence, it is not to be supposed that they would maintain their ground in Lancashire under circumstances so much less favourable to their perpetuation

IN 1725 1795 & 1854.

LIVERPOOL:

MEMORANDA TOUCHING ITS AREA AND POPULATION,

DURING THE FIRST HALF OF THE PRESENT CENTURY.

By J. T. Danson, Esq., F.S.S., Vice-President.

(READ ON THE 8TH NOVEMBER, 1855.)

I.

The sources of information commonly referred to, as to the population of Liverpool, are two. There is the National Census, taken in 1801, and at intervals of about ten years ever since. This serves for the present century. And for the preceding century there is an account compiled for, and presented to, the Commissioners appointed in 1833, to enquire into the state of the Municipal Corporations of the country, and which was printed in the Appendix to their Report, published in 1835.

From the latter source we learn that the population of the town of Liverpool was, at eleven different periods, beginning in 1700, and ending in 1790, as follows::

In 1801, the Census gave for Liverpool a total of 77,653 persons, shewing, for the eleven years, 1790-1801, an average annual increase of 1,992 persons.

It does not appear upon what area, precisely, any of the eleven enumerations prior to 1801 were made. And from the apparent use of round numbers in four out of the eleven statements, we may fairly infer that some of them were based upon mere estimate, and were not the result of, or based

upon, any actual enumeration. The great irregularity of the rate of increase between some of the periods, exceeding what has been recorded as of ascertained occurrence under similar circumstances, also affords ground for suspecting the accuracy of the eleven statements; and as we have no reason for placing more reliance upon any one of the statements than upon any other, any suspicion raised by the irregularity of the results, tells, more or less, against the whole.

Not wholly without explanation, however, is this irregularity. Reference to cotemporary history, and especially to the history of the commerce of the port of Liverpool, reveals something like corresponding changes in the prosperity of the town.

It will be observed that the first remarkable increase of the population took place between 1752 and 1766; and that this was followed by a still greater increase between 1766 and 1770. The first of these dates marks the period at which it would appear that the Slave-trade began to be carried on largely by the merchants of Liverpool. The British share of this trade seems to have been most extensive about the year 1771. After that period it declined; the supply to the West Indies having so far overtaken the demand, as to reduce the selling price, and render the profits of the trade both smaller and less certain than before.

The decline of the Slave-trade had scarcely been ascertained, when the trade with the North American colonies was stopped by the outbreak of the war of 1775-83. Accordingly, we find the population of 1777 less than that of 1770; and at the next period (1786), three years after the trade was opened with the United States, the increase shewn is but small. Soon afterwards several causes combined to augment the trade of Liverpool. In September, 1786, a very liberal Treaty of Commerce was concluded between Great Britain and France; and it continued in force till war broke out between the two countries in February, 1793. And from 1783 to 1793, the shipping of Liverpool, which for some seven years previously had found in privateering the most inviting, if not the most profitable, form of employment, was fully engaged in carrying on a rapidly increasing trade, arising principally from the early but already rapid growth of the cotton manufacture, and stimulated by a degree of freedom in the commerce of Europe, such as had not been known before, and has scarcely been equalled since.

It forms, however, no part of my present purpose to ascertain the popu