Chapter XII: THE TWELVE Article is that if Olyver Wilson dothe hereafter (3)

9th July, 1711. The Common Seal of the Company being worn out a new one was ordered to be cut in steel, together with an “Ingine,” wherewith to make the impressions.

6th May, 1712. Ordered that the Porter who shaves att the Custome
house be sum̃oned.

27th May, 1712. Walter Browne being “one of the people called Quakers,” was admitted into the freedom and took a “solemn affirmation.”

7th April, 1713. Valentine Day Tallow Chandler was admitted into
the freedom of this Company by Redempc͠on and at the same time was
admitted to ffine for all offices to the Parlour door for both which
he paid a ffine Clock worth 30{li.}

5th October, 1714. It is ordered that the Musitioners shall have five
pounds for attending on the day of the Kings Entrance. (George I.)

5th June, 1716. Nathanael Charles owned that he has several times
let blood for One shilling & sixpence upon which the Company ordered
him to be prosecuted as also his Mast{r} Joseph Roe; twas observed
that Roe could not write his name having sett his mark only to the
Inᵭre.[167]

[167] Indenture.

15th August, 1717. M{r} William Highmore Jun{r} haveing marryed the
Vintners widow who kept the Bell Taverne in Nicholas Lane applying to
this Court and acquainting them that he had quitted the Barbers Trade
and had undertook the trade of a Vintner, and was for that reason
under a necessity of becomeing a freeman of the Vintners Company
or of takeing a License from the Crown to retail wine and praying
of this Court to translate him from this Company to the Company of
Vintners, This Court after hearing the By-Law in that behalf read and
due considerac͠on had thereof doth order that the said M{r} William
Highmore shall be translated from this Company into the Company of
Vintners upon payment of £20 to the use of this Company and upon
Condic͠on that he shall not from henceforward exercise the trade of a
Barber or Perriwig maker.

1st October, 1717. Robert Rainsford, the Company’s Barge Master, was ordered to have a new livery provided for him.

24th June, 1718. The Theatre was ordered to be repaired and beautified.

21st April, 1720. Mr. Berney, Mr. Burroughs and Mr. Fitzhugh, Liverymen Barbers, applied to the Court, giving their reasons and praying that the Court would petition the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council to suspend the act of Common Council restraining them from employing foreigners as journeymen, whereupon the matter was considered and the Court thought it would be contrary to their oaths to join in any such petition, because it was a standing By-Law of the Company, as well as of the City, that no Barber should employ any foreigner as a journeyman; it was also considered that such a liberty would prove a great discouragement to apprentices and that the present inconvenience complained of would soon be cured if Masters would sufficiently instruct their apprentices so as to make them useful during their servitude and competent as journeymen afterwards. The Court further decided to oppose, by every means in its power, the movement set on foot by Mr. Berney and his friends.

24th June, 1722. The lease of the Barge-house at Lambeth expiring in April, 1723, and the Archbishop having offered to renew the same for 21 years at £10 per annum and £100 fine, it was resolved not to renew it, in consequence of its being an unprofitable property, and the Company not then having a barge. The Barber-Surgeons let off part of their Barge-house to the Drapers and Ironmongers, and the Clerk was instructed to give those Companies notice that it was not the intention of this Company to renew the lease from the Archbishop.

2nd December, 1729. In consequence (as was alleged) of the difficulty in sometimes procuring a full Court, it was ordered that in future each Assistant who attended within one hour of the time mentioned in his summons and remained till the rising of the Court, should receive a fee of 2_s._ 6_d._

1st February, 1731. It is ordered that all the Liverymen shall attend
on Election day and Lord Mayors day in their Gowns and at publick
anatomys in their Capps upon Forfieture of Three shillings and
Fourpence for every offence.

8th July, 1731. A precept coming from the Lord Mayor recommending the Company to contribute “towards the relief of the poor sufferers by the late fires at Blanford Tiverton & Ramsey being read The Court upon considerac͠on had thereof and from a just sense of the calamity and distress of their fellow subjects the late inhabitants of the said towns,” ordered £20 to be paid into the Chamber of London.

1732. The following fines were in force at this date, viz.:--

£6 6_s._ 0_d._ for a Barber admitted to the freedom by redemption.

£10 for a free Barber admitted to the Livery.

£30 for a Barber’s or Surgeon’s apprentice, made free by servitude, admitted to the Livery, and for all offices to the parlour door.

£7 7_s._ 0_d._ for examination, admission and diploma of a foreign brother.

£3 3_s._ 0_d._ for the same, if the applicant had been bound to a foreign brother at the Hall.

5th March, 1733. It is hereby referred to the Master & Wardens M{r}
Serj{t} Dickins M{r} Serj{t} Amyand M{r} Petty M{r} Shott M{r} Parker
& M{r} Maurice to receive proposalls for Building a Cupola in the
Hall parlor and report the same to the next Court of Assistants.

19th July, 1733. Several of the livery attending upon a complaint
against a Jew in Duke’s place for exercising the trade of a Barber
without being free of the Company or having served seven years
apprenticeship It is ordered that the Clerk of the Company shall sue
the said Jew in such manner as he shall think fitt or be advised at
the Company’s expence.

4th May, 1736. At this Court Abraham Diaz Delgadoa Jew was admitted
into the freedom of the Company by Redemption for Ten pounds Ten
shillings which he paid down and was sworn upon the Old Testament
being a Jew.

3rd August, 1738. The Company contributed five guineas towards the Organ recently set up in the Church of Saint Alban, Wood Street.

3rd April, 1739. M{r} John Owen a Freeman of the Company & who lives
at Islington was chosen Musicianer to the Company in the room of M{r}
Brown dec̃ed.

11th November, 1740. It is ordered (in regard this Company have no
Barge) That the Waterman shall forthwith deliver up his Livery coat
and Badge belonging to the Company to the Beadles and that he no
longer be annually intitled from this Company to a new Coat nor make
use of nor wear the old one but that when he shall be employed in
the Companies service. And also that for the future on every Lord
Mayor’s day that this Company shall walk in procession in order to
attend the L{d} Mayor a Stand or proper building shall be provided
at the Companies expence for the better accomodation of the Livery
belonging to this Company and in such manner and fform as several
other Companies of this City are usually provided with on that day.

1745. The Surgeons are now separated from the Barbers.

8th August, 1745. The Clerk reporting that many of the Company, as well as Surgeons lately free of the Barber-Surgeons’ Company, were greatly in arrear in their quarterage, he was ordered to acquaint them that unless the said arrears were paid up forthwith, they would be sued.

17th September, 1745. The Company of Surgeons sent to the Company of Barbers two documents under their Common Seal, the one authorising Mr. Joseph Cruttenden to peruse and copy any Charters or documents in the possession of the Barbers, and the other empowering him to take possession of any books, papers or writings relating to Surgeons or Surgery only, on behalf of the Company of Surgeons; whereupon the Court acceded to the request, and gave instructions as to the same.

4th December, 1745. Mr. Cruttenden applied on behalf of the Surgeons’ Company for £510 (the Arrisian endowment) which had been directed to be paid by the Act of Parliament, whereupon the Master told him that by reason of the late fall in the Public Stocks, the Company could not without great loss, raise the money, but were ready to give the Surgeons a proper bond for the same, with Interest.

19th February, 1746. Forty-one freemen were reported as being fit and able persons to take the Livery, and were ordered to be summoned for the same with the intimation that if any refused he or they would be sued for the penalty of £20 each upon such refusal.

Of these, seven appeared at the next Court, took the livery and paid the fine of £10; six others begged to be excused. The remaining twenty-eight did not appear till later Courts, when some were excused, and others ordered to be sued; subsequently a large proportion of those nominated, accepted and paid their fines.

17th July, 1746. The Surgeons’ Company having pressed for payment of the £510 and Interest, and our Company having in Cash but £300, Mr. Luke Maurice (Master 1732, a Wine Merchant in Lime Street) lent the Company £200 at 4-1/2 per cent., and the Clerk advanced the balance, whereupon the principal, with £15 17_s._ 0_d._ interest, was paid to the Surgeons.

18th May, 1747. The Master acquainting the Court that he had employed
M{r} Whiston the Bookseller to putt the Company’s Library in order
and to make a Catalogue and valuation thereof And that M{r} Whiston
had appraised the same at Twenty Guineas And the Clerk acquainting
the Court that a learned Physican had offered twenty-five Guineas for
the Library together with the Skeleton and other curiosities formerly
kept in the Library It was ordered that the Clerk should acquaint the
Master of the Worshipfull Company of Surgeons with the said offer
made to this Company And that this Court being desirous to manifest
their esteem for and preserve the ffriendship of the Surgeons did
give them the refusal of the said Library Skeleton and Curiosities
at the said price of Twenty ffive Guineas And that in case of their
acceptance thereof the rich and ancient Pall belonging to this
Company should be at their service as a free gift.

16th July, 1747. The Clerk reported that he had made the above offer to the Surgeons who replied that they considered themselves entitled to the Library under the Act of 1745, but that to avoid controversy with the Barbers they would be willing to refer the matter to Counsel, whereupon it was resolved that the matter should be submitted to the opinion of Counsel.

5th July, 1749. Ordered that the Library of Books formerly belonging
to the late united Company be forthwith sold for the most money that
can be gotten for the same.

2nd June, 1749. Ordered that the Companys Arms be cast in lead and
affixed upon the several houses belonging to this Company.

Various specimens of these castings are extant about the Hall, and in possession of Mr. Charles John Shoppee (Master 1878) and of the author.

2nd May, 1750. Ordered that M{r} Paterson do wait upon the Earl of
Burlington to know his Lordship’s intention about repairing the
Company’s Theatre.

6th June, 1750. Ordered that the Clerk do write to the Right
Honorable the Earl of Burlington to aquaint him of the ruinous
condition of the Theatre and Company’s inability to repair the same
and to know whether his Lordship will be pleased to order the said
Repairs agreable to his own generous proposal in the Mastership of
M{r} Rutter.

Nothing came of this application.

1st August, 1750. Ordered that the Clerk do cause a Catalogue to be
made of the Books in the Library, and that he deliver a copy thereof
to M{r} Samuel Rutter.

9th August, 1750. Mr. Gheys, Sculptor, was ordered to have the Skeleton, in exchange for the Bust of Inigo Jones, still preserved at the Hall.

3rd September, 1751. Resolved also that the old Pall be given to the
Beadle.

This, alas! was the “rich and ancient pall.”

The Clerk was again directed to endeavour to sell the Library and it was disposed of to Mr. Whiston the Bookseller for £13!!

29th October, 1751. Resolved that the Doctors Gown and Hood be given
to the Beadle.

13th August, 1752. Ordered that it be referred to the Master and
Wardens to treat with M{r} Thomas Reynolds about erecting a Cupola
over the great Parlor agreable to the Draft now produced to this
Court and about repairing the Roof And also repairing whitewashing
and painting the said Parlor so as the Contract for that purpose do
not exceed the sum of One hundred and seventeen pounds.

19th August, 1752. The Agreement between the Company and Mr. Reynolds was entered into at £116 15_s._, and the Specification of his work is recorded in the Minute Book, from which I extract the following:--

The Cupola compleat and properly secured glazed and ornamented
with Stucco and the Roof covered with Milled lead seven pounds to
the ffoot with good brass pulley in the middle fit for a Branch or
Lustre. A new white veined marble Chimney piece and Slabb with a
carved wooden ovalo round it and Slabb of the same Marble The Chimney
piece of the same dimensions as the present and the Slabb six foot
nine inches by two foot four inches with a new fire stone hearth.

The ceiling and ornaments thereof to be secured mended cleaned and
whitewashed.

9th August, 1753. The Great Hall, Kitchen and Lobby were ordered to be repaired by Mr. Reynolds in accordance with his Estimate of £101 17_s._ 6_d._

8th August, 1754. Ordered that the thanks of this Court be given to
James Theobald Esq{r} one of the Ancient Masters of the Company for
the magnificent Lustre by him lately presented and at his Expense
fixed up in their great parlor assuring him This Court doth most
gratefully accept the same as a monument of his regard for the honor
and prosperity of the Company.

This handsome lustre still adorns the Court Room.

12th September, 1754. The Court having considered the state of the Theatre, which was out of repair, and for which the Company had no use, ordered advertisements to be inserted twice in three daily papers, asking for tenders for the materials of the same, and for pulling down and clearing it away. The “N.B.” to the advertisement states that “The Doors, Benches and Railes of the said Theatre are of Cedar.”

1st October, 1754. Three tenders for the materials of the Theatre were received, £21 10_s._ 0_d._, £32 and £35 respectively, and the decision thereon postponed.

4th February, 1755. William Shakespear (Barber) the apprentice of Richard Hulett, was admitted to the freedom.

5th June, 1764. The Clerk informed the Court of the death of Mrs. Elizabeth I’Ans, widow of Mr. Michael I’Ans, and that the Master and Wardens had, on the 23rd May, received of the Executors of Mr. I’Ans £2,200--3-1/2 per cent. Bank Annuities, and £75 in accordance with Mr. I’Ans’ will.

1764 and 1765. Mr. James Clowes who had been summoned to take up the Livery, refused to do so, whereupon he was sued for the fine of £20 and judgment obtained against him with costs.

14th August, 1766. A Committee having been appointed to examine and report upon the Theatre, and having done so, were now authorised to apply to the Court of Common Council for permission to pull down the same, and to treat with that Court for the purchase of the ground, for which the Company paid the City £3 per annum under an old lease.

3rd November, 1767. The City Comptroller having requested the Company to make an offer for the site of the Theatre, it was resolved that 30 years’ purchase (£90) be offered for the same.

7th February, 1769. A plan of the ground leased by the City to the Company and on which the Theatre stood, having been prepared by Mr. George Dance, Clerk of the Works to the City, it was laid before the Court, and the City sold the fee simple to the Company for £90. Would that one could buy City freeholds at the same rate now!

2nd September, 1783. Mr. Sylvanus Hall, of Paternoster Row, Carpenter, proposed to take a lease of the ground on which the Theatre stood, to take down the whole building, and to erect two dwelling houses on the site similar to those he had already built in Monkwell Street. The lease to commence at Christmas, 1784, and to be for 61 years at £10 ground rent. He also proposed to pay the Company £20 for the old materials of the Theatre and to clear the same away. To all these propositions the Court agreed, and Mr. Hall paid a guinea as earnest money.

1st February, 1785. Mr. Hall having pulled down the Theatre, the Clerk was instructed to write to him for the £20 for the old materials which he had removed.

4th October, 1791. There being a sufficient number of Members present
to form a Court of Assistants, thoˀ no such Court was called, the
Master took the sense of the Members present, as an adjournment from
the last Court of Assistants, whether the Company should go out
in the usual procession the ensuing Lord Mayor’s day, when on the
question being put, the same was resolved in the negative.

4th November, 1794. M{r} Thomas Holehouse who was on the 1{st} July
last elected on the Livery of this Company, but had refused to take
upon him the same, without shewing any cause to the Contrary, and
against whom an Action had been commenced for the recovery of Twenty
Pounds the penalty incurred by such his refusal, this day attended
and paid the said sum of Twenty pounds together with the costs of the
said Action.

9th November, 1795. The following Circular was distributed amongst the Livery at the dinner this day:--

The Court of Assistants of the Worshipful Company of Barbers having
received information that many persons residing within the City of
London carry on the Trade of a Barber and Hair dresser without being
free of this Company to the great prejudice of the Members and the
rights of the Company Do hereby give notice that they have come to a
resolution to prosecute all persons carrying on the trade of a Barber
or Hair dresser within the said City not being free of this Company
and they request the assistance of their Members for that purpose for
the benefit of the Company and Trade at large; any information to
their Clerk at the Hall will be duly attended to.

By order of Court,

EDW{D} GROSE SMITH,

Clerk.

9th November, 1796. The By-Laws of the Company having been found, on the opinion of Mr. Serjeant Adair, insufficient to enforce the payment of fines for the refusal to serve various offices, a new set was drawn up by the Clerk, and submitted to and approved by the Court, who ordered the Clerk to get the same confirmed and allowed by the Lord Chancellor and two Chief Justices, but this was never done.

5th September, 1797. The Mahogany table now in the Court Room was made about this time. There is a tradition that the bulb-shaped end of it was a portion of the old dissecting table used by the Surgeons. If so, its latter days are more cheerful than its first.

1796 to 1799. Several Barbers were prosecuted for exercising their Trade within the limits of the Company’s Charters and brought to terms, generally they became freemen, and then were compelled to come on to the livery; in other cases the barbers removed out the jurisdiction, and paid the costs.

18th May, 1802. The Commissioners for the Public Lottery having advertised for a place in which to hold the lotteries, the Court decided to send in proposals offering the use of the Hall (under certain restrictions) for the next three lotteries for Six hundred guineas, but the offer was not accepted.

1st August, 1809. A case was submitted to the Attorney General (Sir R. Gibbs) who gave an opinion that the freemen of the Company were exempt from serving on Juries, but not from serving as Constables.

4th February, 1812. A memorial signed by four freemen of the Company was presented to the Court, the purport of which was that the memorialists having been summoned to act as Ward Constables had refused to serve, and that thereupon actions had been brought against them, which, being tried before Lord Ellenborough, the verdicts were against them and they were ordered to pay the costs (£333 9_s._ 0_d._). The memorialists alleging that they defended the actions for the benefit of the Company and really to uphold its privileges, prayed that they might be reimbursed the costs, which, however, the Court declined to accede to, but ordered that £12, which had been paid to the Company for copies of the Charters, should be refunded.

1814. The Churchwardens of St. Olave, Silver Street, having assessed the Hall at £172, they were requested to attend the next Court which they did, and the following delightful method of settling these matters is recommended to the Authorities nowadays.

1st November, 1814. The parish officers of Saint Olave Silver
Street attended & stated to the Court that the Vestry of that
Parish had taken the subject of the Poor rate into consideration,
and considering the great increase of the rate they left it to the
Company to say what they were agreeable to be rated at; the Court
proposed to say £100 per annum; the gentlemen (having withdrawn)
were then called in and informed of such proposal, with which they
cordially acquiesced.

2nd April, 1816. Alexander Rowland the younger [of Macassar oil fame]
of Kirby Street Hatton Garden, Barber was admitted to the Livery.

3rd May, 1825. The Livery stand, being in a decayed and useless condition, was ordered to be sold.

2nd May, 1826. But as a purchaser could not be found, the Master offered to give £5 for it, which was accepted, and this, together with an additional £5, was ordered to be given to the Committee for the Relief of Distressed Manufacturers.

5th February, 1861. Mr. John Atkinson gave £100 consols for the purpose of distributing the dividends thereof in the purchase of Bibles and Prayer Books for the poor members of the Company.

7th February, 1862. Mr. John Atkinson’s Will reciting a munificent bequest to the Company is set out in the minutes of this date.

3rd February, 1863. A Statement of the property left by Mr. John Atkinson is recorded in a letter from the Solicitors to his Trustees directed to the Court, and entered in the minutes of this date.

PRECEDENCE.

The Barbers’ Company is ranked the seventeenth in order of the City Companies, and is the fifth after the “Twelve great Companies,” the thirteenth being the Dyers, fourteenth Brewers, fifteenth Leathersellers, sixteenth Pewterers, seventeenth Barbers, eighteenth Cutlers, etc.

The question of precedency in former times gave rise to many contentions between the City Guilds, and the Barber-Surgeons seem to have had some experience in these quarrels: the City pageants, processions, and public attendances at church, were numerous in the days of the Tudors and Stuarts, and at most of these the Livery Companies attended, each guild jealously striving to keep its place, and no doubt to advance its position whenever opportunity arose.

There are extant, lists of the Companies in the City books, in which our Company takes various positions; and Stow, having incorporated one of these lists in his Survey, has given it an authority as a table of precedence which it was never intended to possess; he furnishes a list of the Companies attending the Lord Mayor’s feast, 23rd Henry VIII (1531), and places the Barbers as the thirty-second, whereas at that time they were undoubtedly the twenty-eighth.

1516. The first authentic reference to our Company’s standing is found in _Letter-Book N._ leaf 5 (January, 1516), where it is ordained that the Barbers, although they claimed of their ancient right to be the seventeenth Company, yet were adjudged to take the twenty-eighth place, following the Cordwainers, and preceding the Paynter-Stainers.

1532. This order was probably in force until February, 1532, when the Barbers got back their old position (_Repertory_ 8, leaf 272) and an officer was directed to wait on the Pewterers to “shewe theym that the seyd Company of Barbours Surgeons be Restored ageyn to their olde Rowme.” Three months later (May, 1532), the Barbers were “taken down one,” and directed to occupy the eighteenth place.

1533. In February, 1533 (_Letter-Book O._ _fo._ 213), is a record which is somewhat puzzling, as, altogether ignoring the orders of February and May, 1532, it is stated that the Barber-Surgeons had petitioned to be restored to their old place of seventeenth Company, from which it is said they were dispossessed about sixteen years back (evidently alluding to the order of January, 1516), “so that they be nowe the xxix or xxx{th} Companye yn thordre of such goynges,” etc.

Perhaps the orders of February and May, 1532, had been disregarded by the other guilds, and our Company forcibly ousted from their rightful position, so that this is in effect an application for a confirmatory order, which was granted, and thus they were again fixed as the seventeenth Company.

1534. The Barbers must have given some offence to the Civic authorities in 1534, for in October of that year (_Repertory_ 9, leaf 79) the last-named order was repealed, and they were put back again to the twenty-eighth place, and further the Company were ordered that they “shall no more goo yn pˀcessyons, standyngꝭ, Rydyngꝭ, goyngꝭ, and other assembles from hensfurth, tyll it be otherwyse ordered by thys coˀrte.”

1535. This vacillation on the part of the Court of Aldermen in settling our position, was not yet at an end, for in March, 1535, we were again placed seventeenth, to come before the Cutlers and after the Pewterers, and this order was confirmed no less than four times in 1535, and twice in 1536.

1604. At a Royal Procession on the 15th March, 1604, our Company got misplaced by some of the Marshals, and this led to another application to the Court of Aldermen, whereupon a peremptory order was made that the Barber-Surgeons should stand sixteenth in precedence. This order is set out in full elsewhere (see page 195); the sixteenth place was then accorded to us in consequence of the Stockfishmongers, who formerly held the twelfth place, having been dissolved, whereby the Barber-Surgeons went up one: the Clothworkers who, at that time were the thirteenth Company, then became the twelfth.

Some short time afterwards, the Dyers, who had been the eighteenth Company, got the thirteenth place, and we reverted to our old position of seventeenth Company in which we still continue.

1606. An attempt to misplace us was made in July, 1606, but this was successfully resisted. (See p. 116.)

COURT OF ASSISTANTS.

The constitution of the governing body of the Company has grown up in the course of time from one Prime Master or Ruler to a Master with three Wardens and twenty Assistants, forming a Court of twenty-four members.

We gather from the earliest records, that the business of the Company was then transacted by the meeting together in Common Hall, of the whole fraternity (which probably included both freemen and liverymen), under the presidency of a single Master, who, as in the case of Richard le Barber in 1308, was invested with the supervision of the craft, and power to make search and scrutiny, and to punish offenders.

In 1376 two Masters were appointed to rule the craft, while in 1388 we find that two Masters and two “Surveyors” formed the governing body.

In 1416 is recorded the admission of five Masters, three of whom are described as “Barbitonsores” (_i.e._, Barbers proper) and two as “Masters of the Barbers exercising the faculty of Surgery.” In 1428 there were four Masters, two of each class, and this number was the governing body at the time of Edward IV’s Charter of Incorporation, in 1462.

As has been elsewhere remarked, this Charter provides for the appointment of two Masters only, and they to be skilled in Surgery, to be chosen by twelve Electors taken from the Commonalty; but as our records preserve the names of four Masters elected in that year, and so on ever since in unbroken succession, there cannot be any doubt but that (the Charter dealing almost entirely with the regulation of matters surgical) the two Masters of the “Barbers side” were left to be elected in accordance with old custom, or under the By-laws which the Company were, by their Charter, empowered to make.

At what period a Court of Assistants was created in our Company is unknown, but I am inclined to think the date is about 1480 to 1500. The four “Masters or Governors” (answering to our “Master and three Wardens”) were chosen out of the Commonalty by twelve electors yearly, and do not, as seems by the lists preserved, appear to have gone up annually by seniority as now they do, _i.e._, from third Warden to second, and so on. Those who had served as second, third, or fourth Governors, if not chosen to higher office the next year, as a general rule took their places again as simple liverymen; whilst those who had served as Prime or Chief Governor were, at the expiry of their term of office, designated “Ancient Masters,” and these, with some past Wardens, having become qualified by experience in the affairs of the Company would naturally be consulted by the ruling Governors who sought their “assistance” and advice, and thus grow up into a Court of Assistants[168] (nearly always in early time spelt “Assistance”) and be recognised to a great extent as a power in the direction of the Company’s business.

[168] This theory is confirmed by the Ordinances made in 1566, whereby it was enacted that a liveryman _might_ be chosen an Assistant without having ever served the office of Governor.

The earliest mention of Assistants is in the By-laws settled by Sir Thomas More in 1530, though throughout these By-laws the actual ruling power was evidently in the four Masters or Governors. The Assistants are here twice referred to, in one case where it is enacted that the Masters shall not admit a “fforen” to the freedom without the assent of the “xxiiij{ti} assistentes,” and in another place they are to have, with the Masters, the election of the Livery.

The Act 32 Henry VIII is silent as to Assistants, vesting all power in the Masters or Governors. In 1557 at one of the Courts twenty-one Assistants and four Masters attended, and at a Court held 19th July, 1595, the names of twenty-five Assistants are recorded. The number seems to have varied with the times, the full Court, however, never exceeding four Masters and thirty-two Assistants. The Assistants have always been elected by the Court, and the custom became in time to choose the senior liveryman whenever a vacancy occurred, though there does not appear to have been at any time a by-law to that effect, and indeed this practice has been departed from on very many occasions.

The Election of Masters prior to the year 1633 was on the Monday next before the feast of St. Bartholomew the Apostle (Aug. 24); from 1633 to 1745 it was held on the third Thursday in August, and since 1745 it has been held on the second Thursday in August.

The ancient practice was for the whole body of the livery to be summoned to the Hall in their livery gowns, hoods and caps on the Monday at 8 o’clock in the morning “at the furthest” to whom the Masters, sitting in Court, declared the cause of their assembling; this done, the Masters retired, and the livery, sitting there, chose twelve of their number to be “Electors,” of whom six were to be “expert Surgeons,” and four at least must never have served the office of Master or Governor. The Clerk then called the twelve Electors out (the rest of the livery remaining in the Hall). The Masters then delivered to the Electors the “Bills of Election,” each Master nominating two Barbers and two Surgeons, so that sixteen in all were nominated, and, after administering to them the oath prescribed, the Electors retired to a private room apart to make their choice. Should the Electors deem that one or more of themselves ought to have been put in nomination, they were to send for the Masters who were bound to withdraw such person or persons, and choose others in their place. The Bills were to be made out in accordance with seniority, but the Electors were not bound to choose by seniority. Having made their choice, the Electors sent for the Masters and delivered to them a Bill with the names of the four persons selected, and these names were (under a heavy penalty) to be kept secret until after the “dener.”

The whole Company then proceeded in state to the Church of St. Olave, Silver Street (after the Great Fire to St. Alban, Wood Street), maids strewing the way with flowers. At Church there was a “goodly masse” celebrated, and in later times a “devyne sˀrvice,” which, being ended, the parson and some of the church officials had customary fees and returned with the Company to the Hall to celebrate the Election dinner. The feast over, the outgoing Masters, according to “auncient order,” walked about the table, each bearing a garland and placing it on the head of the member who had been chosen to fill his place in the year ensuing. If anyone elected happened to be absent, his garland was placed on the head of one of the Ancient Masters as proxy, and the newly-elected Masters were sworn on the Holy Evangelists to the due execution of their offices, absentees being sworn at the next Court.

The Election dinners were held at any early hour in the afternoon (1 or 2 p.m.) and were generally followed by a play or a dance, sometimes both; the wives of the livery and Assistants were present at the dinner, and the latter had their apprentices in attendance waiting at table.

In 1633 the mode of choosing the Electors was varied as follows: a “fair ballating box” with two cells therein, one labelled “Surgeons” and the other “Barbers” was placed upon the table,

Into _each_ cell the Master put the names of
two Ancient Masters, and drew one out of each 2

The second and third Governors put into _each_
cell the names of six Assistants, and the Master
drew three out of each 6

The fourth Governor put into _each_ cell the
names of four liverymen and the Master drew
two out of each 4
--
12
==

The twelve so drawn constituted the Electors, and the proceedings were then much the same as has been before described.

The new Masters or Governors commenced their duties immediately upon being sworn.

From the earliest period the custom has been to hold the monthly and ordinary Courts on Tuesdays, but the meetings do not seem to have taken place on any definite or fixed days, numerous Courts being held at irregular intervals and frequently on Mondays. “Courts of Assistants,” as distinguished from Monthly and special Courts, were, in early times, for some reason or other, particularly prohibited from being held on Tuesdays, there being several orders and by-laws to this effect, but why, I do not know.

In the year 1557 twenty Courts were held. In 1572 forty-one Courts, the average attendance at which was twelve. In 1599 forty-six Courts assembled. At the intermediate Courts a great deal of important as well as minor business was transacted, including the admissions and presentations of freemen and apprentices, the examination of Surgeons and Sea Surgeons, and a great variety of business connected with the medical service of the army and navy.

Previous to the separation in 1745, the office of Master was supposed to be, and generally was, held by a Barber and a Surgeon alternately, the Wardens being chosen in like manner, any member not practising as a Surgeon being accounted a Barber, whatever his trade or occupation might be.

Great importance has at all times been attached to the question of precedence in sitting at table and in speaking in Court, and many have been the rules enacted, and the disputes and jealousies which have arisen between members of the Court on this question.

Some of the powers executed by the Masters of old and by the Court of Assistants in later times have been those which now are peculiar to Courts of Law, _e.g._, the settlement of disputes upon every conceivable question, the imposition of fines, and their recovery by distress levied by the Beadle, the summary committal of offenders to gaol, and the issuing of orders for their release, the prohibition of actions and suits at common law (if commenced by a freeman without leave of the Court), the inhibition of members from practising their profession, and the infliction of corporal punishment upon unruly freemen and apprentices.

The Court as now existing, consists of four Masters or Governors and twenty Assistants, appointed under the provisions of the Act 18 George II, cap. xv. By this Act the election of the Masters or Governors is in the Court and takes place on the second Thursday in August, but alas! without the ancient ceremonies of attending Church, crowning with garlands, and--may I add?--the Election dinner for the Livery.

As will be seen elsewhere, there have been frequent disturbances at the Courts, and there are numerous entries of Assistants, Wardens, and Past Masters having been expelled the Court and sometimes dismissed from the Livery as well, for their misconduct or quarrelsome behaviour. Instances of impertinence and abuse by freemen and liverymen before the Court, are also by no means rare, and in these cases condign punishment by imprisonment or fine was invariably meted out.

9th March, 1624. This daye Mr. Warden Thornebury made knowne to this
Court y{t} one Tanner, a brother of this Companie, hath abused him
in words. Whereupon it is ordered by this Court that John Bayard
the officer belonging to this Companie shall laye the Lord Maio{rs}
comaund on the said Tanner and comitte him to one of the Compters
of this Cittye And that imediately upon the said comittm{t} shall
acquaint the M{rs} therewith That thereupon the M{rs} maye acquaint
the lo: Maio{r} with the reson of his comittem{t.}

19th January, 1626. This daye the letter directed to the Maister
Wards and Assistants of the Companie of Barbor Surgions of London
from M{r} William Clowes Sarjeant Chirurgion to his Ma{tie} was
here in Courte reade in hec verba viz{t} Right worthie Maister and
Governors and assistants of the companie of Barbers and Surgions
in my true love I wish all health and florishinge goverment of
yo{r} Company to the glory of God the honor of the Kinge and the
good of Gods people Amen. Now whereas I have bin not only by many
Brothers advertised but also of yo{r} Officer legally by letter and
otherwise given to understand that you had chosen me Renter warden
of the company from the w{ch} Election I desired by M{r} Cooper and
M{r} Thomas Allen I might be freed yett could not, I then knewe
well that in duty I owed you an aunswer which might well be seeme
my reverent respect to yo{r} Authoritye; and my tender regard of
the kinge my M{rs} honor which in yo{r} Chusinge and my acceptinge
maye be considered, which as much as in me is I desired to doe, And
nowe, not once questoninge the troblesomnes of the place, nor other
hinderances w{ch} god Almighty did then send I thus aunswer (because
I wilbe free of Ambition or pride) that if you can make that appeere
upon yo{r} Records that any of my predecessors did beare the office
of Wardein after he was sworne Serjeant Surgion to any of the Kˀs or
Queenes of England I shall humbly serve it, if not, I Crave yo{r}
pˀdon for I might not soe poorely value the Kinge my M{r} as thinke
him less mighty, less absolute a Prince then any Kinge whatsoever
hath raigned before him, and so as his Servaunt I expect from the
Company as good respect as any Sergeant Surgion heretofore hath had,
for my M{rs} honor I will not give to any other, And further because
I am many tymes summoned to yo{r} Courts and other meetings, w{ch}
service I am very willinge to performe, when I shall knowe my place
in the Company, which I must leave to yo{r} grave considerac͠on, only
if you please to take notice how the Colledge of Phisitions and the
Company of Apothecaryes of London have rancked the Kingꝭ Phisitions
and Apothecaryes, you may thereby guess what place I expect, but
howsoever if by the occasion of back freinds wee may not so well
agree as I desire, so as I may personally absent my selfe from the
Company yett thus much I ingenuously and religiously profess that I
will alwayes in harty love be present and ready press either by the
Kinge my M{r} or any other wayes to doe the Companye any loveing
Service I may, And so ceasing further troubling you but desireing to
heare of yo{r} smoothe acceptance, I rest.

Whereas he was chosen renter warden of this Companie for this yere
ensueing w{ch} place by reason of this contagious tyme and other
respects he is not able to execute, It is thereupon ordered by this
courte that he shalbe discharged from the said place of youngest
warden and second warden of this Company, And it is further ordered
that he shall take place next unto the youngest of our assistants
that have served the place of upper warden and when he shall have
served the place of upper warden of this Companye then he to take his
precedencye and ranck according to that service.

21st August, 1626. Serjeant Clowes was elected Master, but it seems his election was called in question, as it was the turn for a Barber this year, and it was moved that the electors should be fined for breach of the ordinance in choosing a Surgeon, but the Court decided not to do so. There was evidently a dislike to Mr. Clowes on the part of some of the Company, as the Wardens of the Yeomanry were on the 20th September, fined 40_s._ for refusing, or neglecting to carry the Standing Cups before him and the Wardens of the Livery on the Election day.

1638. Serjeant Clowes was again elected Master.

9th April, 1641. M{r} Warden Martin Browne made his complaint against
M{r} Serjeant Clowes and he did freely declare that he did forgive
the Serjeant his personall Wrong, and did referr the Wrong due to the
Court unto the Court, And this Court did order that M{r} Serjeant
Clowes shall acknowledge that in his anger and passion he did speake
some words to the wrong of this Court, and this being done this Order
to be annihilated.

22nd September, 1642. Alsoe for the more peaceable treaty and
discussing matters in times of Courts of Assistants It is ordered
That decency be held in these Courts proceedings and that every one
of the Assistants as he is in his turne and time of Delivery to
yeild his voyce shall not use any impertinent speeches or divert
the matter in question into some other busines but give his answer
freely to the present matter proponed and that during the time of his
delivery of his speech or opinion none other of the Assistants shall
give crosse or thwarting speeches or calumniate that Assistant And
if any Assistant shalbe soe Uncivill That then the present M{r} or
Governour shall cause him to be silent and shall put such Assistants
Interrupc͠on of speech to question concerneing his ffine for evill
behaviour and such Interruptor being found faulty shall pay the ffine
of vj{s} viij{d} according to the Ordinance in that behalfe made.

3rd October, 1642. Alsoe M{r} Cotton layed downe his ffines imposed
on him at the last Court of Assistants viz{t} xxvj{s} viij{d} The
M{r} of the Company moveing by the consent of the last Court M{r}
Cotton to withdrawe himselfe according to Orders and Custome, he gave
this Court this peremptory answer, I will not goe out of the Court
nor the M{r} hath noe power to bidd mee goe out and that the Court
had noe power to fine him, then he threatned M{r} Warden Arris as
he sat in the Court saying Winter will come, Alsoe he abused M{r}
Dye in his delivery of speech to this Court that his speeches were
rotten speeches and thwarted him to the generall disturbance of the
Court, and to M{r} Martin Browne threatning him I will make you know
it better in another place Alsoe he sought to disable the M{rs} hand
which was signed to Ticketts for his and other appearances at the
Hall for defaults saying they might choose whether to appeare or not
Alsoe he told the Court with high language I will not be dismissed.

fforasmuch as this Court is informed and it doth fully appeare to
this present Court of Assistants That M{r} Lawrence Cotton hath from
time to time bin a disturber of the Unity peace and amity of this
Society and hath by many reproachfull Words and ill behaviour abused
the present M{rs} of the Company and divers of the Assistants and
Members of this Company Whereupon this Court doth dismisse the said
M{r} Cotton out of and from his place of an Assistant and being an
Examiner.

Mr. Cotton subsequently made his peace, was reinstated and served the office of Master, 1645!

8th July, 1644. Whereas by Order of the Honourable house of Comõns
assembled in Parliament of the 28{th} June last the President of the
Colledge of Physicians was appointed to call this Company before them
and to tender the Covenaunt by them This Court conceiveing their
Priviledges to be thereby infringed this Co{rt} the M{r} doe advise
with Councell Doth order that a Petic͠on be framed to be preferred
by all the Assistants that are now present or the major part, to the
House of Comõns to have the tendring of the Covenñt themselves to
theire owne Members and the Charge to be allowed out of the Comõn
stock.

THE COMMONALTY.

The admission to membership in the Company has ever been by servitude, patrimony, or redemption, and the fines and fees payable have varied so much at different periods in our history, and have frequently been so capricious, that no attempt has been made to tabulate them, though references will be made here and there to the prevailing fees of the period. The fees for apprentices have always been of a nominal description, and generally so of freemen, though, in olden time, the Court, as became the Masters of the mystery of “bleeding,” not unfrequently bled a new member by a substantial fine on admission, but also put him to the expense of a dinner into the bargain.

[Footnote: The initial letter T is reduced from one in the Audit Book 1614-15.]

An ample fine, suited to the period, has always been taken from the Liverymen who were, in the days of the Tudors and Stuarts a comparatively small section of the Company, and rarely exceeded fifty in number; they were always chosen from the more substantial of the Yeomanry, and if on election they refused “to take the clothing,” as was frequently the case, a heavy penalty was imposed, which, if not paid, the unhappy yeoman was forthwith committed to the Compter, where, upon reflection, he generally came to the conclusion to submit. It is right, however, to state that at all times the Court have, in cases where the proposed Liveryman was actually a poor man, remitted the fine, and allowed him to continue a yeoman; on the other hand, contumacious refusal was invariably met in the firmest manner and conquered.

The practice of calling up yeomen to the Livery was at times resorted to as a means of putting the Company into funds, and as these calls generally took place at periods of national trouble, when the coffers of the Company had been emptied by the King or the Parliament, the intended Liverymen were themselves not unfrequently in sore straits, and great contentions arose.

About one hundred and fifty years ago the practice of enforcing these fines was in regular operation, but since then it has been attended with varying success; not that the Company has not by law the power of enforcement, but a prejudice had grown up against the system, and the Court has been unwilling to sanction a resort to extremities.

Early in the present century three or four actions were brought against freemen to recover penalties of £20 for refusing to accept the Livery; in one case which was ripe for trial the Company withdrew the record and paid the costs, and the others seem to have been abandoned.

All freemen on being sworn were liable to pay “quarterage,” which has been from the earliest period, and still is, 2_s._ per annum.[169] On a man coming up for admission he was “presented,” that is, seen by the Court who enquired into his position, knowledge, fitness and general qualifications, and if approved he paid his fees and was sworn. Some of the earlier forms of oath will be seen on reference to the Ordinances, and that used up to a very recent period was as follows:--

[169] The quarterage is now usually compounded for on admission by payment of a sum down.

You shall swear That you shall be True and Loyal to our Sovereign
Lady Queen Victoria and faithful and true in all lawful things unto
the Corporation and Company of the Mystery of Barbers of London,
whereof you are now made free, and accordingly be obedient to the
Master and Governors thereof: and as much as in you lieth maintain
amity and unity therein; and obey observe and perform all the
lawful rules statutes and ordinances thereof; and be proportionably
contributory to the best of your power, to all lawful or reasonable
charges contributions and payments belonging or necessarily
appertaining to you to bear and pay as other Brethren of the same
Company do. And also you shall obey all manner of summons or warnings
done, or to be made by the Clerk Beadle or other officer of the said
Company thereunto assigned in the name of the Master and Governors,
having no lawful or reasonable excuse to the contrary. All these
articles you shall duly, truly, fully and faithfully observe, perform
and keep to the best of your power. So help you God.

A few years since, this oath was changed into a declaration, the words “You shall declare” being substituted for “You shall swear.”

It was generally the practice, when a member wished to be translated to another Company or entirely discharged, that he should pay a fine for his dismission. In 1724, Mr. John Bamber, a Surgeon, informing the Court that he intended to practise as a Physician and to become a Member of the College of Physicians prayed for his discharge, which was granted to him on payment of thirty guineas, and there are other entries to the like effect.

The regulations for the governance of the members are very fully contained in the Ordinances referred to elsewhere, and it would therefore be tedious to further allude to them here. On a perusal of the extracts from the minutes, etc., many curious particulars will be seen concerning both freemen and liverymen who were liable to be expelled for not being “able” (_i.e._, solvent) and also for not attending in their livery gowns and hoods upon summons. There are many and often reminders to the livery to appear in their gowns with their hoods upon their shoulders, and there are also cases in which individuals were forbidden to wear their gowns and hoods by way of punishment. The dress of the livery has been well described in Herbert’s Livery Companies, and Planche’s Costume, and we can see it in our great Holbein picture, though the dresses worn on that occasion were of a much richer description than those in daily use.

It will be seen that the Livery were constantly going out in procession in days of old. There were the services at St. Paul’s on Christmas and Candlemas days, the Lord Mayor’s procession, the setting of the watch on Midsummer Eve, the celebration of 5th November, the anniversary of Gowrie’s Conspiracy, the Election Service at St. Olave’s, Silver Street, days of thanksgiving and humiliation, Royal progresses and Civic pageants. To all of these the Livery were bidden to go by precept, and on neglect of the summons were fined. In many cases certain of them were appointed to ride on horseback with velvet coats and chains of gold about their necks, and when not so apparelled they appeared in their gowns of black and scarlet, with their hoods upon their shoulders. What would we not give for a photograph of one of these gorgeous scenes wherein we should see the “liverie of our solempne and grete fraternite” riding “ayenst,” say, Queen Elizabeth in 1599?