Chapter XII: THE TWELVE Article is that if Olyver Wilson dothe hereafter (4)

Our earlier records of freemen are unfortunately lost, the first register commencing in the year 1551, but at Guildhall I have discovered several admissions of freemen Barbers to the freedom of the City, and here place a few of them upon record. The first is in 1309:--

Thomas Orgor barbitonsor admissus fuit in libtãte civitatis & jurˀ
&c die sabĩ pˀxima post festñ scĩ Edmundi Regis & martirˀ anno R. E.
filˀ R. E. tcĩo coram Nich̃o de ffarendon Joh̃e de Wyndesore & Henrˀ
de Dunolm Aldris Et dat commitati xx{s} quos pˀdcĩ Aldr̃i recepˀunt.

(TRANSLATION.) Thomas Orgor, Barber, was admitted into the freedom of
the City and sworn, etc., on Saturday next after the feast of Saint
Edmund the King and Martyr in the third year of King Edward, the son
of King Edward, before Nicholas de Farendon, John de Windsor and
Henry de Durham, Aldermen, And gave to the Commonalty 20_s._, which
the aforesaid Aldermen received.

Other entries are much in the same form, a few of which, abridged, follow:--

1309. John de Dodinghurst, Barber, admitted and sworn, etc., Friday next after the feast of St. Thomas the Apostle; paid half a mark.

1310. Ralph the Barber admitted, etc., 16th March; paid one mark.

1310. Gilbert Blaunchard, Barber, admitted, etc., 1st April; paid 10_s._

1310. Peter de Pecham, Barber, admitted, etc., 12th May, “at the instance of Roger le Brabanzon, a justice of our Lord the King”; paid 5_s._

1310. Galfridus de Trengye, Barber, admitted, etc., Saturday before the feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist; paid 10_s._

1311. John Syward, Barber, admitted, etc., Monday before the feast of St. Edmund the King, at the instance of the Lord Walter, Bishop of Winchester, Chancellor, “et ideo nichil dat ꝓ liᵬtate habenda,” “and _therefore_ gave nothing to have the freedom!”

1312. Ralph de Bosbery, Barber, admitted, etc., on Monday in the feast of St. Valentine; paid half a mark.

1312. John de Fynceham, Barber, admitted, etc., 6th April; paid 10_s._

1312. Henry de la Chaumbre, Barber, admitted, etc., on Monday in the vigil of the Assumption; paid half a mark.

1312. Thomas de Mangrave who was the apprentice of Richard le Barber of Bread Street, was admitted on Wednesday before the feast of St. James the Apostle, on the testimony of Katherine, widow of the said Richard and of Robert de Gloucester, the executors of his will; paid 2_s._ 6_d._

The “Richard le Barber” mentioned in the last entry was Master of the Company in 1308.

The freemen were formerly enrolled in the “yeomanry” and formed a minor fraternity within the Company (_see_ the chapter on the Yeomanry).

All freemen practising as journeymen or assistants, if Barbers, Surgeons, or Barber-Surgeons were “sessed at the Hall,” that is, their wages were settled for them by the Court, and entered in a book, together with the period for which they agreed to serve, the period being never less than one year nor more than three. These men were often called “covenant servants,” but they paid quarterage, and were entitled to all the privileges of freedom, excepting that they could not take apprentices.

If a freemen desired to start in business, the By-laws of 1530 required that he should prove to the Court as an act precedent to his so doing, that he was possessed of goods to the value of ten marks.

A certain class of members called “Foreign Brothers” are very frequently alluded to in the Books, and it has been a matter of some difficulty to ascertain what their status exactly was, but by collation of numerous entries I have come to the conclusion that, with very few exceptions, they were all of them practising Surgeons, and that they had _not_ been apprenticed to freemen of the Company. If practising within the jurisdiction of the Company, they were compelled to join, or else to forbear to practise, and it seems that on admission they were required to satisfy the Court by the production of their Indentures of apprenticeship to Country or other Surgeons that they had duly served seven years, and to give ample proof of their skill and knowledge before the Examiners; exceptions to the production of indentures were, however, made in favour of those who came with recommendations from persons of quality, or of such as had acquired eminence and position in the profession. All sea surgeons were “Foreign Brothers” and paid a fine (generally seven guineas) on admission, they also paid quarterage as freemen, and when they resided within the jurisdiction were subject to all the rules and ordinances of the Company as other freemen, being frequently fined and imprisoned for malpractice, etc., though they were not entitled to the benefit of the charities, to come to the dinners, or to confer the right of admission by patrimony upon their sons, nor do they seem to have been necessarily free of the City. Many Surgeons practising in the Country became Foreign Brothers for the sake of the diplomas granted at Barber-Surgeons’ Hall.

There are a few instances of “Barbers” being compelled to become Foreign Brothers, for which I am unable to give an explanation, unless they be errors of description by the Clerk for “Barber-Surgeons.”

Every freeman on admission formerly paid 3_s._ 4_d._, and every apprentice on “presentation” 2_s._ 6_d._ For many years the names of these persons are entered in the Audit Books, and thus it has been possible to ascertain the number admitted extending over a considerable period.

It appears that from the year 1603 to 1674, 3,479 persons were admitted to the freedom, an average of about 48 per annum; and 9,554 apprentices were presented, an average of about 133 per annum. The greatest number of freemen admitted was in the year 1647 when 82 came on, and the least in 1666 when but 23 were admitted. With apprentices the greatest number presented was in the year 1629 when there were 219, and the least again in the year of the Great Fire when there were but 54.

Between 1674 and 1745, about 75 freemen and 162 apprentices would be the yearly average.

After the separation in 1745, and indeed down to the beginning of this century, a respectable average was maintained, being about 40 freemen and 60 apprentices per annum.

In the hundred years between 1746 and 1845, 2,964 persons were admitted to the freedom and 4,298 apprentices were presented, being an average of about 30 of the former and 43 of the latter for each year. The least number of freemen coming on was in 1845, when only 5 were admitted, and of apprentices in 1844, when but 4 were presented.

The apprentices always seem to have been a fruitful source of trouble both to their Masters and to the Company, and numerous are the entries of their floggings and imprisonments. The term of servitude was generally seven years, but in a few instances it was eight and even nine, the age at which boys were taken was usually fourteen, and before the Indentures were sealed the boy was “presented” to the Court that it might be seen that he was clean and not deformed or diseased. If approved, the Indentures were executed and recorded, and in all cases the apprentice actually lived with his Master, who covenanted to find him meat, drink, apparel, lodging and all other necessaries according to the custom of the City. If the boy’s master died or for other reasons was unable to continue his business, it became necessary for him to be “turned over” to another master, free of the Company, and that such turn over should be approved and recorded, otherwise the apprentice was disqualified for his freedom. When his term expired the Master brought him to the Hall and “testified” to his faithful service, whereupon he became entitled to the freedom on payment of a nominal fine. Sometimes Masters refused to make their apprentices free, in which cases the Court enquired into the circumstances, and acted in accordance with the merits of the case.

From the earliest times the custom has prevailed to admit women to the freedom, mostly by apprenticeship, but also by patrimony, and these freewomen bound their apprentices, both boys and girls, at the Hall; of course the ladies were not admitted to the livery, but otherwise they had the same privileges as freemen so far as the same were compatible with their sex. At the present time (1890) there is one freewoman of the Barbers’ Company.

APPRENTICES.

Ordered 17th July, 1551. That Water Lynche whiche was prentise w{th}
John Tholmwoode Barborsurgeon shalbe and ys contented to serve Thomas
Woolf as a prentice from the daye above written untyll the viij{th}
yere of King Edward the sixte and so the sayd Water Lynche his yeres
to be fully ended and ronne out at the feaste of all Saints as may
appere by his Indenture.

19th September, 1552. Ordered that when any prentise dothe goo awaye
from his M{r} the same M{r} shall bring in his Indenture and here to
remayne tyll the prentice come agayne and to be regestred.

It was also ordered that the Beadle should make out all Indentures of apprenticeship, and any one else presuming to do so should pay a fine of 3_s._ 4_d._

27th April, 1556. It was ordered that no apprentice should wear a beard of beyond fifteen days’ growth, and that on breach of this order the master of the apprentice was to pay a fine of half a mark.

15th October, 1566. Here in this Court John James the appñts of John
Shryve for pylferyng, & so here he had his correction.[170]

[170] That is, he was flogged.

27th May, 1567. Robert Cholmeley complained of his apprentice

for y{t} he doth not his worke as he ought & for his other ill
demeanors And so in the pˀsents of this Court the saide appˀnts
humbled hym upon his knees and pˀmyssed his amendment.

1567. The quarrels between masters and apprentices about this period were numerous, and occupied a great deal of the time of the Court, who in dealing with them generally pursued a policy of reconciliation and made the parties friends again. In certain cases, masters were fined for ill-treating apprentices, whilst some of the latter had their Indentures cancelled or “torn in Court” and were either whipped or ordered to behave better, or to find new masters.

22nd August, 1569. Here was Rich Upton Playntyf agaynst his app̃nts
W{m} Fyshe for that he ranne awaye frome his said M{r} the xxj{th} of
the former moneth and tooke w{th} hym sˀten instruments for surgery
& other things more, w{ch} pˀtyculers were here pˀsently sene & by
the said W{m} Fyshe confessed and that he had no cawse to go frome
his said M{r} but that he wolde have gon to the sea and accordynge to
his desert had correction and punnyshment unto auncyent custom w{th}
roddes.

22nd November, 1569. Memorandˀ upon the xxij{th} day of November 1569
in the afternowne Gyles Swalldell thappeñtꝭ of Chrystofor Swalldell
for goyng forth of his maisters house at unlawfull tymes and houres
& in evell company wastinge and consumyng his M{rs} grocery wares
also therebye he the appntꝭ then had the correction of this hall
accordyng to his desertꝭ as the justice & equytie by the M{r} &
govˀnors thoughte at the request of his said M{r} to be most mete and
convenient. And so the said Gyles Swalldell appntꝭ hathe promysed
here that he wylbe a good faythfull & trusty servant unto his said
M{r} and never hereafter offende any more.

1st June, 1570. Here was John thappntꝭ of Thomas Wayte (for) abusying
of Rog{r} Laborne & his wyfe and his M{r} also and he had favorable
correction for his offencꝭ.

John possibly thought it rather _unfavourable_.

By the next entry it would appear that Master Ralph Soda found the society of the ladies more congenial to his tastes than the practice of shaving and bloodletting.

15th February, 1572. Here was Henry Lusshe and witnessed how that his
app̃ntice Rafe Soda ranne awaye ffrom hym and contract hym self to
three wemen and was asked at Westm{r} in the church and also had delt
unhonestly w{th} his mayde srˀvnt.

19th May, 1573. Here was John Newsam and he was appoynted to brynge
in his fyne for not pˀsentynge his apprentice.

Here was John Appowell and he was appoynted the lyke.

9th June, 1573. Here was Olyvˀ Pecocke the covenaunte Sˀvaunt of
Allen Colly beinge comytted to Warde uppon Wednesday last on M{r}
Warden Robynsons comaundment for goynge ffrom his master ffrom the
Sounday untill Wednesdaye next and he was nowe relesed so that his
master paynge his wages he shall serve hym.

21st July, 1573. Pecocke complained to the Court against his master “ffor not well usinge hym in beatinge hym.”

The next is a quaint piece of dry humour--

6th October, 1573. Here was an order taken between Danyell Botham and
his appˀntice that he should well and trewly sˀve his M{r} and not to
make any more complainte or trouble the M{rs} any more, and yf he do
nott sˀve his M{r} accordyngly he shall have the Almes of the howsse.

The “Alms of the house” were on some other like occasions promised to troublesome apprentices.

18th October, 1573. Here was John Staples and brought in his
apprentyze for evyll behavio{r} by hym comytted in his masters house
w{th} his masters mayde and he made his submyssion on his knees and
asked his master forgevenes in the courte, and he was forgeven uppon
condyc͠on that he should amend well & faythfullye w{th}out farther
complaint or elles to have the ponnyshment of the howsse.

11th December, 1599. In the matter in controversie betwixt Juliance
Yonge & John Bradley his apprentice it is ordered that the sayd Yonge
shall take his sayd apprentice into his service agayne And that the
sayd Yonge shall use him as hee oughte to doe And that the sayd
apprentice shall well and honestly behave himself towardsˀ his sayd
M{r.}

22nd January, 1600. This daye Daniell Hinkesman brought in his fine
of xl{s} for sufferinge his apprentice to dwell w{th} a gentleman.

This apprentice had probably been let out to hire as a valet by Hinkesman, who received his wages instead of teaching him his trade.

20th February, 1600. Noah Bayley having been complained of for striking his apprentice Andrew Mathew, he was fined 40_s._, and at the next Court Mathew had license to sue Bayley at the Common law for “breaking his head.”

17th June, 1600. This daye it was ordered that George Langton
apprentice to M{r} ffrederick shalbe comitted to the compter for his
unreverent behaviour towardes his M{r.}

7th August, 1600. John Sares is to be called in question for geveinge
wages to his apprentice.

2nd December, 1600. This daye uppon complaynt made to this Courte it
was ordered that Henry Needham should put awaye his apprentice Willm̄
Webbe for that it was then apparantly pˀved that hee is marryed
w{th}in his terme And it was thereuppon furth{r} ordered that the
pˀsentac͠on should be discharged by a vacat thereuppon to be entered.

5th May, 1601. This daie the wiefe of Thomas Asbridge decessed did
complaine of Marke Nurse her apprentice for absentinge himselfe from
her service and other his misdemeanors towardes her All w{ch} uppon
his humble suite and promise of amendment was forgeeven him.

16th June, 1601. This daie it is ordered that Thomas Shurwin
apprentice to John Urvey shalbe for ever utterly dischardged of his
terme of apprentisship for that it appeareth to the Maisters uppon
hearinge of their controversie that he hath the said apprentice
colorablie.

30th June, 1601. This daye Robert Wallis is dischardged from his
apprentiship for that it appeared to this Court that his maister did
not mayntayne him w{th} sufficient meate drynck and apparrell.

22nd September, 1601. This daye uppon complaynt made by ---- Jelly
apprentice to Hughe ffell that the said ffell had put him oute of his
service before hee had acquainted the M{rs} therew{th} It was ordered
that the said ffell should receive his said apprentice in to his
service againe & that hee should pˀsently inroll him. And that the
said ffell should appeare before the M{rs} at the next Courte.

3rd November, 1601. This daye uppon hearinge of the Controversie
betwixt John Howe & his apprentice It is ordered that hee shall take
home his said apprentice and use him well hereafter And whereas the
said Apprentice hath complayned for that the said Howe dothe not
exercyse the said apprentice in his trade of Barbery & Surgery It is
furth{r} ordered that if the said Howe shall not take a shoppe and
use his trade before Christemas next that the said apprentice shalbe
turned over to anoth{r} of the same arte.

16th March, 1602. This daye it is pˀmised & undertaken before the
M{rs} of this Company by Robert Leadbeater that hee the said Robert
shall & will at the expirac͠on of the apprentisheep of Henry Edwards
his apprentice geve unto the said Henry twoe suites of decent
apparrell & a cloke.

20th April, 1602. I Michaell Braye doe pˀmise and undertake That
at the ende & expirac͠on of the tearme of apprenticeship of George
Parkins my Apprentice I will geve unto him a new suite of apparrell
viz one dublett one pˀ of hose one hatt one pˀ of stockins and one
Cloke of decent apparrell In witnes whereof I have hereunto put my
hand.

22nd February, 1603. This daye it is ordered that Thomas Mownsley
shall for his disobedience to his M{r} be comitted to the Compter.

16th April, 1605. This daye Peter Saunderson certiefied the Court
that hee had offered to inroll his apprentice before the Chamberlin
and it was denyed him because the apprentice could not at the end of
his terme accomplishe the Age of xxiij yeres.

4th June, 1605. This daye it is ordered that John Udall shall at
the next Courte bringe in his fine of xl{s} for puttinge a waye his
Apprentice Tho. Hobbes w{th} out o{r} M{rs} consent (see 18th June).

4th June, 1605. This daye it is ordered that Roger Kiffin shalbe
dischardged of his apprentiship w{th} Richard Bonner for that hee
wanteth meate drinck & apparrell And hee is to finde him selfe a
nother M{r} of this Company. (See 25th June.)

18th June, 1605. This daye it is ordered that John Udall shalbe
committed to the Compter for his contempt.[171]

[171] The contempt being that Udall having “put away” his Apprentice,
(_i.e._, had him locked up in Bridewell, without the leave of the
Court,) and being fined 40_s._ for that offence, had refused to pay
his fine.

25th June, 1605. Richard Bonnẽr is to bringe in his apprentices Roger
Kiffins Indenture at the next Courte or ells hee is to be comitted to
the Compter.

25th June, 1605. This daye Thomas Clemence was fined at x{s} for that
hee was not bound apprentice by the Clark of this Company.

24th September, 1605. This day it is ordered that David Vaughan
apprentice to Richard Davis shalbe pˀntlie dischardged from his said
M{r} for the residue of his terme to come for that his said M{r}
hath given him unlawfull correction as it was affirmed and hath not
trayned him up in the trade that he used being Barbinge and Surgery.
And is to bring in the Apprentices indenture att the next Courte
or ells to be comitted to the Compter for his contempt. And the
appˀntice is in the meane tyme to continue w{th} his freindꝭ And is
not to sˀve any pˀson that useth the trade of silck weavinge any more
w{th} in the liberties of London.

7th January, 1606. This day it is ordered that John Browne and his
apprentice be here at the next Courte. And he is to be comaunded
from our M{rs} to discharge his appˀntice out of Bridewell w{ch} he
holdeth there And then to be before o{r} said M{rs} at their next
Court both he and his apprentice.

14th January, 1606. John Browne is to bringe in his fine for puttinge
away his appˀntice w{th}out the M{rs} order.

5th July, 1608. This daye in the Controversie betwixt Nicholas Braye
and Humfrey Pittꝭ It is ordered for that the M{rs} doe fynde that the
Apprentice is not kept as hee ought to be but is lowsie and also his
M{r} for want of change of apparrell And that therefore wee doe not
fynde him a fit M{r} It is ordered that if the said Nicholas Braye
doe not hereafter use his apprentice in Better Order that then the
apprentice shalbe turned over to anoth{r} freeman of this Company.

23rd May, 1609. This daye Richard Tyler broughte in his fine
accordinge to a former order for puttinge awaye (_i.e._, imprisoning)
his apprentice w{th}out the M{rs} order And it was mittigated to
xx{s.}

19th November, 1611. At this Court it is ordered that John Todd shall
on the next tuesdaies Court bring in his fyne of 40{s} for that he
did not bynde an appˀntice w{ch} is now w{th} him according to the
Custome of this howse.

19th November, 1611. At this Court Robert Hawley the appˀntice of
Thomas Clarke was for his stubbornes & other unsemely pranckꝭ by him
used towardꝭ his M{r} as also for his lewd & bad service brought
before the M{rs} whereupon he promising of amendem{t} his faultꝭ was
for this tyme remitted.

22nd February, 1613. In the complaint made by William Richardson
against his M{r} John Sabyn being heard & proved at this Court by
his owne confession that Sabyn did use unlawfull correction to his
appˀntice. It is ordered that the M{r} shall not use hereafter
any such unlawfull correction for if he doe & his appˀntice make
complaint thereof to the M{rs} of this Company, then the appˀntice
shall be taken awaye from him And further it is ordered that the
appˀntice shall doe his M{r} just & true service, And that the said
Sabyn shall the next Court daie bring in his fyne for not inrowling
of his said appˀntice w{th}in the tyme lymitted by the ordynancꝭ of
this howse.

22nd February, 1613. This daye Joseph Boreman made promise to pˀforme
such order as the M{rs} did heretofore set downe between him and his
appˀntice namely⁾ that he will give to the same appˀntice two suitꝭ
of apparell fitt for such an appˀntice accordinge to the true meaning
of the same w{th}out any fraud.

27th September, 1614. At this Court Raph Dixon the appˀntice of our
M{r} Hassall for manie lewd misdemeano{rs} & for getting a woman
w{th} child, being an appˀntice shold have had the correction of the
howse, but upon considerac͠on had he is to be sent to bridewell.

23rd January, 1615. In the complaint made by Margery Stokes in the
behalf of her grand child John Taft who is thˀ apprentice of one John
Hedlowe for that the said Hedlow haveing receaved w{th} the said
appˀntice the some of Tenn poundꝭ doth now turne him away & refuseth
to restore the monie w{ch} he had w{th} him. It is therefore by this
Court ordered that the said Hedlow shall either receave the same
appˀntice into his service agayne or otherwise repaie the said some
of Tenn poundes wherefore he promised unto this Court to take the
same appˀntice agayne into his service.

14th March, 1615. In the matter of complaint made by the weif of one
Xp̃ofer Greene who is now gone to the East indies of & about her
servaunt or appˀntice for that he kepeth her shop & doth gyve her no
allowaunce towardꝭ the kepeing of her out of the gettingꝭ in the same
shop w{ch} being duely herd at this Court It is ordered that the said
appˀntice shall from henceforth weekelie make unto his M{ris} a trew
& just accompt of such monie as he shall gett in the same shop &
that from henceforth he shall be at the appoyntment of his mistris &
of the M{rs} of this companie and his M{ris} shall have & enjoy all
such benifitt as shalbe gotten by the said shopp.

14th November, 1615. In the complaynt made by the servant of William
Corbett against his M{r} w{ch} beinge examyned at this Court It is
aparyant that the boy hath very stubburnlie & naughtielie behaved
himself unto his M{r} Whereupon it is this daie ordered that the boy
shall goe home agayne w{th} his M{r} & behave himselfe more honestlie
then formerlie he hath done w{ch} the boy promiseth to doe.

18th February, 1616. In the complaint made by M{ris} Wootten against
her appˀntice Thomas Hill for his neclect of service & for pleaing at
dice & whoring It is therefore ordered that the boy be corrected.

18th February, 1616. In the complaint made by David Richardson
against his M{r} ffletcher for lack of vittualls It is ordered that
ffletcher shall take the boy home & kepe him as an appˀntice ought to
be kept.

There are several records of masters being fined for keeping more than three apprentices, the usual penalty being £5, though this was sometimes mitigated on petition.

13th June, 1626. This daye John Pinder made complaint against Janson
his appˀntice, this Courte caused the vizard and coate to be brought
into the Parlor, and the apprentice submitted himselfe to his Maister
soe that his punishment was forborne.

For some particulars as to the vizard coate and bulbegger, see p. 393. The mere sight of them had a softening effect upon Master Janson, as also upon George Tether, who seems to have caught a glimpse of them next year.

7th August, 1627. This daye the weife of Salomon Carr made complaint
against her apprentice George Tether formerly bound to Jeffery
Baskervile deceased and he had the bulbegger showed him, whoe upon
his humble submission to his M{ris} was spared in hoape of his better
service to her hereafter.

20th November, 1632. Martine Stamp made complaint ag̃t John Scott
by petic͠on to this Court thereby intimateing that his son Scotts
appˀntice is nowe kept and imployed onely for digging delveing &
planting and pruneing potatoes & tobacco in the Barmoothoes Iland.
(Query Bermudas.)

28th January, 1635. It is ordered that Jonas Gargrave shalbe
prosecuted to be disfraunchised at the charge of this house in regard
he tooke a married mann apprentice knoweingly.

Mr. Heydon’s apprentice, next referred to, was doubtless a gay and swaggering young gentleman, and the Court in meteing out its amusing sentence must have been conscious of touching him on a sore place.

9th August, 1647. Mr. Heydon complayneing to this Court of his
apprentice here present in Court ffor his evill and stubborne
Behavior towards him and frequent absences out of his service in
Day time and in late houres at night The said apprentice being in
Court to answer to the same did rudely and most irreverently behave
himselfe towards his said M{r} and the whole Court in sawcy language
and behaviour useing severall Oathes protesting that he will not
serve his M{r} whatever shall come of it This Court did therefore
cause the Haire of the said apprentice (being undecently long) to be
cut shorter.

8th August, 1729. It is ordered that the Clarke do sue M{r.} Lee
M{r.} Pemble and M{r.} Bonzer for binding their Apprentices by
Scriveners and not at the Hall.

4th August, 1741. It is ordered that James Parnell Stevenson who
was this day bound an apprentice to Tho{s.} fford be brought here
12 months hence by his Ma{r} that the Court may be satisfyed of his
being better improved in his Learning.

5th November, 1791. Elizabeth Conyers was apprenticed to Elizabeth Castle and presented and bound in Court. This is but one of numerous entries of girl apprentices.

The Registers of apprentices were for a long period kept in Latin, _e.g._:

28th July, 1658. Mathew Moy fil̃l̃ M.M. nuper de com̃ Staford
vintener̊ defunct: põ: se ap̃p. Tho. Pace Watchmaker pro 7 annis a
die dãt.

The following is an example of a boy being bound to a freewoman of the Company.

23rd June, 1658. Daniel Alderson fil̃l̃ Jacobi A. nuper Civ. et B. S.
Londini defunct põ: se ap̃p. matri suo Katherine Alderson pro 8 annis
a die dãt.

And here is an instance of a girl, the daughter of a “gentleman,” being bound to a Barber-Surgeon and to his wife.

18th December, 1660. Katharina Bowghy fiɫ. Georgii B. de Addley in
com̃ Stafford gent. defunct põ: se ap̃p W{mo} Bennett B.C. et Marthæ
uxori ejus pro 7 annis a die dãt.

FREEMEN.

The earliest recorded fine on admission to the freedom was £3, one Martin Partridge being sworn in on 26th July, 1551, when he paid £1 and gave security for the remainder.

10th September, 1551. John Bryckett, “toothe drawer,” was admitted “a brother into this house” and paid £1.

10th November, 1551. On this day four freemen were admitted paying respectively 6_s._ 8_d._, 10_s._, 2_s._, 10_d._, and another man paid nil, which indicates that the fines on admission were variable and at the pleasure of the Court.

19th September, 1552. It was ordered that free journeymen should not pay quarterage until such time as they set up for themselves and kept house.

4th July, 1566. It was ordered that in future any one seeking admission to the freedom if “Inglyshe borne” should pay £4 and any “alyan or straynger” £5.

7th October, 1567. In this Courte Rich Morrys upon his fre makinge
pˀmyssed to geve the M{rs} a bucke.

21st October, 1567. In this Courte Thomas Symons and Willm fferrat
are sworne and admytted brethren of this Company and are lycenced to
sett open shoppe as parteners to gether w{th}oute Smythefelde bars.

2nd June, 1573. Here was Edward Duffeeld of London a practioner in
phisick & Surgery and required to be a brother of this Company and yt
was agreed that he should pay xl{s} in hand and other xl{s} at S{t.}
James daye.

9th June, 1573. Here was Gabriel Petrol for not being admytted a
Brother [he] occupynge Surgerye w{th}out admyttaunce and he promysed
he would and yt was agreed that he should at a moneth ende bringe in
xl{s} in pˀte of payment of v{li} w{th}out any farther delaye.

3rd June, 1600. Henry Wheelis is appoynted to pˀcure his M{r} to make
him free the next Court or to geve ovˀ his shop in long lane yf not
then to be comitted to the compter.

22nd July, 1600. This daye Henry Wilson of Ratcliffe and Mathewe
Eaton of S{t} Bartholomew in West Smythfeyld were suters to the M{rs}
of this Company to become broth{rs} of the same whereuppon they are
by this Court injoyned to geve their answere the next Court what
gratificac͠on they will bestowe of[172] the Company.

[172] On.

6th November, 1604. This daie Vincent Lowe became humble suiter to
this Companie to be admytted into the same by redempc͠on to w{ch}
request this Courte hath consented pˀvided hee paie to this Companie
in gratificac͠on v{li} of lawfull money of England and doe bestowe a
dinn{r} uppon the Assistantꝭ on Thursday next.

5th February, 1605. This daie it is ordered that Edward Carelill
Inholder shalbe translated from his Company to this payinge to the
M{rs} to the use of this Company iiij{li} and beareinge the ordenary
chardge.

9th April, 1605. It is this daye ordered that Raphe Parsons a freeman
of this Company and Thomas Sampson Edward Squier and Robert Hoddy
late servants & apprentices to xp̃ofer Thompson shall fynde them
M{rs} in this Company to be turned over unto before whitson tyde next
And that they shall continue no longer w{th} their mistres because
shee is nowe marryed to a Grocer who is not free of this Company.

29th January, 1610. fforasmuch as Tobye Johnson would not give
consent to this Court that James Kent[173] should be made a freeman
The Court have thought fytt the said James should be at this Court
sworne a freeman of this Company for that ytt cannot appeere to this
Court that the said Johnson can prove any materiall thinge against
the said Jame to debarr him of his freedome.

[173] His late apprentice.

14th January, 1611. This daie William Tavernor the late appˀtice of
Widdowe Sanderson did before the M{rs} of this Company promise that
he would not at any tyme hereafter set up a barbers shopp in any
place w{th}in two pˀisshes[174] at the least where the said Widdowe
Sanderson dwelleth or keepeth shopp uppon w{ch} promise soe by him
made the said Widdowe Sanderson is contented to make him a freeman of
this cittie not w{th}standing he hath untill October next to serve.

[174] Parishes.

2nd July, 1612. This daie at this Court yt is ordered that Edward
Squior the Dyer shall not be translated from this Company unto the
Company of the Dyers for that if this howse shall give consent unto
him maney others of this Company as well Dyers & grocers as other
tradꝭ would sue to have the like kindenes.

9th January, 1615. At this Court, one John Mathews, “an oculist,” made suit for his admission by redemption--

w{ch} this Court did consent unto conditionallie to gyve this howse a
great beare bowle sutable to the rest of the great beare bowles w{ch}
he consented unto.

LIVERYMEN.

Ordered 19th September, 1552, that Peter Saxton and Thomas Dixon
shalbe dysmiste of the Clothinge for their yll demeanor and behavyor
And also Mathew Johnson because he ys not habull.[175]

[175] Able, _i.e._, solvent.

5th November, 1555. Ordered that Henry Pemarton shall not weare his
Lyvery hoode nor paye no maner of quartrage unto this house but
shalbe cleane exempted out of the same.

26th March, 1558. Robert Foster, Robert Grove, and Thomas Barnet were expelled the Livery “because they are not able.”

4th July, 1566. It was ordered that the Livery from thenceforth should not exceed fifty persons.

3rd December, 1566. Thomas Lambkyn and John Morryt appeared before the Court and testified against Edward Parke for that the said Edward--

saide he wolde not come to the Courte beynge warned & y{t} yf the
M{r} comytted hym to warde he wolde brynge the M{r} before the Lorde
cheefe Justice And it is ordered y{t} the saide Parke shall & is upon
his humble submission remytted.[176]

[176] Be forgiven.

26th September, 1581. It was agreed that evˀy one in the Lyverie
should go decently in gownes all a like at all metinges and
assemblies.

30th June, 1601. This daye Abraham Allen John Hassold Richard Eade &
Henry Oseyld lately taken into the livery of this Company pˀsented
themselves in their livˀy gownes and the M{r} accordinge to order
placed their hoods uppon their showld{rs.}

6th May, 1602. Roger Jenkins, free of the Weavers’ Company and an “admitted broth{r} in the practize of Surgery,” applied to be admitted to the freedom, and upon payment of £10 was made free and taken into the Clothing.

7th June, 1602. This daye it was ordered that forasmuch as Richard
Samborne one of the livery of this Company had used divers opprobrius
& undecent woordes of M{r} Newsam That the said Richard should
forbeare the wearinge of his livery & hud untill hee had ord{r}
therefore from the M{rs} of this Company.

16th August, 1602. This daye Richard Howlden and Thomas Grig were
admitted into the clothinge of this mistery and were commaunded to
pˀvide them necessary apparrell for the same.

8th November, 1604. This daye Dominick Lumley became humble suiter
to this Courte to be dischardged of the office of Steward and M{r}
of the Anothomie and of the Livˀy and all officers w{th}inne the
same and in considerac͠on thereof hee is to paie tenn poundꝭ to be
converted into three peecꝭ of plate as a guifte for his dischardge.

5th February, 1605. This daye Richard Cade & Richard Holden were
fyned for not beinge at Powles[177] in theire Lyveryes & theire
hoodes on Candlemas daye last.

[177] St. Paul’s.

22nd January, 1606. This daie Roger Buckley & Richard Wood Junio{r}
for that they dwell in the Cuntrey and have not for long tyme
gyven their attendaunce in their lyveryes accordeing to order are
absolutely dismissed owt of the lyvery of this Company.

21st August, 1609. This day Andrew Wheatley was fined to xij{d}
for attendinge in a fallinge band w{th} his livery gowne w{ch} he
accordinglie payd.

26th October, 1612. This daie it is ordered that from hensforth the
lyvˀie of this Company maie at their meetingꝭ out of this howse weare
their hates[178] w{th} their lyvˀies Any order heretofore made to the
contrary notwithstanding.

[178] Hats.

29th December, 1615. Four liverymen admitted this day paid £2 each as a fine, and fifteen others paid £5 each. Humphrey Downinge, who had been chosen a Liveryman, and would not accept the Clothing, was fined and paid £10.

27th January, 1617. It was ordered that from henceforth the Liverymen were not to appear at the Hall in their gowns and hoods on Christmas, Twelfth and Candlemas days “as formerlie they were accustomed to doe,” but at their seats at St. Paul’s instead.

13th September, 1621. The livery was generally composed of an equal number of Barbers and of Surgeons; on this day it was ordered--

That at the next choise of a new Lyvery there shalbe chosen a Barber
more than a Surgeon for that M{r} Kellett hath not accepted of the
place as yett, if he shall not accept thereof.

1636. A great many Liverymen were chosen this year, apparently for the purpose of assisting by their fines, the fund for the building of the Anatomical Theatre; from various entries at this period it would seem that when a freeman desired to be excused taking the Livery, he was obliged to take an oath before the Masters of his inability to pay the fine.

19th May, 1637. This Court upon divers treatise with Abraham Purrott
a brother of this Companie being chosen into the livery by a former
Court & he being summoned to appeare this daye by agreem{t} yet came
not and hath alsoe formerly[179] answered that he will not hold the
place of a liveryman nor paye the fine but would onely give a peece
of plate of v{li} to this house as his gift in full satisfaction
of all his fines & places, w{ch} this Court doth think to be farr
short And therefore this Court doth impose and fine the said Abraham
Purrott at xx{li} according to the ordinances confirmed by the Lords
& by the Statute.

[179] Formally.

Several others were from time to time similarly fined, both in the 17th and 18th centuries.

2nd August, 1737. At this Court Robert Young who was the apprentice
of James Phillips Surgeon was admitted into the freedom of the
Company by service and was sworn, and the said M{r} Young at the same
time took the Livery, and his master M{r} Phillips out of his own
bounty and a just sense of the diligent and faithfull services of
the said Robert Young during his Apprenticeship did not only pay the
charges of the said M{r} Young’s freedom but did likewise bestow upon
him his fine for the Livery being ten pounds.

29th October, 1751. It is ordered that upon all future days for
swearing in the Lord Mayor of this City at Westminster when this
Company shall have their Stand as usual No Liveryman shallbe admitted
into the same without leave of the Master unless he shall walk in
the Publick Procession cloathed in his proper Livery gown and hood
according to his summons.

3rd October, 1752. It was further ordered--

That two men and a constable shall be hired to guard the Stand and
see that the said Order be complied with.

9th November, 1765. Several liverymen notwithstanding former orders to the contrary, having appeared on the Company’s Stand on Lord Mayors’ days without their gowns and hoods, it was ordered that any liveryman transgressing in the like in future, should be fined half-a-guinea.

THE YEOMANRY.

The Yeomanry of the Barber-Surgeons appear to have had a most chequered existence, having been “established” and “put downe” several times, until finally they appear to have died out both in constitution and in name.

The Yeomanry answered exactly to the class of Members who are now styled “Freemen,” and for a long period were the most numerous body in the Company. In early times the numbers of the Livery or Clothing were strictly limited, and under the Tudors and Stuarts rarely exceeded fifty, but as the persons who were compelled to take up their freedom, and those who came in voluntarily or by patrimony and servitude have always been a numerous section, it appears to have been considered politic to give a constitution to these inferior members of the Mystery, and consequently a Yeomanry, or Company within the Company was set up, and to this the new freeman was admitted after he had been presented and sworn before the Masters or Governors of the Clothing.

The Court of the Company framed the Ordinances for the Yeomanry, and whilst delegating to them many of their own privileges, as, for instance, the power to levy fines, and to summarily commit offenders to prison, they always seem to have retained a very tight and jealous hand over them, and were constantly interfering with the Wardens of the Yeomanry.

The Yeomanry had their own four Wardens and Court of Assistants, their Beadle and mace, common box, standing cups and other silver plate, their annual dinner, and sometimes, when in a flourishing condition, no less than four dinners in the year, their “corrector” for apprentices, and they also possessed the choice privilege of collecting the quarterage from their members. Under such auspicious circumstances, it could hardly be otherwise than that, in process of time, they should become both presumptuous and audacious and thus provoke inevitable collision with the Ruling body of the Company.

The Wardens of the Yeomanry at one period had designated themselves, or certainly encouraged others to describe them, as “The Wardens of the Barber-Surgeons,” an assumption not to be tolerated, and, like their Masters on the Clothing, had been accustomed to go to their homes (after their gatherings and feasts) in state, accompanied by a “trayne or traynes”; these acts of presumption called forth the restraining order of the 15th September, 1588 (_vide post_). Later on we find that they went “in searche to see what serˀvnts some ffremen of the Companie had, w{ch} they ought not to do,” they gave way to too much feasting and arbitrarily exercised their powers of fine and imprisonment, all which offences brought them reprimands, and somewhere about the year 1604 their temporary extinguishment. They were, however, soon after re-erected, but in the year 1635 permanently “disestablished and disendowed.”

Although the Constitution of the “Yeomanry” was then abolished, the appellation was retained for over 200 years after, though merely as a traditional distinctive name synonymous with that of “freemen.” Thus, the whifflers for Lord Mayor’s day were always chosen out of the “Yeomanry,” and members of the “Yeomanry” are continually spoken of as being chosen into the Livery.

In the Audit Book, 1847-1848, this ancient term is used for the last time in respect of the receipts for quarterage, after this the designation becomes “freemen.”

19th September, 1552. It is condescendyd and agreed that there shalbe
no more yomanry of the said Company of Barbors Surgeons.

1st October, 1555. It was agreed “that the yomanrye of the sayed Company of Barbors and Surgeons shalbe establisshed and set up agayne and be in as full strenght force and power as ever yt was before the plucking downe of the same,” and articles or ordinances for the Yeomanry were enacted. As, however, these articles are excessively verbose, the following descriptions and extracts will suffice:--

Article 1. Out of the Yeomanry were to be chosen four Wardens annually, and named respectively, the uppermost, second, third and youngest Wardens.

Article 2. One of the Yeomanry to be appointed Beadle of the Yeomanry to execute summonses, etc.

Article 3. The Wardens of the Yeomanry to bring in once a year to the Masters and Governors of the Clothing, an account of monies remaining in their hands to be delivered to the new Wardens, and to be “kept and bestowed as they w{t}in themselves shall thinke yt meete and convenyent to the helpe and comforte of them w{t}in the yomanry of Barbors and Surgeons.” The Wardens were also to present the new Wardens to the Masters or Governors for approval within eight days after being chosen. The Masters or Governors were to “have nothinge to dooe withe the monye of the yomanry.”

Article 4. If the Masters or Governors should borrow any monies of the Yeomanry they were to repay on a day to be agreed upon “the saved som̄e so borrowed w{t} thanks geving.”

Article 5. The Wardens on the day of Election of Masters or Governors of the Clothing shall--

come to the dynner at the hall in their best apparrell at the daye
appointed whiche is the mondaye senighte before Barthelmew daye, and
when the M{r} and governors of the Clothinge doo gooe and choose the
new M{r} and governors the cheif wardein of the yomanrye shall beare
the cup before the M{r} The seconde wardein shall beare the cupp
before the uppermoste governor of the clothinge. The thirde wardein
of the yomãry shall beare the cupp before the seconde governor of the
clothinge and the yongest wardein of the yomanry shall beare the cupp
before the yongest governor of the clothinge in knowledging of the
setting up of the yomanrye agayne.

In the event of sickness or lawful absence, others were to be appointed to this duty.

And furthermore that noen of the wardeins of the yomanrye of barbors
and surgeons doo presume to goo aboute to make searche to see in
anye of the Companyes houses to knowe what prentizes they have or
journeymen as the M{r} and governors doo of the clothinge whoo have
aucthoritie so to dooe. Yf the wardeins of the yomanry be taken or
justelye proved that they doo soo, to forfaycte at every tyme so
doying to the hall vj{li} xiij{s} iiij{d.}

Article 6. The Wardens of the Yeomanry were to collect the quarterage of freemen (3_d._ per quarter) and of “fforyners” (6_d._ per quarter), and duly pay same over to the Masters and Governors, and books of account were to be kept by the Wardens. NOTE.--In practice this article was varied, as the Yeomanry kept the quarterage and “compounded” with the Masters for a fixed annual sum.

Article 7. The Masters were to pay the Wardens of the Yeomanry £4 which had been “advanced by them in 1543 for provysyon of wheete for the Cytie,” and which sum had been recently refunded by the City.

Article 8. The Yeomanry were to have the use of the chamber “where the Lecture ys reade every Tewysday” whenever they please to consult therein.

Article 9. These Articles were to be written on parchment, sealed and delivered to the Wardens of the Yeomanry.

Article 10. The Masters were to give notice to the Wardens of the Yeomanry of any rules which they from time to time should make touching the craft.

Article 11. The rules and ordinances of the Company were to be read to the Yeomanry three times in every year, viz.: at Candlemas, in May and at Lammas.

Article 12. The Yeomanry were to obey all the rules and ordinances now made or to be made.

16th October, 1555. The first four Wardens of the Yeomanry were presented to the Masters, their names being Edward Hewet, John Surbut, George Corraunte (Corron) and Thomas Buston (Burston).

12th October, 1557. It was ordered:--

That the Wardens of the yeomanry allwaise for the tyme beinge and
by theire Assistantꝭ shall Elect and chuse every yeare to (two)
w{th}in themsylffs to be Coostꝭ[180] of the Lyberary and of the
Instrmentꝭ w{ch} by the M{rs} and Governors it was thought good and
most Convenyent that those too whyche are maisters of the Anathomys
to be Elected and Chosen the sayde Cowstꝭ (of the) Lyberary and
Instrumẽtis, and the Wardens of the yeomanry for the tyme beinge
shall delyvˀ and geve the kayse of the lyberarye and of the
instrument howse unto those whyche they have Chosen to be Coustose
thereof. And ffurther allso That the sayde Wardens of the yeomanry
for the tyme beinge shall allwayse se and looke y{t} the saide
instrumentꝭ be kepte Cleane and that they shall do upon theyre owne
Chirgis.[181]

[180] Custos or keepers.
[181] Charges.

15th September, 1558. It was ordered:--

That uppon the Election daye and chusynge of the fowre wardeyns of
the yeomãry of the Mystery or Companye aforesayde And also theyre
Wardeyns then beynge elected and chosen and also theyre Dyner or
Recreocion then at o{r} hall beynge w{th} all y{r} Lawfull busynes
then don and ended That and then also at theire goynge and depˀtinge
frome ou{r} hall the sayde fowre wardeyns of the yeomanrye so named
by that name and by none other shall in any maner of wyse pˀsume or
take uppon them nor any of them to be wayted on or broughte home
unto y{r} owne houses Neyther shall go unto any other place or placꝭ
elꝭwhere havynge w{th} or after them any trayne or traynes eyther of
y{e} sayde Assystaunce or any beynge oute of theyre sayde assystaunce
and Companye But every pˀsone and persones of the sayde feloshyppe of
the yeomanrye then shall quyetly departe and go every man his owne
waye aboute his necessarye busynesse.

A fine of five marks was ordered to be taken from the “comon boxe” of the yeomanry, if the above regulation should be transgressed.

PROVIDED ALLWAYE That the sayde Wardeyns with the Rest of theyre
assystaunce feloshyppe and Companye of the Yeomanry maye and shall
at all Tyme and tymes decently and orderly go unto the maryagis
offeringꝭ and Buryalls of theyre sayde Brethren and Susters of the
sayde Company of the yeomanry as they here to fore have don.

4th July, 1566. It was ordered that the Wardens and Assistants of the Yeomanry should be allowed to sit at the “Uppermore” table in the Hall on quarter days to receive their quarterages, and to read the rules and ordinances to the Yeomanry.

18th February, 1567. IN THYS COURTE here was Edward Parke beynge[182]
comytted to warde at the comaundment of the wardens of the yeomanry
for his disobedyencˀs, and for his oprobrius & obstynat words in the
pˀsents of this Courte to the M{r} & govˀnors he is comytted to warde
agayne.

[182] _i.e._ Having been.

18th January, 1569. At this Court seven freemen were sworn in to be Assistants to the Yeomanry.

15th November, 1569. In this Courte the wardens of the yeomanry
broughte in the pˀsentꝭ of this courte John Wyllet Thom̃s Warren and
John Jaggard & they reported y{t} Nycolas Whytemore sholde reporte
at the thre tonnes at yeldehall gate y{t} M{r} Pole of the chauncery
shold saye y{t} we ought to have no wardens of the yeomanry. And
Nyc͠ols Whytemore said y{t} he was at supper at M{r} Pole & one M{r}
Lovels & they pˀused the statutꝭ said to Whyttemore he hath ben
warden of his cõpany & he said no he had been warden of the yeomanry
& M{r} Pole sholde saye we cold not have a yeomanry.

18th April, 1570. Here was John Jagger sayth that he was nevˀ a
councell or knoleg of any pˀmoter beyng set to trouble the Company
for the state of o{r} yeomanry And also John Wyllet denyeth the byll
& wyll not confesse any thinge w{th}oute the pˀsentꝭ of his accuser
but for knowledge of the pˀmotter he nevˀ meante yt he said befor
god. And Thomas Warren saed he hathe kepte all to hymsylf & nevˀ
mynded nor thoughte to trouble in any respecte and denyeth the byll
also. And yt is ordered that they shall agree brotherly together and
here after they nor any of them shall move or speake or make any
rehersall of any matter as consernyng the state of the yeomãry upon
payne of ip̃rysonment. And Thom̃s Warren John Wyllet & John Jagger
shall take y{r} romes & placꝭ and brotherly they have eyther of them
taken one a nother handes & so these matters nevˀ to be reported any
more here after.

This brotherly amity did not long continue, for:--

23rd May, 1570. Here was John Warren & John Wyllet is comytted to
warde for dysobedyence, and Thomas Newens said that one Husto an
informer his neyghbo{r} saide that the company sholde be arẽsted[183]
upon a statute & y{t} yt is one of o{r} company did sett the enformer
to do yt but he founde not the statute to holde w{th} them & y{r}fore
he wolde not deale, but to name the pˀte[184] he wolde not.

[183] _i.e._ Sued.
[184] Party.

Warren and Wyllet must have been sent straight off to prison, as a further minute states that on the same day “after diner,” Warren was brought up out of the Compter for examination.

On the 29th May, Wyllet made submission and was released from prison.

19th September, 1570. Warren and Wyllet seem to have been cantankerous brethren, for they were complained of by the Wardens of the Yeomanry for refusing to take upon themselves the office of Wardens to which they had been elected.