Chapter VII: Preface (7)

Some time in this year (1684) certain unquiet spirits, Surgeons of our Company, got up a petition to the King, setting forth that the union of Surgeons with Barbers hindered rather than promoted the end for which the two bodies had been united, and praying the King to incorporate the Surgeons a distinct and separate body. Nothing came of this application beyond a reference (ordered by the King, 15th May, 1684) to the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, and the Lord Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, who were directed to examine and report upon the petition, but whether they ever did so or not, I don’t know.

27th February, 1685. James II, in the first year of his reign, granted us a Charter, which is contained on seven skins of parchment, all of which have handsomely designed head-pieces and borders, the first one having a fine portrait of the King as well; only a fragment of the great seal remains, and the charter itself is considerably damaged, apparently by rats. It is in Latin, of great length, and, like others granted to other companies at the period, is an “unreal mockery.” The Charter recites the “Surrender,” and proceeds to grant another charter in which, _inter alia_, the appointment of any Master, Warden, Assistant, or Clerk should be subject to the approval of the King, that all members of the Company should take the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, be in the Communion of the Church of England and receive the Sacrament, and that no person who frequented a conventicle should be eligible for the Livery.

4th April, 1687. The King having published a declaration, allowing liberty of conscience to all his subjects, suspending and dispensing with the penal laws and tests, and even with the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance on admission into offices civil and military, numerous addresses of thanks for this liberty were presented to the King, among others the following one from our Company, which is preserved in the “London Gazette” of 20th October, 1687.

THE HUMBLE ADDRESS OF THE MASTERS GOVERNORS ASSISTANTS
AND MEMBERS OF THE MYSTERY AND COMMONALTY OF BARBERS
AND SURGEONS OF LONDON.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR MAJESTY

We having daily before our eyes the munificent Bounties of your Royal
Brother of Blessed Memory, and other Your Ancestors, and also that of
your Majesties Gracious Favour, in restoring to us our new Charter,
we must be esteemed ever ungrateful and undutiful Subjects, if we did
not with all humility acknowledge the same.

But we are in more especial manner bound to cast ourselves at Your
Majesties Feet, and return our most humble and hearty Thanks for
Your late Declaration; wherein You are Graciously pleased to give
us Your Royal Word, whereby we are protected in the Profession and
free Exercise of our Religion, and also in the Enjoyment of our
Liberties and Properties in Peace and Safety; for which Your Gracious
Condescension and Goodness (as God hath made it our Duty), Your
Majesty hath made it our Interest duly to pray to the Divine Majesty
for his Blessing upon your Royal Person, Family and Government. And
that after the enjoyment of a long and prosperous reign here, over a
Dutiful and Obedient People, You may receive an everlasting Crown in
the World to come.

And that it may be so, it shall be as it becomes us, the constant and
utmost endeavour, as well as the hearty Prayer of,

Dread Sir!

Your Majesties most humble, most Loyal,
and most obliged Subjects.

1688. Matters were now rapidly approaching a crisis with James, who in vain, when too late, sought to conciliate the citizens whom he had wronged. One of his acts of propitiation was the redelivery to the Companies of the “surrenders” which they had made of their franchises and charters in 1684. We have no note of the date of the return of our surrender; but it was towards the end of November and within about a fortnight of the King’s flight when this tardy act of justice was done, and the Barber-Surgeons thus partly restored to their ancient rights and privileges. The Bill of Rights was shortly afterwards passed, the _quo warranto_ declared illegal, and all charters granted by Charles II and James II since the judgment on the _quo warranto_, declared absolutely null and void, thus practically reinstating the Guilds in _statu quo ante_.

28 July, 1690. Ordered that in pursuance of an order of the Com̃on
Counsell & Lord Mayor &c. that the Company advance towards the
provideing one Rigiment of Horse & one of Dragoone the sum̃e of one
hundred pounds.

1699. Jealousies arose in the Company in consequence of the more frequent election of Surgeons than Barbers, as Governors. The By-Laws required that every year there should be two Barbers and two Surgeons chosen (a Barber being defined to be any member who did not practise Surgery). The Surgeons disregarding the law and the old custom, seem to have been able to procure the election of an undue number of members of their own craft to the offices of Master and Wardens, whereupon certain of the Company filed an information in the King’s Bench against the Masters or Governors; the Barbers were successful, and having obtained a Mandamus, a fresh election took place. This altercation between the Barbers and Surgeons was never forgotten, and, indeed, helped to pave the way to further estrangement and the absolute separation in 1745.

The following Minutes relate to these proceedings:

14th December, 1699. Ordered Mr. S{r}geant Wright Mr. S{r}geant
Darnell Mr. Com̃on S{r}geant & Mr. Dee bee advised with upon the
Informac͠on ag{t} the Govern{rs.}

25th January, 1700. Ordered that the Cause ag{t} the Govern{rs} at
the prosecuc͠on of the Barbers bee referred to S{r}geant Darnell
& his opinion to bee taken & to pˀceed thereupon, Mr. Oades Mr.
Pleahill & Mr. Barnard to meet tomorrow at the raine bow to attend
him by five in the afternoone.

2nd May, 1700. Ordered Mr. Dee bee consulted concerning the Rule of
Court of King’s Bench for a copy of the by laws &c. & to follow his
advice &c. He advised to give Copyes if required & not to oppose it.

11th May, 1700. Ordered that Mr. S{r}geant Darnell have three guineys
Mr. Com̃on S{r}geant & Mr. Dee have two a peece given them for the
Tryall of the Informac͠on on Tuesday next & that all the Court of
Assistants bee desired to bee there.

28th June, 1700. Ordered that nothing bee done in the Cause ag{t} the
Company untill the Mandamus be served & then the Comittee to meete.

4th July, 1700. A pˀemtory Mandamus being served the last Court,
Ordered that on Tuesday next by two of the Clock in the afternoon
there bee an elecc͠on of two Wardens Expert in Barbery for the
remainder of this yeare.

9th July, 1700. An election took place, with the result that Mr. John Pinke and Mr. Richard Marks, both being Barbers, were elected Wardens. Mr. Pinke was already a Warden, but the Mandamus required two Barbers to be elected, and he was simply re-elected. Mr. Marks took the place of Mr. Bartholomew King, Surgeon. The Master, Mr. Lichfield, and the second Warden, Mr. James Wall, were both Surgeons.

13th January, 1709. It was agreed that a new set of By-Laws which had been settled by the Common Serjeant and Sir Edward Northey should be presented to the Lord Chancellor, etc., for confirmation, it being considered that the existing By-Laws were defective in many parts, and that “good & wholesome Lawes were the life strength & support of this Company.”

6th April, 1709. A set of By-Laws of this date was confirmed. They are comprised on thirteen great skins of parchment, and, like previous ones, are far too voluminous, and indeed not of sufficient interest, to warrant transcribing, being practically the former set with sundry technical and minor alterations. There is a fine portrait of Queen Anne on the first skin, and the Document is signed by William Lord Cowper, Lord Chancellor, Sir John Holt and Sir John Trevor, Lords Chief Justices, whose seals are pendant. These By-Laws were brought into Court on 5th May, 1709.

13th January, 1709. The Court were informed that the Barbers of the Company were in treaty with the Peruke Makers “of the other end of the town,” about incorporating them into this Company, and that they were endeavouring to procure an Act of Parliament to that effect, whereupon the proposition was approved and leave given to the Barbers to petition Parliament in the name of the Court.

5th December, 1709. A petition was presented by sundry liverymen (Barbers) representing that Peruke making was an encroachment upon the art of Barbery, and praying the Court to obtain an Act of Parliament incorporating the Peruke Makers with the Barber-Surgeons; the petition was favourably received by the Court and a Committee appointed, who met the next day and recommended the proposed union, the Peruke Makers paying such fees as other members of the Company paid.

24th December, 1709. A petition for an Act was ordered to be drawn by the Clerk and submitted to several eminent counsel for their perusal.

9th January, 1710. Five hundred copies of the proposed Bill, and a similar number of the reasons for the suggested incorporation, were ordered to be printed; but in the result nothing came of this proposed union with the Peruke Makers.

25th August, 1714. The following precept relating to the Accession of George I was received:

TO THE MASTER AND WARDENS OF } BY THE MAYOR.
THE COMPANY OF BARBER SURGEONS.}

WHEREAS it hath been resolved in Com̃on Councill y{t} if our most
Gratious Lord King George upon his comeing into this Kingdome be
pleased to pass through this his City of London, y{t} he shall be
received by us & our fellow citizens with all the Demonstrationes of
Joy & affection as are suitable to our duty and Loyalty.

These are therefore to require you to have your Rayle Cloaths
Standings Banners Streamers Ensignes & other Ornaments of triumph
belonging to your Company in a readiness to sett up imẽadiatly upon
Notice y{t} shall be given you of the time & place by any further
precept & y{t} yo{r} Cloaths Banners Streamers Ensignes & other
ornaments be fresh & Good & y{t} you forthwith send to all the
Liverymen of yo{r} Company that they be well & decently apparrelled
in their best Cloaths & Gowns to attend in their Standings y{t} so
your Company may be ready (when required) to receive his Maj{tie} to
his satisfac͠on & the Honour of this City and thereof you are not to
faile. Dated this 25{th} day of August, 1714.

GIBSON.

23rd December, 1717. The Company having had great difficulty in getting in some of their rents, and various of the houses being empty, determined to sell their property in Mowse Alley, East Smithfield, and in Butcher Row in St. Botolph’s, Aldgate, agreeing to convey the fee simple to Mr. Robert Finlay for £1,250.

And it is further ordered by this Court that till such time as the
said sume of 1250{li} can be laid out in a convenient purchase of
houses or lands with the approbac͠on of the Court of Assistants, The
same shall be forthwith placed out at Interest by the Governors upon
such Government or other Publick securitys as they shall think fitt,
But that the said sume of 1250{li} or any part thereof shall never be
expended on the Company’s common occac͠ons or be any way lessened or
broke into on any account whatsoever.

17th April, 1718. The following record was ordered to be made of the “reasons” for disposing of this property:

The Estate in East Smithfield in eleven years time produced to the
Company above all disbursements relating thereto[119] but £28 15_s._
in the whole, Whereas the annual interest of £1250 at 4 pˀ cent. is
£50.

[119] But these disbursements had been very heavy _in the nature of
repairs_.

Eleven years interest at £50 pˀ ann. for £1250 amounts to without
computeing Interest upon Interest £550.

The Company have run behind hand for severall years by means of the
great sumes laid out upon this Estate.

Whoever goes backward every year must in time be undone.

The Estate is still in such a condition as to require a great sum̃e
of money to be expended upon it in Repairing and Rebuilding in order
to make it tenantable.

The Company had not money to lay out upon it.

If they had, the Estate is so scituated that there is no room to
hope, even in case the whole had been rebuilt (as it wants to be)
that it would have answered the laying out so much money.

And if the Company had let it upon building Leases The pˀsent method
of building is so as to last exactly the term for which the Lease is
taken, wouˀd have put the Company in the same condic͠on as they are
now, when the term expired, besides loss of Rent, & disputes with
such Tenants in the mean time.

It was therefore thought better to dispose of the Estate.

Following are the details of negotiations with one or two parties other than Mr. Finlay, and some curious particulars of the Company’s title to part of the Estate, which seems to have been an equitable rather than a legal one, whereby the Court apprehended some difficulty in disposing of it to another party from whom a somewhat better price might have been obtained, and therein, under the circumstances, showed themselves good men of business by concluding with Mr. Finlay: we cannot however now, but regret that this most valuable property should have passed from us for so comparatively insignificant a sum. The purchase-money was laid out in thirteen East India Bonds of £100 each.

7th April, 1730. M{r} Serj{t} Dickins the Master of the Company
informing the Court, That he having the honour to be acquainted with
the Right Honourable The Earl of Burlington and with his Lordships
most extraordinary genius and superior judgment in Architecture, had
taken the liberty to address himself to the said noble Earl, and to
make it his humble request to his Lordship that he would be pleased
to favour the Company with his opinion, in what manner it would
be safest and best to repair the anatomical Theatre built by the
celebrated Inigo Jones about one hundred years ago.

That his Lordship had thereupon condescended to take a view of the
Theatre and most obligingly directed the proper method of repairing
a structure of so peculiar a frame, and afterwards out of his
accustomed generosity, and in regard to the memory of that great
Architect offered to defray the expence thereof.

IT IS THEREUPON RESOLVED NEMINE CONTRADICENTE by this Court, That
the Master and Wardens of the Company together with the late Master
William Cotesworth Esq{r} be, and they are hereby desired forthwith
to wait on the Right Honb̃le The Earl of Burlington, and in the most
gratefull manner to assure his Lordship in the name of the whole
Company.

THAT they do receive this noble instance of his Lordships bounty and
generosity as a most distinguishing & illustrious mark of honour
shown by his Lordship to the Company & Profession.

And that this Court will take care so to record & transmitt the
remembrance of this magnificent action of his Lordship to their
successors That the gratitude of the Company to his Lordship’s person
and memory may be for ever preserved among them.

13th August, 1730. A marble Bust of the Earl of Burlington was ordered to be set up in the Theatre.

27th April, 1739. “The Court taking into their considerac͠on that several of their By-Laws, which had been confirmed by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justices for the time being, were in want of alteration, by reason of the variation of the times and circumstances of the Company and their Members since such By-Laws were made, and several new By-Laws being also wanting for the better government of the Company in times to come,” It was ordered that a Committee of six should consult and draw up fresh By-Laws, to be submitted to a future Court of Assistants, but in the result no action was taken.

1744. The long slumbering animosity between the Surgeons and the Barbers had now reached a climax, and indeed it is a matter of surprise that an union which had become grotesque should have existed for as many years as it had. The Surgeons, many of whom had attained to great eminence, naturally chafed under a system which required their diplomas to be signed by Governors, two of whom were always Barbers, or members of some trade or profession other than that of a Surgeon, and with the rapid progress of science and of surgical skill and knowledge, they felt their alliance with the Barbers a restraint upon their advancement, as also that the exercise of their profession under Charters and By-Laws, antiquated in form, and more adapted to the times in which they were framed, a hindrance rather than an incitement to further proficiency.

There is little in the records as to this disagreement, it being tacitly agreed that neither side should place their arguments or grievances in the books, which were their joint property.

20th December, 1744. This day the gentlemen on the Surgeons side
having made known at this Court their desire of being separated from
the gentlemen on the Barbers and that each may be made a distinct
and independent Body free from each other, and producing a Case
intended to be offered to the Honourable House of Commons praying
such separation, which being read at this Court It was agreed that
the following gentlemen on the Barbers side viz{t.}--

M{r.} Warden Negus M{r.} Parker M{r.} Maurice M{r.} Truelove and
M{r.} Haddon.

& on the Surgeons side viz{t.}--

M{r.} Serj{t} Dickins Will{m} Petty Esq{r} James Dansie Esq{re} M{r.}
Freke and M{r.} Sainthill

be a Committe appointed to meet on Monday next at the Kings Arms
Tavern in Saint Paul’s Church Yard at one of the Clock at noon to
receive the proposals from the Gentlemen on the Surgeon’s side for
such Separation, and that when they had so done that the Gentlemen on
the Barber’s side members of this Court should lay the same before
the Livery on their side, by a Meeting to be had for that purpose,
and that a Court of Assistants should be held on the Tenth day of
January next, at which time the Gentlemen on the Barber’s Side
Members of this Court, should then report their opinion and assent or
Dissent to such proposals made.

At the same time it was agreed that any Member of this Court should
at any time have the free liberty of examining and inspecting into
the several Books and writings belonging to this Company In case the
same should be in the presence of the Master or one of the Wardens
but not otherwise, but no such Books or writings be at any time
removed from the Hall, on any account whatever unless by a special
order of this Court first had and obtained for that purpose.

10th January, 1745. Pursuant to an Order of the last Court of
Assistants the gentlemen on the Barbers side Members of this Court,
did this day make their report on the proposals made by the gentlemen
on the Surgeons side for a separation, by Dissenting in general to
such proposals made.

By the Journals of the House of Commons, 18 George II, it appears that the Surgeons on 31st January, 1745, presented a petition to Parliament, in which among other things they recited the Act, 32 Henry VIII, and also that Charles I in the 5th year of his reign,

by Letters Patent under the great seal confirmed the Barber Surgeon’s
Company in their possessions and privileges and gave the Company
power to make by-laws and to constitute ten persons to be Examiners
of Surgeons during their lives, and it was thereby further granted
that no person whether freeman foreigner native of England or alien
should practise Surgery in London or Westminster or within seven
miles of the City of London unless previously examined allowed and
admitted by the Company in manner therein mentioned; and that the
Surgeons so examined might practise in any part of England; and that
the Masters and Governors of the said Company might appoint and
have a public lecture for the science of Surgery, for the better
instruction and information in the principles and rudiments of the
art and science of Surgery, and that no person exercising the art of
Surgery within the limits therein mentioned should go out or send any
apprentice or servant from the Port of London to serve in quality
of a Surgeon for any ship without the approbation and allowance of
the said Company, in such manner and under such penalties as are
therein mentioned. That since the said Act for incorporating the two
said Companies, those of the said Company practising Surgery have
from their sole and constant study of, and application to the said
science, rendered the profession and practice thereof of great and
public benefit and utility to this Kingdom, and that the Barbers
belonging to the said Corporation are now, and have been many years,
employed in a business foreign to and independent of the practice of
Surgery; and that the Surgeons belonging to the same Corporation,
being now become a numerous and considerable body, and finding their
union with the Barbers inconvenient in many respects and in no degree
conducive to the progress or improvement of the art of Surgery,
are therefore desirous that the Surgeons being freemen of the said
Company, may be made a Corporation separate and distinct from and
independent of the Barbers of, and belonging to the said Company;
and therefore praying the House to give leave that a bill may be
brought in dissolving and vacating the union and incorporation of the
Barbers and Surgeons made by the said former act; and for making the
Surgeons of the said Company a separate and distinct Corporation; and
for making a partition and division of the real and personal estate
and effects of and belonging to the said united Company, unto and
for the separate benefit of the said two Companies so proposed to be
separated, as to this House shall seem meet and reasonable.

Whereupon it was ordered--

That the said petition be referred to the consideration of a
Committee and that they do examine the matter thereof, and report the
same with their opinion thereupon to the House.

A Committee was at once appointed with power to send for persons, papers, and records.

On the 6th February the Barbers presented a Petition against the proposed separation, and asked to be heard by counsel; whereupon it was ordered--

That the said petition be referred to the consideration of the
Committee to whom the petition of the Surgeons of London, whose
names are thereunto subscribed, on behalf of themselves and other
the Surgeons in the City and suburbs of London is referred: And that
these petitioners the said Barbers, if they think fit be heard by
their Counsel before the said Committee according to the prayer of
the said petitioners.

This petition of the Barbers to the House of Commons was identical with a very scarce pamphlet “The Case of the Barbers,” a copy of which has been kindly given to me by Mr. D’Arcy Power, M.A. It is full of interest, and will be found in Appendix E.

27th February, 1745. The Committee brought up their report, which was read by the Clerk, and recited the various documents produced and the evidence tendered; among other matters it is stated that Mr. John Hayward, a Past Master, was examined and deposed, that the Master (who every other year was a Barber) and the Wardens present, sign the diplomas. That there are ten Examiners who have each half a guinea for their attendance, and the Master and Wardens have the like. That he did not know that the presence of Barbers at these examinations was any inconvenience, but he apprehended it would be more eligible if the Master were always a Surgeon. That the Barbers are generally present at the four public lectures of Anatomy, two of which are at the expense of the Company, the other two being at the expense of the Surgeons. That the Demonstrators of Anatomy and Osteology are chosen by the whole Court of Assistants (fifteen of whom are Barbers, and fifteen Surgeons). That he apprehends the present union is the reason why so many persons do not bind their sons apprentice at the Hall. He never knew of the Barbers interfering in or giving interruption to examinations, and he never heard any fact mentioned as a reason for the separation desired by the Surgeons, except that a great many foreign brothers (who are gentlemen that practise both in and out of town) refuse to come into the Company on account of the present expense.

Being examined as to the money generally given to the Poor’s Box by Sea Surgeons at the time of their receiving a Qualification, he said that it was always expected, but that if they are not in a capacity it is not insisted upon, and that he never heard of any person being denied a Qualification for refusing to pay it. That the Qualification is delivered to the party sealed up, to be carried to the Navy Office, and that the Master commonly signifies to him what fees are expected; that the said Box is examined every month, and about nine-tenths of the money distributed by the Master and Wardens, among the poor of the Barbers.

Being asked what proportion the Barbers pay to the Poor’s Box, he said that the greatest part of the income applied to that use arises from the examination of Sea Surgeons, but that the Apprentices of Barbers (who are as twenty to one) always pay when bound at the Hall, and at their admission to the freedom, as well as the Surgeons.

Mr. Hayward put before the Committee a statement of the fines received by the Company, which was as follows--

Surgeons. Barbers.
_£ s. d._ _£ s. d._

For Freedom by purchase 10 10 0 6 6 0

" Livery fine, and all Offices to the
Parlor door 35 0 0 25 0 0

" Examination for great Diploma 6 6 0

" The fine for not serving the four
several offices of Master and the
three Wardens, which the Surgeons
often pay, but the Barbers never
do, sometimes 30 guineas but
oftener 40 0 0 40 0 0

" The fine for Master and Stewards of
Anatomy when called upon in turn
(and if they serve, the expense
is rather greater) 40 0 0
------------ -----------
£131 16 0 £71 6 0
============ ===========

The Clerk’s and Beadle’s fees are not included in the above.

Mr. Joseph Wheeler, the Clerk of the Company, was examined by the Committee, and generally confirmed Mr. Hayward’s evidence.

The next witness, Mr. Neil Stewart, was evidently called in the interest of the Surgeons, to show the inconvenience which had arisen (in his case at all events) by reason of the warrants being issued by the “_Barbers_ and Surgeons.” He deposed that he was surgeon to H.M.S. The Looe, and, being taken prisoner by the French, was put in the common prison at Brest, where he petitioned to be removed to an open hospital at Dinan, and enclosed his warrant as a surgeon with his petition to the French authorities; some days after, he enquired of the “Linguist” as to the success of his petition, and was informed that “the Superintendent did not know by his warrant whether he (the witness) was a Barber _or_ a Surgeon: that upon his desiring the linguist to read the warrant, by which it would appear he was a surgeon, the linguist replied that it might be so, but that if the witness had been taken on board one of the King of Great Britain’s ships it would have been out of doubt.” This witness further stated that he believed the unfavourable notice which was taken of his petition was because his warrant came from the Masters of the _Barbers_ and Surgeons.

With reference to the gift of Edward Arris the Court minutes of 29th February, 1675-6 were produced which stated that “Mr. Edward Arris a very worthy member of this Company having formerly settled by Deed £30 a year for a dissection of a body yearly and Reading on the Muscles, desired that deed might be delivered up to him,” and he in return would pay the Company £510 to enable them to apply the interest to the same purposes, which was agreed to. Mr. Arris dying on the 28th May, 1676, the Company soon became involved in a Chancery suit with his son, Dr. Thomas Arris, and the Court minutes of 20th January, 1677-8 were produced and read to the Committee. These set forth the answer which the Company filed to the Bill of Complaint before the Master of the Rolls, and stated the circumstances referred to in the minutes of 29th February, 1675-6, and that Mr. Arris gave as his reason for this “That his only son and heir, the now Doctor, had and did then receive the profits of the said lands to his own use upon condition and under promise to pay the said £30 per annum for the said Dissection; but he found that he did never pay one penny of it, or ever would do, when he their benefactor was dead, without trouble or suit; with some severe and sharp expressions, which we will by no means mention, although they were the very words of the father spoken of the son.”

The answer goes on to express the hope that the Company will not be compelled to enter into any further covenant with Dr. Arris than they had done with his father their “pious benefactor,” for the carrying out of the trust, or be ordered to refund the £510 to Dr. Arris. It also prayed that he might be ordered to pay the costs of “this troublesome and unnecessary suit, which doth so much shew what they must expect from him hereafter, if they should part with the £510.” As the Company retained the £510 till the separation in 1745, there is no doubt but that Dr. Arris, as he deserved to do, lost his suit.

Various extracts from the Company’s books were read, on behalf of the Barbers, to show that the united Company had always assisted the Surgeons, and promoted the cause and interest of Surgery out of the common fund of the Barbers and Surgeons.

Part of the Will of Robert Ferbras, Citizen and Surgeon, dated 2nd December, 1470,[120] was read, whereby it appeared that several estates formerly belonging to the said Company, were given to the Barbers before their union with the Surgeons in Henry VIII’s time. And a declaration of Bryan Sandford, dated 8th March, 1490, was read, whereby it appeared that the site of the Hall was purchased by the Barbers before the said Union.

[120] But see p. 61 as to this Will. I cannot explain the discrepancy.

The Committee of the House of Commons reported that they had recommended the parties to settle the dispute as to the division of the property between them, and that thereupon the Surgeons had proposed that they should have given up to them Dr. Gale’s Annuity of £16 per annum and Alderman Arris’ gift of £510; also that for about three years until the Surgeons could provide themselves with suitable premises, they should have the use of the Hall, Theatre, &c., at a nominal rent of one guinea per annum.

The Barbers agreed to give up Gale’s and Arris’ gifts, but proposed that the Surgeons should take a lease for such days in the year as they commonly used the premises, at £80 per annum, and pay the Barbers £100 towards the expenses to which they had been put by this suit in the Parliament.

In the result the Committee reported:--(_a_) That the Surgeons had made good the allegations of their petition. (_b_) That the proposed separation was desirable. (_c_) That the propositions of the Surgeons touching the division of the property were reasonable.

Subsequently the Bill passed both Houses and received the Royal Assent, the quaint union being dissolved 25th June, 1745.

By this Act (18 Geo. II) the Surgeons were erected into a separate Corporation, and the Barbers were re-incorporated under the style of “The Master, Governors and Commonalty of the Mystery of Barbers of London.” So much of this Act as relates to the Barbers will be found in the Appendix F.

The first Court of Assistants of “~The Barbers’ Company~” was held on the 25th June, 1745, at 10 a.m., and there were present:--

Mr. JONATHAN MEDLEY _Master_.
Mr. HUMPHRY NEGUS _Second Governor_.

Mr. WILLIAM PARKER. } { Mr. SAMUEL RUTTER.
Mr. JOHN BARNWELL. } { Mr. ROBERT SCROOBY.
Mr. JOHN TRUELOVE. } { Mr. RICHARD SWITHIN.
Mr. WILLIAM HADDON. } _Assistants._ { Mr. EDWARD COLEBECK.
Mr. JOHN NEGUS. } { Mr. TOGARMAH JONES.
Mr. EDWARD BOXLEY. } { Mr. JOHN GURNEY.

The Act of Separation being read, and the Oaths as formerly required to be taken by Freemen, Master, Warden, Assistant, Clerk, and Beadle being also read and considered, the Court settled and formulated the various Oaths, and the same are entered in the Minutes.

The Election of nine fit and able persons to be Assistants was then proceeded with, and Mr. William Jackson, Mr. John Bearblock, Mr. Will{m.} Roberts, Mr. Thomas Cotton, Mr. John Whiting, Mr. Richard Lookes, James Theobald, Esqre., Peter Theobald, Esqre., and Mr. John Pepys, were unanimously elected.

Mr. Edward Boxley and Mr. Samuel Rutter were chosen third and fourth Governors or Wardens.

Thanks were voted to Mr. Jonathan Medley and Mr. Humphry Negus “for their great care in defending and preserving the Rights Priviledges and property of this Company on their Separation from the Surgeons.”

Thanks were also voted to Mr. John Paterson “for his great care and diligence in executing the orders and directions of the Master and Governor about the defence and preservation of the rights priviledges and property of the Company” and to further mark their sense of the same, the Court unanimously elected Mr. Paterson as Clerk.

The two Beadles, Henry Gretton and William Littlebury were re-elected.

It was ordered that all Charters, Books, Plate and goods belonging to the Company, then in the custody of Mr. Joseph Wheeler (the late Clerk) should be delivered to Mr. Paterson, who was to make and sign an Inventory of the same, and also to examine Mr. Wheeler’s accounts, and report thereon to the Court.

The Common Seal was directed to be altered by omitting the words ET CHIRURGORUM and by adding ANNO MDCCXLV.

A Committee was appointed to peruse the By-Laws of the late United Company, and to report as to which of them required amendment or were fit to be repealed or added to.

8th August, 1751. Mr. John Brooks attended and produced a Deed to which he requested the subscription of the Court; this deed recited that by an Act of Parliament passed in the 10th year of Queen Anne, it was enacted that a duty of 2_d._ per lb. should be laid upon all starch imported, and of 1_d._ per lb. upon all starch made in Great Britain, that no perfumer, barber, or seller of hair-powder should mix any powder of alabaster, plaster of Paris, whiting, lime, etc. (sweet scents excepted), with any starch to be made use of for making hair-powder, under pain of forfeiting the hair-powder and £50, and that any person who should expose the same for sale should forfeit it and £20. Also that by further Acts additional duties were laid upon starch. And by an Act passed in the 4th year of George II the penalties were somewhat mitigated. “And whereas the said laws with respect to hair-powder have by experience been found not to answer the end proposed by the Legislature, the sum arising by the said duties upon starch and hair-powder having gradually lessened, whilst the fair traders have been great sufferers by the practice of those who by the greatness of the duty have attempted to make vend or use the said prohibited articles. And whereas the trade or business of making vending or dressing of Perukes or other Ornaments of hair for the head and also of cutting and dressing the hair of the head being considered as distinct from the business of Barbers is under no regulation whatever,” etc., the parties whom Mr. Brooks represented (and whose names were signed to the deed) had, therefore, agreed to join in an application to Parliament for reducing the duties on hair-powder, as also for incorporating all persons carrying on the trade of Barbers and Peruke-makers within the Bills of Mortality, into one joint Corporation or Body politick, and for restraining persons from exercising those trades who had not served seven years’ apprenticeship.

It was stated that subscriptions towards defraying the costs of the proposed Bill had been paid to Messrs. Gosling & Bennett, Bankers in Fleet Street, that John Paterson, Esq., Clerk of the Company, was Solicitor for the Bill, and Mr. John Brooks was Secretary of the Petitioners.

The Court, having considered the application, decided to contribute Twenty Guineas, but the matter seems to have been in abeyance for eighteen months, as the petition to the House of Commons was not sealed by the Company until the 7th January, 1753.

13th January, 1753. The petition was this day presented and is recorded in the Journals of the House; it states, among other things, that the Company “are in danger of being unable to support themselves and that the petitioners who exercise the art of Peruke making in the liberties and neighbourhood of the said City are not a body corporate, nor under any order or regulation; for want whereof great frauds are practised in the said manufacture to the discouragement of the fair trader, and manifest injury of the consumer, And therefore praying the House that leave may be given for the bringing in a Bill for incorporating the Peruke makers as well within as without the liberties of the City of London, and within such distance thereof as the House shall think fit, with the said petitioners”--the Barbers’ Company. This petition was referred to a Committee, but no report of that Committee is entered in the Journals.

4th December, 1764. The Peruke makers turned up again in 1764, for we find in the Minutes that certain of them attended with the draft of a petition to the King, to which they asked the assent of the Court. This petition which strangely commenced “We the Company of Barbers _and Peruke makers_,” stated that the suppliants laid before his Majesty the distresses into which the Peruke makers had fallen by reason of the change of fashion, and thus appeals to the King, “Where can we look for relief but there only where it is to be found, for as the Fashion your Majesty approves will very justly be a pattern to your subjects, We most humbly hope not to be too bold in wishing Perukes may soon be as much in fashion as the wearing of hair is at present, which will increase the Revenue, give happiness to the indigent and distressed Peruke makers, and increase the many great unmerited Favours, We as a Company have received from Royal Hands!”

16th January, 1765. The Court took this ridiculous petition into consideration, and of course refused to adopt it, informing the suppliants that they were concerned to observe the decay in their trade, as it was connected by usage with that of Barbery, but as the Charters of the Company did not extend to Peruke making, the Court could not with propriety address his Majesty on the subject.

EXTRACTS FROM COURT MINUTES, ETC.,

MORE PARTICULARLY RELATING TO THE

INTERNAL HISTORY OF THE COMPANY.

29th August, 1550. ~Memorandum~ the xxix{th} day of Auguste in the
house belonging to the sayd Company it was condescended and fully
agreed by the aforesayed M{r} and Wardeins M{r} Geen Thomas Johnson
Thomas Stocdall and Mathew Johnson w{t} thassent of thassistance
being there present that is to say M{r} Kyrkeˀ (Kyrkeby)[121] M{r}
Vycary[122] M{r} Bancks[123] M{r} Byrde[124] M{r} Yonge[125] M{r}
Henderbe[126] Robert Postell[127] Willm Tyllˀ (Tylley)[128] Peter
Dayseman[129] Robert Waterforde[130] Richard Bowll[131] Henry
Pemberton[132] Robert Sprignell[133] Robert Brownell[134] John
Smythe[135] Willm̄ Otherborne[136] and Austeyn Clarck.[137]

[121] Master 1526, 1533.
[122] M. 1530, etc.
[123] M. 1532.
[124] M. 1542, 1545.
[125] M. 1544.
[126] M. 1547.
[127] Warden 1544.
[128] W. 1546.
[129] W. 1547.
[130] W. 1549.
[131] M. 1553.
[132] W. 1539.
[133] M. 1554.
[134] M. 1563.
[135] W. 1547.
[136] W. 1548.
[137] W. 1554.

[Sidenote:
An order taken
concerninge
Thomas Knot.]

THAT Thomas Knot shalbe dischardged and not called to no manner of
office unto such tyme that it shall please the m{rs} to agree for
Another order. And also that he shall not paie no maner of scott lot
nor subsedye nor any other chardge concerning the saied Crafte but
shalbe dischardged of and from the same Ecept onelie his quarterage
and except that which he shall gyve & paye of his owne fre will and
gentelnes.

[Sidenote:
An order for
the elecc̃on of
the Maister.]

~Alsoo~ yt was ordered and agreed the sayd daye by the hole
assistaunce that the maister shall put in iiij{or} into his bill for
his electyon and so the same byll to goo through the house and every
man to prycke as his mynde doth serve him w{th}out any telling and
when every man hathe pricked about the house then the byll to be
brought to the M{r} And he that hath the moste pricks to have the
roome of M{r} the yeare ensuynge. The names of the ellecyon for the
M{r} was M{r} Geen Richard Ferres Robert Postell and Willm̄ Tylle.

[Sidenote:
An order for the
eleccyon of the
upper wardein.]

ALSOO for the elleccyon of the upper wardein he shall put iiij{or}
names into his Byll and so to goo through the house like as the M{r}
Byll hath dooen. The names for the elleccyon for upper wardein was
Thomas Johnson, Richard (The remainder of this line is torn away in
original).

[Sidenote:
An order for the
Elecc̃on of the
Second Wardein.]

ALSOO for the Elleccyon of the Seconde Wardein he shall put in
iiij{or} names in his byll and so to goo through the house like as is
before mencyoned. The names for the Elleccyon was Thomas Stocdall,
John Atkinson, John Smyth and Thomas Knot.

[Sidenote:
For the Eleccyon
of the youngest
Wardein.]

ALSOO for the Elleccyon of the youngest wardein he shall put iiij{or}
into his Byll and so to goo through the house like as before. The
names for the Elleccyon are Mathew Johnson, John Tholmoode, Richard
Elliot and John Shryffe.

10th Sept., 1551. It was ordered that--

[Sidenote:
An order that the
Seconde Wardein
shall receyve all
fynes quartrage
and other
casualtyes.]

The second Wardein shall receyve all maner of Receite as fynes
quartrag for prentises, for fremen and all other casualtyes
whatsoev{r} yt be. And he to paye also all maner of wage, And the
Bedyll to have a booke of all suche receitte and dischardge as the
seconde wardein hathe for his dischardge.

Also yt ys agreed that the younger wardein shall receyve nothing but
onely the Rents of the Londes, and to see reparac͠ons dooen where as
nede shall requyer and that he shall take Appulton[138] w{th} him
when he goeth to receyve the rentes of the Londes so that bothe there
books may agree.

[138] The Beadle.

4th Nov., 1551. It was agreed--

That there shalbe allowed in goyng and searching of their Londes
vj{s} viij{d.}

Ordered--

That John West shall bring in his fyne which ys vj{s} viij{d} for
speking opprobryous wordes against John Androwson in the presence of
the M{rs.}

17th Nov., 1551. It was ordered--

That the Kings maiestyes Barbor or Barbors to his highness parson And
also his mat{s} Surgeon or Surgeons shall sytt next to the Last M{r}
upon the benche where as the M{rs} nowe usually doo sytt and alsoo
shall goo next to the M{rs} in all goyngs and syttings.

It was ordered that no Barber should take a “foreigner” as journeyman and set him to work, before presenting him to the Master and Wardens, under a penalty of 3_s._ 4_d._ per week.

This order was made because many foreigners (_i.e._, non-freemen) who were inexpert had lately come into the City, and the Court directed that each foreigner should give proof of his skill, and then that he should remain for one year only and in one service, and no Barber was to pay a foreigner higher wages than the Masters should from time to time “sess” or determine under a penalty of 13_s._ 4_d._ for “every weke so offending.” The Beadle was directed to keep a register book of all foreigners for the year, and when the year was expired, the Barber who kept a foreigner and was minded to keep him longer was to come to the Hall within fourteen days to have him re-registered under a penalty of 3_s._ 4_d._ per week. And no Barber was to “entyce or envegyll any mans servant from him upon peyne of forfeyting for a fyne xiij{s.} iiij{d.}”

The Court fixed the wages of these men as follows--

The best jorneyman that is a forrein shall have for a weke xij{d.}
the second x{d.} and the thurde as the sayd M{rs.} shall thinke meate
& convenyente.

17th November, 1551. It was ordered that the youngest Warden should be chosen out of the Livery and that he should be--

in especcyall one that hathe byn stewarde so that he be a man that
hath usyed himself in that behalf honestleye and discretly.

It was also ordered that all freemen should come every quarter day to the Hall to pay quarterage, hear the rules read, and to hear the book set forth by the Corporation of London concerning Orphans, and no man was to sit out of his appointed place, under a penalty.

17th July, 1553. It was ordered that Mr. John Enderby (Master 1547)--

shall have the benevolense of the crafte fower marks a yere.

20th September, 1553. The Masters agreed with Richard Drewe--

For a barge when the Mayer goeth to Westmˀ for Twentie sixe shillings
and eighte pence.

12th August, 1554. Being Election day it was agreed that at the choosing of the Masters--

There shalbe a solempe masse[139] or other dyvyne servyce sayd and
songe that the M{rs.} be choessen and the hole lyverye to be therat
in their best clothing and to meete at the hall at or before the
hower of ix of the clocke and he that fayleth his hower to paye
xij{d} for his fyne w{t}out any redempcyon or gayne sayeing. The
sayed masse[140] to be at the chardgs of the Companye.

[139] The word “masse” has been subsequently erased.
[140] “Masse” has been subsequently erased, and “s’rvice” substituted.

1st Oct., 1555. The following Articles were agreed upon by the Court--

I. There shall no man ffreeman fforyner or straunger of the Clothinge
or w{t}out the clothing shave wasshe a Bearde or tryme any man w{th}
any Instrumēt as to make cleane teathe upon the Sondayes within the
Cytie of London or withoute in his owne house or in any mans house or
chamber or in any place els he shall forfayete at every tyme beinge
duely proved for a fyne to the hall the some of xl{s.} And further
that no fforyner being no ffreman shall carry out any Bason or clothe
or Instrumēt to make cleane teathe to shave poll or wasshe a bearde
or to trym̄e any man but w{t}in the Lybertye where he dwellethe But
w{t}in the Cytie of London he shall not trym̃e any man at no dayes
w{t}in anye of their howses or in any place els w{t}in the Cytie upon
payne to lose at every tyme beinge duely proved for a fyne to the
hall xl{s.}

II. That Apulton the Beadle of the Clothing was to be the Clerk, and that the Beadle of the Yeomanry was to help the Clerk at

coronac͠on tyme or at other greate tryumphes when any other greate
man cometh in or when the kinge or quene comen through the Cytie.

III. That whenever the Shreif be chosein or the Mayor or the
burgesses of the parlyamẽt or upon the kings or queenes comĩg into
the Cytie or any other greate man comyth in or upon any other greate
truymphe whereapon comaundement ys geven by the Mayor of London to
the sayed Company of the Clothinge of Barbors and Surgeons to geve
their attendaunce Then the hole Company of the Clothinge to meete
at our owne hall of Barbors and Surgeons in our owne lyverye all to
gether fyrste, and afterwards to gooe out of the hall two and two
together as of olde tyme yt hathe been used, and when the Mayor goeth
to poules[141] then the M{r} and governors to gooe throughe out Wood
streate to poules w{th} the rest of the Company of the Clothinge.
And that M{r} and governors that dothe not this shall forfaycte for
a ffyne to the hall vj{li} xiij{s} iiij{d} And they of the Clothing
that dothe not come to the hall firste but will meete us at the
place where we shalbe appointed to stande and to remayn and dothe
not kepe his hower shall loose for a ffyne in the hall at every tyme
so offending iij{s} iiij{d} Provyded alwayes yf the Mayor gooe not
to poules at the Mayors ffeaste Alhollande daye xp̃emas daye twelves
daye and Candlemas daye In what streets we doo gooe throughe yt be
not throughe Wood streate yt shall not be prejudycyall to the master
and governors of the Company for the tyme being.

[141] St. Paul s.

IV. It was ordered that Apprentices, before being presented, should pay 2_s._ 6_d._ fine, also 8_d._ to the Clerk for drawing the Indentures.

8th October, 1555. Further ordinances were framed, viz{t}:--

I. That at all sittings of the Court when any business was discussed the Members should speak to the subject in order of seniority, and any one interrupting or speaking out of turn was to pay 12_d._ fine. The Beadle also was to stand without the door, in the Hall, and there to give his attendance whenever the Master should knock for him.

II. That there should be an Armourer with a yearly fee of 10_s._, and--

for the same he shalbe bounde to make cleane our harneys w{th}
daggers gunnes armyng swords and bills and with all other things that
doethe appertayne to an Armorer for to doo in mending of buckells
lethers or any other thinge which dothe appertayne to that whiche we
nowe have.

III. When the Master and Governors should go to view their lands and tenements to see the state of repair, the Bricklayer was to go with them to advise and to have a fee of “ij{s} and his dynnar.”

IV. This relates to the Clerk (see Clerk).

V. That a Minute book be kept to record all the orders made at any Court, and that such orders be read at the next Court and signed.

VI. That no freeman shall serve a foreigner under a penalty of 13_s._ 4_d._ for every time so offending, and any foreigner taking a freeman to serve with him should be fined 26_s._ 8_d._

19th November, 1555. John Demynge, “Cowper[142] & ffre denysen,” was granted a lease of a house belonging to the Company at St. Katherine’s, Tower Hill, at £2 per annum for thirty years, with a fine of £4 on sealing the lease and a “barrell of doble beare.”

[142] Cooper.

26th November, 1555. Thomas Glynton, Goldsmith, was to have a lease of the house in Tower Street, where he then dwelt, for 30 years from Christmas, 1555, no rent stated, but a fine of £10 to be paid on sealing the lease.

5th March, 1556. Several further Ordinances and awards were made by the Court, among which were the following:--

I. That the Masters and Governors should not let the Hall to anyone to--

daunce or use anye other kynde of games els whereby the sealinge or
other things being broken in the hall or kitchen shall redowne to
the losse of the Company Yf therefore the sayed M{r} and governors
for the tyme being doo let out the hall to any bodye to thentent
aforesayde w{t}out the consent of the hole howse to be called for the
same they should forfeit and pay etc.