Chapter 10

24th January, 1643. The Kings Letter sent to the Mrs& Wardens of this Company was read in Court and the printed Letter in it and the Cittyes Petic͠on and his Matiesgracious answer unto it. And but that the morrow was fast day being the last Wednesday in this Moneth the ffreemen and apprentices of this Company could not be summoned to appeare then, it should have bin read. Soe that in the Interim an Order of Comand from the Lords and Comõns was directed to this Company to countermaund the said Letters in these words,Die Martis 24toJanuarii,1642/3. At the Comittee of Lords and Comõns for the safety of the Kingdome.Whereas there are divers Letters pretended to be sent by his Matieto the Mrsand Wardens of the severall Halls in the city of London with Two litle Bookes therein closed the one intituled The humble Petic͠on of the Maior, Aldermen and Comõns of the City of London to his Matie.And the other intituled his MatiesLetter and declarac͠on to the Sheriffes and City of London Dated the 17thof January, which evidently tendeth to sedition and setting of the whole State in a Combustion. These are therefore strictly to charge & comand the Mrsand Wardens of every Hall inthe City to whome the said Letters and Bookes inclosed shalbe directed to forbeare to publish or open any of them till both the Houses of Parliament shall give further order therein. And the Mrsand Wardens of every Hall are required to bring the said Letters with the Messengers thereof to this Comittee which they will take to be an Argument of theire good Affection to the ParliamentPembrokeMontgomeryBolingbrokeEd: ManchesterW. Say & SealeEd: HowardJo: EvelinJo: PymAntho: Nicoll.17th January, 1644. It is ordered that in respect of the greate troubles and distractions of these times there shalbe noe publique Anatomy this yeare dissected.

Die Martis 24toJanuarii,1642/3. At the Comittee of Lords and Comõns for the safety of the Kingdome.

Whereas there are divers Letters pretended to be sent by his Matieto the Mrsand Wardens of the severall Halls in the city of London with Two litle Bookes therein closed the one intituled The humble Petic͠on of the Maior, Aldermen and Comõns of the City of London to his Matie.And the other intituled his MatiesLetter and declarac͠on to the Sheriffes and City of London Dated the 17thof January, which evidently tendeth to sedition and setting of the whole State in a Combustion. These are therefore strictly to charge & comand the Mrsand Wardens of every Hall inthe City to whome the said Letters and Bookes inclosed shalbe directed to forbeare to publish or open any of them till both the Houses of Parliament shall give further order therein. And the Mrsand Wardens of every Hall are required to bring the said Letters with the Messengers thereof to this Comittee which they will take to be an Argument of theire good Affection to the Parliament

PembrokeMontgomeryBolingbrokeEd: ManchesterW. Say & SealeEd: HowardJo: EvelinJo: PymAntho: Nicoll.

17th January, 1644. It is ordered that in respect of the greate troubles and distractions of these times there shalbe noe publique Anatomy this yeare dissected.

1644. The Company seem to have become greatly impoverished by the venture in Ireland, the rebuilding of their premises, and the forced loans to the King and the Parliament. In a certificate given by the Master and Wardens (5th September, 1644) to be produced in a suit in which they were defendants, they state that their debts are £3,000, and that they can get no return of any of the money lent for public purposes, or even the interest of it.

If the Stuarts acted in an unconstitutional manner in their oppressive demands upon the Companies, the Roundheads were as bad, with just this difference, that, with all their pretensions to purity, piety and high-mindedness, they did not hesitate to practise actual dishonesty in theirmodus operandiof squeezing the Companies, as the following painful incident from our books testifies:—The Company had borrowed from Mr. Richard Wateson, one of the Assistants, £1,200 upon sealed bonds, for the express purpose of meeting the demands which had been made upon them by the King and Parliament from time to time. Mr. Wateson having been declared a “Papist and Delinquent,” his property was seized, and the Bonds of the Barber-Surgeons, found in his strong chest, were taken to the Committee for Gloucester and Hereford, sitting atGrocers’ Hall. These worthies, in conjunction with the Committee for Sequestrations, came down upon the Company and demanded payment of the £1,200 for which they had given their bonds to their brother, Mr. Wateson. The Court deeming this a monstrous piece of injustice, hesitated to comply, whereupon the Committees threatened to seize the Company’s entire estate; and then the Court resolved to petition Parliament, but the House not sitting for some time the petition could not be prosecuted, and the Committee being urgent, the Company most reluctantly agreed to pay down £400 and to have the bonds cancelled. Although these shameful terms were definitely agreed upon, the Committees a few days later broke faith, demanding £400 cash and the Company’s bond for another £100, to which the Company, like the lamb with the wolf at its throat,nolens volens, consented. The iniquity of this business was made apparent to the Committees, who were well aware that the Company had incurred the debt to Mr. Wateson in order to meet the previous rapacity of themselves, and yet they hesitated not to compel the Company to submit to a further fine of £500 for having complied with their demands in the past, besides manifesting the dishonesty proposed by them in offering to cancel the debt due by the Company to Mr. Wateson.

29th April, 1645. By the power and authority to this Court given by severall Orders of a late Court of Assistants, this Court for and towards the raiseing of the 400liagreed to be paid in part of the composic͠on for Mr. Watson’s debt unto the the Comittee for the releife of Gloucester, &c., did pawne all the Companyes plate both guilt and white, weighing 1,120 oz.1/3or thereabouts, unto Mary Crosse of London Widdow for the Sum̃ of 280liby a Writeing of Bargaine and Sale this day sealed with this Companyes Com̃on Seale bearing date the 16thday of this Instant Aprill with a provisoe of Redempc͠on. And borrowed of Mr. George Dunn 100limore at Interest at vjli10spˀ annum pˀ centum for wchhe tooke the secureity of our Com̃on Seale.

A few years later on (14th September, 1648), Mr. Edward Arris presented to the Court a letter from Mr. Wateson, wherein wasintimated that he expected the Company to repay him the money borrowed, the bonds for which had been seized by Cromwell’s party, and for which the Company had already compounded, whereupon we read “This Court doth declare theire acknowledgement of a great respect and esteeme they have and beare towards him and shalbe ready to doe him all the right they can without prejudicing the Company”; and again on 30th April, 1650, “Mr. Richard Wateson an ancient Mrof this Company Doth this day desire to know the mind of this Court concerning the 1,200liby him lent to this Company and sequestred in this Company’s hands and compounded ffor 500liin full of principall and Interest, The matter being of great Consequence, this Court doth take time to consider of it and to give him an answer therein.”

What answer Mr. Wateson got, I do not know; he was held in great esteem by the Company, and doubtless some honourable compromise was arranged.

In their negotiations with the Committees, the Company seem to have been able to impress the Chairman favourably on certain occasions, though there is grave reason to apprehend that this official of the party of purity was open to a bribe, as the following minutes would seem to indicate.

27th October, 1645. The Company having been threatened with sequestration of their entire estate unless an assessment made upon them was paid on Friday following, a Committee of the Court was ordered to wait on Mr. Scawin, the Chairman of the Committee for the Army, to beg his favourable consideration of the Company’s poor estate; the result is seen in the next entry.

14th September, 1648. This Court takeing notice of the greate Love and ffavour of Mr. Scawin Chaireman to the Comittee ffor the Army expressed oftentimes uponseverall occasions towards our Company Doth thinke fitt in gratitude and accordingly doth order That the present Governours doe present to him a guift of the value of vjli13s4dThe quality and price of the guift is left to theire discretions.

1646. To relieve them of their great debts, the Company about this period raised considerable sums by granting annuities; the following are examples inpoint:—

24th March, 1646. This day MrNicholas Heath payd the sum of 200lito the use of this Company and is the purchase money for an Annuity of 26lipˀ añn. for 10 yeares to himselfe and Grace his Wife Whereupon the Deed of Grant of the said Annuity was sealed with the Com̃on Seale and delivered to theire use.Alsoe this day MrisElizabeth ffreeman payd the sum of 200lithe Purchase money for the like Annuity of 26lipˀ añn. for 10 yeares and the Deed for that purpose was sealed and delivered to her.

Alsoe this day MrisElizabeth ffreeman payd the sum of 200lithe Purchase money for the like Annuity of 26lipˀ añn. for 10 yeares and the Deed for that purpose was sealed and delivered to her.

On the 30th January, 1649, the King’s troubles were ended by his murder, and very shortly afterwards we find this significant minute.

19th March, 1649. This Court doth order That the Oath conteyned in the Rules and Ordinances of this Company be administred unto every ffreeman upon his admission as before, The ffirst Words which doe concerne allegiance to the King and his Successors only to be left out.

The banners of the Company bearing the late King’s arms were destroyed, and any heraldic insignia at the Hall which contained the Royal Arms were ordered to be defaced. We may readily believe that this was most unwillingly done by the Court, who however, had no option in the matter.

1648–9. Fairfax had filled the City with troops, “billetting orders” being made upon the several Companies for the reception of the soldiers at their Halls. Herbert (Vol. I, p. 181) states that the Merchant Taylors were fortunate enough to procure an order of exemption which cost them £20 10s., and further that he believed their case to be unique, but it seems that the Carpenters by meansof “Gratuities ‘to sevˀall men of qualitie,’” amounting to £13 2s.6d., managed to get free of this imposition, whilst the Barber-Surgeons procured their immunity at a much cheaper rate, for we read in the Wardens’ accounts of the period,

Paid fforr the charges expended in procureing a Protecc͠on from the Lord General from quartering Souldiers in the hall 13s3d.

These notices are clear indications that Cromwell and the “men of qualitie” about him, were accustomed to take bribes.

3rd February, 1654. The City entertained Cromwell at Grocers’ Hall, and our Company had to go out in procession to receive him, our “standing” being in St. Paul’s Churchyard.

1660. The Barber-Surgeons contributed £96 towards a present of £10,000 given by the City to Charles II at the Restoration. No money exacted under precept was more willingly paid than this, and indeed the Companies generally seemed to have cheerfully contributed, delighted to have escaped the gloom of the Commonwealth, and with a prospect of brighter times in store. On the 5th July, the King was nobly entertained at Guildhall, our Company taking part in the rejoicings (seeWardens’ Accountsof this date).

1666. Our Minute Books for this period having been lost or stolen, we unfortunately have no records of the Great Fire beyond those preserved in the “Wardens’ Accounts” (which see), and although these are somewhat meagre, they are highly interesting, especially those which relate to the fortunate preservation of the great Holbein picture. It has been stated (but without any other authority than that of gossiping Samuel Pepys, who had a special interest in disparaging the picture) that it was damaged in the fire, though no notice of such a mishap is known to me, and the Accounts(which arecomplete) are significantly silent as to anything having been spent on its restoration or cleansing, which, had it been injured, would have been necessary; it seems to have been taken away from the Hall by Major Brookes to a place of safety, and subsequently brought home again by six porters.

OLD ENTRANCE TO BARBER-SURGEONS’ HALL.

The Theatre, which was a detached building, as also the present Court Room, both the works of Inigo Jones, were saved, though the Hall was burned, entailing a great expense upon the Company in rebuilding (seeWardens’ Accounts).

The houses 33, 34 and 35, Monkwell Street (see plan,p. 135) were rebuilt 1671, when the gateway to the Hall Court Yard was formed and the grotesque coat-of-arms put up over the Lintol.

When the alterations were made under the superintendence of Charles J. Shoppee in 1869, the old lintol, corbels, tympanum, and door-head were very carefully taken down and refixed over the present entrance to the Hall in the Court Yard. This door-head is always an object of interest to visitors to Barbers’ Hall; long may it continue to be so!

25th August, 1681. A short set of By-Laws was this day enacted. It is on a single skin of parchment, and imposes penaltiesupon such persons, as, being elected, should refuse to serve as Masters or Stewards of Anatomy. It is signed by Heneage, Earl of Nottingham, Lord Chancellor, and Sir Francis Pemberton and Sir Francis North, the two Lords Chief Justices, all of whose seals are pendant to the document.

1684. This was indeed a troublous year for the Corporation and for the guilds of London. Charles having interfered with the privileges of the City by thrusting in his nominees for Sheriffs, had met with considerable opposition from the citizens, and being assured that this resistance would be continued and maintained by the City, he determined to strike a blow at the root of its franchise, by getting into his hands the Charter of the City, as also the Charters of the several Companies. It was not difficult to procure a venal tribunal which would be prepared to pronounce an iniquitous judgment upon any fictitious statement submitted to it by the King. Sir Robt.Sawyer, the Attorney-General, thereupon undertook, on behalf of the Crown, to prove that the City Charters were forfeited, and contrived the celebratedquo warranto, upon which judgment was (as a matter of course) obtained against the City, on the 12th June, 1684.

The Companies seem to have unanimously anticipated this decision, and by so doing and by “surrendering” their Charters and liberties before the delivery of the judgment, hoped to ensure the favour of the King.

The original of the “surrender” of the Barber-Surgeons is very neatly engrossed on extra thick parchment, but the seal was of course removed when it was returned to the Company. The text is asfollows:—

To all to whom these prsents shall come.The MastersorGovernorsof yeMysteryandCoĩaltieofBarbrs& SurgeonsofLondonsendGreeting.Knowyee ytwee considering how much it imports the Governmtof our companyto have men of known Loyalty & approved integrity to bear offices of Magistracy & places of Trust. The sdMarsor Governrshave granted surrendred and yielded up, and by these prsents do grant surrendrand yield up unto his most gracious MajestyCharlesye second by the Grace of God King of England, &c., his Heires and Successors.All and singular yePowers Franchises liberties priviledges and authorities whatsoever and howsoever granted to or to bee used or exercised by yesaid Masters or Governorsby vertue of any right Title or Interest vested in them by any Charters Letters Patents Custome or Prescripc͠on in force of or concerning the electing nominating constituting being or appointing of any person or persons into or for yeseverall and respective offices of MastrWardens Assistants and Clerk of yesaid Company. And yesaid Masters or Governorsdo hereby humbly beseech his Matieto accept of this their surrendrand do with all submission to his Majesties good pleasure implore his grace and favorto regrant to yesaid Masters or Governorsthe nameing and Chusing of yesaid Officers and the said libertie and ffranchises or so many of them and in such mannras his Majesty in his great wisdome shall judge most conducing for yegovernmtof yesaid Company, And with and under such reservacc͠ons restricc͠ons and qualificac͠ons as his Majestie shall bee pleased to appoint.In Witneswhereof the saidMastrsorGovernorshave hereunto affixed their Com̃on seal the sixteenth day of Aprill in yeThirty sixth year of yereign of oror sovˀaignLord Charlesyesecond, &c., and in yeyear of orLord Christ 1684.

Similar forms of surrender were adopted by other Companies. I am unable to say whether or no the King interfered with the franchises of the Barber-Surgeons, but think not, as no record of such meddling is to be found in our books, though, doubtless, the Court took care, remembering the rod in pickle, to govern in accordance with the wishes of the King.

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 ChiefJustice 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 MajestyWe 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.

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, thequo warrantodeclared illegal, and all charters granted by Charles II and James II since the judgment on thequo warranto, declared absolutely null and void, thus practically reinstating the Guilds instatu 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. Srgeant Wright Mr. Srgeant Darnell Mr. Com̃on Srgeant & Mr. Dee bee advised with upon the Informac͠on agtthe Governrs.25th January, 1700. Ordered that the Cause agtthe Governrsat the prosecuc͠on of the Barbers bee referred to Srgeant 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. Srgeant Darnell have three guineys Mr. Com̃on Srgeant & 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 agtthe 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.

14th December, 1699. Ordered Mr. Srgeant Wright Mr. Srgeant Darnell Mr. Com̃on Srgeant & Mr. Dee bee advised with upon the Informac͠on agtthe Governrs.

25th January, 1700. Ordered that the Cause agtthe Governrsat the prosecuc͠on of the Barbers bee referred to Srgeant 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. Srgeant Darnell have three guineys Mr. Com̃on Srgeant & 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 agtthe 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 ofthe Company of Barber Surgeons.By the Mayor.Whereasit hath been resolved in Com̃on Councill ytif our most Gratious Lord King George upon his comeing into this Kingdome be pleased to pass through this his City of London, ythe 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 ytshall be given you of the time & place by any further precept & ytyorCloaths Banners Streamers Ensignes & other ornaments be fresh & Good & ytyou forthwith send to all the Liverymen of yorCompany that they be well & decently apparrelled in their best Cloaths & Gowns to attend in their Standingsytso your Company may be ready (when required) to receive his Majtieto his satisfac͠on & the Honour of this City and thereof you are not to faile. Dated this 25thday of August, 1714.Gibson.

To the Master and Wardens ofthe Company of Barber Surgeons.

By the Mayor.

Whereasit hath been resolved in Com̃on Councill ytif our most Gratious Lord King George upon his comeing into this Kingdome be pleased to pass through this his City of London, ythe 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 ytshall be given you of the time & place by any further precept & ytyorCloaths Banners Streamers Ensignes & other ornaments be fresh & Good & ytyou forthwith send to all the Liverymen of yorCompany that they be well & decently apparrelled in their best Cloaths & Gowns to attend in their Standingsytso your Company may be ready (when required) to receive his Majtieto his satisfac͠on & the Honour of this City and thereof you are not to faile. Dated this 25thday 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 1250lican 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 1250lior 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 relatingthereto119but £28 15s.in the whole, Whereas the annual interest of £1250 at 4 pˀ cent. is £50.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.

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. MrSerjtDickins 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 Contradicenteby this Court, That the Master and Wardens of the Company together with the late Master William Cotesworth Esqrbe, 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.Thatthey 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.

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 Contradicenteby this Court, That the Master and Wardens of the Company together with the late Master William Cotesworth Esqrbe, 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.

Thatthey 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 orprofession 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 vizt.—Mr.Warden Negus Mr.Parker Mr.Maurice Mr.Truelove and Mr.Haddon.& on the Surgeons side vizt.—Mr.SerjtDickins WillmPetty EsqrJames Dansie EsqreMr.Freke and Mr.Sainthillbe 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.

Mr.Warden Negus Mr.Parker Mr.Maurice Mr.Truelove and Mr.Haddon.

& on the Surgeons side vizt.—

Mr.SerjtDickins WillmPetty EsqrJames Dansie EsqreMr.Freke and Mr.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 bythe 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 wasordered—

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 wasordered—

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 inAppendix 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 haveeach 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 ofBarbers (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 asfollows—

Back to Index Next