THE IRISH ESTATE.

Leag of mutton boyldSallet8 harty Chockes for 2SrLoyne of befeNeack of MuttondishesShoulder of Venison3 Chickens 3 Rabets2 small Dishes of frut

ffor a Leag of Mutton034ffor a Sirloyne of befe090ffor a Shoulder of venison0503 chickins 3 rabets0568 harty chockes010ffrut036fyring0303 pound of butter016veniger003peper & other spice003oyle & salt006Gallindine0064 Colliflouers013ffor dressing Diner066

July ye27th1676 ffor yeAsestance & thar wivfes att barbar sirgons

li.s.d.ffor 5 Dishis of Chickins Backon & Colliflours boyld2100ffor a side of venison140ffor 3 Sir Loynes of befe1100ffor 1 fore rebb for breackfast080ffor a neack of vele & muton070ffor 3 Grand Sallets0120ffor puting 3 peces of venison in past140ffor 3 Dishis of geses 2 in a dish0180ffor 3 made Dishis & 18 Chescaks0150ffor 3 Dishis of Turkes &sas2892 in a dish0180ffor 3 Lumbard pyes140ffor 4 Dishis of Toung & udders140ffor 3 Custtords0120ffor a firckin of Sturjon200ffor 4 Dishis of Chickins & pigons140ffor yeuse ofputter290100ffor wood and coles0120ffor 3 Dishis of Tarts110ffor 3 Dishis of oringes & lemonds076ffor a small dish of frute026ffor worckmen & labarars and my owne paines1003 Dishis of frut00020130

The monthly dinners were very much after the foregoing Bill of fare, and the following extracts of some of the more interesting items are taken at random.

October, 1676. ffor 2piges2910702 pullets rostted with saseges & oystters050ffor 3 Gallions of oysters140ffor 18 lb. of medling backon0120ffor 8 lb. of lardin backon054

The dinner on Lord Mayor’s Day, 1676, cost £26 6s.4d., this was exclusive of wine. The “buttered ale” on this occasion was compounded asfollows—

1 C ofEages292& 8 Gallions of Ale0542 lb. of butter0128 lb. of sugar0401 ounce of nuttmages00501011December, 1676. ffor 4 Duckes048January, 1677. ffor 1 quart of oyle020January, 1677. ffor 2 quarts of venigar010March, 1677. A quarttern of Smelts02018 whitting016a Jegett of mutton0466 capons01309 chickins01209 Rabets0607 Lobstars094a side of Lamb056ffor Lorell flouers & fenell006ffor flouer spice & Anchoves016May, 1677. ffor 2 Calfes heads060ffor 4 hundreds of sparagar034ffor 3 wasfalia hames100

Cucumbers under the designation of “cockinbers” and sometimes “cowcombers,” together with sorell, barbery, “samfer,” “lorell flouers,” capers, anchovies, oranges and lemons, “gallindene,” “carberys,” horse reddish, parsley, “red cabbeg,” etc., frequently occur at this period as being used for garnishes and in the preparation of the dinners.

March, 1678. ffor a Hole fresh Cod0140ffor 12 teale and 3docks2930159ffor 4 quartes of oysters080ffor 3 dishis of pipins & Caraways040May, 1678. ffor 7 Grene geese0190July, 1678. ffor 4 Battelia pyes280September, 1678. ffor a Maria puding040October, 1678. a dish of florindines060

The staple dishes about this periodwere—

Westphalia hams.Sirloins of beef.Necks of veal and mutton.Boiled legs of pork.“Midlin” bacon.Tongues and udders.Dishes of Pigeons.Dishes of Turkeys.Sturgeon.Ling.Dishes of tarts.Apple pie.Custards.Mince pies.Grand salads.Sparagrasse.Sprouts.Colliflowers.Venison pasties.Ribs of beef.Rabbits.Capons and sausages.Pullets and oysters.Geese.“Lumber” pies.“Tansies.”Cod.Eel pies.“Maid dishes.”Dishes of fruit.Almond florandines.Oranges and lemons.French benes.Spinidge.Turnops.Hartychockes.

Venison pasties.Ribs of beef.Rabbits.Capons and sausages.Pullets and oysters.Geese.“Lumber” pies.“Tansies.”Cod.Eel pies.“Maid dishes.”Dishes of fruit.Almond florandines.Oranges and lemons.French benes.Spinidge.Turnops.Hartychockes.

The pudding now so well known at Barbers’ Hall as “Barbers’ pudding,” was originally “Maria pudding,” then “mara,” later onspelt “maro,” and finally “marrow pudding,” by which latter designation it is often now called.

September, 1684. ffor 8 oringes018

Poultry seems to have been cheap, as for the election dinner in thisyear—

7 Geese were bought for14616 Turkeys " "114839 Chickens " "119090 Pigeons " "163

The allowance to the “musick” at nearly every dinner was a shoulder of mutton, sometimes supplemented by two rabbits. The cost of “dressing” the monthly dinners was usually about 8s., and of the Election, Audit and quarterly Courts £1 10s.to £4.

May, 1685. ffor 2 dishes of Pidgon and Backon and spinig01602 dishes of Mackerell060

August, 1687. This election dinner was a little above the average, the following being thedetails—

for a Brace of Bucks8130for Putting them in 8 Pastyes400for 6 SrLoynes of Beef and a four rib for brakefast3404 Westfalia hams11107 Lumber pyes21607 Marrow puddings11507 Custarts11167 Dishes of Tarts2207 Dishes of Tonges and Udders11507 Gees15814 Torkeyes111645 Chickins2504 Dozen and1/2of Pidgeons013612 Partriges0120a Shoulder of Mutton & 2 Rabits for the musick05012 pound of midling Bakon and Lard080241/2pound of fresh butter0170for Artechoaks Cabidg french beans Lawrell Parsly and herbs to garnish090flower Salt and Salt butter for the range056for Gallindine and Goossace294036for Viniger060for Brooms packthread Candels and other things010Wood and coles100Kooks and Laberours and my own pains3002 pounds of Loaf Suger2004068008

May, 1688. Is the first mention of a “creem chees”

December, 1692. With the exceptions of ling, sturgeon, and salt fish with egg sauce, but little other fish appears to have been eaten. On this occasion, however, wefind—

2 Dishis of fresh Cod Drest with Shrimps & Anchove Sawse0140ffor 6 Whitings020

October, 1693. Green peas are for the first time referred to amongst the vegetables, and, singularly enough, they only occur once in each year for many years, and then at theOctoberdinners!

June, 1698. 2 pounds of fine powdered sugar for the Strawberrys014July, 1704.The Stewards Dinner.A legg of mutton rosted028A buttered appel pye030Cheese to yeappel pye0023 Quartes of Coffee0300810

May, 1707. ffor 15 Mackril010016 Gooseberry tartes080Caper sauce for the mutton010April, 1708. A Frygusse of Lamb060

20th September, 1709. It was ordered, in consequence of the great increase in the Livery, that there should be six instead of five stewards of the Mayor’s Feast to make the Livery dinner, and any liveryman chosen to the office and refusing to serve was to be prosecuted under the by-laws. The fine for not serving was £13 6s.8d., and was invariably enforced, numerous cases of refusal being decided at law in favour of the Company. Six Whifflers were as usual, appointed “to be attendant upon the Governrsat the Hall upon the next Lord Mayorsday in comely & decent Apparrell with gilded Chaines & white Staves.”

6th November, 1717. In consequence of irregularities at the Lord Mayor’s feast, it was ordered that in future the Stewards should be prohibited from bringing their wives and friends to the dinner.

1721. The third dinner book opens with an account of the receipts of the Governors’ “Potation Money” for this year, amounting to £131 11s.2d., the contributions being from Barbers one guinea, and from Surgeons two guineas each. This potation money was spent at the Mitre Tavern in Fleet Street, on ten Monthly Court dinners, which averaged the modest sum of £4 4s.apiece, and the remainder was disbursed about the election feast, wine and sundries.

The cost of the Mayor’s feast this year was £67 7s., and at this dinner was drunk a hogshead of port (query), six gallons of mountain, six gallons of white port, and three gallons of canary.

July 19th, 1722. At the ladies’ feast the following wine wasdrunk—

30 Gallons Red Port at 7s.1010011 " Sherry at 7s.31707 " Canary at 7s.2905 " Rhenish at 7s.1150

and 4s.were expended on tobacco and pipes.

1726. The monthly Court dinners were held at the George and Vulture Tavern, nine of them costing in all £29 13s.9d.

The Election dinner this year cost £91 8s.0d.

And the Lord Mayor’s feast £72 1s.101⁄2d.

June, 1729. The monthly Court dinner was held at “Vaux Hall.”

The accounts throughout the Third Dinner Book (1720–1740) appear to be much the same every year. First is a list of receipts for Potation Money, averaging about £100 per annum, then follow the allowances out of the same towards the Election dinner, the dressing it and use of pewter, about £19 in all, the payments for the monthly Court dinners (nine or ten at about £4 4s.each), and the expenses of the Election feasts, about £80 to £90 a piece.

The cost of the Lord Mayor’s feast, the Livery feast, and the Ladies’ feast, was borne by the Stewards.

There were gay doings at some of these dinners, as witness the following:

1726. Paid the Boy who danced the anticks at the Lady’s feast, 5s.1727. By Cash paid the Butchers who played to the Company with their Marrow bones and cleavers on Lord Mayor’s day, 1s.

1726. Paid the Boy who danced the anticks at the Lady’s feast, 5s.

1727. By Cash paid the Butchers who played to the Company with their Marrow bones and cleavers on Lord Mayor’s day, 1s.

And there were sometimes rather shady doings after the dinners, thus:

10th July, 1729. Mem̃dm. MrTruelove & MrFradin carried away yenext morning after yefeast four Dozen Quarts of Wine, One whole Venison pasty, One whole Goose, one whole fowl, & several lemons & sugar.

1st February, 1732. Mr. John Atkinson and the other Stewards of the Mayor’s feast, employed a cook of their own, and “did make a most scandalous Dinner for yeCo.,” whereupon order was given that in future no other than the “Standing Cooke” of the Company should be employed.

One is astounded at the quantity of wine which appears to have been imbibed at some of these dinners; take, for example, the following on Lord Mayor’s Day, 1735, and note that it is especially stated that the wine was “drank at the said feast”:

Paid for the following quantitys of wine provided for and drank at the said feast, vizt.

To MrStandert for21 Gall Red Port2 Gall Lisben2 Gall Mountaine2 Gall Canary29 Bottles lostTo MrGaywood for20 Gall Red Port2 Gall Mountaine2 Gall Lisbone2 Gall CanaryTo Mr.Pierce for2 Gall Lisben2 Gall Mountaine2 Gall Canary20 Gall Red Port6600120012001300410600012001200130012001200130600

By the above account these thirsty old Barber-Surgeons seem to have consumed no less than 79 Gallons of wine at this dinner.

15th July, 1736. 56 gallons of wine were drunk at the Ladies’ feast.

21st July, 1726. It is orderdThat from henceforward at all publick Feasts or Dinners to be held or made at the Hall the Cook of the Company for the time being shall before he sends the Dinner into the Hall deliver to the Clark of the Company at his House his Messe of meat consisting of six compleat dishes according to the Ancient laws and usage of the Company in that behalf the same being the ancient ffee & Perquisite of the Clerk.

21st August, 1729. The above order was vacated in consequence of disputes as to the contents and number of the dishes supplied to the Clerk, and it was ordered that the Clerk should receive £5 5s.annually in lieu of his “messe of meat,” and also that he should dine at all the feasts “as he has always been accustomed to do.”

1st February, 1731. For the better regulating of the Ladys Feast It is ordered That every Member of the Court of Assistants shall besides his Lady and one daughter have three tickets to be delivered to such persons as they shall think fitt to be admitted to come and dance at the Hall at Five of the Clock on that day and that there shall be two Constables to attend at the Hall gate and see that nobody is admitted but with such Ticketts and that the Ticketts be made out by the Clerk of the Company and sealed with the Company’s seal.

The Summons to a Liveryman to take upon himself the office of Steward was of a very peremptory nature, as will be seen by thefollowing:—

SrBy order of the Marsor Govrsof the Mystery & Comonalty of Barbers & Surgeons of London, I do hereby give you notice that you having been chosen & admitted of the Livery or Cloathing of the said Company, You are appointed by the Masters or Govrsof the sdCompdtogether with Mr.Richard Penton Mr.Joseph Griffin Mr.Daniel Pengrove and Mr.Joseph Mitchell who are also Liverymen of the said Company to make an Entertainment in the Com̄on Hall of the said Company situate in Monckwell Street in the Parish of Saint Olave Silver Street in the City of London for the Govrsand Assistants of the sdCompany commonly called the Livery Dinner on Teusday the 3dday of June 1735 at two of the Clock in the afternoon pursuant to a By law of the said Company in that behalf made & provided. And in case you shall neglect or refuse wthout reasonableExcuse to join together with the said Mr.Richard Penton Mr.Joseph Griffin Mr.Daniel Pengrove and Mr.Joseph Mitchell to made such Dinner on Teusday the 3dday of June next, or to contribute and pay your share and and proporc͠on of the charges thereof you will forfeit and pay to the said Marsor Govrsof the sdMystery and Comonalty to the use of the said Company the sum of £5. And I do hereby give you further notice That the gentlemen who are to join with you in making the said dinner will meet you at the George and Vulture Tavern in Saint Michael’s Alley in Cornhill in the City of London on Friday next being the 23rd day of this instant May at six of the clock in the afternoon to give the proper directions for the said dinner, at which time and place you are desired to attend for that purpose.I am SrYour most obedt.humble Servt.Cha: BernardClerk to the sdCompany.Herewith you will receive a copy of the Bill of Fare or a Particular of wchthe sdEntertainment is to consist.Barbers andSurgeon’s Hall,22dMay 1735To Mr.Cha: More.

By order of the Marsor Govrsof the Mystery & Comonalty of Barbers & Surgeons of London, I do hereby give you notice that you having been chosen & admitted of the Livery or Cloathing of the said Company, You are appointed by the Masters or Govrsof the sdCompdtogether with Mr.Richard Penton Mr.Joseph Griffin Mr.Daniel Pengrove and Mr.Joseph Mitchell who are also Liverymen of the said Company to make an Entertainment in the Com̄on Hall of the said Company situate in Monckwell Street in the Parish of Saint Olave Silver Street in the City of London for the Govrsand Assistants of the sdCompany commonly called the Livery Dinner on Teusday the 3dday of June 1735 at two of the Clock in the afternoon pursuant to a By law of the said Company in that behalf made & provided. And in case you shall neglect or refuse wthout reasonableExcuse to join together with the said Mr.Richard Penton Mr.Joseph Griffin Mr.Daniel Pengrove and Mr.Joseph Mitchell to made such Dinner on Teusday the 3dday of June next, or to contribute and pay your share and and proporc͠on of the charges thereof you will forfeit and pay to the said Marsor Govrsof the sdMystery and Comonalty to the use of the said Company the sum of £5. And I do hereby give you further notice That the gentlemen who are to join with you in making the said dinner will meet you at the George and Vulture Tavern in Saint Michael’s Alley in Cornhill in the City of London on Friday next being the 23rd day of this instant May at six of the clock in the afternoon to give the proper directions for the said dinner, at which time and place you are desired to attend for that purpose.

I am SrYour most obedt.humble Servt.Cha: BernardClerk to the sdCompany.

Herewith you will receive a copy of the Bill of Fare or a Particular of wchthe sdEntertainment is to consist.

Barbers andSurgeon’s Hall,

22dMay 1735

To Mr.Cha: More.

28th May, 1741. By an order made this day in reference to the Ladies’ feast it wasdirected—

that the Entertainment shall continue no longer than twelve of the clock when there shall be no more Dancing but that the Musick be then dismissed and the Company depart.28th August, 1741. The Court having taken into consideration the ill behaviour and abusive language of John Atkinson Distiller in White Chappell (a Liveryman of this Company) on the last day of Election, who in a most gross manner (in the Common Hall of this Company) the Master of the said Company did greatly insult and abuse and did otherwise very indecently and rudely behave to other Members of the Company whereby the Peace of the said Company then assembled was greatly disturbed, and being determined to put a stop to and prevent the like grievances for the future by punishing all such offendors hereinOrderedthat the said John Atkinson be fined for such his ill behaviour to the Master the sum of 6s8dand 10sfor bringing in to Dinner on that day another person with him after having been acquainted by the Master that the same was contrary to the By laws of the said Company.

that the Entertainment shall continue no longer than twelve of the clock when there shall be no more Dancing but that the Musick be then dismissed and the Company depart.

28th August, 1741. The Court having taken into consideration the ill behaviour and abusive language of John Atkinson Distiller in White Chappell (a Liveryman of this Company) on the last day of Election, who in a most gross manner (in the Common Hall of this Company) the Master of the said Company did greatly insult and abuse and did otherwise very indecently and rudely behave to other Members of the Company whereby the Peace of the said Company then assembled was greatly disturbed, and being determined to put a stop to and prevent the like grievances for the future by punishing all such offendors hereinOrderedthat the said John Atkinson be fined for such his ill behaviour to the Master the sum of 6s8dand 10sfor bringing in to Dinner on that day another person with him after having been acquainted by the Master that the same was contrary to the By laws of the said Company.

1745. It is noticeable that the Potation Money fell off on the separation of the Surgeons from the Barbers. During the three or four preceding years the amount had been steadily running down from an average of £105 to £57, and there seems to have been no Election or Livery Dinners this year, though the gallant Barbers did not forget the Ladies, for they gave them (and themselves) a dinner at a cost of £52 1s.9d.

The Barbers, too, at this time do not seem to have drunk quite so much wine as the Barber-Surgeons did, and in the year 1747 is the first mention of Beer, when 12s.was paid for a barrel of small Beer for the Lord Mayor’s feast, and only 68 bottles of wine were consumed on this occasion.

Between the years 1750 and 1786 no records are kept of any but the Mayor’s feasts, though doubtless the Company did not fast during the intervals.

There is now a striking similarity in these dinner accounts year by year; usually there were six stewards each of whom provided, about the years 1775, and later on, no less than 53 bottles of wine each, thus emulating their predecessors the Barber-Surgeons; there are numerous references to these bottles as being quarts, so that about 80 gallons must have been drunk at each dinner. Happily, all this is now changed.

It is noticeable from the earliest times that the Company on every occasion of a feast, invariably hired their Pewter dishes and plates at great cost; it seems strange that this continual outlay should have been incurred, instead of keeping a stock of pewter.

1830 and 1831. Considerable difficulty had arisen for some years past in procuring Stewards for the Mayor’s feasts, and also in enforcing the fines for not serving, whereupon a resolution was passedthat Liverymen refusing to pay the Steward’s fine would not be invited to the dinners, and would be declared ineligible to come on the Court.

The Court seem to have had grave doubts as to the efficacy of their By-Laws in recovering at law the Steward’s fines, and a case having been prepared it was submitted to Sir James Scarlett and to Sir Thomas Denman (the Attorney General). The opinion of the former eminent Counsel, dated 10th October, 1832, is set out in the minutes, and he appears to have been very clear that they would not be recoverable, whereupon the Court ordered a letter (of 16th October) to be addressed to the Livery, informing them of the difficulty which had arisen by reason of Liverymen refusing to serve as Stewards in their rotation (after having partaken of the hospitality of other Stewards in former years), and that in consequence thereof there would be no dinner that year. The day after this letter was sent out, Sir Thomas Denman’s opinion was handed in, and was to the opposite effect of that given by Sir James Scarlett! Since this period, and now, the Steward’s fine is paid on the admission of a Liveryman, and thus a source of constant annoyance is done away with.

Thehistory of the acquisition by the Corporation of London and the City Guilds, of their estates in Ireland has been often related, and full accounts will be found in “Malcolm’s Londinium Redivivum,” “Herbert’s Livery Companies,” “Nicholl’s Ironmongers’ Company,” and other works; I shall, therefore, only treat of the subject so far as the Barber-Surgeons were concerned.

In 1609 when James I floated his Irish scheme, our Company seems to have been very loath to enter into it, as would appear by the insignificant subscriptions proffered by the Members (seepage473).

The difficulty which the Court foresaw in raising the £100 demanded in July, 1609, was endeavoured to be surmounted by the following ingenious proposition: there had been some previous forced loans to the King amounting to £123, for which the Company held the City’s bond, and as this was considered a doubtful asset, it was suggested that £100 thereof should be adventured on behalf of the Company; it is needless to say that this innocent suggestion was scouted, and a peremptory precept for the £100 delivered, whereupon the Courtassessed the various members of the Company and with the greatest difficulty £30 was thus raised and a further sum of £90 later on. The Minutes referring to these transactions are especially worthy the perusal of those persons who claim the estates of the City Companies as being the “property of the people,” or as having been “left for the poor,” &c. We see by them that (in our Company certainly, and as doubtless an examination of records would show, in all other Companies) the purchase of these lands in Ireland was not only compulsory, but that it was made from moneys contributed by individual members for the most part, and the balance from the “Stock of the house,” this “Stock” being the floating funds in the Renter Warden’s hands, derived from admissions, fines, &c. We thus see that no “trust” money was used for the purchase, and that the estates are saddled with no trust whatever, but are held free, and by an infinitely better title as far as morality goes, to say nothing of legality, than many Estates in the hands of some of the aristocratic patrons of the busybodies bent on spoliation.

In January, 1611, the Company were commanded by precept to elect whether they would for their contribution accept a tract of land in Ulster,saddled with a condition to build upon it, or refer the letting of it to the Irish Society, whereupon they chose the latter, and in July following came a precept, for its morality worthy of the Land League, for it called upon the Wardens to pay down £60 more, or elseto absolutely lose the £120 already contributed!

The doleful answer of the Court, dated 19th July, 1611, is deeply interesting, and we cannot but be touched by the wrongs under which they suffered, and which constrained them to write:—“we must be forced (yf there be lawfull authoritie to take awaye & compell orCompany) to loose the moneys we have alreadye disburssed.”

James, however, did not care much about the money the Company proposed to abandon; what he required was a further supply, and the proceedings thereupon are indicated by the Minute of 16th November, 1611. Shortly after, the Company wisely applied to “MrRecorder” to construe the answer, but even his skill and interest did not avail, for on 2nd July, 1612, it was agreed that the Master and Wardens should go before the Court of Aldermen, and “stand hardlie” against paying any more money, especially as they had not any security for what had been already advanced, and if committed, they were to go to prison, rather than pay the £30 demanded, with a proviso that directly they were imprisoned, the £30 was to be paid, and it was eventually paid.

In 1613, the Company made over their interest in the Irish Estate to one of the Wardens, Mr. Allen, but this arrangement was subsequently annulled.

Many more were the precepts, and the troubles in which the Company were involved, about this business, but it is satisfactory to record that in 1623 £11 9s.6d.was received on account of rents, and in 1625 a further sum of £10 0s.8d.

The Company were, and are still, associated in their Irish Estates with the Ironmongers’, Brewers’, Scriveners’, Coopers’, Pewterers’, and Carpenters’ Companies; but by far the largest proportion appertains to the Ironmongers, who have always managed the property.

In 1635, the Attorney General exhibited a Bill in the Star Chamber against all of the Companies to the intent that they should surrender up all their rights and evidences touching the Irish plantation, and on our Company taking Counsel’s opinion, they were advised to submit to this monstrous piece of injustice. Judgment was given in1637, and the Irish property of all the Companies was seized into the King’s hands. One would have thought that this flagitious iniquity might have ended here, but by the decree of the Star Chamber, the Citizens, in addition to the loss of their Estates, were fined £8,000 to the King, and on the 8th November, 1638, our unhappy predecessors were assessed at, and had to pay £64 on this account, the Ironmongers paying £272, and other Companies according to their settled proportions.

Notwithstanding these high-handed proceedings, the Barber-Surgeons, ever ready to aid those in distress, voluntarily gave in 1642, what to them in those dire days of taxation was a munificent gift, namely £20, towards the relief of the poor Protestants in the north of Ireland, and they further raised, under compulsion, by the sale of their plate and the mortgage of their property, £400, which was “lentfor the Relief of Ireland upon the faith and order of Parliament,” and not one penny of which was ever refunded!

The illegal seizures of the Irish lands in 1637 were set aside by Charles II, who, by his Charter, 10th April, 1662, restored and confirmed to the citizens all their former privileges and their possessions in Ireland, and thus our Company became repossessed of its original property there.

A little previous to 1840 communications passed between the Barbers and the Ironmongers’ Companies, in reference to an appointment which had been made by the latter Company, of Mr. Oseland as Manager of the associated estate at a salary of £400 per annum. This appointment seems to have been made without the knowledge or concurrence of the associated Companies, and led to some little friction, but it was no doubt a wise step, and appears, after various protests, to have been finally acquiesced in.

Our property known as the “Lizard Estate,” was on lease for lives, the sole surviving life being the then Bishop of Meath, who was 76 years of age. The Ironmongers, in the natural expectation of an early reversion to the estate, appointed Mr. Oseland to look after the Companies’ interests, and from the list of his duties it would seem that his office was no sinecure. The Bishop dying in 1840, the lease fell in, and there were various consultations among the Companies as to the advisability of a partition or a sale, or the granting of a fresh lease. The Scriveners alone desired a partition, the others were for keeping on the late under-lessees and tenants as tenants for a year until a course could be decided upon, and this was eventually agreed to, the Barbers recording in their books an expression of their sense of the wise manner in which the Ironmongers’ Company had managed the business.

One very important point discussed at Ironmongers’ Hall was that of the waste and dilapidations which had been suffered to accrue by the late lessee. These were estimated to amount to £5,000, and there was not the least question as to the right and power of the Companies to have enforced a claim in this respect, but they generously decided not even to present it; had the Companies been “trustees” they would have had no option but to have enforced their claim.

This action accords with the general liberal administration of Estates as pursued by the City guilds, and is another evidence (if, indeed, such evidence were wanting!) of the absence of greed and of the generous way in which tenants are treated by these bodies.

This Estate is subject to no trust whatever, it was purchased by the Company out of monies which they collected from individual members of the Guild, or by the sale of their plate, etc., and formany years it was unproductive. It is a portion of their private corporate estate, and no trust or charity suffered by this voluntary abandonment of a large sum to which they were entitled in lieu of the re-instatement of the dilapidation. The proceedings are all very fully set out in the Court Minutes for 1840, 1841, etc.

Back to Index Next