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
(see Wardens’ Accounts of 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 are _complete_) 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.
[Illustration: 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 (see
Wardens’ 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 penalties upon 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 Rob{t.} Sawyer,
the Attorney-General, thereupon undertook, on behalf of the Crown,
to prove that the City Charters were forfeited, and contrived the
celebrated _quo 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 as follows:--
To all to whom these p{r}sents shall come. GOVERNO{RS} of y{e}
MYSTERY and COĨALTIE of BARB{RS} & SURGEONS of LONDON send GREETING.
KNOW yee y{t} wee considering how much it imports the Governm{t}
of our company to have men of known Loyalty & approved integrity
to bear offices of Magistracy & places of Trust. The s{d} Ma{rs}
or Govern{rs} have granted surrendred and yielded up, and by these
p{r}sents do grant surrend{r} and yield up unto his most gracious
Majesty CHARLES ye second by the Grace of God King of England,
&c., his Heires and Successo{rs.} All and singular y{e} Powers
Franchises liberties priviledges and authorities whatsoever and
howsoever granted to or to bee used or exercised by y{e} said Masters
or Governo{rs} by 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 y{e} severall
and respective offices of Mast{r} Wardens Assistants and Clerk of
y{e} said Company. And y{e} said Masters or Governo{rs} do hereby
humbly beseech his Ma{tie} to accept of this their surrend{r} and
do with all submission to his Majesties good pleasure implore his
grace and favo{r} to regrant to y{e} said Masters or Governo{rs} the
nameing and Chusing of y{e} said Officers and the said libertie and
ffranchises or so many of them and in such mann{r} as his Majesty in
his great wisdome shall judge most conducing for y{e} governm{t} of
y{e} said Company, And with and under such reservacc͠ons restricc͠ons
and qualificac͠ons as his Majestie shall bee pleased to appoint. IN
WITNES whereof the said MAST{RS} or GOVERNO{RS} have hereunto affixed
their Com̃on seal the sixteenth day of Aprill in y{e} Thirty sixth
year of y{e} reign of o{r} or sovˀaign LORD CHARLES y{e} second, &c.,
and in y{e} year of o{r} Lord 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 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.