at any time have the free liberty of examining and inspecting into
the several Books and writings belonging to this Company In case the
same should be in the presence of the Master or one of the Wardens
but not otherwise, but no such Books or writings be at any time
removed from the Hall, on any account whatever unless by a special
order of this Court first had and obtained for that purpose.
10th January, 1745. Pursuant to an Order of the last Court of
Assistants the gentlemen on the Barbers side Members of this Court,
did this day make their report on the proposals made by the gentlemen
on the Surgeons side for a separation, by Dissenting in general to
such proposals made.
By the Journals of the House of Commons, 18 George II, it appears that
the Surgeons on 31st January, 1745, presented a petition to Parliament,
in which among other things they recited the Act, 32 Henry VIII, and
also that Charles I in the 5th year of his reign,
by Letters Patent under the great seal confirmed the Barber Surgeon’s
Company in their possessions and privileges and gave the Company
power to make by-laws and to constitute ten persons to be Examiners
of Surgeons during their lives, and it was thereby further granted
that no person whether freeman foreigner native of England or alien
should practise Surgery in London or Westminster or within seven
miles of the City of London unless previously examined allowed and
admitted by the Company in manner therein mentioned; and that the
Surgeons so examined might practise in any part of England; and that
the Masters and Governors of the said Company might appoint and
have a public lecture for the science of Surgery, for the better
instruction and information in the principles and rudiments of the
art and science of Surgery, and that no person exercising the art of
Surgery within the limits therein mentioned should go out or send any
apprentice or servant from the Port of London to serve in quality
of a Surgeon for any ship without the approbation and allowance of
the said Company, in such manner and under such penalties as are
therein mentioned. That since the said Act for incorporating the two
said Companies, those of the said Company practising Surgery have
from their sole and constant study of, and application to the said
science, rendered the profession and practice thereof of great and
public benefit and utility to this Kingdom, and that the Barbers
belonging to the said Corporation are now, and have been many years,
employed in a business foreign to and independent of the practice of
Surgery; and that the Surgeons belonging to the same Corporation,
being now become a numerous and considerable body, and finding their
union with the Barbers inconvenient in many respects and in no degree
conducive to the progress or improvement of the art of Surgery,
are therefore desirous that the Surgeons being freemen of the said
Company, may be made a Corporation separate and distinct from and
independent of the Barbers of, and belonging to the said Company;
and therefore praying the House to give leave that a bill may be
brought in dissolving and vacating the union and incorporation of the
Barbers and Surgeons made by the said former act; and for making the
Surgeons of the said Company a separate and distinct Corporation; and
for making a partition and division of the real and personal estate
and effects of and belonging to the said united Company, unto and
for the separate benefit of the said two Companies so proposed to be
separated, as to this House shall seem meet and reasonable.
Whereupon it was ordered--
That the said petition be referred to the consideration of a
Committee and that they do examine the matter thereof, and report the
same with their opinion thereupon to the House.
A Committee was at once appointed with power to send for persons,
papers, and records.
On the 6th February the Barbers presented a Petition against the
proposed separation, and asked to be heard by counsel; whereupon it was
ordered--
That the said petition be referred to the consideration of the
Committee to whom the petition of the Surgeons of London, whose
names are thereunto subscribed, on behalf of themselves and other
the Surgeons in the City and suburbs of London is referred: And that
these petitioners the said Barbers, if they think fit be heard by
their Counsel before the said Committee according to the prayer of
the said petitioners.
This petition of the Barbers to the House of Commons was identical
with a very scarce pamphlet “The Case of the Barbers,” a copy of which
has been kindly given to me by Mr. D’Arcy Power, M.A. It is full of
interest, and will be found in Appendix E.
27th February, 1745. The Committee brought up their report, which was
read by the Clerk, and recited the various documents produced and the
evidence tendered; among other matters it is stated that Mr. John
Hayward, a Past Master, was examined and deposed, that the Master
(who every other year was a Barber) and the Wardens present, sign the
diplomas. That there are ten Examiners who have each half a guinea
for their attendance, and the Master and Wardens have the like. That
he did not know that the presence of Barbers at these examinations
was any inconvenience, but he apprehended it would be more eligible
if the Master were always a Surgeon. That the Barbers are generally
present at the four public lectures of Anatomy, two of which are at
the expense of the Company, the other two being at the expense of the
Surgeons. That the Demonstrators of Anatomy and Osteology are chosen
by the whole Court of Assistants (fifteen of whom are Barbers, and
fifteen Surgeons). That he apprehends the present union is the reason
why so many persons do not bind their sons apprentice at the Hall. He
never knew of the Barbers interfering in or giving interruption to
examinations, and he never heard any fact mentioned as a reason for the
separation desired by the Surgeons, except that a great many foreign
brothers (who are gentlemen that practise both in and out of town)
refuse to come into the Company on account of the present expense.
Being examined as to the money generally given to the Poor’s Box by
Sea Surgeons at the time of their receiving a Qualification, he said
that it was always expected, but that if they are not in a capacity
it is not insisted upon, and that he never heard of any person being
denied a Qualification for refusing to pay it. That the Qualification
is delivered to the party sealed up, to be carried to the Navy Office,
and that the Master commonly signifies to him what fees are expected;
that the said Box is examined every month, and about nine-tenths of
the money distributed by the Master and Wardens, among the poor of the
Barbers.
Being asked what proportion the Barbers pay to the Poor’s Box, he said
that the greatest part of the income applied to that use arises from
the examination of Sea Surgeons, but that the Apprentices of Barbers
(who are as twenty to one) always pay when bound at the Hall, and at
their admission to the freedom, as well as the Surgeons.
Mr. Hayward put before the Committee a statement of the fines received
by the Company, which was as follows--
Surgeons. Barbers.
_£ s. d._ _£ s. d._
For Freedom by purchase 10 10 0 6 6 0
" Livery fine, and all Offices to the
Parlor door 35 0 0 25 0 0
" Examination for great Diploma 6 6 0
" The fine for not serving the four
several offices of Master and the
three Wardens, which the Surgeons
often pay, but the Barbers never
do, sometimes 30 guineas but
oftener 40 0 0 40 0 0
" The fine for Master and Stewards of
Anatomy when called upon in turn
(and if they serve, the expense
is rather greater) 40 0 0
------------ -----------
£131 16 0 £71 6 0
============ ===========
The Clerk’s and Beadle’s fees are not included in the above.
Mr. Joseph Wheeler, the Clerk of the Company, was examined by the
Committee, and generally confirmed Mr. Hayward’s evidence.
The next witness, Mr. Neil Stewart, was evidently called in the
interest of the Surgeons, to show the inconvenience which had arisen
(in his case at all events) by reason of the warrants being issued
by the “_Barbers_ and Surgeons.” He deposed that he was surgeon to
H.M.S. The Looe, and, being taken prisoner by the French, was put in
the common prison at Brest, where he petitioned to be removed to an
open hospital at Dinan, and enclosed his warrant as a surgeon with
his petition to the French authorities; some days after, he enquired
of the “Linguist” as to the success of his petition, and was informed
that “the Superintendent did not know by his warrant whether he
(the witness) was a Barber _or_ a Surgeon: that upon his desiring
the linguist to read the warrant, by which it would appear he was a
surgeon, the linguist replied that it might be so, but that if the
witness had been taken on board one of the King of Great Britain’s
ships it would have been out of doubt.” This witness further stated
that he believed the unfavourable notice which was taken of his
petition was because his warrant came from the Masters of the _Barbers_
and Surgeons.
With reference to the gift of Edward Arris the Court minutes of 29th
February, 1675-6 were produced which stated that “Mr. Edward Arris a
very worthy member of this Company having formerly settled by Deed £30
a year for a dissection of a body yearly and Reading on the Muscles,
desired that deed might be delivered up to him,” and he in return
would pay the Company £510 to enable them to apply the interest to the
same purposes, which was agreed to. Mr. Arris dying on the 28th May,
1676, the Company soon became involved in a Chancery suit with his
son, Dr. Thomas Arris, and the Court minutes of 20th January, 1677-8
were produced and read to the Committee. These set forth the answer
which the Company filed to the Bill of Complaint before the Master of
the Rolls, and stated the circumstances referred to in the minutes of
29th February, 1675-6, and that Mr. Arris gave as his reason for this
“That his only son and heir, the now Doctor, had and did then receive
the profits of the said lands to his own use upon condition and under
promise to pay the said £30 per annum for the said Dissection; but he
found that he did never pay one penny of it, or ever would do, when he
their benefactor was dead, without trouble or suit; with some severe
and sharp expressions, which we will by no means mention, although they
were the very words of the father spoken of the son.”
The answer goes on to express the hope that the Company will not be
compelled to enter into any further covenant with Dr. Arris than they
had done with his father their “pious benefactor,” for the carrying out
of the trust, or be ordered to refund the £510 to Dr. Arris. It also
prayed that he might be ordered to pay the costs of “this troublesome
and unnecessary suit, which doth so much shew what they must expect
from him hereafter, if they should part with the £510.” As the Company
retained the £510 till the separation in 1745, there is no doubt but
that Dr. Arris, as he deserved to do, lost his suit.
Various extracts from the Company’s books were read, on behalf of
the Barbers, to show that the united Company had always assisted the
Surgeons, and promoted the cause and interest of Surgery out of the
common fund of the Barbers and Surgeons.
Part of the Will of Robert Ferbras, Citizen and Surgeon, dated 2nd
December, 1470,[120] was read, whereby it appeared that several estates
formerly belonging to the said Company, were given to the Barbers
before their union with the Surgeons in Henry VIII’s time. And a
declaration of Bryan Sandford, dated 8th March, 1490, was read, whereby
it appeared that the site of the Hall was purchased by the Barbers
before the said Union.
[120] But see p. 61 as to this Will. I cannot explain the discrepancy.
The Committee of the House of Commons reported that they had
recommended the parties to settle the dispute as to the division of the
property between them, and that thereupon the Surgeons had proposed
that they should have given up to them Dr. Gale’s Annuity of £16 per
annum and Alderman Arris’ gift of £510; also that for about three years
until the Surgeons could provide themselves with suitable premises,
they should have the use of the Hall, Theatre, &c., at a nominal rent
of one guinea per annum.
The Barbers agreed to give up Gale’s and Arris’ gifts, but proposed
that the Surgeons should take a lease for such days in the year as they
commonly used the premises, at £80 per annum, and pay the Barbers £100
towards the expenses to which they had been put by this suit in the
Parliament.
In the result the Committee reported:--(_a_) That the Surgeons had
made good the allegations of their petition. (_b_) That the proposed
separation was desirable. (_c_) That the propositions of the Surgeons
touching the division of the property were reasonable.
Subsequently the Bill passed both Houses and received the Royal Assent,
the quaint union being dissolved 25th June, 1745.
By this Act (18 Geo. II) the Surgeons were erected into a separate
Corporation, and the Barbers were re-incorporated under the style of
“The Master, Governors and Commonalty of the Mystery of Barbers of
London.” So much of this Act as relates to the Barbers will be found in
the Appendix F.
The first Court of Assistants of “~The Barbers’ Company~” was held on
the 25th June, 1745, at 10 a.m., and there were present:--
Mr. JONATHAN MEDLEY _Master_.
Mr. HUMPHRY NEGUS _Second Governor_.
Mr. WILLIAM PARKER. } { Mr. SAMUEL RUTTER.
Mr. JOHN BARNWELL. } { Mr. ROBERT SCROOBY.
Mr. JOHN TRUELOVE. } { Mr. RICHARD SWITHIN.
Mr. WILLIAM HADDON. } _Assistants._ { Mr. EDWARD COLEBECK.
Mr. JOHN NEGUS. } { Mr. TOGARMAH JONES.
Mr. EDWARD BOXLEY. } { Mr. JOHN GURNEY.
The Act of Separation being read, and the Oaths as formerly required to
be taken by Freemen, Master, Warden, Assistant, Clerk, and Beadle being
also read and considered, the Court settled and formulated the various
Oaths, and the same are entered in the Minutes.
The Election of nine fit and able persons to be Assistants was then
proceeded with, and Mr. William Jackson, Mr. John Bearblock, Mr.
Will{m.} Roberts, Mr. Thomas Cotton, Mr. John Whiting, Mr. Richard
Lookes, James Theobald, Esqre., Peter Theobald, Esqre., and Mr. John
Pepys, were unanimously elected.
Mr. Edward Boxley and Mr. Samuel Rutter were chosen third and fourth
Governors or Wardens.
Thanks were voted to Mr. Jonathan Medley and Mr. Humphry Negus “for
their great care in defending and preserving the Rights Priviledges and
property of this Company on their Separation from the Surgeons.”
Thanks were also voted to Mr. John Paterson “for his great care and
diligence in executing the orders and directions of the Master and
Governor about the defence and preservation of the rights priviledges
and property of the Company” and to further mark their sense of the
same, the Court unanimously elected Mr. Paterson as Clerk.
The two Beadles, Henry Gretton and William Littlebury were re-elected.
It was ordered that all Charters, Books, Plate and goods belonging
to the Company, then in the custody of Mr. Joseph Wheeler (the late
Clerk) should be delivered to Mr. Paterson, who was to make and sign an
Inventory of the same, and also to examine Mr. Wheeler’s accounts, and
report thereon to the Court.
The Common Seal was directed to be altered by omitting the words ET
CHIRURGORUM and by adding ANNO MDCCXLV.
A Committee was appointed to peruse the By-Laws of the late United
Company, and to report as to which of them required amendment or were
fit to be repealed or added to.
8th August, 1751. Mr. John Brooks attended and produced a Deed to
which he requested the subscription of the Court; this deed recited
that by an Act of Parliament passed in the 10th year of Queen Anne,
it was enacted that a duty of 2_d._ per lb. should be laid upon all
starch imported, and of 1_d._ per lb. upon all starch made in Great
Britain, that no perfumer, barber, or seller of hair-powder should
mix any powder of alabaster, plaster of Paris, whiting, lime, etc.
(sweet scents excepted), with any starch to be made use of for making
hair-powder, under pain of forfeiting the hair-powder and £50, and
that any person who should expose the same for sale should forfeit
it and £20. Also that by further Acts additional duties were laid
upon starch. And by an Act passed in the 4th year of George II the
penalties were somewhat mitigated. “And whereas the said laws with
respect to hair-powder have by experience been found not to answer the
end proposed by the Legislature, the sum arising by the said duties
upon starch and hair-powder having gradually lessened, whilst the
fair traders have been great sufferers by the practice of those who
by the greatness of the duty have attempted to make vend or use the
said prohibited articles. And whereas the trade or business of making
vending or dressing of Perukes or other Ornaments of hair for the head
and also of cutting and dressing the hair of the head being considered
as distinct from the business of Barbers is under no regulation
whatever,” etc., the parties whom Mr. Brooks represented (and whose
names were signed to the deed) had, therefore, agreed to join in an
application to Parliament for reducing the duties on hair-powder, as
also for incorporating all persons carrying on the trade of Barbers and
Peruke-makers within the Bills of Mortality, into one joint Corporation
or Body politick, and for restraining persons from exercising those
trades who had not served seven years’ apprenticeship.
It was stated that subscriptions towards defraying the costs of the
proposed Bill had been paid to Messrs. Gosling & Bennett, Bankers in
Fleet Street, that John Paterson, Esq., Clerk of the Company, was
Solicitor for the Bill, and Mr. John Brooks was Secretary of the
Petitioners.
The Court, having considered the application, decided to contribute
Twenty Guineas, but the matter seems to have been in abeyance for
eighteen months, as the petition to the House of Commons was not
sealed by the Company until the 7th January, 1753.
13th January, 1753. The petition was this day presented and is recorded
in the Journals of the House; it states, among other things, that the
Company “are in danger of being unable to support themselves and that
the petitioners who exercise the art of Peruke making in the liberties
and neighbourhood of the said City are not a body corporate, nor under
any order or regulation; for want whereof great frauds are practised
in the said manufacture to the discouragement of the fair trader, and
manifest injury of the consumer, And therefore praying the House that
leave may be given for the bringing in a Bill for incorporating the
Peruke makers as well within as without the liberties of the City of
London, and within such distance thereof as the House shall think fit,
with the said petitioners”--the Barbers’ Company. This petition was
referred to a Committee, but no report of that Committee is entered in
the Journals.
4th December, 1764. The Peruke makers turned up again in 1764, for we
find in the Minutes that certain of them attended with the draft of
a petition to the King, to which they asked the assent of the Court.
This petition which strangely commenced “We the Company of Barbers _and
Peruke makers_,” stated that the suppliants laid before his Majesty the
distresses into which the Peruke makers had fallen by reason of the
change of fashion, and thus appeals to the King, “Where can we look
for relief but there only where it is to be found, for as the Fashion
your Majesty approves will very justly be a pattern to your subjects,
We most humbly hope not to be too bold in wishing Perukes may soon be
as much in fashion as the wearing of hair is at present, which will
increase the Revenue, give happiness to the indigent and distressed
Peruke makers, and increase the many great unmerited Favours, We as a
Company have received from Royal Hands!”
16th January, 1765. The Court took this ridiculous petition into
consideration, and of course refused to adopt it, informing the
suppliants that they were concerned to observe the decay in their
trade, as it was connected by usage with that of Barbery, but as the
Charters of the Company did not extend to Peruke making, the Court
could not with propriety address his Majesty on the subject.
[Illustration]
[Illustration: THE COMMITTEE ROOM, BARBERS’ HALL.]
[Illustration]
EXTRACTS FROM COURT MINUTES, ETC.,
MORE PARTICULARLY RELATING TO THE
INTERNAL HISTORY OF THE COMPANY.
29th August, 1550. ~Memorandum~ the xxix{th} day of Auguste in the
house belonging to the sayd Company it was condescended and fully
agreed by the aforesayed M{r} and Wardeins M{r} Geen Thomas Johnson
Thomas Stocdall and Mathew Johnson w{t} thassent of thassistance
being there present that is to say M{r} Kyrkeˀ (Kyrkeby)[121] M{r}
Vycary[122] M{r} Bancks[123] M{r} Byrde[124] M{r} Yonge[125] M{r}
Henderbe[126] Robert Postell[127] Willm Tyllˀ (Tylley)[128] Peter
Dayseman[129] Robert Waterforde[130] Richard Bowll[131] Henry
Pemberton[132] Robert Sprignell[133] Robert Brownell[134] John
Smythe[135] Willm̄ Otherborne[136] and Austeyn Clarck.[137]
[121] Master 1526, 1533.
[122] M. 1530, etc.
[123] M. 1532.
[124] M. 1542, 1545.
[125] M. 1544.
[126] M. 1547.
[127] Warden 1544.
[128] W. 1546.
[129] W. 1547.
[130] W. 1549.
[131] M. 1553.
[132] W. 1539.
[133] M. 1554.
[134] M. 1563.
[135] W. 1547.
[136] W. 1548.
[137] W. 1554.
[Sidenote:
An order taken
concerninge
Thomas Knot.]
THAT Thomas Knot shalbe dischardged and not called to no manner of
office unto such tyme that it shall please the m{rs} to agree for
Another order. And also that he shall not paie no maner of scott lot
nor subsedye nor any other chardge concerning the saied Crafte but
shalbe dischardged of and from the same Ecept onelie his quarterage
and except that which he shall gyve & paye of his owne fre will and
gentelnes.
[Sidenote:
An order for
the elecc̃on of
the Maister.]
~Alsoo~ yt was ordered and agreed the sayd daye by the hole
assistaunce that the maister shall put in iiij{or} into his bill for
his electyon and so the same byll to goo through the house and every
man to prycke as his mynde doth serve him w{th}out any telling and
when every man hathe pricked about the house then the byll to be
brought to the M{r} And he that hath the moste pricks to have the
roome of M{r} the yeare ensuynge. The names of the ellecyon for the
M{r} was M{r} Geen Richard Ferres Robert Postell and Willm̄ Tylle.
[Sidenote:
An order for the
eleccyon of the
upper wardein.]
ALSOO for the elleccyon of the upper wardein he shall put iiij{or}
names into his Byll and so to goo through the house like as the M{r}
Byll hath dooen. The names for the elleccyon for upper wardein was
Thomas Johnson, Richard (The remainder of this line is torn away in
original).
[Sidenote:
An order for the
Elecc̃on of the
Second Wardein.]
ALSOO for the Elleccyon of the Seconde Wardein he shall put in
iiij{or} names in his byll and so to goo through the house like as is
before mencyoned. The names for the Elleccyon was Thomas Stocdall,
John Atkinson, John Smyth and Thomas Knot.
[Sidenote:
For the Eleccyon
of the youngest
Wardein.]
ALSOO for the Elleccyon of the youngest wardein he shall put iiij{or}
into his Byll and so to goo through the house like as before. The
names for the Elleccyon are Mathew Johnson, John Tholmoode, Richard
Elliot and John Shryffe.
10th Sept., 1551. It was ordered that--
[Sidenote:
An order that the
Seconde Wardein
shall receyve all
fynes quartrage
and other
casualtyes.]
The second Wardein shall receyve all maner of Receite as fynes
quartrag for prentises, for fremen and all other casualtyes
whatsoev{r} yt be. And he to paye also all maner of wage, And the
Bedyll to have a booke of all suche receitte and dischardge as the
seconde wardein hathe for his dischardge.
Also yt ys agreed that the younger wardein shall receyve nothing but
onely the Rents of the Londes, and to see reparac͠ons dooen where as
nede shall requyer and that he shall take Appulton[138] w{th} him
when he goeth to receyve the rentes of the Londes so that bothe there
books may agree.
[138] The Beadle.
4th Nov., 1551. It was agreed--