the £510 and Interest, and our Company having in Cash but £300, Mr.
Luke Maurice (Master 1732, a Wine Merchant in Lime Street) lent the
Company £200 at 4-1/2 per cent., and the Clerk advanced the balance,
whereupon the principal, with £15 17_s._ 0_d._ interest, was paid to
the Surgeons.
18th May, 1747. The Master acquainting the Court that he had employed
M{r} Whiston the Bookseller to putt the Company’s Library in order
and to make a Catalogue and valuation thereof And that M{r} Whiston
had appraised the same at Twenty Guineas And the Clerk acquainting
the Court that a learned Physican had offered twenty-five Guineas for
the Library together with the Skeleton and other curiosities formerly
kept in the Library It was ordered that the Clerk should acquaint the
Master of the Worshipfull Company of Surgeons with the said offer
made to this Company And that this Court being desirous to manifest
their esteem for and preserve the ffriendship of the Surgeons did
give them the refusal of the said Library Skeleton and Curiosities
at the said price of Twenty ffive Guineas And that in case of their
acceptance thereof the rich and ancient Pall belonging to this
Company should be at their service as a free gift.
16th July, 1747. The Clerk reported that he had made the above offer
to the Surgeons who replied that they considered themselves entitled
to the Library under the Act of 1745, but that to avoid controversy
with the Barbers they would be willing to refer the matter to Counsel,
whereupon it was resolved that the matter should be submitted to the
opinion of Counsel.
5th July, 1749. Ordered that the Library of Books formerly belonging
to the late united Company be forthwith sold for the most money that
can be gotten for the same.
2nd June, 1749. Ordered that the Companys Arms be cast in lead and
affixed upon the several houses belonging to this Company.
Various specimens of these castings are extant about the Hall, and in
possession of Mr. Charles John Shoppee (Master 1878) and of the author.
2nd May, 1750. Ordered that M{r} Paterson do wait upon the Earl of
Burlington to know his Lordship’s intention about repairing the
Company’s Theatre.
6th June, 1750. Ordered that the Clerk do write to the Right
Honorable the Earl of Burlington to aquaint him of the ruinous
condition of the Theatre and Company’s inability to repair the same
and to know whether his Lordship will be pleased to order the said
Repairs agreable to his own generous proposal in the Mastership of
M{r} Rutter.
Nothing came of this application.
1st August, 1750. Ordered that the Clerk do cause a Catalogue to be
made of the Books in the Library, and that he deliver a copy thereof
to M{r} Samuel Rutter.
9th August, 1750. Mr. Gheys, Sculptor, was ordered to have the
Skeleton, in exchange for the Bust of Inigo Jones, still preserved at
the Hall.
3rd September, 1751. Resolved also that the old Pall be given to the
Beadle.
This, alas! was the “rich and ancient pall.”
The Clerk was again directed to endeavour to sell the Library and it
was disposed of to Mr. Whiston the Bookseller for £13!!
29th October, 1751. Resolved that the Doctors Gown and Hood be given
to the Beadle.
13th August, 1752. Ordered that it be referred to the Master and
Wardens to treat with M{r} Thomas Reynolds about erecting a Cupola
over the great Parlor agreable to the Draft now produced to this
Court and about repairing the Roof And also repairing whitewashing
and painting the said Parlor so as the Contract for that purpose do
not exceed the sum of One hundred and seventeen pounds.
19th August, 1752. The Agreement between the Company and Mr. Reynolds
was entered into at £116 15_s._, and the Specification of his work is
recorded in the Minute Book, from which I extract the following:--
The Cupola compleat and properly secured glazed and ornamented
with Stucco and the Roof covered with Milled lead seven pounds to
the ffoot with good brass pulley in the middle fit for a Branch or
Lustre. A new white veined marble Chimney piece and Slabb with a
carved wooden ovalo round it and Slabb of the same Marble The Chimney
piece of the same dimensions as the present and the Slabb six foot
nine inches by two foot four inches with a new fire stone hearth.
The ceiling and ornaments thereof to be secured mended cleaned and
whitewashed.
9th August, 1753. The Great Hall, Kitchen and Lobby were ordered to be
repaired by Mr. Reynolds in accordance with his Estimate of £101 17_s._
6_d._
8th August, 1754. Ordered that the thanks of this Court be given to
James Theobald Esq{r} one of the Ancient Masters of the Company for
the magnificent Lustre by him lately presented and at his Expense
fixed up in their great parlor assuring him This Court doth most
gratefully accept the same as a monument of his regard for the honor
and prosperity of the Company.
This handsome lustre still adorns the Court Room.
12th September, 1754. The Court having considered the state of the
Theatre, which was out of repair, and for which the Company had no use,
ordered advertisements to be inserted twice in three daily papers,
asking for tenders for the materials of the same, and for pulling down
and clearing it away. The “N.B.” to the advertisement states that “The
Doors, Benches and Railes of the said Theatre are of Cedar.”
1st October, 1754. Three tenders for the materials of the Theatre were
received, £21 10_s._ 0_d._, £32 and £35 respectively, and the decision
thereon postponed.
4th February, 1755. William Shakespear (Barber) the apprentice of
Richard Hulett, was admitted to the freedom.
5th June, 1764. The Clerk informed the Court of the death of Mrs.
Elizabeth I’Ans, widow of Mr. Michael I’Ans, and that the Master and
Wardens had, on the 23rd May, received of the Executors of Mr. I’Ans
£2,200--3-1/2 per cent. Bank Annuities, and £75 in accordance with Mr.
I’Ans’ will.
1764 and 1765. Mr. James Clowes who had been summoned to take up the
Livery, refused to do so, whereupon he was sued for the fine of £20 and
judgment obtained against him with costs.
14th August, 1766. A Committee having been appointed to examine and
report upon the Theatre, and having done so, were now authorised to
apply to the Court of Common Council for permission to pull down the
same, and to treat with that Court for the purchase of the ground, for
which the Company paid the City £3 per annum under an old lease.
3rd November, 1767. The City Comptroller having requested the Company
to make an offer for the site of the Theatre, it was resolved that 30
years’ purchase (£90) be offered for the same.
7th February, 1769. A plan of the ground leased by the City to the
Company and on which the Theatre stood, having been prepared by Mr.
George Dance, Clerk of the Works to the City, it was laid before the
Court, and the City sold the fee simple to the Company for £90. Would
that one could buy City freeholds at the same rate now!
2nd September, 1783. Mr. Sylvanus Hall, of Paternoster Row, Carpenter,
proposed to take a lease of the ground on which the Theatre stood,
to take down the whole building, and to erect two dwelling houses on
the site similar to those he had already built in Monkwell Street.
The lease to commence at Christmas, 1784, and to be for 61 years at
£10 ground rent. He also proposed to pay the Company £20 for the old
materials of the Theatre and to clear the same away. To all these
propositions the Court agreed, and Mr. Hall paid a guinea as earnest
money.
1st February, 1785. Mr. Hall having pulled down the Theatre, the Clerk
was instructed to write to him for the £20 for the old materials which
he had removed.
4th October, 1791. There being a sufficient number of Members present
to form a Court of Assistants, thoˀ no such Court was called, the
Master took the sense of the Members present, as an adjournment from
the last Court of Assistants, whether the Company should go out
in the usual procession the ensuing Lord Mayor’s day, when on the
question being put, the same was resolved in the negative.
4th November, 1794. M{r} Thomas Holehouse who was on the 1{st} July
last elected on the Livery of this Company, but had refused to take
upon him the same, without shewing any cause to the Contrary, and
against whom an Action had been commenced for the recovery of Twenty
Pounds the penalty incurred by such his refusal, this day attended
and paid the said sum of Twenty pounds together with the costs of the
said Action.
9th November, 1795. The following Circular was distributed amongst the
Livery at the dinner this day:--
The Court of Assistants of the Worshipful Company of Barbers having
received information that many persons residing within the City of
London carry on the Trade of a Barber and Hair dresser without being
free of this Company to the great prejudice of the Members and the
rights of the Company Do hereby give notice that they have come to a
resolution to prosecute all persons carrying on the trade of a Barber
or Hair dresser within the said City not being free of this Company
and they request the assistance of their Members for that purpose for
the benefit of the Company and Trade at large; any information to
their Clerk at the Hall will be duly attended to.
By order of Court,
EDW{D} GROSE SMITH,
Clerk.
9th November, 1796. The By-Laws of the Company having been found,
on the opinion of Mr. Serjeant Adair, insufficient to enforce the
payment of fines for the refusal to serve various offices, a new set
was drawn up by the Clerk, and submitted to and approved by the Court,
who ordered the Clerk to get the same confirmed and allowed by the Lord
Chancellor and two Chief Justices, but this was never done.
5th September, 1797. The Mahogany table now in the Court Room was made
about this time. There is a tradition that the bulb-shaped end of it
was a portion of the old dissecting table used by the Surgeons. If so,
its latter days are more cheerful than its first.
1796 to 1799. Several Barbers were prosecuted for exercising their
Trade within the limits of the Company’s Charters and brought to terms,
generally they became freemen, and then were compelled to come on to
the livery; in other cases the barbers removed out the jurisdiction,
and paid the costs.
18th May, 1802. The Commissioners for the Public Lottery having
advertised for a place in which to hold the lotteries, the Court
decided to send in proposals offering the use of the Hall (under
certain restrictions) for the next three lotteries for Six hundred
guineas, but the offer was not accepted.
1st August, 1809. A case was submitted to the Attorney General (Sir R.
Gibbs) who gave an opinion that the freemen of the Company were exempt
from serving on Juries, but not from serving as Constables.
4th February, 1812. A memorial signed by four freemen of the Company
was presented to the Court, the purport of which was that the
memorialists having been summoned to act as Ward Constables had refused
to serve, and that thereupon actions had been brought against them,
which, being tried before Lord Ellenborough, the verdicts were against
them and they were ordered to pay the costs (£333 9_s._ 0_d._). The
memorialists alleging that they defended the actions for the benefit of
the Company and really to uphold its privileges, prayed that they might
be reimbursed the costs, which, however, the Court declined to accede
to, but ordered that £12, which had been paid to the Company for copies
of the Charters, should be refunded.
1814. The Churchwardens of St. Olave, Silver Street, having assessed
the Hall at £172, they were requested to attend the next Court which
they did, and the following delightful method of settling these matters
is recommended to the Authorities nowadays.
1st November, 1814. The parish officers of Saint Olave Silver
Street attended & stated to the Court that the Vestry of that
Parish had taken the subject of the Poor rate into consideration,
and considering the great increase of the rate they left it to the
Company to say what they were agreeable to be rated at; the Court
proposed to say £100 per annum; the gentlemen (having withdrawn)
were then called in and informed of such proposal, with which they
cordially acquiesced.
2nd April, 1816. Alexander Rowland the younger [of Macassar oil fame]
of Kirby Street Hatton Garden, Barber was admitted to the Livery.
3rd May, 1825. The Livery stand, being in a decayed and useless
condition, was ordered to be sold.
2nd May, 1826. But as a purchaser could not be found, the Master
offered to give £5 for it, which was accepted, and this, together with
an additional £5, was ordered to be given to the Committee for the
Relief of Distressed Manufacturers.
5th February, 1861. Mr. John Atkinson gave £100 consols for the purpose
of distributing the dividends thereof in the purchase of Bibles and
Prayer Books for the poor members of the Company.
7th February, 1862. Mr. John Atkinson’s Will reciting a munificent
bequest to the Company is set out in the minutes of this date.
3rd February, 1863. A Statement of the property left by Mr. John
Atkinson is recorded in a letter from the Solicitors to his Trustees
directed to the Court, and entered in the minutes of this date.
[Illustration]
[Illustration: PORTION OF THE MASTER’S SILVER GARLAND (DATE 1629).]
PRECEDENCE.
The Barbers’ Company is ranked the seventeenth in order of the City
Companies, and is the fifth after the “Twelve great Companies,”
the thirteenth being the Dyers, fourteenth Brewers, fifteenth
Leathersellers, sixteenth Pewterers, seventeenth Barbers, eighteenth
Cutlers, etc.
The question of precedency in former times gave rise to many
contentions between the City Guilds, and the Barber-Surgeons seem
to have had some experience in these quarrels: the City pageants,
processions, and public attendances at church, were numerous in the
days of the Tudors and Stuarts, and at most of these the Livery
Companies attended, each guild jealously striving to keep its place,
and no doubt to advance its position whenever opportunity arose.
There are extant, lists of the Companies in the City books, in which
our Company takes various positions; and Stow, having incorporated one
of these lists in his Survey, has given it an authority as a table
of precedence which it was never intended to possess; he furnishes a
list of the Companies attending the Lord Mayor’s feast, 23rd Henry VIII
(1531), and places the Barbers as the thirty-second, whereas at that
time they were undoubtedly the twenty-eighth.
1516. The first authentic reference to our Company’s standing is found
in _Letter-Book N._ leaf 5 (January, 1516), where it is ordained that
the Barbers, although they claimed of their ancient right to be the
seventeenth Company, yet were adjudged to take the twenty-eighth place,
following the Cordwainers, and preceding the Paynter-Stainers.
1532. This order was probably in force until February, 1532, when the
Barbers got back their old position (_Repertory_ 8, leaf 272) and an
officer was directed to wait on the Pewterers to “shewe theym that
the seyd Company of Barbours Surgeons be Restored ageyn to their olde
Rowme.” Three months later (May, 1532), the Barbers were “taken down
one,” and directed to occupy the eighteenth place.
1533. In February, 1533 (_Letter-Book O._ _fo._ 213), is a record which
is somewhat puzzling, as, altogether ignoring the orders of February
and May, 1532, it is stated that the Barber-Surgeons had petitioned
to be restored to their old place of seventeenth Company, from which
it is said they were dispossessed about sixteen years back (evidently
alluding to the order of January, 1516), “so that they be nowe the xxix
or xxx{th} Companye yn thordre of such goynges,” etc.
Perhaps the orders of February and May, 1532, had been disregarded by
the other guilds, and our Company forcibly ousted from their rightful
position, so that this is in effect an application for a confirmatory
order, which was granted, and thus they were again fixed as the
seventeenth Company.
1534. The Barbers must have given some offence to the Civic authorities
in 1534, for in October of that year (_Repertory_ 9, leaf 79) the
last-named order was repealed, and they were put back again to the
twenty-eighth place, and further the Company were ordered that they
“shall no more goo yn pˀcessyons, standyngꝭ, Rydyngꝭ, goyngꝭ, and other
assembles from hensfurth, tyll it be otherwyse ordered by thys coˀrte.”
1535. This vacillation on the part of the Court of Aldermen in settling
our position, was not yet at an end, for in March, 1535, we were again
placed seventeenth, to come before the Cutlers and after the Pewterers,
and this order was confirmed no less than four times in 1535, and twice
in 1536.
1604. At a Royal Procession on the 15th March, 1604, our Company got
misplaced by some of the Marshals, and this led to another application
to the Court of Aldermen, whereupon a peremptory order was made that
the Barber-Surgeons should stand sixteenth in precedence. This order
is set out in full elsewhere (see page 195); the sixteenth place
was then accorded to us in consequence of the Stockfishmongers, who
formerly held the twelfth place, having been dissolved, whereby the
Barber-Surgeons went up one: the Clothworkers who, at that time were
the thirteenth Company, then became the twelfth.
Some short time afterwards, the Dyers, who had been the eighteenth
Company, got the thirteenth place, and we reverted to our old position
of seventeenth Company in which we still continue.
1606. An attempt to misplace us was made in July, 1606, but this was
successfully resisted. (See p. 116.)
[Illustration]
COURT OF ASSISTANTS.
The constitution of the governing body of the Company has grown up in
the course of time from one Prime Master or Ruler to a Master with
three Wardens and twenty Assistants, forming a Court of twenty-four
members.
We gather from the earliest records, that the business of the Company
was then transacted by the meeting together in Common Hall, of the
whole fraternity (which probably included both freemen and liverymen),
under the presidency of a single Master, who, as in the case of Richard
le Barber in 1308, was invested with the supervision of the craft, and
power to make search and scrutiny, and to punish offenders.
In 1376 two Masters were appointed to rule the craft, while in 1388 we
find that two Masters and two “Surveyors” formed the governing body.
In 1416 is recorded the admission of five Masters, three of whom are
described as “Barbitonsores” (_i.e._, Barbers proper) and two as
“Masters of the Barbers exercising the faculty of Surgery.” In 1428
there were four Masters, two of each class, and this number was the
governing body at the time of Edward IV’s Charter of Incorporation, in
1462.
As has been elsewhere remarked, this Charter provides for the
appointment of two Masters only, and they to be skilled in Surgery,
to be chosen by twelve Electors taken from the Commonalty; but as our
records preserve the names of four Masters elected in that year, and
so on ever since in unbroken succession, there cannot be any doubt
but that (the Charter dealing almost entirely with the regulation of
matters surgical) the two Masters of the “Barbers side” were left to be
elected in accordance with old custom, or under the By-laws which the
Company were, by their Charter, empowered to make.
At what period a Court of Assistants was created in our Company is
unknown, but I am inclined to think the date is about 1480 to 1500.
The four “Masters or Governors” (answering to our “Master and three
Wardens”) were chosen out of the Commonalty by twelve electors yearly,
and do not, as seems by the lists preserved, appear to have gone up
annually by seniority as now they do, _i.e._, from third Warden to
second, and so on. Those who had served as second, third, or fourth
Governors, if not chosen to higher office the next year, as a general
rule took their places again as simple liverymen; whilst those who
had served as Prime or Chief Governor were, at the expiry of their
term of office, designated “Ancient Masters,” and these, with some
past Wardens, having become qualified by experience in the affairs of
the Company would naturally be consulted by the ruling Governors who
sought their “assistance” and advice, and thus grow up into a Court
of Assistants[168] (nearly always in early time spelt “Assistance”)
and be recognised to a great extent as a power in the direction of the
Company’s business.
[168] This theory is confirmed by the Ordinances made in 1566, whereby
it was enacted that a liveryman _might_ be chosen an Assistant without
having ever served the office of Governor.
The earliest mention of Assistants is in the By-laws settled by Sir
Thomas More in 1530, though throughout these By-laws the actual ruling
power was evidently in the four Masters or Governors. The Assistants
are here twice referred to, in one case where it is enacted that the
Masters shall not admit a “fforen” to the freedom without the assent of
the “xxiiij{ti} assistentes,” and in another place they are to have,
with the Masters, the election of the Livery.
The Act 32 Henry VIII is silent as to Assistants, vesting all power
in the Masters or Governors. In 1557 at one of the Courts twenty-one
Assistants and four Masters attended, and at a Court held 19th July,
1595, the names of twenty-five Assistants are recorded. The number
seems to have varied with the times, the full Court, however, never
exceeding four Masters and thirty-two Assistants. The Assistants have
always been elected by the Court, and the custom became in time to
choose the senior liveryman whenever a vacancy occurred, though there
does not appear to have been at any time a by-law to that effect, and
indeed this practice has been departed from on very many occasions.
The Election of Masters prior to the year 1633 was on the Monday next
before the feast of St. Bartholomew the Apostle (Aug. 24); from 1633 to
1745 it was held on the third Thursday in August, and since 1745 it has
been held on the second Thursday in August.
The ancient practice was for the whole body of the livery to be
summoned to the Hall in their livery gowns, hoods and caps on the
Monday at 8 o’clock in the morning “at the furthest” to whom the
Masters, sitting in Court, declared the cause of their assembling;
this done, the Masters retired, and the livery, sitting there, chose
twelve of their number to be “Electors,” of whom six were to be “expert
Surgeons,” and four at least must never have served the office of
Master or Governor. The Clerk then called the twelve Electors out (the
rest of the livery remaining in the Hall). The Masters then delivered
to the Electors the “Bills of Election,” each Master nominating two
Barbers and two Surgeons, so that sixteen in all were nominated, and,
after administering to them the oath prescribed, the Electors retired
to a private room apart to make their choice. Should the Electors deem
that one or more of themselves ought to have been put in nomination,
they were to send for the Masters who were bound to withdraw such
person or persons, and choose others in their place. The Bills were to
be made out in accordance with seniority, but the Electors were not
bound to choose by seniority. Having made their choice, the Electors
sent for the Masters and delivered to them a Bill with the names of the
four persons selected, and these names were (under a heavy penalty) to
be kept secret until after the “dener.”