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 (_see_ page 473).
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 Court assessed 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
else _to 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 o{r}
Company) 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 “M{r} Recorder” 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 9_s._ 6_d._ was received on account of rents, and in 1625 a
further sum of £10 0_s._ 8_d._
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 in 1637, 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 “_lent_ for 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 for many 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.
6th July, 1609. This daye M{r.} Leacock, M{r.} John Martin, M{r.}
Thorney & M{r.} Peek accordinge to a pˀcept to the M{rs.} of this
Company lately directed are by this Courte appoynted Committees
for this Company to conferre w{th} the rest of the Committees of
oth{r} Companies concerninge the intended plantac͠on in the Realme
of Ireland And they are to make theire report to the next Courte of
their proceedingꝭ therein.
26th July, 1609. This daie the precept directed from the Lord Maio{r}
of this Citie to the M{rs} of this Company Concerninge a Contribution
to be had from this Company towardꝭ the intended plantac͠on in his
Ma{ties} realme of Ireland was read before the Lyvery of this Company
and before the Assistantꝭ of the Yeomandry of this Company who being
by the M{rs} demaunded by vertue of the said precept what they wold
willingly Contribute towardꝭ the said service some of them proffered
to Contribute as hereafter ensueth videliz{t} M{r.} Rodes xx{s.}
M{r.} Mapes xx{s.} Mr{r.} Jenkins xx{s.} M{r.} Thorney xl{s.} M{r.}
ffrederick xx{s.} Mr{r.} ffuller x{s.} M{r.} ffenton x{s.} M{r.}
Kerrell xx{s.} John Udall v{s.} Robert Jennings v{s.} Dominick Lumley
ij{s.} vj{d.} Andrew Mathew vj{s.} viij{d.} Thomas Homewood v{s.}
Xpõfer Walton ij{s.} vj{d.} ffrauncis Rycraft ij{s.} Arthure Doughton
ij{s.} George Pitts v{s.} Richard Daniell ij{s.} Richard Higgins
iij{s.} iiij{d.} Symon Crosse ij{s.} Thomas Clarck ij{s.} and the
rest of the Lyvery and assistauntꝭ of the yeomandrey then present
refused to Contribute anything at all. Whereupon it was thought fitt
by this Court that aswell the names of such as had proffered to
contribute as aforesaid and their severall proffered contribuc͠ons
also the names of those that refused to contribute shold accordinge
to the said precept be certefyed in writing to the Lord Maior
signifyeing further in the same Certificate that forasmuch as the
Contribuc͠on menc͠oned in the said Certificate was very small w{ch}
the M{rs} were very unwilling to present to his Lordship, the Company
were contented if it might stand w{th} his Lo{ps} good pleasure to
adventure C{li.} of the Cxxiij{li.} w{ch} is owinge unto them by the
Cities bond, so that they might have a bill of Adventure for the same.
26th January, 1610. The above proposition not having been entertained,
a further precept dated 9th January, 1610, was received, commanding
the Company to furnish £100 and at this Court the same was considered
when it was resolved that the common stock of the Company should
contribute £25 and an assessment be made upon the members as follows:
the Livery 20_s._, the Assistants of the Yeomanry 10_s._, Freemen 6_s._
8_d._, Aliens 20_s._, and foreign brothers 15_s._ each, and by a later
order each member of the Court was assessed at 20_s._
22nd November, 1610. Great difficulty having been experienced in
collecting these assessments, an order was made that any person
neglecting to pay, should be forthwith dismissed out of the Livery or
Court as the case might be.
18th January, 1611. A precept from the Lord Mayor having been read and
debated, the following answer to the same was ordered to be sent--
Whereas wee the M{r} and Wardens of the Company of the Barbors &
surgeons of London have receaved a Preceptt of the 14{th} of this
present moneth from the right honˀable the Lord Mayo{r} of this
Cittie requiring thereby to call together the Assistauntꝭ of o{r}
said Company and to consider whether wee will accept a proportion of
Landꝭ in the province of Ulster in liewe of o{r} moneys disburssed
and thereon to buyld att our owne chardgꝭ as by the printed book
of plantac͠on is required or ells to refeir the lettinge of the
same Landꝭ unto the govˀnor & assistauntꝭ of the Companie: Soe ytt
is, that accordingly we have called together o{r} Assistauntꝭ &
consideringe the pˀmisses wee fynd that the payment of the taxac͠ons
for this intent have been soe burthensome unto the body of o{r}
Company that we are not able to take upon us any further chardge,
having not as yet levyed the ffowerth pˀte of the paymˀtꝭ ymposed
upon us, neither have we any hope to gather the same, And therefore
rather chuse to refeir the lettinge of the said Landꝭ & committinge
the business for o{r} pˀtꝭ to the discretion of the said govˀnor
& assistauntꝭ for that purpose appoynted, hopinge by their good
endeavo{rs} to receave such reasonable satisfaction for o{r} moneys
alreadye disbursed as maye gyve good contentment to such of o{r}
Company whoe have been chardged by o{r} Collections. And this have
our Court of Assistauntꝭ fully agreed in such mannˀ as wee have
before certified Given att o{r} Hall this xviij{th} of January 1610
(_i.e._, 1611).
23rd April, 1611. The Company paid in £30 to the Chamber of London,
making £120 in all to this date.
18th July, 1611. A precept having been received from the Lord Mayor,
calling upon the Wardens to pay £60 more, or else to lose the £120
already paid, the following answer was sent--
Whereas we the M{rs} & govˀno{rs} of the Company of Barbo{rs} &
Surgeons of London have receaved from the right honˀable the Lord
Mayor of this Cittie a preceptt of the xj{th} of this Instant moneth
thereby comaundinge us to call together the Assistauntꝭ of o{r} said
Company And then & there to tax the bodye of o{r} s{d} Company with
the payment of 60{li} more towardꝭ the payment of 10000{li} for a
new supplye for the plantac͠on in Ireland, And that we should advise
thereupon and certefie in wrytinge to the govˀno{r} & assistantꝭ for
the said plantac͠on on Saterdaie the 20{th} of this Instant month
of July whether we will willinglie yelde to the said supplie of
10000{li} or we wilbe content to loose all such moneys as we have
alreadye disburssed towardꝭ the said Plantac͠on and soe passe over
o{r} right therein to those as will undertake this paym{t} and all
other taxac͠ons & paymt{s} touchinge the same, Soe yt is we have
called together o{r} Assistauntꝭ & we thinck that o{r} poore Company
is put to a very hard choyce seeinge the collection of the formˀ
paymˀtꝭ of 110{li}[295] have been soe burthensome unto us that the
greatest nomber of o{r} Company have been readye to growe mutynous
about the collection thereof neither cane wee as yett gather the
same (we beinge out of o{r} owne purses for the last paym{t} w{ch}
was disburssed) and nowe to loose all, except we will undergoe this
newe taxac͠on of 60{li} the povˀtie of o{r} Company cannot beare ytt
neither will yt stand w{th} o{r} Credytts to gyve awaie the moneyes
we have collected from soe maney poore men who hoped (and the rather
by o{r} pˀswasions) the company should receave in tyme great pˀffytt.
And they themselves to be pˀtakers thereof to w{ch} intent they dide
more willinglie undergoe the former taxac͠ons. And againe to drawe
them to a chardge of a new taxac͠on when they shall understand the
offer pˀposed in this pˀcept we thinck yt unpossible, neither can we
tell howe to drawe them to paie any further taxac͠on then they shall
willinglie consent unto because we have noe lawfull authoritie to
compell them. Therefore rather then to be any further burthensome
to the bodye of o{r} Company in any further taxac͠on towardꝭ the
last supplie of 10000{li} we must be forced (yf there be lawfull
authoritie to take awaye & compell o{r} Company) to loose the moneys
we have alreadye disburssed & to leave our Interest unto such as
wilbe contentede to undertake to dischardge o{r} Company of those
paymˀtꝭ & taxac͠ons w{ch} we shall be hereafter chardged w{th}all,
and shall gyve unto our Company such assurance for pˀformaunce of
such condyc͠ons as we shall agree upon and our Counsell learned
in the lawes shall devise & requier, whereby we may gyve some
contentem{t} to those of our Company whoe have been herein chardged
for we feare we shall never collect these moneyes w{ch} are yet
behinde & unpaid for the last paym{t} when they shall here the money
alreadye disburssed is lost & gyven awaie And to this have our Court
of Assistantꝭ agreed Gyven und{r} o{r} hands the xix{th} of Julye
1611.
[295] Should be £120.
16th November, 1611. At this Court motion being made touching what
answere this howse should gyve unto the Court of Aldermen about the
payment of their money for the Irishe plantac͠on yt was ordered &
decreed that the Company should not willinglie undergoe the paym{t}
of any further taxac͠on but that rather they should loose all their
moneys alreadye disbursed and thereupon yt was thought fitt the
pˀnte M{rs} & govˀno{rs} together w{th} M{r.} Peck M{r.} Mapes
M{r.} ffenton & M{r.} ffoster should goe againe before the Court of
Aldermen to see yf they can gett the Company dischardged And if yt
shall soe fall out that they or any of them shalbe comitted or shalbe
put to any chardgꝭ touching this busynes this howse shall & will
beare & dischardge the same.
2nd February, 1612. At this Court it is fully concluded that M{r.}
Recorder shalbe dealt withall to construe our answere according to
the Courtꝭ meaninge And that on tewsdaie next the M{rs} & Govˀno{rs}
together w{th} M{r.} Peck M{r.} Mapes M{r.} ffenton & M{r} ffoster
shall goe before the Court of Aldermen to intreat favo{r} in respect
of their genˀall povˀtie of the Company w{ch} if the same will not
prevayle then the Company shall bring with them their Councell
to certefie that their answere is absolute & if that maye not be
graunted then that they maye have a monethes lybertie either to
provide some undertakers for them or ells by that tyme the Company
will bring in their money w{ch} this Court doth agree unto that the
howse shall beare ytt.
2nd July, 1612. This daye yt is likewise ordered that touchinge the
paym{t} of the 30{li} w{ch} is to be paid for the Irishe plantac͠on
That the present M{rs} shall demaund of the Comittees for the Irish
plantac͠on what assurance this howse shall have for their money
already disburssed & to disbursse and thereuppon to stand hardlie
for that this Court thincketh yt not reason to pay there money for
nothinge as yet assured. And if it be soe that the M{rs} shalbe
threatned to be comitted to prison they shall rather be comitted to
prison then to pay the money And if they be comitted then this howse
dothe order that presentlie[296] uppon their comittment the M{rs}
shall pay the same 30{li} out of the stock of this howse.
[296] _i.e._, directly.
20th July, 1612. In the motion touching the paym{t} of xxx{li}
pˀcell of the lx{li} w{ch} the Company is to paie towardꝭ the Irishe
plantac͠on Itt is ordered by this Court that the same xxx{li} shalbe
paid in by the howse and the M{rs} w{th} M{r.} ffrederick are to
deale w{th} the Comittees to see what assurance they shall have for
their moneyes disburssed.
17th September, 1612. It was agreed by the Court to pass away all the
Company’s interest in the Irish estate to Mr. Abraham Allen, Warden, he
undertaking by deed to bear all further impositions or taxations made
upon the Company in respect of the Irish business.
15th July, 1613. This daie it is ordered upon a motion made by
o{r} Master to this Court touching what course they shall take for
Ireland business for that they are now called unto for payment of
60{li} wherefore upon a genˀall consent of this Court it is ordered
that M{r} Warden Allen shall lose the 30{li} w{ch} he hath already
disburssed & that he shall disburse the said 60{li} now called for,
and if he shall not be contented to goe forward w{th} the bargaine
w{ch} he formˀly made w{th} the Company but rather to loose the said
30{li} w{ch} he hath formˀly paid That then he loosing the said
30{li} already disburssed shalbe upon & after the audytt daye repaid
the said 60{li} w{ch} he is now to disbursse.
17th January, 1614. Att this Court it is ordered that the 30{li}
w{ch} the Company is chardged by preceptt to paie towardꝭ the Irish
Plantation on the first daie of ffebruary next shalbe paid in
according to the said preceptt and shalbe allowed out of the stock of
this howse.
2nd February, 1614. At this Court the M{rs} propounding unto this
Court what conference did passe between the Company of Irenmongers &
themselves desiring this pˀnte Court to certefie their opinions what
course this company shall take in the Irish busines, whether they
shall either hold the proportion of landꝭ allotted to this Company &
the Company of Iremongers joyntlie w{th} the Iremongers Or otherwise
seeke that a devision maybe made of such portion as to this company
belongeth & soe to hold the same in sevˀaltye Whereupon this Court
did agree that this Company shall goe hand in hand joyntlie w{th}
thother companies awhile And hereafter to seeke for a devision as
occasion shalbe offered.
24th May, 1614. Att this Court it is ordered that M{r} Abraham Allen
shall have noe part of the xxx{li} w{ch} he hath paid to this company
redelivˀed him againe.
19th January, 1615. On receipt of a precept, dated 11th January,
ordering a further contribution of £45, it was directed that the same
should be paid.
13th September, 1615. £30 more was ordered to be paid in.
29th December, 1615. At this Court the Wardens of the yeomanrey made
knowne unto the M{rs} that the yeomanrey were contented to gyve to
the howse 30{li} towardes the Irish plantac͠on.
27th May, 1616. At this Court it is ordered that what monie is or
shalbe demaunded by the Company of Iremongers to be paid unto them
from or by this Companie towardꝭ the charge of buildingꝭ or other
charges in Ireland shalbe deteyned in this howses handꝭ untell this
Companie shall have receaved order from o{r} M{r} M{r} Alderman
Probie for payment thereof And that he shall see it fitt & expedient
the same shalbe paid.
27th January, 1617. fforasmuch as this Companie have no assuraunce
of the Irish Landꝭ for their monie disburssed for Ireland It is
therefore ordered by this Court that this Companie shalbe suters
unto the Governor & Comittees for the plantac͠on of the Irish landꝭ
to thentent this Companie maie have a perpetuitie in the Irish
plantac͠on aswell as the Companie of Iremongers under whose lott o{r}
Companie have fallen Accordinglie & in such sorte as the Carpenters &
other the inferior Companies joyned w{th} them doe now sue for.
19th March, 1635. The Company contributed their proportion of the
expenses incurred by the City Companies in defending the suit against
them in the Star Chamber, as also a sum of money towards the erection
of a church in Ulster.
The Copye of S{r} John Bancks his letter he being his Ma{ts} Attorney
Generall sent to the Companie of Ironmongers that they should with
the Associate Companies surrender up their right together with their
evidences concerning the plantac͠on in Ireland was here reade and
for answere thereunto this Court doth referre to the advice of M{r}
Bierly Councello{r} at Lawe w{ch} is to surrender up o{r} right.
8th November, 1638. Judgment being given against the Companies whereby
they forfeited all their lands in Ireland, the City was fined £8,000
to the King “for the losse of o{r} landꝭ in Ireland by the late decree
of Starrchamber,” to which fine the Barber-Surgeons were compelled to
contribute £64.
10th February, 1642. Alsoe was read to this Court the Lord Maiors
letter concerning reliefe of the Protestants in Ireland in the City
of London Derry this Court doth order 100{li} to be given towards
theire releife presently.
7th March, 1642. It is ordered that xx{li} shalbe presently payd over
towards the releife of London Derry and noe more at the present.