Part 16

29th April, 1645. By the power and authority to this Court given by severall Orders of a late Court of Assistants, this Court for and towards the raiseing of the 400{li} agreed to be paid in part of the composic͠on for Mr. Watson’s debt unto the the Comittee for the releife of Gloucester, &c., did pawne all the Companyes plate both guilt and white, weighing 1,120 oz. 1/3 or thereabouts, unto Mary Crosse of London Widdow for the Sum̃ of 280{li} by a Writeing of Bargaine and Sale this day sealed with this Companyes Com̃on Seale bearing date the 16{th} day of this Instant Aprill with a provisoe of Redempc͠on. And borrowed of Mr. George Dunn 100{li} more at Interest at vj{li} 10{s} pˀ annum pˀ centum for w{ch} he tooke the secureity of our Com̃on Seale.

A few years later on (14th September, 1648), Mr. Edward Arris presented to the Court a letter from Mr. Wateson, wherein was intimated that he expected the Company to repay him the money borrowed, the bonds for which had been seized by Cromwell’s party, and for which the Company had already compounded, whereupon we read “This Court doth declare theire acknowledgement of a great respect and esteeme they have and beare towards him and shalbe ready to doe him all the right they can without prejudicing the Company”; and again on 30th April, 1650, “Mr. Richard Wateson an ancient M{r} of this Company Doth this day desire to know the mind of this Court concerning the 1,200{li} by him lent to this Company and sequestred in this Company’s hands and compounded ffor 500{li} in full of principall and Interest, The matter being of great Consequence, this Court doth take time to consider of it and to give him an answer therein.”

What answer Mr. Wateson got, I do not know; he was held in great esteem by the Company, and doubtless some honourable compromise was arranged.

In their negotiations with the Committees, the Company seem to have been able to impress the Chairman favourably on certain occasions, though there is grave reason to apprehend that this official of the party of purity was open to a bribe, as the following minutes would seem to indicate.

27th October, 1645. The Company having been threatened with sequestration of their entire estate unless an assessment made upon them was paid on Friday following, a Committee of the Court was ordered to wait on Mr. Scawin, the Chairman of the Committee for the Army, to beg his favourable consideration of the Company’s poor estate; the result is seen in the next entry.

14th September, 1648. This Court takeing notice of the greate Love and ffavour of Mr. Scawin Chaireman to the Comittee ffor the Army expressed oftentimes upon severall occasions towards our Company Doth thinke fitt in gratitude and accordingly doth order That the present Governours doe present to him a guift of the value of vj{li} 13{s} 4{d} The quality and price of the guift is left to theire discretions.

1646. To relieve them of their great debts, the Company about this period raised considerable sums by granting annuities; the following are examples in point:--

24th March, 1646. This day M{r} Nicholas Heath payd the sum of 200{li} to the use of this Company and is the purchase money for an Annuity of 26{li} pˀ añn. for 10 yeares to himselfe and Grace his Wife Whereupon the Deed of Grant of the said Annuity was sealed with the Com̃on Seale and delivered to theire use.

Alsoe this day M{ris} Elizabeth ffreeman payd the sum of 200{li} the Purchase money for the like Annuity of 26{li} pˀ añn. for 10 yeares and the Deed for that purpose was sealed and delivered to her.

On the 30th January, 1649, the King’s troubles were ended by his murder, and very shortly afterwards we find this significant minute.

19th March, 1649. This Court doth order That the Oath conteyned in the Rules and Ordinances of this Company be administred unto every ffreeman upon his admission as before, The ffirst Words which doe concerne allegiance to the King and his Successors only to be left out.

The banners of the Company bearing the late King’s arms were destroyed, and any heraldic insignia at the Hall which contained the Royal Arms were ordered to be defaced. We may readily believe that this was most unwillingly done by the Court, who however, had no option in the matter.

1648-9. Fairfax had filled the City with troops, “billetting orders” being made upon the several Companies for the reception of the soldiers at their Halls. Herbert (Vol. I, p. 181) states that the Merchant Taylors were fortunate enough to procure an order of exemption which cost them £20 10_s._, and further that he believed their case to be unique, but it seems that the Carpenters by means of “Gratuities ‘to sevˀall men of qualitie,’” amounting to £13 2_s._ 6_d._, managed to get free of this imposition, whilst the Barber-Surgeons procured their immunity at a much cheaper rate, for we read in the Wardens’ accounts of the period,

Paid fforr the charges expended in procureing a Protecc͠on from the Lord General from quartering Souldiers in the hall 13{s} 3{d.}

These notices are clear indications that Cromwell and the “men of qualitie” about him, were accustomed to take bribes.

3rd February, 1654. The City entertained Cromwell at Grocers’ Hall, and our Company had to go out in procession to receive him, our “standing” being in St. Paul’s Churchyard.

1660. The Barber-Surgeons contributed £96 towards a present of £10,000 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.

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.