Part 17

The Company had not money to lay out upon it.

If they had, the Estate is so scituated that there is no room to hope, even in case the whole had been rebuilt (as it wants to be) that it would have answered the laying out so much money.

And if the Company had let it upon building Leases The pˀsent method of building is so as to last exactly the term for which the Lease is taken, wouˀd have put the Company in the same condic͠on as they are now, when the term expired, besides loss of Rent, & disputes with such Tenants in the mean time.

It was therefore thought better to dispose of the Estate.

Following are the details of negotiations with one or two parties other than Mr. Finlay, and some curious particulars of the Company’s title to part of the Estate, which seems to have been an equitable rather than a legal one, whereby the Court apprehended some difficulty in disposing of it to another party from whom a somewhat better price might have been obtained, and therein, under the circumstances, showed themselves good men of business by concluding with Mr. Finlay: we cannot however now, but regret that this most valuable property should have passed from us for so comparatively insignificant a sum. The purchase-money was laid out in thirteen East India Bonds of £100 each.

7th April, 1730. M{r} Serj{t} Dickins the Master of the Company informing the Court, That he having the honour to be acquainted with the Right Honourable The Earl of Burlington and with his Lordships most extraordinary genius and superior judgment in Architecture, had taken the liberty to address himself to the said noble Earl, and to make it his humble request to his Lordship that he would be pleased to favour the Company with his opinion, in what manner it would be safest and best to repair the anatomical Theatre built by the celebrated Inigo Jones about one hundred years ago.

That his Lordship had thereupon condescended to take a view of the Theatre and most obligingly directed the proper method of repairing a structure of so peculiar a frame, and afterwards out of his accustomed generosity, and in regard to the memory of that great Architect offered to defray the expence thereof.

IT IS THEREUPON RESOLVED NEMINE CONTRADICENTE by this Court, That the Master and Wardens of the Company together with the late Master William Cotesworth Esq{r} be, and they are hereby desired forthwith to wait on the Right Honb̃le The Earl of Burlington, and in the most gratefull manner to assure his Lordship in the name of the whole Company.

THAT they do receive this noble instance of his Lordships bounty and generosity as a most distinguishing & illustrious mark of honour shown by his Lordship to the Company & Profession.

And that this Court will take care so to record & transmitt the remembrance of this magnificent action of his Lordship to their successors That the gratitude of the Company to his Lordship’s person and memory may be for ever preserved among them.

13th August, 1730. A marble Bust of the Earl of Burlington was ordered to be set up in the Theatre.

27th April, 1739. “The Court taking into their considerac͠on that several of their By-Laws, which had been confirmed by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justices for the time being, were in want of alteration, by reason of the variation of the times and circumstances of the Company and their Members since such By-Laws were made, and several new By-Laws being also wanting for the better government of the Company in times to come,” It was ordered that a Committee of six should consult and draw up fresh By-Laws, to be submitted to a future Court of Assistants, but in the result no action was taken.

1744. The long slumbering animosity between the Surgeons and the Barbers had now reached a climax, and indeed it is a matter of surprise that an union which had become grotesque should have existed for as many years as it had. The Surgeons, many of whom had attained to great eminence, naturally chafed under a system which required their diplomas to be signed by Governors, two of whom were always Barbers, or members of some trade or profession other than that of a Surgeon, and with the rapid progress of science and of surgical skill and knowledge, they felt their alliance with the Barbers a restraint upon their advancement, as also that the exercise of their profession under Charters and By-Laws, antiquated in form, and more adapted to the times in which they were framed, a hindrance rather than an incitement to further proficiency.

There is little in the records as to this disagreement, it being tacitly agreed that neither side should place their arguments or grievances in the books, which were their joint property.

20th December, 1744. This day the gentlemen on the Surgeons side having made known at this Court their desire of being separated from the gentlemen on the Barbers and that each may be made a distinct and independent Body free from each other, and producing a Case intended to be offered to the Honourable House of Commons praying such separation, which being read at this Court It was agreed that the following gentlemen on the Barbers side viz{t.}--

M{r.} Warden Negus M{r.} Parker M{r.} Maurice M{r.} Truelove and M{r.} Haddon.

& on the Surgeons side viz{t.}--

M{r.} Serj{t} Dickins Will{m} Petty Esq{r} James Dansie Esq{re} M{r.} Freke and M{r.} Sainthill

be a Committe appointed to meet on Monday next at the Kings Arms Tavern in Saint Paul’s Church Yard at one of the Clock at noon to receive the proposals from the Gentlemen on the Surgeon’s side for such Separation, and that when they had so done that the Gentlemen on the Barber’s side members of this Court should lay the same before the Livery on their side, by a Meeting to be had for that purpose, and that a Court of Assistants should be held on the Tenth day of January next, at which time the Gentlemen on the Barber’s Side Members of this Court, should then report their opinion and assent or Dissent to such proposals made.

At the same time it was agreed that any Member of this Court should 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.