Part 25

Whereas he was chosen renter warden of this Companie for this yere ensueing w{ch} place by reason of this contagious tyme and other respects he is not able to execute, It is thereupon ordered by this courte that he shalbe discharged from the said place of youngest warden and second warden of this Company, And it is further ordered that he shall take place next unto the youngest of our assistants that have served the place of upper warden and when he shall have served the place of upper warden of this Companye then he to take his precedencye and ranck according to that service.

21st August, 1626. Serjeant Clowes was elected Master, but it seems his election was called in question, as it was the turn for a Barber this year, and it was moved that the electors should be fined for breach of the ordinance in choosing a Surgeon, but the Court decided not to do so. There was evidently a dislike to Mr. Clowes on the part of some of the Company, as the Wardens of the Yeomanry were on the 20th September, fined 40_s._ for refusing, or neglecting to carry the Standing Cups before him and the Wardens of the Livery on the Election day.

1638. Serjeant Clowes was again elected Master.

9th April, 1641. M{r} Warden Martin Browne made his complaint against M{r} Serjeant Clowes and he did freely declare that he did forgive the Serjeant his personall Wrong, and did referr the Wrong due to the Court unto the Court, And this Court did order that M{r} Serjeant Clowes shall acknowledge that in his anger and passion he did speake some words to the wrong of this Court, and this being done this Order to be annihilated.

22nd September, 1642. Alsoe for the more peaceable treaty and discussing matters in times of Courts of Assistants It is ordered That decency be held in these Courts proceedings and that every one of the Assistants as he is in his turne and time of Delivery to yeild his voyce shall not use any impertinent speeches or divert the matter in question into some other busines but give his answer freely to the present matter proponed and that during the time of his delivery of his speech or opinion none other of the Assistants shall give crosse or thwarting speeches or calumniate that Assistant And if any Assistant shalbe soe Uncivill That then the present M{r} or Governour shall cause him to be silent and shall put such Assistants Interrupc͠on of speech to question concerneing his ffine for evill behaviour and such Interruptor being found faulty shall pay the ffine of vj{s} viij{d} according to the Ordinance in that behalfe made.

3rd October, 1642. Alsoe M{r} Cotton layed downe his ffines imposed on him at the last Court of Assistants viz{t} xxvj{s} viij{d} The M{r} of the Company moveing by the consent of the last Court M{r} Cotton to withdrawe himselfe according to Orders and Custome, he gave this Court this peremptory answer, I will not goe out of the Court nor the M{r} hath noe power to bidd mee goe out and that the Court had noe power to fine him, then he threatned M{r} Warden Arris as he sat in the Court saying Winter will come, Alsoe he abused M{r} Dye in his delivery of speech to this Court that his speeches were rotten speeches and thwarted him to the generall disturbance of the Court, and to M{r} Martin Browne threatning him I will make you know it better in another place Alsoe he sought to disable the M{rs} hand which was signed to Ticketts for his and other appearances at the Hall for defaults saying they might choose whether to appeare or not Alsoe he told the Court with high language I will not be dismissed.

fforasmuch as this Court is informed and it doth fully appeare to this present Court of Assistants That M{r} Lawrence Cotton hath from time to time bin a disturber of the Unity peace and amity of this Society and hath by many reproachfull Words and ill behaviour abused the present M{rs} of the Company and divers of the Assistants and Members of this Company Whereupon this Court doth dismisse the said M{r} Cotton out of and from his place of an Assistant and being an Examiner.

Mr. Cotton subsequently made his peace, was reinstated and served the office of Master, 1645!

8th July, 1644. Whereas by Order of the Honourable house of Comõns assembled in Parliament of the 28{th} June last the President of the Colledge of Physicians was appointed to call this Company before them and to tender the Covenaunt by them This Court conceiveing their Priviledges to be thereby infringed this Co{rt} the M{r} doe advise with Councell Doth order that a Petic͠on be framed to be preferred by all the Assistants that are now present or the major part, to the House of Comõns to have the tendring of the Covenñt themselves to theire owne Members and the Charge to be allowed out of the Comõn stock.

THE COMMONALTY.

The admission to membership in the Company has ever been by servitude, patrimony, or redemption, and the fines and fees payable have varied so much at different periods in our history, and have frequently been so capricious, that no attempt has been made to tabulate them, though references will be made here and there to the prevailing fees of the period. The fees for apprentices have always been of a nominal description, and generally so of freemen, though, in olden time, the Court, as became the Masters of the mystery of “bleeding,” not unfrequently bled a new member by a substantial fine on admission, but also put him to the expense of a dinner into the bargain.

[Footnote: The initial letter T is reduced from one in the Audit Book 1614-15.]

An ample fine, suited to the period, has always been taken from the Liverymen who were, in the days of the Tudors and Stuarts a comparatively small section of the Company, and rarely exceeded fifty in number; they were always chosen from the more substantial of the Yeomanry, and if on election they refused “to take the clothing,” as was frequently the case, a heavy penalty was imposed, which, if not paid, the unhappy yeoman was forthwith committed to the Compter, where, upon reflection, he generally came to the conclusion to submit. It is right, however, to state that at all times the Court have, in cases where the proposed Liveryman was actually a poor man, remitted the fine, and allowed him to continue a yeoman; on the other hand, contumacious refusal was invariably met in the firmest manner and conquered.

The practice of calling up yeomen to the Livery was at times resorted to as a means of putting the Company into funds, and as these calls generally took place at periods of national trouble, when the coffers of the Company had been emptied by the King or the Parliament, the intended Liverymen were themselves not unfrequently in sore straits, and great contentions arose.

About one hundred and fifty years ago the practice of enforcing these fines was in regular operation, but since then it has been attended with varying success; not that the Company has not by law the power of enforcement, but a prejudice had grown up against the system, and the Court has been unwilling to sanction a resort to extremities.

Early in the present century three or four actions were brought against freemen to recover penalties of £20 for refusing to accept the Livery; in one case which was ripe for trial the Company withdrew the record and paid the costs, and the others seem to have been abandoned.

All freemen on being sworn were liable to pay “quarterage,” which has been from the earliest period, and still is, 2_s._ per annum.[169] On a man coming up for admission he was “presented,” that is, seen by the Court who enquired into his position, knowledge, fitness and general qualifications, and if approved he paid his fees and was sworn. Some of the earlier forms of oath will be seen on reference to the Ordinances, and that used up to a very recent period was as follows:--

[169] The quarterage is now usually compounded for on admission by payment of a sum down.

You shall swear That you shall be True and Loyal to our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria and faithful and true in all lawful things unto the Corporation and Company of the Mystery of Barbers of London, whereof you are now made free, and accordingly be obedient to the Master and Governors thereof: and as much as in you lieth maintain amity and unity therein; and obey observe and perform all the lawful rules statutes and ordinances thereof; and be proportionably contributory to the best of your power, to all lawful or reasonable charges contributions and payments belonging or necessarily appertaining to you to bear and pay as other Brethren of the same Company do. And also you shall obey all manner of summons or warnings done, or to be made by the Clerk Beadle or other officer of the said Company thereunto assigned in the name of the Master and Governors, having no lawful or reasonable excuse to the contrary. All these articles you shall duly, truly, fully and faithfully observe, perform and keep to the best of your power. So help you God.

A few years since, this oath was changed into a declaration, the words “You shall declare” being substituted for “You shall swear.”

It was generally the practice, when a member wished to be translated to another Company or entirely discharged, that he should pay a fine for his dismission. In 1724, Mr. John Bamber, a Surgeon, informing the Court that he intended to practise as a Physician and to become a Member of the College of Physicians prayed for his discharge, which was granted to him on payment of thirty guineas, and there are other entries to the like effect.

The regulations for the governance of the members are very fully contained in the Ordinances referred to elsewhere, and it would therefore be tedious to further allude to them here. On a perusal of the extracts from the minutes, etc., many curious particulars will be seen concerning both freemen and liverymen who were liable to be expelled for not being “able” (_i.e._, solvent) and also for not attending in their livery gowns and hoods upon summons. There are many and often reminders to the livery to appear in their gowns with their hoods upon their shoulders, and there are also cases in which individuals were forbidden to wear their gowns and hoods by way of punishment. The dress of the livery has been well described in Herbert’s Livery Companies, and Planche’s Costume, and we can see it in our great Holbein picture, though the dresses worn on that occasion were of a much richer description than those in daily use.

It will be seen that the Livery were constantly going out in procession in days of old. There were the services at St. Paul’s on Christmas and Candlemas days, the Lord Mayor’s procession, the setting of the watch on Midsummer Eve, the celebration of 5th November, the anniversary of Gowrie’s Conspiracy, the Election Service at St. Olave’s, Silver Street, days of thanksgiving and humiliation, Royal progresses and Civic pageants. To all of these the Livery were bidden to go by precept, and on neglect of the summons were fined. In many cases certain of them were appointed to ride on horseback with velvet coats and chains of gold about their necks, and when not so apparelled they appeared in their gowns of black and scarlet, with their hoods upon their shoulders. What would we not give for a photograph of one of these gorgeous scenes wherein we should see the “liverie of our solempne and grete fraternite” riding “ayenst,” say, Queen Elizabeth in 1599?

Our earlier records of freemen are unfortunately lost, the first register commencing in the year 1551, but at Guildhall I have discovered several admissions of freemen Barbers to the freedom of the City, and here place a few of them upon record. The first is in 1309:--

Thomas Orgor barbitonsor admissus fuit in libtãte civitatis & jurˀ &c die sabĩ pˀxima post festñ scĩ Edmundi Regis & martirˀ anno R. E. filˀ R. E. tcĩo coram Nich̃o de ffarendon Joh̃e de Wyndesore & Henrˀ de Dunolm Aldris Et dat commitati xx{s} quos pˀdcĩ Aldr̃i recepˀunt.

(TRANSLATION.) Thomas Orgor, Barber, was admitted into the freedom of the City and sworn, etc., on Saturday next after the feast of Saint Edmund the King and Martyr in the third year of King Edward, the son of King Edward, before Nicholas de Farendon, John de Windsor and Henry de Durham, Aldermen, And gave to the Commonalty 20_s._, which the aforesaid Aldermen received.

Other entries are much in the same form, a few of which, abridged, follow:--

1309. John de Dodinghurst, Barber, admitted and sworn, etc., Friday next after the feast of St. Thomas the Apostle; paid half a mark.

1310. Ralph the Barber admitted, etc., 16th March; paid one mark.

1310. Gilbert Blaunchard, Barber, admitted, etc., 1st April; paid 10_s._

1310. Peter de Pecham, Barber, admitted, etc., 12th May, “at the instance of Roger le Brabanzon, a justice of our Lord the King”; paid 5_s._

1310. Galfridus de Trengye, Barber, admitted, etc., Saturday before the feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist; paid 10_s._

1311. John Syward, Barber, admitted, etc., Monday before the feast of St. Edmund the King, at the instance of the Lord Walter, Bishop of Winchester, Chancellor, “et ideo nichil dat ꝓ liᵬtate habenda,” “and _therefore_ gave nothing to have the freedom!”

1312. Ralph de Bosbery, Barber, admitted, etc., on Monday in the feast of St. Valentine; paid half a mark.

1312. John de Fynceham, Barber, admitted, etc., 6th April; paid 10_s._

1312. Henry de la Chaumbre, Barber, admitted, etc., on Monday in the vigil of the Assumption; paid half a mark.

1312. Thomas de Mangrave who was the apprentice of Richard le Barber of Bread Street, was admitted on Wednesday before the feast of St. James the Apostle, on the testimony of Katherine, widow of the said Richard and of Robert de Gloucester, the executors of his will; paid 2_s._ 6_d._

The “Richard le Barber” mentioned in the last entry was Master of the Company in 1308.

The freemen were formerly enrolled in the “yeomanry” and formed a minor fraternity within the Company (_see_ the chapter on the Yeomanry).

All freemen practising as journeymen or assistants, if Barbers, Surgeons, or Barber-Surgeons were “sessed at the Hall,” that is, their wages were settled for them by the Court, and entered in a book, together with the period for which they agreed to serve, the period being never less than one year nor more than three. These men were often called “covenant servants,” but they paid quarterage, and were entitled to all the privileges of freedom, excepting that they could not take apprentices.

If a freemen desired to start in business, the By-laws of 1530 required that he should prove to the Court as an act precedent to his so doing, that he was possessed of goods to the value of ten marks.

A certain class of members called “Foreign Brothers” are very frequently alluded to in the Books, and it has been a matter of some difficulty to ascertain what their status exactly was, but by collation of numerous entries I have come to the conclusion that, with very few exceptions, they were all of them practising Surgeons, and that they had _not_ been apprenticed to freemen of the Company. If practising within the jurisdiction of the Company, they were compelled to join, or else to forbear to practise, and it seems that on admission they were required to satisfy the Court by the production of their Indentures of apprenticeship to Country or other Surgeons that they had duly served seven years, and to give ample proof of their skill and knowledge before the Examiners; exceptions to the production of indentures were, however, made in favour of those who came with recommendations from persons of quality, or of such as had acquired eminence and position in the profession. All sea surgeons were “Foreign Brothers” and paid a fine (generally seven guineas) on admission, they also paid quarterage as freemen, and when they resided within the jurisdiction were subject to all the rules and ordinances of the Company as other freemen, being frequently fined and imprisoned for malpractice, etc., though they were not entitled to the benefit of the charities, to come to the dinners, or to confer the right of admission by patrimony upon their sons, nor do they seem to have been necessarily free of the City. Many Surgeons practising in the Country became Foreign Brothers for the sake of the diplomas granted at Barber-Surgeons’ Hall.

There are a few instances of “Barbers” being compelled to become Foreign Brothers, for which I am unable to give an explanation, unless they be errors of description by the Clerk for “Barber-Surgeons.”

Every freeman on admission formerly paid 3_s._ 4_d._, and every apprentice on “presentation” 2_s._ 6_d._ For many years the names of these persons are entered in the Audit Books, and thus it has been possible to ascertain the number admitted extending over a considerable period.

It appears that from the year 1603 to 1674, 3,479 persons were admitted to the freedom, an average of about 48 per annum; and 9,554 apprentices were presented, an average of about 133 per annum. The greatest number of freemen admitted was in the year 1647 when 82 came on, and the least in 1666 when but 23 were admitted. With apprentices the greatest number presented was in the year 1629 when there were 219, and the least again in the year of the Great Fire when there were but 54.

Between 1674 and 1745, about 75 freemen and 162 apprentices would be the yearly average.

After the separation in 1745, and indeed down to the beginning of this century, a respectable average was maintained, being about 40 freemen and 60 apprentices per annum.

In the hundred years between 1746 and 1845, 2,964 persons were admitted to the freedom and 4,298 apprentices were presented, being an average of about 30 of the former and 43 of the latter for each year. The least number of freemen coming on was in 1845, when only 5 were admitted, and of apprentices in 1844, when but 4 were presented.

The apprentices always seem to have been a fruitful source of trouble both to their Masters and to the Company, and numerous are the entries of their floggings and imprisonments. The term of servitude was generally seven years, but in a few instances it was eight and even nine, the age at which boys were taken was usually fourteen, and before the Indentures were sealed the boy was “presented” to the Court that it might be seen that he was clean and not deformed or diseased. If approved, the Indentures were executed and recorded, and in all cases the apprentice actually lived with his Master, who covenanted to find him meat, drink, apparel, lodging and all other necessaries according to the custom of the City. If the boy’s master died or for other reasons was unable to continue his business, it became necessary for him to be “turned over” to another master, free of the Company, and that such turn over should be approved and recorded, otherwise the apprentice was disqualified for his freedom. When his term expired the Master brought him to the Hall and “testified” to his faithful service, whereupon he became entitled to the freedom on payment of a nominal fine. Sometimes Masters refused to make their apprentices free, in which cases the Court enquired into the circumstances, and acted in accordance with the merits of the case.

From the earliest times the custom has prevailed to admit women to the freedom, mostly by apprenticeship, but also by patrimony, and these freewomen bound their apprentices, both boys and girls, at the Hall; of course the ladies were not admitted to the livery, but otherwise they had the same privileges as freemen so far as the same were compatible with their sex. At the present time (1890) there is one freewoman of the Barbers’ Company.

APPRENTICES.

Ordered 17th July, 1551. That Water Lynche whiche was prentise w{th} John Tholmwoode Barborsurgeon shalbe and ys contented to serve Thomas Woolf as a prentice from the daye above written untyll the viij{th} yere of King Edward the sixte and so the sayd Water Lynche his yeres to be fully ended and ronne out at the feaste of all Saints as may appere by his Indenture.

19th September, 1552. Ordered that when any prentise dothe goo awaye from his M{r} the same M{r} shall bring in his Indenture and here to remayne tyll the prentice come agayne and to be regestred.

It was also ordered that the Beadle should make out all Indentures of apprenticeship, and any one else presuming to do so should pay a fine of 3_s._ 4_d._

27th April, 1556. It was ordered that no apprentice should wear a beard of beyond fifteen days’ growth, and that on breach of this order the master of the apprentice was to pay a fine of half a mark.

15th October, 1566. Here in this Court John James the appñts of John Shryve for pylferyng, & so here he had his correction.[170]

[170] That is, he was flogged.

27th May, 1567. Robert Cholmeley complained of his apprentice

for y{t} he doth not his worke as he ought & for his other ill demeanors And so in the pˀsents of this Court the saide appˀnts humbled hym upon his knees and pˀmyssed his amendment.

1567. The quarrels between masters and apprentices about this period were numerous, and occupied a great deal of the time of the Court, who in dealing with them generally pursued a policy of reconciliation and made the parties friends again. In certain cases, masters were fined for ill-treating apprentices, whilst some of the latter had their Indentures cancelled or “torn in Court” and were either whipped or ordered to behave better, or to find new masters.

22nd August, 1569. Here was Rich Upton Playntyf agaynst his app̃nts W{m} Fyshe for that he ranne awaye frome his said M{r} the xxj{th} of the former moneth and tooke w{th} hym sˀten instruments for surgery & other things more, w{ch} pˀtyculers were here pˀsently sene & by the said W{m} Fyshe confessed and that he had no cawse to go frome his said M{r} but that he wolde have gon to the sea and accordynge to his desert had correction and punnyshment unto auncyent custom w{th} roddes.

22nd November, 1569. Memorandˀ upon the xxij{th} day of November 1569 in the afternowne Gyles Swalldell thappeñtꝭ of Chrystofor Swalldell for goyng forth of his maisters house at unlawfull tymes and houres & in evell company wastinge and consumyng his M{rs} grocery wares also therebye he the appntꝭ then had the correction of this hall accordyng to his desertꝭ as the justice & equytie by the M{r} & govˀnors thoughte at the request of his said M{r} to be most mete and convenient. And so the said Gyles Swalldell appntꝭ hathe promysed here that he wylbe a good faythfull & trusty servant unto his said M{r} and never hereafter offende any more.

1st June, 1570. Here was John thappntꝭ of Thomas Wayte (for) abusying of Rog{r} Laborne & his wyfe and his M{r} also and he had favorable correction for his offencꝭ.

John possibly thought it rather _unfavourable_.

By the next entry it would appear that Master Ralph Soda found the society of the ladies more congenial to his tastes than the practice of shaving and bloodletting.

15th February, 1572. Here was Henry Lusshe and witnessed how that his app̃ntice Rafe Soda ranne awaye ffrom hym and contract hym self to three wemen and was asked at Westm{r} in the church and also had delt unhonestly w{th} his mayde srˀvnt.

19th May, 1573. Here was John Newsam and he was appoynted to brynge in his fyne for not pˀsentynge his apprentice.

Here was John Appowell and he was appoynted the lyke.