Part 44

The Court seem to have had grave doubts as to the efficacy of their By-Laws in recovering at law the Steward’s fines, and a case having been prepared it was submitted to Sir James Scarlett and to Sir Thomas Denman (the Attorney General). The opinion of the former eminent Counsel, dated 10th October, 1832, is set out in the minutes, and he appears to have been very clear that they would not be recoverable, whereupon the Court ordered a letter (of 16th October) to be addressed to the Livery, informing them of the difficulty which had arisen by reason of Liverymen refusing to serve as Stewards in their rotation (after having partaken of the hospitality of other Stewards in former years), and that in consequence thereof there would be no dinner that year. The day after this letter was sent out, Sir Thomas Denman’s opinion was handed in, and was to the opposite effect of that given by Sir James Scarlett! Since this period, and now, the Steward’s fine is paid on the admission of a Liveryman, and thus a source of constant annoyance is done away with.

THE IRISH ESTATE.

The history of the acquisition by the Corporation of London and the 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.