The Annals of the Barber-Surgeons of London, compiled

That the foundation of the Commerce, and consequently of the Greatness, of London was laid by the old Livery Guilds—few will question. Much is already known, through the Histories of such of them as have been written—and an apology from me is not needed for a further contribution to so interesting a study. But whilst I make no apology for the contribution, I crave the indulgence of my readers for any shortcomings which, from a literary point of view, may appear in this work; I invite their attention to the matter, rather than to the style in which it is expressed.

About eight years ago I applied to our Court for permission to search the Records, and my request being complied with, I devoted such spare time as I could secure from an engrossing occupation to the compilation of these Annals. The work has necessarily led to the burning of much midnight oil, because every extract and every line has been made by my own pen. The researches have extended to the examination of all, and the transcript of a considerable portion of thirteen lengthy Charters and sets of By-laws, as also to the entire perusal of about a hundred books of Records. In addition to this, there has been much labour expended at the British Museum, the Public Record Office, the Guildhall, and Somerset House.

The material thus collected became so voluminous, that I experienced considerable difficulty in separating it into Subject Chapters, and also in deciding what to retain and what to reject; my endeavour in this respect having been to preserve all that is really interesting and curious, discarding dry legal passages, doubtful points, and wearisome repetitions.

None but those who have had experience of the crabbed eccentric writing and contractions of former times (see some of the fac-similes given) and of the abbreviated “Court hand” Latin in which Charters and other Records were penned, can have the least idea of the trouble and care required in their deciphering; but in this respect I have not spared pains in giving literal and accurate transcripts.

In no case have I modernized the old spelling, or interfered with the quaintness of the original expressions; though all dates occurring between the 1st January and 24th March prior to the year 1752 (when “old style” was extinguished) have been rectified, and the “historical year,” according to our present computation, given; thus rendering the chronology systematic, and avoiding confusion and inaccuracy.

It is a matter of the greatest regret, that whilst we possess some earlier records, our Court Minutes previous to 1551 are lost. It is conjectured that they must have been at the Hall in 1793 (as a partial list of Masters was then compiled), but all trace of them has now disappeared. Again, the Minutes from 1651–1689 are now missing, although they were at the Hall about forty years ago.

I may here take the opportunity to remark that the Barbers and Barber-Surgeons held a somewhat distinctive position apart from other Companies, inasmuch as they were a Professional rather than a Trade Guild, and their History, consequently, becomes invested with an especial interest. Another point to which I, as a Barber, am proud to refer is that our Company stood out, alone, as the pioneer of Technical Education, hundreds of years before it became as popular as it now is. From the middle of the fifteenth century the Company was careful to provide for Surgical Lectures, and the regular and systematic instruction of its members. The means originally employed may have been primitive, but they were dictated by high motives, and gradually extended and developed; a Museum (a poor one, it is true) and a valuable Library were founded, an Anatomical Theatre was built, and every opportunity taken to encourage the Scientific study of Surgery—all with results fraught with the greatest benefit, not only to London, but to the Kingdom at large.

In conclusion, I desire to express my thanks to those who have aided me in my work, and especially to my dear and valued friend, Past Master Charles John Shoppee, whose practical assistance, advice and encouragement all through, have been to me of the greatest service. Mr. D’Arcy Power, M.A., has laid me under much obligation, and particularly for revising and perfecting my translation of the Norman-French Ordinances, 12th Rich. II. My son, Austin Travers Young, has rendered valuable assistance in delineating the several Illustrations throughout the work, and lastly, I must record, with gratitude, my obligation to Mr. Edward Lawless for the attention and care bestowed upon me on the numerous occasions of my visits to the Hall.

The preparation of this work, a somewhat arduous task for an Amateur, has been to me purely a labour of love, and, in laying down my pen I may be permitted to add, that my best wishes for the Ancient Mystery of Barbers are summed up in the words of our time-honoured toast, “The Worshipful Company of Barbers, Root and Branch, and may it flourish for ever.”

SIDNEY YOUNG.

Alwyne Road, Canonbury.
March, 1890.

1889–1890.

THE COURT OF THE WORSHIPFUL COMPANY
OF BARBERS OF LONDON.

Master:
WILLIAM AARON ECCLESTONE, Esq.

Wardens:
WILLIAM LUMLEY, Esq.
JAMES COPE CORNISH, Esq.
JOSEPH WILSON, Esq.

Assistants:

HENRY EVANS, Esq.
CHARLES JOHN SHOPPEE, Esq.
JAMES HARVEY, Esq., Deputy.
HENLEY GROSE SMITH, Esq.
GEORGE AUSTIN, Esq.
RICHARD JAMES ATKINSON, Esq.
CHARLES HOWARD ATKINSON, Esq.
WALTER HENRY WILKIN, Esq., Alderman.
JONATHAN DENNY, Esq.

THOMAS GEORGE DRIVER, Esq.
NATHAN SALAMAN, Esq.
JOHN CARY LOVELL, Esq.
EDWARD CHARLES CORNISH, Esq.
GEORGE AUSTIN, Jun., Esq.
WALTER LUMLEY, Esq.
THOMAS ARTHUR GREENE, Esq.
SIDNEY YOUNG, Esq.
ALFRED LOW, Esq.

K.B. signifies King’s Barber; K.S. King’s Surgeon, and S.S. Serjeant-Surgeon.

This List, as well as the list of King’s Barbers, is undoubtedly incomplete, but contains the names of all those of whom any record exists at Barbers’ Hall. A short account of the Office of Serjeant Surgeon etc., may be seen in The Medical Times for 1867, vol. 2, p. 438.

The origin of the Barbers’ Guild partook of a religious character; and the meeting together of men of the craft for religious observances, for attending the funerals and obits of deceased members and their wives, and for feasting once a year, gradually transformed a semi-social and religious guild into what ultimately became a purely secular or “trade guild.” This religious origin is borne out by the very important Return made by the Barbers of London, to the Writ of 12th Rich. II, and is strengthened by reference to the Returns made by the Barbers of Lincoln and of Norwich (both which latter are preserved at the Record Office), and which clearly point to those guilds being of a religious character; indeed the Barbers of Norwich do not seem to have had a single secular or trade ordinance in their constitution.

1388. In the Return of the Barbers of London to the Writ of Richard II, the Masters recite that they “have found a document amongst the articles of their records made of the time to which memory runneth not,” concerning the points upon which the fraternity was founded;

Regulations were made enjoining charity, attendance at funerals and obits, against the enticing away of the servants of others, providing for the amicable settlement of disputes, and the like.

The articles above briefly referred to, contain nothing in particular as to trade regulation or inspection, leaving a pretty certain inference that they were made for the governance of a social and religious guild or fraternity. We shall presently see that in 1308, the Company partook of the nature of a trade guild, and we may therefore reasonably presume that the articles made in the time to which memory in 1388 did not run, were drawn up previous to 1308, and therefore without much hesitation we may assign the origin of the Barbers’ Company to at least the xiij^th. century.

In the early part of the reign of Edward II, and indeed for a long while previously, the Barbers were practitioners in the art of Surgery; at all events they performed the minor operations of that craft, such as bleeding, tooth-drawing, cauterization, and the like.

The Barbers having been accustomed to assist the monks in the surgical operations performed by them in early times, acquired a degree of proficiency which enabled them to practise as Surgeons themselves. Up till about the xij^th. century the practice of Surgery and Medicine was however almost wholly confined to the Clergy, who seem to have enjoyed the double privilege of curing men’s bodies as well as their souls. In 1163 the Council of Tours, under Pope Alexander III, considering that a practice which involved in its operations the shedding of blood, was incompatible with the holy office of the clergy, forbad them to interfere in any matter of Surgery; the consequence of this edict was that they gave over the operations of Surgery but continued to practise the healing art of Medicine.

As already said, the Clergy very frequently employed the Barbers as their assistants, and committed to them the preparation of the medicated baths and the performance of sundry minor surgical operations. No doubt the Edict of Tours was hailed with joy by the Barbers, who thus found a lucrative practice thrown in their way, and seized the opportunity of practising as Surgeons “on their own account,” calling themselves Barber-Surgeons, and practising both Barbery and Surgery.

c. 1307. The archives preserved at the Guildhall have many entries concerning the Barbers’ Company, and in Letter-Book D. 157^B. there is an ordinance concerning the Barbers of London, which shows that at this time they were occupied in Surgery, and advertised their profession in an objectionable manner, which was very properly forbidden by the City authorities.

1308. The first express entry which we have concerning our Company is the presentation and admission of Richard le Barber, as Supervisor or Master of the Barbers, before the Court of Aldermen in 1308 (Letter-Book C. 96).

The foregoing record does not appear very creditable to the reputation of the Barbers of Edward the Second’s time, but it should be remembered that in those days, and for a long period before and afterwards, the Barbers superintended the Baths (Bagnios) and that these places were not infrequently the resort of improper characters; a few of our predecessors had perhaps, under the circumstances, been somewhat lax in their morality, and let us hope that Richard le Barber administered to those whom he found offending, due correction according to his oath and their deserts.

It would not seem from the terms of the admission, that the Master was at that period elected annually, and the Office was probably held by one man for a considerable number of years. There is no entry in the City books (which have been carefully examined for the purpose) of another admission to the Office until the year 1376, when two Masters were appointed, and then for some years subsequently two new Masters were sworn in annually.

1309. In this year we find the first record of an admission of a Barber to the freedom of the City, and several others occur about this period (see Freemen).

1310. On Wednesday next after the feast of the Nativity, 4th Edward II, Gerard the Barber was sworn keeper of the Gate of Newgate (Letter-Book D. 113), and there are other entries of Barbers being appointed keepers or porters at the City gates; from one of these, in 1375, it would seem that they were to keep a strict watch that no lepers should enter the city, and it was doubtless on account of their surgical knowledge enabling them to distinguish those afflicted with leprosy, that these offices were conferred upon them.

1310. On Monday before the feast of St. Gregory the will of Richard le Barber, our first Master, was proved in the Court of Husting. To Katherine his wife and Johanna his daughter, he left tenements and rents in Bread Street, Cordwainer Street, Queenhithe, Candlewike Street, and Whitecrouche Street. To Thomas de Mangrave his apprentice, a shop in Bread Street; to the fabric of London Bridge 20^s., and the residue to pious uses.

1312. The earliest admission of a Surgeon (not a Barber Surgeon) to the freedom is that of “Magister Johẽs de Suthwerk cirurgicus,” who was sworn on Friday before the feast of St. Barnabas, 5th Edward II, and who paid nothing for his freedom, being admitted at the instance of Hugh de Waltham, Town Clerk.

Among the Archives at Guildhall are various entries relating to early Barbers, which, although not touching upon the history of our Company, may properly be preserved in these pages, and I shall therefore give translations of a few of them.

And there was a proviso that if the rent should remain unpaid for a whole year that the Bridge Keepers should re-enter. (Letter-Book E. 28^B.)

1319. On Thursday after the feast of St. Valentine, 13th Edward II, there was enrolled an obligation by which Roger the Barber (servant to John de Dallinge, Sheriff of London) and Margaret his wife, were bound to pay £100 to Sir John de Laugecombe, Rector of the Church of Laumaz Heys (sic) before the feast of Easter. (Letter-Book E. 85.)

1320. On Wednesday next after the feast of Saints Fabian and Sebastian, 13th Edward II, Lawrence the Barber, one of the men sworn to keep the Poultry Market on Cornhill, laid an information against John Bakon that he the said John was a forestaller of the Market. (Letter-Book E. 96^B.)

1320. In the same year among the names of the Citizens assessed to contribute to a fine of £1,000 to the King, occurs that of Thomas the Barber. (Letter-Book E. 106^B.)

1320. On Monday next before the feast of St. Margaret the Virgin, 14th Edward II, the Wardship of Alice, Joane and Agnes, children of John de Wynton, Barber, deceased, was given to Joane his widow; several shops and houses in the City belonging to the deceased are scheduled as for the benefit of the Wards, and Robert de Lamyngton, John de Bristolle, Barber, and Roger de Croidon were bound as sureties. (Letter-Book E. 114.)

Instances also occur of City Wards (sons of Barbers deceased) being apprenticed by the Chamberlain to various trades.

1340. In 14th Edward III, Hamo the Barber was assessed by the City at £10 as his contribution towards a forced loan of £5,000 to the King (Letter-Book F. 33) and six years later (1346) Hamo was again assessed at 20s. towards a “present” of 3,000 marks to the King.

1370. On 14th March, 44th Edward III, the wardship of Alice (aged 3 years), daughter of Nicholas the Barber, was given to Gilbert Prince, who was to use her legacy of 40 marks for her benefit.

1374. On the 28th July, 1374, Lawrence de Weston, Barber (Master of the Company in 1376), and Margaret his wife, mother of the said Alice, came before the Mayor, &c., and proved that the said Alice was dead, whereupon Gilbert Prince, the Executor of Nicholas the Barber’s will, was discharged, and the money paid to Lawrence and Margaret de Weston. (Letter-Book G. 244 and 317^B.)

Reverting now from individuals to the Company, we find that the Barbers existed as a Trade Guild, but unincorporated certainly from the year 1308, and that they were at first ruled by one Master, and later on (in 1376) by two Masters, appointed annually. This Company of Barbers was composed of two classes of Members—viz., those who practised Barbery proper (perhaps including phlebotomy and tooth drawing), and those who practised Surgery, and who were, for distinction sake, called Barber-Surgeons (in the City books they are spoken of as “Barbers exercising the faculty of Surgery”). For aught we know to the contrary, a perfect harmony and good understanding existed between these two sections of the Company, and it is probable that the ranks of the latter were continually recruited from the former.

1381. The earliest evidence of the existence of our Hall is to be found in Harl. MS. 541, which contains a list of Companies’ Halls in the City, temp. 5 Richard II, by which it appears that the Barbers’ Hall was then, as now, in the Parish of Saint Olave, Silver Street, and doubtless on the same site; the entry is, “Barbar hall y^e p’yssh of Seynt Oluf in Sylverstrete.” In 1490 the Hall is known to have been on the same site.

1388. In this year Richard II sent his writs all over the Kingdom to enquire into the nature and constitution of the several guilds and fraternities, religions, social or craft, and the returns to these writs, which must have been an immense number, were formerly kept among the Records at the Tower of London. Herbert, in his History of the Livery Companies, refers to his fruitless endeavours to discover these returns, and I have made diligent enquiry at the Record Office for them also, with the undoubted result that all of those which relate to the London Trading Guilds are lost. There are, however, a great number relating to London religious guilds and to trade guilds all over the country. Two of these concerning the Barbers of Norwich and of Lincoln are so highly interesting that I have preserved them in Appendix A.

Amongst our Archives at Barbers’ Hall, is a vellum book of Ordinances written out fair in 1658, and therein is to be found a copy of the return made by the Barbers of London to the writ of Richard II, and which the Company caused to be extracted from the Tower Records in 1634. It is certified by William Colet as agreeing with the original, but unfortunately Mr. Colet (although he was Deputy-Keeper of the Records) or his copyist has made one or two mistakes, which necessitate a little hiatus in the translation, and he has put the year as the 11th instead of the 12th of Richard II. That the latter year is the correct one is abundantly proved by the dates on the original writs and on the numerous returns still in existence at the Record Office, as also by the names of the Masters certifying, who are recorded at Guildhall as having been admitted 10th September, 12th Richard II.

Richard II was more solicitous as to the funds and property of the Guilds, than he was about their observances, and our predecessors seem to have quickly acquainted him with their pecuniary position, “the which Company have neither tenements nor rents to their common use.”

The Masters recite an old document which they found in their strong box, and which will well repay perusal; it opens with a devout dedication to the Trinity, the Virgin Mary, and the glorious company of heaven, and the first Ordinance being expressly made in honour of God and all saints, and with the intention of stirring up the people to do well and to persevere therein, we must all approve of it. It provides firstly, that decayed brethren shall have an allowance of 10¹⁄₂d. per week, if their poverty have not come about by their own folly. The second and third Ordinances relate to attendance at funerals and obits of deceased members. Then follow certain rules, that no man shall entice away another’s servant; the Masters to settle disputes, payment of quarterage, refusal of office, absence from Mass and the yearly feast, the livery clothing, &c., &c. It is well to observe here the evidence of the antiquity of our livery, of the quarterage, and of the feast, all of which have come down to these days.

Some later Ordinances are added, which were apparently made in 1387. This return is probably the only one extant of the whole of those made by the London trade guilds, and is therefore of the highest interest. A copy of the original (which is in Norman French), together with a translation, follows.

The document which the Masters found amongst their records made in “the time to which memory runneth not” probably ends here, and the following Items (see the third one) were doubtless additional Ordinances made circa 1387.

Coeval with our Company of Barbers there existed in the City of London, another Fraternity or Guild, that of the Surgeons, in no way connected with the Barbers, but, like them, existing by prescription only and unincorporated. It is not to be expected that these two Companies would, in the days of so much trade protection and jealousy, exhibit an over-friendly feeling towards one another, and the records of the period, though meagre, show that this was the case. The Surgeons’ Guild at no time appear to have been a numerous body, indeed there is reason to believe that frequently their numbers were less than a dozen, and they possibly never exceeded twenty.

In the researches undertaken for the purpose of this work, various references to the Surgeons’ Guild have turned up, and although at this early period there was much in common between the two Fraternities, I have considered it quite apart from the subject in hand to go into any detail concerning that Guild, more especially as it has recently been so ably and fully dealt with by Mr. D’Arcy Power in his “Memorials of the Craft of Surgery.”

1376. In the 50th Edward III, the Barbers made a complaint to the Mayor and Aldermen against unskilled practitioners in Surgery, and prayed that two Masters should be yearly appointed to inspect and rule the craft, and that none should be admitted to the freedom of the City, but upon due examination of their skill; and this was granted by the Court, entered of record and Lawrence de Weston and John de Grantone were chosen Masters. The following is a translation of the original record concerning this matter.37

The foregoing ordinance must surely have given umbrage to the Surgeons’ Guild as it placed the Barbers upon an equal footing with them in the examination of Surgeons, the inspection of their instruments, etc.; and this more especially as seven years previously (in 1369) the Surgeons had obtained from the same Court an Ordinance investing them with the power of presenting the defaults of all unskilful Surgeons.

1382. As an example of a quack Surgeon’s method of practice, and of his rogueries and punishment, the following case of Roger Clerk will be found interesting:—

1390. In connection with the Surgeons’ Guild, four Master Surgeons of the City were sworn before the Mayor, etc., in this year, and they were to make scrutiny amongst persons practising the art of Surgery, and to present defaults. [Letter-Book H. 248.] It will be remembered that in 1369 a somewhat similar Ordinance was made for the Surgeons’ Guild, and this one in 1390 was probably obtained as a set off to the powers vested in the Barbers by their Ordinance of 1376, and by way of assertion of equal rights with them in matters surgical. Anyhow it is very clear that there were two distinct bodies within the City ruling the craft of Surgery at this period, each, no doubt, claiming jurisdiction over its own members, and both anxious and ready to interfere with outsiders, and probably with each other. It is curious to note that in the Ordinance of 1390, above referred to, the Masters inspecting are authorised to make scrutiny not only of men, but of “women undertaking cures, or practising the art of Surgery”; and here, in the 19th century, we find history repeating itself, and women again “intermeddling in matters surgical.”

As might be expected the dual scrutiny exercised over persons practising surgery, by two distinct and antagonistic Companies, produced considerable jealousy and unpleasantness, and there are various records extant indicative of cases of attempted interference with the Barbers’ privileges, one of which is distinctly stated to have been the work of the Surgeons and Physicians, as doubtless also were the others.

1410. By Letter-Book I. 94, it appears that the Ordinances for the Barbers made in 1376 were confirmed to them with the significant addition that they should enjoy the same, “without the scrutiny of any person or persons of any other craft or trade, under any name whatsoever other than the craft or trade of the said Barbers, either as to shaving, making incision, blood letting or any other matters pertaining to the art of Barbery or of Surgery, in the craft of the said Barbers now practised, or to be practised hereafter.” This Ordinance is, I think, clearly directed against the Masters of the Surgeons’ Guild, who had sought to exercise their authority over the Barbers using the faculty of Surgery.

1415. Complaint having been made to the Mayor and Aldermen, concerning the unskilful and fraudulent practice of certain Barbers in matters of Surgery, the privileges of the Barbers were again recorded, though the Company who had hitherto nominated their own Masters, were somewhat shorn of that privilege, as the Mayor, etc., directed the names of all the Barber (Surgeons) to be brought before them, and after due enquiry, they selected two of them for Masters, and gave them their charge and oath.

1416. “Certain trustworthy and discreet” Barber (Surgeons) complained to the Mayor, etc., that notwithstanding the last order, there were still unruly members in the craft, and a fresh Ordinance was enacted which imposed a penalty on offenders.

The Ordinances above referred to are to be found in Letter-Book I. 149, and are as follows:

1423. In this year certain Ordinances were made by the Mayor (Sir William Walderne) and Court of Aldermen which are entered in Letter-Book K. 6^B. This record relates to what Mr. D’Arcy Power, in his “Memorials of the Craft of Surgery,” has termed a “Conjoint College” of the Physicians and Surgeons, and has little to do with our Company, beyond the fact that the scrutiny and oversight of persons practising Surgery is given to the Masters of the Surgeons’ Guild. The subject of these Ordinances and many very interesting remarks thereon and on the Conjoint College may be seen at p. 52, &c., of Mr. D’Arcy Power’s work; and the record itself is set forth in full at p. 299; furthermore, extracts from it, so far as the same relate to the privileges and practice of the Surgeons, are to be found in the beautiful old vellum MS. formerly belonging to that Guild, and now in the possession of the Barbers’ Company.

Armed with this additional authority, the Surgeons’ Guild again sought to interfere with and scrutinize the Barber-Surgeons of the Barbers’ Company. These latter, however, must have had good friends at Court, and were not slow in asserting and obtaining confirmation of their rights and privileges, as will be seen by reference to the following record in Letter-Book K. 27^B.:—

1451. With the exception of a few references (which are noticed elsewhere) the City records are silent concerning the Barbers’ Company until this year, when the Master and Wardens, styled here “Gardiani,” with certain honest men of the Mystery of Barbers, brought a Bill before the Mayor and Aldermen, praying them to establish certain Ordinances, and to enter them of record, which was granted and done.

These Ordinances provided for the enforcement of stated penalties in cases of disobedience and related to attendance upon summons, settlements of disputes, refusal of office, admission of members, evil speaking, assemblies and payments, instruction of “foreyns,” employment of aliens. They are to be found in Letter-Book K. 250, and are the first written in English, all previous ones being either in Latin or Norman French in the originals.

Nothing is now heard of the Surgeons’ Guild for some years, although they were still in existence. It is quite probable, that finding the Barbers had invariably obtained the protection and countenance of the City authorities, whenever their privileges had been assailed or called in question, they had given over their attempts at interference with them as hopeless, and allowed our worthy predecessors to continue to “exercise the faculty of surgery,” in peace; and being unmolested they doubtless grew in numbers, in importance, and in the knowledge of their art, until it was admitted that their position as one of the Guilds, warranted them in applying for a Charter of Incorporation, which was granted to them by Edward IV in 1462.

1413. Before proceeding to refer to this important epoch in the history of our Company, it will be well to introduce a very remarkable letter, which was written by Thomas Arundell, Archbishop of Canterbury (formerly of York), to the Mayor, etc., of London, in which he complained that the Barbers, being, alas! “without zeal for the law of God,” kept their shops open on the Sabbath days, and he besought the Mayor and Aldermen (his “sons in Christ, and dearest friends”) to put a stop to this practice. No trade, perhaps, has from the earliest days, down to our own times, owned such persistent breakers of the Fourth Commandment as have the Barbers. Our records abound with by-laws, enacted and renewed over and over again on this subject, and details of the delinquencies of numerous Barbers in this respect, and of their punishments by fine and imprisonment crop up everywhere.

The Archbishop’s letter reveals to us the fact, that nearly 500 years ago, men were constituted much as they are now; in that “that which touches the body or the purse, is held more in dread than that which kills the soul,” and he shrewdly suggests that the clerical punishment of “the greater excommunication,” should be augmented by a fine to be levied by the Civil authority. This letter is so deeply interesting that no apology is needed for reproducing it here. The original is to be found in Letter-Book I. 125.

An Ordinance was forthwith made thereupon, to the effect, that no barber, his wife, son, daughter, apprentice, or servant, should work at such craft on Sundays within the liberty of the city, either in hair cutting or shaving, on pain of paying 6s. 8d. for each offence; 5s. thereof to go to the new work at the Guildhall, and the remainder to the Wardens or Masters of the Barbers within the city.47

1422. In August of this year Henry V died, and thirty-two of the City Companies assisted at his obsequies, going in procession and carrying torches. From an entry in Letter-Book K. I^B., it appears that the Barbers bore four torches on this occasion.

1447. This year the Company seem to have contributed 40s. towards the cost of the Roof of the Chapel at Guildhall, as appears by the following entry in Journal IV, 198 (25th October, 26 Henry VI)—

Hitherto we have considered two distinct and somewhat hostile fraternities, the Surgeons on the one hand, and on the other the Barbers (consisting of Barbers and Barber-Surgeons), both of them City Guilds, existing by prescription, having independent rules and Ordinances for their government and the scrutiny and correction of abuses in their respective Crafts, the former Company few in number, the latter far more numerous and popular; the Surgeons without, and the Barbers with, a Livery.

Of these two fraternities, the Barbers by the regular and every day nature of their calling, as shavers and hair cutters, together with the practice of Surgery combined by so many of them, were the most likely to become the more popular Company; their fees would surely be on a lower scale than those of the more aristocratic Surgeons, and their numbers and constant intercourse with the citizens, in their capacity as Barbers, enabled them easily to extend their connection as Surgeons.

In all their contentions with the Surgeons’ Guild, as far as we know, they held their own well, and thus it was that their place in the City, as a Livery Guild of at that time an ancient standing, their position as the professors of useful and scientific arts, their numbers and presumable affluence, all rendered it desirable that they should be placed upon the same footing as the better class of Guilds, by their acquisition of a Charter of Incorporation, which they accordingly obtained from the young King Edward IV in the first year of his reign (1462).

Thomas Knot (Master, 1555) has recorded in one of our books, a Translation of this Charter, which Mr. J. Flint South (who does not appear to have seen the original Latin one) has transcribed, and this has been adopted by Mr. D’Arcy Power (page 326). Thomas Knot wrote a good hand, and was a zealous champion of the Barber-Surgeons in his time, but he made egregious blunders in some of the writings recorded over his signature, and although there is not great fault to be found with him in this instance, it is suggested that the Translation given below, is perhaps a more literal one than that which Knot has handed down.

The Charter is still preserved at our Hall, and is contained on a small skin of parchment; the initial letters of the title, which were at the time left to be illuminated have never been filled in, and the document is therefore not the work of art which one is accustomed to see in Charters of this period; it bears signs of having been frequently used, the ink in some places being worn, and the words only legible with the aid of a magnifying glass. The great seal pendant is not quite perfect, but is a beautiful specimen and highly artistic. The following is the text of the Charter:—

(E)dwardus dei grã (R)ex (A)nglie & (F)rancie & (D)ominus (H)ibñie. (O)mnibus ad quos pˀsentes lrẽ pˀuenint saltm̃ (S)ciatis q̃d nos considerantes qualitˀ Diɫci nõb prˀbi & liᵬi hoiẽs mistere BarbitonsoꝜ Ciuitatis nr̃e london vtentes mistera siue facultate SirurgicoꝜ tam circa vulña plagas lesiones & alias infirmitates ligeoꝜ nroꝜ ibidem curandˀ & Sauandˀ q^am in extracc͠oe sanguinis & denc̃iu hˀmꝰ ligeoꝜ nrõꝜ g^andes & multiplices intendencias & labores pˀ longa tempora sustinuerunt & supportauerunt indiesqʒ sũtinere & supportare non desistunt qualitˀ etiam pˀ ignoranciam negligenciam & insipienciam nonnulloꝜ hˀmꝰ barbitonsoꝜ tam liᵬoꝜ hõim Ciuitatis nr̃e pˀdc̃e q^am alioꝜ SirurgicoꝜ forincecoꝜ & non liᵬoꝜ hõim eiusdem Ciuitatis indies ad eandem Ciuitatem confluenciũ & in mistera SirurgicoꝜ minus sufficientˀ eruditoꝜ q^am plurima ac quasi infinita mala diuˀsis ligeis nr̃is in vulnĩbʒ plagis lesionibʒ & aliis infirmitatibʒ suis pˀ huius modi Barbitonsores & Sirurgicos sauandis & curandis ob eoꝜ defc̃m ante hec tempora euenerunt quoꝜ quidem ligeoꝜ nroꝜ alii ea de causa viam vniuˀse carnis sunt ingressi alii autem eadem causa tanq^am insanabiles & incurabiles sunt ab omĩbʒ derelecti similia qʒ mala vel peiora infuturˀ in hac parte euenire formidatˀ nisi remedm̃ congruũ supˀ hoc pˀ nos cicius pˀuidetuˀ Nos enim attendentes & intime adũtentes qˀd huiusmodi mala ligeis nr̃is ob defc̃tuˀ debit supˀuis scrutinii correccõis & punicõis huiusmodi barbitonsoꝜ & SirurgicoꝜ minus sufficientˀ in eisdem misteris siue facultatibʒ vt pˀdcm̃ est eruditˀ & instructˀ euenire contingunt. Ad humilem supplicacoẽm dilc̃oꝜ nobˀ pˀdcoꝜ pˀboꝜ & liᵬoꝜ hõim pˀdcẽ mistere BarbitonsoꝜ in Ciuitate nr̃a pˀdcã concessimꝰ eis qˀd mistera illa & omẽs hoiẽs eiusdem mistere de Ciuitate p’dc̃a sint in re & noiẽ vnũ corpus & vna Coitãs pˀpetua. Et qˀd duo principales eiusdem Coitãtis vna cũ assensu duodecim vel octo pˀsonaꝜ ad minus Coitãtis illius in mistera Sirurgie maxime expert singulis annis eligˀe possint & facˀe de Cõitate illa duos magr̃os siue Gubñatores in mistera Sirurgicˀ maxime exp̃tˀ. Ad supˀuidendˀ regendˀ & gubñandˀ misterˀ & Cõitatem pˀdictˀ & omẽs hoiẽs eiusdem mistere negociti eoꝜdem imp̃pm̃. Et qˀd qˀdem mãgri siue guᵬnatores & Coit̃as heañt successionem pˀpetuam & coẽ sigillum negociis dcẽ Coit̃atis impˀpm̃ sˀuiturˀ. Et qˀd ip̃i & successores sui impˀpm̃ sint pˀsone habiles & capaces ad pˀquirendˀ & possidendˀ in feodo & pˀpetuitate trãs tenˀ redditus & alias possessiones quascunqʒ usqʒ ad valorem quinqʒ marcaꝜ pˀ annũ ult^a reprisas et qˀd ip̃i noiã magr̃oꝜ siue GuᵬnatoꝜ & Coit̃atis mistere barbitonsoꝜ london pˀlitare & imp̃litari possint coram quibuscuqʒ indicibʒ in Curiis & acciõbʒ quibuscuqʒ Et qˀd pˀdci magr̃i siue Guᵬnatores & Coit̃as & eoꝜ successores congregacoẽs licitas & honestas de seipˀis̃ ac statuta & ordinacoẽs pˀ salubri gubnacoẽ supˀuisu & correccõe misteria pˀdictˀ sˀcdm̃ necessitatis exigenciam quociens & quando opus fuit̃ facẽ valeant licite & impune siue occõne vel impedimento nr̃i heredimi vel successoꝜ nr̃oꝜ Justicˀ EscacioꝜ Vicecomitum CoronatoꝜ aut alioꝜ BalliuoꝜ vel ministroꝜ nr̃oꝜ heredemi vel successoꝜ nr̃oꝜ quoꝜcuqꝜ dum̃odo statuta & ordinacoẽs illa contˀ leges & consuetudines regni nr̃i Anglˀ nullo modo existant. Preteria volumꝰ & concedimꝰ pˀ nos heredbʒ & successoribʒ nrĩs quantũ in noᵬ est qˀd magr̃i siue Guᵬnatores pˀdcẽ Coit̃atis pˀ tempore existenˀ & eoꝜ successores impp̃m h̃eant supˀuisum scrutinm̃ correccoˀem & guᵬnacoˀem om̃i & singuloꝜ liᵬoꝜ h̃oim̃ dcẽ Ciuitatꝭ SirurgicoꝜ vtencm̃ mistera BarbitonsoꝜ in eadem Ciuitate ac alioꝜ SirurgicoꝜ forincecoꝜ quoꝜ cuq̃ʒ mistera illa Sirurgicꝭ aliquo modo frequentancm̃ & vtencm̃ infra eandem Ciuitatem & suburbia eiusdem ac punicoẽm eoꝜdem tam liᵬoꝜ q^am forincecoꝜ pˀ delictis suis in non pˀfecte exequendꝰ faciendꝰ & vtendꝰ mistera illa necnon supˀuisum & scrutinm̃ omim̃odoꝜ instrumentoꝜ emplastoꝜ & aliaꝜ medicinaꝜ & eoꝜ receptꝭ pˀdcos̃ Barbitonsores & Sirurgicꝭ huiusmodi ligeis nris̃ pˀ eoꝜ plagis & vulnibʒ lesionibʒ & huiusmodi infirmitatibʒ curandꝰ & sauandꝰ dandꝰ imponendꝰ & vtendꝰ quociens & quando opus fuit pˀ comõdo & vtilitate eoꝜdem ligeoꝜ nr̃oꝜ ita qˀd punicio huiusmodi BarbitonsoꝜ vtencm̃ dc̃a mistera Sirurgicꝭ ac huiusmodi Sirurgicꝭ forincecoꝜ sit in pˀmissis delinquencm̃ pˀ fines am̃ciamenta & imprisonamenta corpoꝜ suoꝜ & pˀ alias vias rõnabiles & congruas exequaturꝰ. Et qˀd nullus BarbitonsoꝜ vtens dcã mistera Sirurgicꝭ infra dcãm Ciuitatem aut suburᵬ eiusdem aut alius Sirurgicus forincecus quicuq̃ʒ & exequendꝰ faciendꝰ & exẽcendꝰ eandem misteram Sirurgicꝰ aliquo modo infuturꝰ in eadem Ciuitate vel Suburᵬ eiusdem admittat^a nisi primicũs pˀ dcõs magr̃os siue guᵬnatores vel eoꝜ successores ad hoc habiles & sufficientes in mistera illa eruditus approbetꝭ & pˀ plenarˀ comprobac͠one sua in hac parte maiori Ciuitatis pˀdictꝰ pˀ tempore existenꝰ pˀ eosdem magrõs siue Guᵬnatores ad hoc pˀsentet^a. Volumus eciam & concedimꝰ pˀ noᵬ heredibʒ & successoribʒ nr̃is quant̃u in noᵬ est qˀd dc̃i magr̃i siue guᵬnatores ac Coit̃as pᵭc mistere BarbitonsoꝜ nec successores sui nec eoꝜ aliquis quoquo modo infuturꝰ infra Ciuitatem nr̃am pˀdcañ & Suburᵬ eiusdem sumoniunt^a aut ponant^a neqʒ eoꝜ aliquis sumoniat^a aut ponat^a in aliquibʒ assisis iuratis enquestis inquisicõibʒ attinctis aut aliis recognic̃oibʒ infra dc̃am Ciuitatem & Suburᵬ eiusdem impostimi coram maiore aut vicecountꝭ seu Coronatꝭ dc̃e Ciuitatis nr̃e pˀ tempore existenꝰ capiendꝰ aut pˀ aliquem officiariũ siue ministm̃ sũu vel officiarios siue ministros suos sum̃oniandˀ licet iidem Jurati inquisicões seu recognic͠oes sum̃ fuiñt supˀ br̃i vel briᵬʒ nr̃i vel heredimi nroꝜ de recto Sed qˀd dc̃i mag̃ri siue Guᵬnatores ac coit̃as mistere antedc̃e & successores sui ac eoꝜ quiᵬt vˀsus nos heredes & successores nr̃os ac vˀsus maiorem & vicecomites Ciuitatis nr̃e pˀdcẽ pˀ tempore existenꝰ & quoscũqʒ Officiarꝰ & ministros suos sint inde quieti & penitus exonãti impp̃m pˀ pˀsentes. Et vlterius nos considerac͠oe pˀmissoꝜ de gr̃a nr̃a sˀpaɫi concessimꝰ pˀ noᵬ & successoribʒ nr̃is pˀfatis mag̃ris siue Guᵬnatoribʒ ac Coit̃ati dcẽ Mistera BarbitonsoꝜ & successoribʒ suis hanc liᵬtatem viᵭelt qˀd ip̃i pˀpetuis futuris temporibʒ pˀsonas habiles & sufficientꝰ eruditos & informatos in dct̃i mistera Sirurgicꝰ & pˀ mag̃ros siue Guᵬnatores mistera illius pˀ tempore existenꝰ in forma pˀdc̃ti approbatꝰ & maiore Ciuitatis pˀdc̃e pˀ tempore existenꝰ vt pˀdc̃am est pˀsentat in eandem misteram BarbitonsoꝜ ad libtat̃es dc̃e Ciuitatis hẽndꝰ & gaudendꝰ scᵭm consuetudinem dc̃e Ciuitatis admittẽ & recipˀe valeant & non alias pˀsonas quascũqʒ neqʒ alio Modo aliquo mandato aut requisic͠oe nr̃i heredimi seu successoꝜ nroꝜ pˀ brãs inscriptꝭ vel alitꝭ qualitꝭ cumqʒ incontrm̃ factꝭ seu faciendꝭ non obstantꝭ Et licet iidem mag̃ri siue Guᵬnatores ac Coiãtas & eoꝜ successores hac liᵬtate continue in futurꝭ vsi fũint cont^a. aliquod mandatum sine requisicõem nr̃i heredũ seu successoꝜ nroꝜ aut aliquoꝜ alioꝜ quoꝜcuq̃ʒ in forma pˀdc̃a fiendꝭ ip̃i tamen finem contempt̃u depˀditum erga nos heredes seu successores nrõs aut dampñu vel malum aliquod in bonis seu corporibʒ suis erga quoscumqʒ alios ea occ̃one nullo modo incurrant nec eoꝜ aliquis incurrat. Et hoc absqʒ fine seu feodo pˀ pˀmissis seu sigillac͠oe pˀsentum noᵬ faciendꝭ soluendꝭ vel aliqualitꝭ reddendꝭ aliquo statuto ordinac͠oe vel actu incontrm̃ ante hec tempora editꝭ factꝭ ordinatꝭ seu pˀuis non obstantꝭ. In cuius rei testimonm̃ has lrãs nr̃as fieri fecimꝰ patentes. Teste me ip̃o apud Westm̃ vicesimo quarto die ffebruarii Anno regni nr̃i primo.

Pekham.

(Endorsed.)

The chief point which strikes us on reading the foregoing Charter is, that it contains a great deal relative to Surgery, and little, indeed nothing, concerning Barbery, and yet it is granted ostensibly to the Barbers!

Now the Surgical side being the more important one of the craft, and the raison d’être of the Charter being in a great measure to provide for the regulation of Surgery and the correction of abuses in that profession, this silence as to Barbery and recognition of Surgery would seem to be an evidence that the practice of the latter, more or less, was the rule rather than the exception with members of the Company of Barbers; and, as the Masters or Governors were empowered to make “statutes and ordinances” (by-laws) for the governance of the mystery, it was doubtless considered unnecessary to descend into any details concerning shaving and the like in a Royal Charter.

The preamble of this Charter is exceedingly quaint and interesting, reciting how through the “ignorance, negligence and stupidity” of various Barbers and other practitioners in Surgery, many of the King’s lieges had “gone the way of all flesh.” Then at the request of “our beloved, honest and free men of the said Mystery of Barbers,” the King grants to them, to be one body perpetual, etc., that two of the chief men of the Company (no doubt the two then existing Masters “exercising the faculty of Surgery”) may with twelve or at least eight other skilled Barber-Surgeons, elect two Masters annually: this provision in itself is singular, as it would seem to imply that the body then incorporated was to be ruled by two Masters only; but a reference to our list of Masters and Wardens will shew that from the year 1448 the Company has been ruled by four Masters, and so on in unbroken succession to the present time48; these other two Masters therefore were Masters of the Barbers proper, about whom nothing was said in the Charter, but who were chosen annually in accordance with ancient custom, the Chief or First Master being alternately a Barber, and a Barber-Surgeon.

The Corporation was to have perpetual succession, and a Common seal, to hold lands of a certain value, to be able to plead and to be impleaded, to make by-laws, to have the scrutiny and correction of (apparently all) Surgeons in the City and suburbs, as also the oversight of all their instruments and medicines, etc., and to have the power of inflicting punishment, by fine or imprisonment, on offenders. None were to practise Surgery until examined and approved by the Masters and presented to the Mayor, and authority was given for the freemen of the Company to be admitted into the freedom of the City.

Another clause in the Charter was one which, whilst it conferred a valuable privilege upon the Company, was a source of continual strife and conflict with the Civic authorities, for by it all our freemen claimed to be exempted from serving on Juries and inquisitions, and this immunity, though constantly disputed, was as often asserted and maintained, with various qualifications.

In The Times, November 26, 1839, is an account of the exemption of certain freemen of the Company from serving on Juries at the Central Criminal Court. In this instance neither the claimants nor the Recorder knew much about the matter—for one of the applicants said, in reply to the Recorder, “I rest my claim on the Charter of Henry VIII”!! And, further on in the discussion, the same bold Barber had the effrontery to declare that “the privilege was confirmed by an Act passed in the reign of George II.” This was the Act which separated the Surgeons from the Barbers, and which did not confirm to the latter the exemption claimed, but our freeman gained his point, and the Recorder only grumbled.

As recently as 1868, a case was submitted to Sir J. D. Coleridge (now Lord Chief Justice) as to the legality of the exemption, and he gave his opinion in favour of it. However, since then the Jury Act has, alas! swept away this cherished immunity, and thus let the Barbers down to the level of their fellow citizens.

With the possession of their Charter the Company were now in an unassailable position, and we hear no more of their molestation by the Guild of Surgeons.

Grant by Richard Thornbury, Citizen and Draper of London, to Robert Ferbras, Citizen and Surgeon, John Dagvile, Surgeon, William Sipnam, Grocer, and Walter Bartlot, Fishmonger, Citizens of London, for ever, of all his title in two shops and solars with their appurtenances, in the parish of Saint John upon Walbroke, formerly belonging to John Blounde of Braughyng in the County of Hertford, and which had been already conveyed to the Grantees by John Thornbury, gentleman, and Walter Thornbury, Clerk, which shops were situate between the tenements of William Horn, Citizen and Draper, towards the north and south, and the tenement of the Prior and Convent of the Blessed Mary without Bishopsgate towards the east, and the King’s highway leading from Walbroke to Dowgate towards the west. Dated 11th May, 2 Edward IV (1462).

1470. The Company about this period came into possession of some freehold houses in St. John the Baptist upon Walbrook, to be held both for trust and corporate purposes. These houses are stated in our books to have been devised to us by Will (dated 2nd Dec., 1470) of Robert Ferbras. There are three old title deeds of the period still at the Hall, relating to these houses, and in the Court of Husting at Guildhall are two Wills of Robert Ferbras, Surgeon, both proved, one dated 4th Nov., 1470, and the other 17th April, 1472—but neither of these contain the bequest to the Barbers. It is, therefore, probable that Robert Ferbras conveyed the houses to the Company in his lifetime, and this fact being overlooked in course of years, it came to be said that they passed by his Will.

1482. 26th April.—The Company applied to the Court of Aldermen, presenting a set of ordinances for the government of the craft and for the regulation of apprentices, praying that the same might be allowed and ratified, which was done. The official entry under this date is in Letter-Book L. 174, and the following are the Ordinances:—

Ordinacio
BarbitonsoꝜ

Memorand qˀd sexto decimo die Aprilis Anno regni Regis Edwardi quarti post conq̃m vicesimo scᵭo pˀᵬi hõies Artis sive mistere BarbitonsoꝜ Civitatis london venˀ hic in Curˀ dc̃i Dnĩ Regis in Camˀa Guyhald Civitatꝭ pˀdcĩ coram Willm̃e Haryot milite ac maiore & Aldr̃is ejusdem Civitatis et porrexer̃nt eisdem maiore & Aldr̃is quand^am billam sive supplicacõem Cujus tenor sequitur in hec verba.

To the right hono^rable lord the Mair And the right wirshipful Sovˀaignes the Aldermen of the Citee of London Mekely besechen your goode lordship̃ and maistershippes all the pˀsones enfraunchesed in the crafte and mistere of Barbours w^tin the Citee of london That it wold pleas the same your lordshipp and maistershippes for the Wirship̃ of the said Citee And for the goode Rule to be had w^tin the saide Craft to graunte and establissh thise articles folowyng And theym to be entred of Recorde in the Chambre of the said Citee before your said lordship and maistershippes hereafter for to be observed and executed.

FFirst that there shall no ffraunchesed Barbo^r. w^tin the said Citee take any man or Child to be his Apprentice before that he hath pˀsented the same man or Child unto the maister and Wardeyns of the said Craft for the tyme being, to thentent that the same maister and Wardeyns may duely examyne ovˀsee serche and behold by the Colour and complexion of the said man or Child if he be avexed or disposed to be lepur or gowty maymed or disfigured in any pˀties of his body Whereby he shall fall in disdeyn or lothefulnesse unto the sight of the Kingꝭ liege people And also to be examyned of his birth and of his kynrede or if there be on hym any bonde claymed, And if he be founde defectif in any of thise poyntꝭ that than no fraunchesed Barbo^r. of the saide Citee shall take hym to his Apprentice uppon payn to pay v^li. Whereof that one half shall Remayn unto the Chambre of the said Citee.

Also that evˀy enfraunchesed barbour that taketh any apprentice shall pay to the almes of the said Craft for the same Apprentice iij^s. iiij^d. to be paied in fourme folowyng that is to sey, at the first pˀsentacion of the Appˀntice xx^d. and that other xx^d. in the same yeere When he shall be enrolled And the names of the maister and appˀntice and the yeres of appˀntishode of the same appˀntice shalbe writen in a book by the said maistˀ & Wardeyns And he that disobeith this article or orden^ance shall pay unto ye almes of the said Craft of barbours xiij^s. iiij^d. that one half thereof to be applied to thuse of the said Chambre and that other half to the almes of the said Craft. And if it so be that the said Apprentice Dye w^tin the first yere, or voide so that the said maistˀ take none avauntage by the same Appˀntice, that than the same money stonde for the next Appˀntice, And if it hapne the said maister to take any pˀfet [profit] for the said Appˀntice by way of Sale or sˀvice and that so pˀved before the said maister and Wardeyns that than the saide maister of the said Appˀntice to be charged for the said iij^s. iiij^d.

Then follows the usual Ratification (in Latin) of the above Articles.

1487. The next notice which we have of the Barbers in the City books, indicates that there had been quarrels and dissensions among them, and that the rules of the Craft had been set at nought by its members, whereupon a Book of Ordinances was presented to the Court of Aldermen for approval and ratification and the same is entered at this date, 20 July 2 Hen vij, in Letter-Book L. 235^B. as follows:—

Then follows the usual Ratification (in Latin) of the above Articles.

1490. A declaration made by one Bryan Sandford, dated 8th March, 1490, was produced to the Committee of the House of Commons in 1745, in which it was stated that the Company were at that time possessed of the freehold of their Hall in Monkwell Street.

1493. On the 12th July in this year, an agreement was entered into between the Barbers’ Company and the Surgeons’ Guild which would indicate that the two bodies were now on amicable terms, working harmoniously for the increase of the credit of the profession, and for the correction of inexperienced surgeons and empirics. This “Composition” is of so interesting a nature that it is here given in full, as extracted from the fine old Book of Ordinances at the Hall; it did not unite the two bodies in any way beyond this, that they agreed to follow the same rules and practice with regard to the government of all Surgeons; that each guild was to choose two Wardens, and that the four so chosen were to act in a conjoint capacity as rulers or masters in matters surgical, and thus comprehend all Surgeons, whether of the Barbers’ Company, the Surgeons’ Guild, or “foreyns.”

This present wrytyng endentyd of copˀosicyons made the xij^th day of July iˀ the zere of owyr lord God M^tCCCClxxxxiij and the viij^th zere of the reyne of kyng harry the vij^th William Martyn then beyng mayre of this cyte of london betwyxt the ffelishippis of surgeons enfraunchesˀ w^t in the cyte of london on that on p’ty And the felishippis of barbours surgeons and surgeons barbours enfraunchessid iˀ the seyd cyte on the other parte witnesyth that the sayde felyshippys of ther comon assent and mere moc̃yons ben c͠odescẽdyd and agreyd togethir the day and the zere aboue sayd, in mañ and fourme folowyng. That is to sey that eũy pˀson and pˀsons of the faculte or scyens of surgeons admyttyd and sworne to eyth̃ of the sayde felyshippis from hens forward shall stond and a byde w^t ther felyshippis as they now do and dyd before thys present composicyon.

Also that from hens forth non of the sayde felyshippis shall admyt nor reseyue in to ther felishippys any alyent straungˀ or foreyn vsyng the sayde faculte or scyens of surgery w^towten knowleg or c͠osent of the wardẽs of bothe the seyd felishippys. All so for the welth and suerte of the kyngꝭ lege people And the honour of the seyde felyshyppys, It is agreyd be twyxt the same two felyshippis that non alyent straunger nor foreyn shall use nor ocopy the seyde faculte or scyens of surg̃y withyn this cyte or subbers of the same unto such tyme as he shewhym selfe to the mayer for the time beyng, and by the iiij wardeyns of bothe the saide felishippis, that is to sey of eyth̃ of the sayde felishippis, tweyn, and othˀ suche as by theyr wysdomys they will call vnto them, be dewly examyned & approuyd to be sufficyent of conyng and habilyte in the sayde faculte. And yf any such pˀson or pˀsones bi the sayde iiij wardens as is afore sayde be taken reputed and a lowed to be sufficient of konyng and habylite iˀ the seyd faculte or scyens of surgery that then the pˀson or pˀsonys so knowen and admyttyd shall be sworne to all the good rewlys and ordenans of y^e seyd faculte or scyens of surgery, and to be under the coreccyon of the iiij wardens for the tyme beyng to the entent that at all tymes he may be under dwe coreccyon for the sauegard of y^e kyngis lege people. And if any suche alyent straungˀ or foreyn of pˀsumcon refuse to be examyned of the seyde wardens in mañ & fourme as is a fore seyd, Or yf any suche straunger or foreyn so examyned be the seyde wardens be Juged onsufficient of conyng and neũtheles takyth upon hym to occupy or vse the seyde faculte of surg̃y w^tyn the seyde cyte or subbars of the same, Then take the name of hym or them so doyng and pˀsent hym by the sayd iiij wardens to the mayer for the tyme beyng, to the entent that by his wysdom, and advice of hys honerabyll brethern may set suche direccyon as shall be thought resonabil formacion64 therof, restrayne hym from the ocupac̃on of the same scyens w^t in the sayde cyte. Also it is agreyd and cõpoundyd betwyxte the sayde felyshippys that from hensforth eũy of the seyde felyshippis and seũally by them selfe, Chese of themselfe two discrete pˀsons usyng the fete of surgery to be seũally wardens of the sayde seũall felishippis, and that these iiij wardens for the tyme beyng when and as oftyn as nede shall requere, Shall haue the syght and good gounaunce of the seide faculte of surgery. And eũy pˀson or pˀsonys of eũy of the sayde felyshippis that happenys or shall fortune to haue any Jeopˀde65 or dowtefull cure, dredyng deth or mãy,66 he or they hauing at eny tyme to come, shall shew and pˀsent the cure or curys in as short tyme as nede shall be reqˀred, And at the leste at the thyrde dressyd67 to the saide iiij wardens for the tyme beyng, Or any other pˀson or pˀsonys that is to seye, to one of yche of the seyde felishippis, and the same wardens and yf them seme nedefull shall call unto them ij or iij, or more if nede reqˀre, of the wysest and best expˀte mẽ of the said felishippis occupyeng the saide faculte of surgery as them semeth most expedyent, for the cause or causis aforesayde. Also in this coposycion yt is ordeyned and agreyd, that none of the iiij wardens for the zere beyng neyther any other pˀson of the sayde felishippis ocopyeng the crafte of surg̃i, Put any man of thes sayde felishipis oute of ther cure otherwyse then the honeste of the crafte wolle, but that yche of them be redy to helpe eche other w^t counsell or deed, y^t worship profyte and the honeste of the crafte, and helpyng of the seke be had and done on all sydis. And if ony of thes iiij wardens for the tyme beyˀg or any other pˀson or pˀsonys of the seyde felyshippis do the cõtrary that eche suche doer content the valvyr68 of the cure, After discressyon and Jugem̃et of the same iiij wardens for the zere beyng, And also for his trespas to paye aftur discression and Jugem̃et of the iiij wardens. Also if any pˀson of the sayde felishippis dislaunder or depute any of the saide felishippis onrightfully ownonestly and ef it so maye be prouyd upon hym by two or thre witnesse, that he paye for that trespas iij^s. iiij^d., and ouer that to make amendis to y^e seide pˀsons the whiche he hath so disslaunderd aftur Jugement of onest men of the seyd felyshippis not founden in non suche defaute.

This pˀsent cõposicyon was made the daye and zere a bowe wreton by Roberd taylour, Rob^t. Halyday, Thom̃s Koppisley, Thom̃s Thornton, Ihoñ Harte, Johñ Marhm̃, Roberd Beuerly, James Scote, James Ingoldysby, Johñ Taylour, Richard Swedenhm̃, Nicholas Leueryng, John Wilson. In rowlid in Raffe Osterigis tyme, mayer.

Of the persons assenting to this composition, the following were Barber-Surgeons, viz.: Rob^t. Halyday (Master 1475, 1483, 1485, 1490, 1496), James Scott (M. 1493, 1498, 1500), James Ingoldysby (M. 1501, 1506), John Taylour (M. 1523, 1524), and Nicholas Leveryng(M. 1503, 1508), the others were most likely belonging to the Guild of Surgeons.

An Ordinance by way of addenda to the above was made, imposing penalties upon any who should break any of the foregoing rules; the first offence to be punished by a fine of 10s., the second 20s., and the third offence to be remitted to the Mayor and Aldermen for punishment after their discretion.

FAC-SIMILE OF THE TITLE-PAGE TO THE OLD BOOK OF ORDINANCES, REPRESENTING SAINTS COSMO AND DAMIAN (PATRON SAINTS OF THE BARBER-SURGEONS) AND THE COAT OF ARMS GRANTED TO THE COMPANY OF SURGEONS IN 1492. (See p. 433.)

How long this agreement, so beneficial for the practice of Surgery, continued in force is unknown; but the probabilities are that the old jealousies soon re-appeared and that each Guild worked on its own lines until 1540, as, by the uniting Act then passed, it was specially remarked as desirable that the two Companies should come together, and be incorporated in one.

1497. We shall now present to the reader’s notice a highly important document, being a diploma granted by the Master and Wardens of the Barbers’ Company to one of their freemen, enabling him to practise as a Surgeon. This is in all probability the earliest English diploma of a Surgeon extant and cannot fail by the quaintness of its composition, and the details given, to prove of much interest. We notice in it, that our Company as usual, did not fail to rehearse its prerogatives and practice, and we also observe that thus early the Company provided an instructor and examiner in the science, Dr. John Smith, before whom came in the Common Hall, Robert Anson, and in the presence of a “great audience of many right well expert men in Surgery and others, was openly examined in divers things concerning the practice,” etc.

FAC-SIMILE OF THE DIPLOMA GRANTED BY THE MASTER AND WARDENS OF THE BARBER-SURGEONS TO ROBERT ANSON (8 AUG., 1497), ENABLING HIM TO PRACTISE AS A SURGEON.

To all trew crysten people to whom thes present lettris shall come. Roberd Halidai69 mastur of barbours and of surgeon barbours of london, and Willm̄ Okeley, John Knote70 and Thomas Dawes71 wardens of the same gretyng, knowe ye that wher as the moste excellent Pryns in cryst and soũeyn lord Edward by the grace of god kyng of ynglõd and of ffraunce, lord of Ierlond, for many pˀfounde cos̃ideracyons his gc̃e movyng, hathe grauntyd the well to hym ĩ cryst, the approuyd fremen the coiãlte of barbours and of surgeon barbours of the cyte of londõ, The serche and oũsyght correcyon and ponyshement, examinacon & approbacion of all fremen usyng or hauntyng the conyng of surgery and barbory, And of all maner of men foreyns usyng or hauntyng any pˀticuler pˀte of surgery withyn the seyde cyte or subbers ther of, As a bowte new woundys, olde soris, and other lesyons what so eũ they be, Also in drawyng of teeth ventosyng scarificacons and suche othˀ manwall operac̃ons, lyke as the lettres patentes of owre seyde lege lord the kyng ther upon made planyly may apere. We therfore the saide Roberde, Willm̄, John̄ & Thom̄s at this tyme masturs and wardens of the saide felishyp, ffor the comyn pˀfyte weth72 and relefe socour of owr lordis the kyngꝭ lege people, entẽdyng to pˀuyde men of good capasite and abill ĩ maners and conyng, sufficiently lerned, enfourmed, and labored by long experyens, and other in the seide craft of surgery,—haue prayed and requyred mastur John̄ Smyth doctour ĩ phesik, Instructour & examener of the seide feliship, and be73 the same for that intent chosen and elect to entur & examynacyon for the cawses a boue saide, w^t divers pˀsons whiche long tyme, w^towte auctorite, haue vsed and haunted w^t experyens the conyng of surgery, wheruppon aftur dewe and dyuers monycions made in this be halue, Roberd Anson on of the seide coĩalte at the comyn hall of the same ĩ london appered, ĩ his pˀpyr pˀson, the first day of August last past, submyttyng hym selfe to the examync̃on and thaposicion,74 wher and when the seide Roberd by the sayde John̄ Smyth, in a gret audiens of many ryght well expert men ĩ surgery & other, was op̃yly examyned ĩ dyuers thingꝭ cõcernyng the practise opˀatife and directif in the seyde crafte of Surgery. And the^r albe it he hathe a fore this many tymys been well approuyd, ʒet now he is newly habelyd, be75 the seyde doctour and felyship, and founde abyll and discrete to ocopy & vse the practise of surgery, as well a bowte new woundis, as cansers, fystelis, vlceracions & many other disessis & dyuers; & the same Robert thus aprouyd and abelyd we haue, as an expert man ĩ the seyd faculte, aprouyed and abeled to ocupy & practyse in the seyd faculte, ĩ eũy place, when and as ofte as hym best lyketh we haue lycensid hym and graũtid to hym by thes pˀsentes. ĩ witnes wherof we haue putte the comyn seale of barbours and of surgeon bˀbours of london, geuen at london ĩ the comyn hall of the seyd Comõnalte the viij day of August the zere of oure lord god M^tCCCClxxxxvij.

1499. In this year the Company obtained from Henry VII a confirmation of their Charter, paying but 20s. for the same. This Inspeximus Charter recites and confirms that of Edward IV with the very noticeable exceptions, that four Masters or Governors are named instead of two, and that they are described as of “the Mystery of Barbers and Surgeons,” and not “Barbers” only, as in Edward’s grant.

The original, in excellent preservation, with the great seal of England pendant, is at the Hall, and the text is as follows:—

(Endorsed.)

(Endorsed.)

1511. In this year an Act of Parliament was passed, which infringed on the privileges of the Barbers’ Company, inasmuch as it placed the approbation and licensing of Surgeons in the hands of certain clerical dignitaries, to wit, the Bishop of London and Dean of St. Paul’s (while for the country the several Bishops or their Vicars general were nominated). This Act was possibly the outcome of some laxity on the part of our Company, or of an intolerable growth of quackery, with which it could not cope, the pretenders to surgical knowledge being a “great multitude” of ignorant persons, and women, using sorcery, witchcraft and noxious remedies. This Act of Parliament (3 Hen. VIII, cap. XI) as given below, is from an original copy in the possession of Mr. Charles J. Shoppee (Master 1878).

This Act seems to have invested the Bishops, etc., with the power of licensing all Surgeons, and if so, would have taken away that privilege from our Company; the point is however doubtful, and I am inclined to think that the Act did not operate to the prejudice of the Company, only in so far as it suffered from the existence of another licensing authority.

Mr. D’Arcy Power has pointed out that the Act very soon became unpopular, and that it was almost immediately practically repealed by another one, which provided that it should be “lawful to any person being the king’s subject, having knowledge or experience of the nature of herbs, etc., to minister in and to any outward sore or wound according to their cunning.” (Memorials of the Craft of Surgery, p. 85.)

This latter Act, which in its effect would flood the land with quacks, must however have remained the law until the Act of 32 Hen. VIII, whereby the Barber-Surgeons were reinstated in their ancient rights; and it is the fact, that down to the 18th Century the Ecclesiastics claimed and enforced their rights (under the Act 3 Hen. VIII) to license Surgeons, notwithstanding other Acts passed since then, which although not expressly extinguishing their power, certainly did not save it. The Barber-Surgeons’ Company seem to have examined the Surgeons, and, if approved, to have given a certificate under Seal, which was presented to the Bishop who thereupon issued his licence. This practice was not however universal, and I think only applied to some Surgeons who were not free of the Company. In some cases the Bishop licensed Surgeons, without reference to the Company, and thousands have been licensed by the Company without regard to the Bishop. It is almost impossible to say now what course was followed, the practice certainly varying with the times (see Surgery).

1513. In this year an Act of Parliament was passed exempting Surgeons from juries, inquests, etc. This must have been passed in the interest of the Surgeons’ Guild, as the Barber-Surgeons were surely exempt under their Charter from Edward IV.

1512. The Barbers’ Company having applied to the King (Henry VIII) for a confirmation of their Charter, their request was acceded to. Henry is, on more than one occasion, spoken of in the books as “our patron,” and there is no doubt but that he was very friendly both to our Company and to individual members of it, as witness his gift of the grace cup, and the legacies in his will to various members of the Company, with some of whom, as Pen, Harman, Ayliff, etc., he was on as intimate terms as a king could be with a subject; there would therefore be, we may be sure, but little difficulty in obtaining an Inspeximus.

In one of our Minute Books, Thomas Knot (Master 1555) has transcribed what purports to be a copy of Henry’s Inspeximus Charter with the date 12^th of May “in the xviij^th yere of our Reigne” (i.e., 1526), and he appends a certificate that he has compared and agreed it with the original! Now we possess the original at Barbers’ Hall and it is dated 12^th March 3^rd Henry VIII (i.e., 1512), and it would indeed be a strange thing for Henry VIII in 1526 to recite and confirm Henry VII’s Charter, when he had already done so in 1512. Moreover I have searched the Patent Rolls and whilst there is no record in 1526, there is the entry of the 1512 Charter, and further to fix the date, both Philip and Mary, and Elizabeth in their Inspeximus Charters recite the 1512 Charter.

It has been necessary to enter into this detail, as the date of the Charter is important when we come to consider Holbein’s picture; and as my friend Mr. D’Arcy Power has (p. 338) quoted this pretended Charter not having seen the real one, he, very naturally trusting old Thomas Knot’s statement, has fallen into the pit dug some three hundred years ago.

The following is the Text of the Charter, and it will not be necessary to append a translation, as it follows much on the same lines as that of Henry VII:—

The Great Seal, though still pendant, has been considerably damaged.

1525. This year the Company received a Precept from the Mayor, ordering them to provide for the “Midsummer Watch.”

An Act of Parliament was passed in the 20th Henry VII, which provided that the governing bodies of Guilds should not make any by-laws or ordinances, without the same should be approved by the Chancellor, the Lord Treasurer, and the Chief Justices of the King’s Bench and Common Pleas, or any three of them, etc., and in 1530 our Company, being desirous of settling many points for the government of the mystery, drew up a long set of interesting Ordinances, which were presented to Sir Thomas More the Chancellor, Sir John Fitzjames and Sir Robert Norwiche the Chief Justices, and were signed by them on the 14th May, 1530. The original (with More’s autograph) is at the Hall, and after reciting the Act of 20th Henry VII, ordains the following oaths and articles:—

The oath of a freeman.
The oath of the Masters and Governors with directions as to searches.
Ordinance as to attending on summons.
"         "    quarterage.
"         "    presentation of apprentices.
"         "    number of servants to be kept by freemen and liverymen.
"         "    wages of servants.
"         "    enticing away of servants.
"         "    opening shop.
"         "    teaching the mystery to any but apprentices.
"         "    sueing brother freemen at common law.
"         "    “opprobrios condicions or dishonest wordes.”
"         "    refusal to come on the Livery, and admission into the Livery.
"         "    Sunday trading.
"         "    presenting patients in danger of death.
"         "    reading Lectures concerning Surgery.
"         "    supplanting another of his patient.
"         "    the Dinners.
"         "    excess of words in debate.
"         "    departing from the Common assembly.
"         "    seniority.
"         "    Barbers setting up shop.

Sir Thomas More’s Ordinances, as above, will be found in full in the Appendix B, the transcript being made from the original.76

1540. This year is one of the most memorable in the annals of the Barber-Surgeons, as it witnessed the union of the unincorporated Guild of Surgeons, with their more accredited fellow-craftsmen, the incorporated Company of Barbers. It has been suggested by more than one writer that such an union is shrouded in mystery, difficult of explanation, and that in those days, with science advancing (slowly, it is true), it might have been expected that we should read of a divorcement, rather than a combination of two crafts, which then, as now, were dissimilar both in their operations, and in the training and intelligence necessary for their practice.

But it is essential to bear in mind that though the Charter of Edward IV was ostensibly to the Barbers, it really was granted to a fraternity, which to a great extent practised as Barber-Surgeons, some of whom were Surgeons pure and simple, others combined both branches, while others still carried on the more humble craft of Shavers and Hair-Dressers; those of the Company who practised Surgery did no doubt consider it a reproach to be dubbed “Barbers,” and for distinction sake called themselves and were well known as “Barber-Surgeons,” indeed they had so far established this title to themselves and to their Company, as to get it recognised and so named in the Inspeximus Charter of Henry VII (less than forty years after their original Charter as “Barbers” had been granted to them). This is to a great extent confirmed by the words of the Act now about to be referred to, which distinctly says that there was then a Company of “Surgeons occupyinge and exercisynge the sayde scyence and faculty of surgery . . . . . . commonly called the Barbours of London.”

The Union therefore was not a joining of Barbers with Surgeons (THAT had existed from the earliest times), but was the consolidation of the “Guild of Surgeons” with another body of Surgeons who were incorporated, and practised under the name of “Barbers” in conjunction with actual working Barbers; and, as the Act provided what the Surgeons should and should not do, and the like as to actual Barbers, limiting their operations also, most if not all difficulty and apparent incongruity in the union seems to vanish.

The Act (32 Hen. VIII, cap. 42) which will well repay perusal, settled the Barber-Surgeons in their corporate capacity for many a long year; under it the old rival society disappeared, it being declared that the two Companies should be united, so that by their assembling together, the science of Surgery might be fostered and improved; whereupon it was enacted that they should be incorporated under the style of “The Maisters or Governours of the Mystery and Comminalte of Barbours and Surgeons of London.” The property of the old Company of Barbers was handed over to the new Corporation (the Guild of Surgeons are not said to have had any property to bring into the new concern). The usual grant of a common seal, of power to plead and to be impleaded, to hold lands, etc., will be seen at large in the Act. The Surgeons of the Company were to be exempt from bearing armour or being put into watches and inquests. The dead bodies of four malefactors were assigned to the Company yearly for dissections. And, inasmuch as various persons exercising the faculty of Surgery used to take into their houses for cure, people afflicted with the pestilence and other contagious diseases and “do use or exercise barbari, as washynge or shavyng and other feates thereunto belonging,”77 the same was declared “veraie perillous,” and it was enacted that no one using the faculty of Surgery should practise Barbery, and that no Barber should practise any point in Surgery, the drawing of teeth only excepted. The Surgeons were to exhibit a sign in front of their houses, and no Barber was to exercise his calling unless free of the Company. Four Masters were to rule the Company, whereof two were to be Barbers and two Surgeons. A penalty was named for offenders against the articles, all were to pay scot and lot, and private persons might keep their own Barber or Surgeon, without interference by the Company.

The Act was passed on the 24th July, 1540, and will be found in Appendix C. being taken from the original Black-letter copy in the Author’s possession.

We now refer to the Company’s chief treasure, the Holbein picture, and are at once met with a difficulty; does it represent the granting of a Charter to the Company? if so, the year was 1512; or does it illustrate the union of the Barbers and Surgeons by Act of Parliament? if so, the year was 1540.

The picture exhibits a Charter with the Great Seal pendant, and has always been popularly known and described as the “granting of the Charter to the Barber-Surgeons.” On the other hand, however, the King was but 21 years of age in 1512 and 49 years in 1540, which latter age accords with the picture; moreover, Vicary, Ayleff, Harman, and the others represented, were members of the Court in the latter year, but not in 1512. These considerations are sufficient to demolish the “Charter” theory, and point to the hypothesis that it is the Union of the Barbers’ Company with the Guild of Surgeons, accomplished by Act of Parliament in 1540, which is commemorated, but then we must admit a licence on the part of Holbein (which deceived no one at the time), when he indulged his artist’s fancy by putting into the King’s hand a Charter with seal pendant, instead of an Act of Parliament, which latter would not indeed have been the King’s function to hand to the Company, and would probably, if represented, have been depicted as a mere roll, and not therefore so artistic or effective as a Charter with a Seal in the King’s hand.

The Act received the Royal Assent 25th July, 1540; this would be towards the close of the year of John Pen’s mastership. Vicary, who is receiving the Instrument, was Master from September, 1541, to September, 1542; there is every probability that the painting was executed during his year of office, and that is why Holbein paid him the compliment of putting him in the chief position in the painting, which after all was intended, not as a strictly historical, but rather as a commemorative picture.

The picture is 10 feet 2 inches long by 5 feet 11 inches high, painted on oak panel and contains nineteen figures; it represents a room in the palace (said to have been Bridewell), which is hung with beautiful tapestry and appears to have been gilded; the King is seated on a throne, his age apparently about fifty, the complexion florid, the hair sandy, the eyes small but animated and restless; the expression on the countenance is impatience, and he seems thrusting the document hastily into the hand of Thomas Vicary, who receives it kneeling, on his left; the face altogether might be pronounced handsome, were it not for the low forehead and contracted eyebrows; he has on his left thumb a signet ring, and other rings on the first and fourth fingers of his right hand with which he holds a sword of state resting on his knee; on his head is a jewelled crown; on his left leg the garter, and round his neck the collar of the Order; the mantle is short and of crimson velvet; all these ornaments are most beautifully executed and are as fine as miniature painting; every hair of his head is distinct, and the texture of his robe is finely given; his impatience seems to have warmed him, and the rising colour flushing over his face is most admirably painted. On the King’s right are three grave and closely shaved personages on their knees. The first is Dr. John Chambre, one of the Royal Physicians, he is represented in a skull cap and furred gown, the sleeves very large and in which his hands are enwrapped; from the expression of his countenance it would seem that he was anything but pleased with the provisions of the Act, as the face has a sullen and discontented look; next to him is the celebrated Dr. William Butts, also one of Henry’s Physicians, and behind him is Thomas Alsop, the Royal Apothecary, his hair is long and lank, and features coarse and hard.

On the King’s left are fifteen members of the Court on their knees, and in livery gowns, evidently specially sumptuous for the occasion, being of brocaded or damask silk, trimmed with fur, and each man wears a livery hood of red and black upon his shoulder. The first of these is Thomas Vicary, Serjeant-Surgeon, who wears a gold chain; next comes Sir John Ayleff, Surgeon to the King, also with a gold chain and a ring on his finger, the next is Nicholas Simpson, King’s Barber, who, like Vicary and Ayleff, wears a skull cap, all the others have their heads bare. Then comes Edmund Harman, King’s Barber, and one of the Witnesses to Henry’s Will, he wears a gold chain; next him is James Monforde, King’s Surgeon, then John Pen, the King’s Barber, and Nicholas Alcocke; the expression on the countenances of all these men is grave and solemn; the next, Richard Ferris, who has a somewhat merrier face, and was also King’s Surgeon, completes the front row. The moustaches and beards of the whole, including the King, would appear as if they had had great care and attention bestowed upon them. Of the remaining seven figures in the back row, the names of but two have been preserved, viz., Christopher Salmond and William Tilley.

This picture of Holbein’s is not surpassed, if indeed it is equalled, by any other of that master, every part is most elaborately and delicately finished; the position of none of the figures is constrained, and there is no attempt at theatrical effect, yet every person represented is in action, the colouring is chaste, and kept down, nor is there any of that hardness and stiffness often observed in Holbein’s pictures. Its reputation has been truly said to be world-wide, whilst it has been eulogistically described by some one to be “as glowing as a Titian, and minutely faithful as a Gerard Dow.”78

The names of the persons represented have been somewhat rudely affixed to their effigies, probably a few years after the picture was painted, and whilst we cannot but deplore the disfigurement, it is more than compensated for, as the means of identification of so many of our illustrious predecessors. The tablet, with inscription, has been said to be of later date than Holbein’s work, and to have been painted over a window, through which was once seen the old church of St. Bride; this, however, is most improbable, as it is personally dedicatory to Henry. The inscription is as follows:—

HENRICO OCTAVO OPT MAX: REGI ANGLIÆ FRANCIÆ
ET HIBERNIÆ FIDEI DEFENSORI AC ANGLICANÆ HIBERNICÆQ
ECCLESIÆ PROXIME A CHRISTO SVPREMO CAPITI SOCIETAS
CHIRVRGORVM COMMVNIBVS VOTIS HÆC CONSECRAT.

TRISTIOR ANGLORVM PESTIS VIOLAVERAT ORBEM
  INFESTANS ANIMOS CORPORIBVSQVE SEDENS
HANC DEVS INSIGNEM CLADEM MISERATVS AB ALTO
  TE MEDICI MVNVS JVSSIT OBIRE BONI
LVMEN EVANGELII FVLVIS CIRCVMVOLAT ALIS
  PHARMACON AD FECTIS MENTIBVS ILLVD ERIT
CONSILIOQ TVO CELEBRANT MONVMENTA GALENI
  ET CELERI MORBVS PELLITVR OMNIS OPE
NOS IGITVR SVPPLEX MEDICORVM TVRBA TVORVM
  HANC TIBI SACRAMVS RELIGIONE DOMVM
MVNERIS ET MEMORES QVO NOS HENRICE BEASTI
  IMPERIO OPTAMVS MAXIMA QVE QVE TVO.

The following fragmentary notices of the persons represented in the picture, will be found of some interest.

The first figure to the left is Thomas Alsop; he was the King’s Apothecary, and Henry VIII, by his will, left him 100 marks.

Next to him is Dr. William Butts, one of the King’s physicians, ever famous for his memorable interference with the King on behalf of Archbishop Cranmer in 1544, when the Roman Catholic party in the Council endeavoured to procure Cranmer’s committal to the Tower. A full account of this incident will be found in Strype’s Memorials of Cranmer (Oxford Ed., 1812, pp. 177–181), and Shakespeare in his play of Henry VIII (act v., sc. 2) has also graphically described it. Cranmer’s Secretary, aware of Butts’ great influence with the King, sent for the Doctor, and acquainted him with the slight which had been put upon the Archbishop by keeping him standing in the ante-room of the Council Chamber among lacqueys and servingmen, upon which Butts immediately repaired to the King, and said:—

whereupon Henry replies,—

Henry spoke his mind so freely to the Council, that they one and all shook hands with the Archbishop, and, as Strype says, “Never more durst any man spurn him during King Henry’s life.”

Dr. Butts must have had the best practice of any man of his time; there are several references to him among the State papers at the Record Office, of which the following are a few examples, and indicate that his patients were the aristocracy of the day.

Dr. Butts was a personal friend of Henry’s, who, in 1537, granted him the manor and advowson of Thornage, in Norfolk. He died 17th November, 1545, and lies buried in Fulham Church, where there is (or was) a monument to his memory.

Next to Butts, and immediately to the King’s right, is Dr. John Chambre; he was physician to and a great favorite of Henry’s, holding several clerical preferments as well. He was a Fellow and Warden of Merton College, Oxon, where he was admitted Doctor of Physic, 29th October, 1531. In the list of persons to whom Wolsey, in 1526, assigned lodgings at the King’s house, when they should repair thither, occurs the name of Dr. Chambre. There is also a catalogue of the King’s new year’s gifts, in 1528, by which it appears that the Doctor had a piece of plate weighing 24³⁄₈ ozs., at the same time the Cardinal’s gift was 40¹⁄₄ ozs., and that of the Archbishop 31 ozs.

In Brian Tuke’s letter (23rd June, 1528), before referred to, he tells Wolsey that when he called on the King with his letters, he found him in “secret communication with his physician, Mr. Chambre, in a tower, where he sometimes sups apart.”

Dr. Chambre was Dean of St. Stephen’s Chapel, Westminster, Canon of Windsor, Archdeacon of Bedford, Prebendary of Comb and Harnham in Salisbury Cathedral, Treasurer of Wells Cathedral, and beneficed in Somersetshire and Yorkshire. Truly the lines had fallen unto him in pleasant places!

He was one of the physicians in attendance on Queen Jane, at the birth of Edward VI, and in a letter written by him to the Privy Council, concerning the Queen’s critical state, he signs himself “priest.” He was also in attendance on Anne Boleyn, in her confinement with Elizabeth. His name is mentioned with that of Linacre and three others, in the Charter to the College of Physicians, in 1518.

Sir William Compton, K.G., in 1522, nominated Dr. Chambre one of his executors, in conjunction with the Bishop of Exeter, and Sir Henry Marney, Lord Privy Seal.

Dr. Chambre built a “very curious cloyster,” in St. Stephen’s Chapel, which cost him 11,000 marks, and he gave the canons of that chapel some lands. He died in 1549.

On the King’s left is, first, Thomas Vicary (sometimes Vicars and Vyccary), Master of the Barbers in 1530, and of the Barber-Surgeons in 1541, 1546, 1548 and 1557. He was a man of great eminence in his profession, having been Surgeon to St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, and Serjeant-Surgeon to Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth. He was the author of “The Profitable Treatise of Anatomy” in “The Englishman’s Treasure, with the true Anatomie of Man’s Body.” An account of Vicary will be found in D’Arcy Power, pp. 102, etc., and several particulars relating to his connection with St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, are recorded in a paper by Dr. Norman Moore (Hospital Reports, vol. xviii, pp. 333–358); see also Dr. Furnivall’s exhaustive account (Early English Text Society).

Next comes Sir John Ayleff (Aylif, Aylyff, etc.). He was Master of the Barbers in 1538, and Surgeon to the King, with whom he was doubtless on terms of friendship, as Henry bequeathed him 100 marks. Ayleff treated Henry for fistula and cured him, at Brinkworth in Wilts, for which the King bestowed upon him a great estate there in gratification. He subsequently became a Merchant of Blackwell Hall, Sheriff of London in 1548, and Alderman of Bridge Without in 1550.

17th July, 1550. In the Repertories of the Court of Aldermen is a Record that the Court of the Barber-Surgeons gave their assent to the Translation of Sir John from theirs to the Grocers’ Company, of which Company he was crowned Upper Warden 9th June, 1556.

Sir John Ayleff was buried 20th October, 1556, in the Church of St. Michael Bassishaw, where there was formerly a marble tomb with this inscription thereon—

John Ayleff (son of the Knight) was admitted to the freedom of the Barber-Surgeons, 3rd June, 1552.

Next to Sir John Ayleff, is Nicholas Simpson, concerning whom nothing is known to me, but that he was “King’s Barber,” and Master of the Barbers in 1537.

Edmund Harman, “King’s Barber,” follows next; he was admitted to the freedom in 1530, and served Master in 1540. Henry VIII bequeathed him 200 marks, and he was one of the attesting witnesses to the King’s will. There are several references to him among the State Papers and Household Ordinances. His dignified bearing and expression in the picture are very striking.

James Monforde (or Mumford), “King’s Surgeon,” is next; he was Upper Warden in 1540 and again in 1543, but never served as Master. He gave the Company their silver hammer, still used by the Masters in presiding at Courts.

Then comes John Pen (Penn or Penne), “King’s Barber,” and Groom of the Privy Chamber; he was admitted to the freedom in 1527 and was Master 1539. He married Lucy, daughter and heiress of Edmond Chevall, of Coddicote, Herts, by whom he had a good estate and seven children (vide Harl. Soc. Pub. xxii., 82 & 116).

In Liber Niger Domus Regis (Harl. MS. 642) among the orders made for the regulation of the Household of Henry VIII was one, that none but fifteen persons whose names are specified should be allowed to enter the Privy Chamber, and one of these is John Penne.

The following quaint regulation, concerning the King’s Barber, is to be found in the same MS.—

In this MS. is also to be found an earlier order, of the time of Edward IV touching the King’s Barber, which is curious, as indicating that Saturday night was then (as still it is with many) “tub night” with the King; and we may also infer from the expression “if it please the King to cleanse his head, legs or feet,” that it was not a fixed rule for him to do so every Saturday night.

It is said that the portrait of Pen was greatly admired by Sir Robert Peel, who frequently came to the Hall to look at it, and who is reported to have offered the Company £2,000 for the head, if it might be cut from the picture, he undertaking to make good the damage! He is also alleged to have said at one of his visits, that he should like to sleep on the table at the Hall, so that the first thing he would see on waking in the morning might be Pen’s head. Had Sir Robert known the legend81 of the table he would perhaps have suggested a different bed. Henry VIII left, by his Will, 100 marks to Pen.

Concerning the next man, Nicholas Alcocke, nothing is known beyond that he was Surgeon to Edward VI, and was admitted to the freedom in 1523. He was doubtless a member of the Court, though he never served as Warden.

The last on the front row is Richard Ferris (or Ferrers), Master in 1563 and Serjeant-Surgeon to Elizabeth. Like others of his brethren, he also benefited under Henry’s will, to the extent of 100 marks, and was one of the King’s Surgeons.

In the back row are seven figures, but of these the names of only two survive, viz., William Tylley, Upper Warden 1546, and Christopher Samon (Salmon, Sammond), admitted to the freedom in 1528, and Master in 1553. By Domestic Papers, Henry VIII, vol. 5, p. 690, it appears that one Christopher Samon was living in Lombard Street in 1532: this might be the same man.

29 August, 1668. Dear old Samuel Pepys visited us this day, and thus records his intentions and opinion concerning the picture—

James I seems to have entertained a high opinion of this picture, and borrowed it of us to be copied: his letter applying for it is preserved at the Hall, and is as follows.

The Court of course agreed to lend the picture, though doubtless with some misgivings; contrary however to the practice of the time when money was “lent” to the King, it found its way back to the Hall.

In 1627, Charles I, a more suspicious borrower than his father, had it to Whitehall, but here again we fortunately had it returned.

The Royal College of Surgeons possess some Cartoons, from which, it has been said, this picture was painted; this is, however, very doubtful. Some particulars as to these Cartoons may be seen in Mr. D’Arcy Power’s book, p. 96.

In 1734 the Company agreed with Mr. Bernard Baron for him to engrave the picture for 150 guineas, and several details relating thereto are recorded in the Minutes. It was published in 1736, and is a faithful reproduction, much sought after by collectors. Baron has however copied the picture, exactly as he saw it on to the copperplate, so that when the impressions were struck off, everything was reversed. His original study, a red crayon, beautifully executed, is preserved in the Court Room, and the copperplate is still used, each Assistant on his election being presented with a copy of the engraving. The Company also possess a rather rough proof before letters.

The print is dedicated to the Earl of Burlington, with a Latin inscription, of which the following is a translation.

“To the Most Noble Lord Richard Boyle, Earl of Burlington and Cork, &c., Knight of the Most Illustrious Order of the Garter. For the restoration, with the greatest liberality, at his own costs, of the Anatomical Theatre built a hundred years before, with the greatest skill, by the very celebrated Architect Inigo Jones, and decayed by lapse of time. This painting of Holbein representing the granting of a Charter given with his own hand by Henry VIII, King of England, &c., to the Society of Surgeons in London and preserved in their Hall, is by the Society of Surgeons of London humbly dedicated.”

This inscription, written at a time when the relations between the Barbers and the Surgeons of the Company were becoming strained, was evidently drawn by a Surgeon, who coolly ignored the Barbers throughout.

A very good pen and ink drawing of the picture was made by Austin Travers Young (aged 16) in 1883, and presented by him to the Company, for which he received the thanks of the Court.

1537. In “Chapter House Book” B. 1. (at the Record Office) is a list of the freemen of the several Companies of London at this date, which gives the names of 2,468 freemen in 39 Companies (an average of about 63 to each). The Barbers outstripped in numbers all the others, having a roll of 185 members; next to them came the Skinners with 151, then the Haberdashers with 120, so on down to the Bowyers, who mustered but 19. The premier Company, the Mercers, numbered but 55, whilst the ancient Weavers had only 30 members.

The following is the list of our freemen, the first twenty-six being members of the Court, and Nicholas Symson, Master that year.

The forty-two names following the Court and ending at John Awcetter were Liverymen, the remaining hundred and seventeen being Yeomanry.

1543. A few years previously the King had set the example of wearing his hair and beard short, and now the City seems to have discountenanced long beards, as I find the following in Letter Book Q. 87. (10th July, 35 Henry viij.)

An acte agaynst
bearded men.

Item for dyvˀse & sundrye consyderac͠ons & causes movyng this Cor̃te it is this daye orderyd & decreid & establyshed by the same that from henseforward there shall no Cytezen or other iñhit^aunte93 of this Cytie usyng or havyng a greate berde of more notable pˀlyxitie94 or length then other the seid Cytezens of this Cytie do nowe use or have hertofore of late yeres usyd to were, either be iñhited pˀmytted or suffred to Receyve or take eny orphanage into his handes and custodye albeit that he wolde fynde nevˀ soe good suertyes for the same nor yet be admytted from henseforward to this Co^rte for eny Recognito^ns or suertye for eny suche orphange And yt is also assentyd & agreid that no pˀson havynge eny such berde shalbe admytted by redempc͠on into the lybt̃ies & fredome of this Cytie as longe as he shall were eny such berde.

1544 and 1545. In Repertory XI (at Guildhall) ff. 73^B., 176, 187^B., 229^B., 232 and 234 are various records relating to the vexed question of the Barber-Surgeons going on inquests, bearing armour and serving as constables, from all which offices they claimed exemption under their Charters and Act of Parliament.

By the earlier entry, it seems that the Wardens were warned to appear before the Court of Aldermen to shew cause why they refused to pass upon inquests, etc.; then came a petition from the Company praying to be discharged of all offices save the Inquest of Wardmote once a year; this does not appear to have satisfied the Authorities, and the Company were directed to draw up further Articles to be submitted to the Court of Aldermen. Great pressure was no doubt put upon the Barber-Surgeons, the result being that they abandoned most of the privileges of exemption which they had claimed, and submitted a Bill of Articles, which was finally approved, and entered of record on fo. 234. A copy of this lengthy document is at the Hall, and from it it appears that on the 22nd October, 1545, the Company appeared before the Court of Aldermen as “humble Besechers” to be shorn of their privileges, the ground of their petition being “That forasmoche as some grudge and displeasure is lately sith the unyon and conjunction of their said ffelowshippes in to one entyre Company growen conteyned and taken against them and their said ffelowship, by dyverse of theire neighbours being citezeins of this citie, as they be, by reason that they your said suppliauntꝭ” are discharged by their Charters and Act of Parliament from bearing offices, etc., “that other the Cittzeins of this citie are ellygible and lyable unto, ffor the whiche grudge and displeasure your besechers are not a little sorye. ffor the playne declarac͠on thereof and for the eschewyng advoyding and utter extinguysshement of the said grudge and displeasure from hensforwarde,” they are content that it shall be ordained that they shall go upon all Wardmote Inquests, but not upon any inquests between party and party (i.e., sit as jurymen in civil actions); that all freemen of the Company not practising Surgery shall be contributory to all assessments, serve as Constables and keep watches in their turn as other citizens, but that all Surgeons shall be free from bearing armour, etc.

Notwithstanding this compromise, entered in the City books, it seems in course of time to have been overlooked, and, as has been previously remarked, the exemption of all freemen of the Company from juries, etc., has been claimed and allowed down to quite recent days.

FAC-SIMILE PAGE OF FIRST MINUTE BOOK, 1557.

1550. The first of our Court Minute Books which has been preserved, commences in the 4^th Edward VI, and bears this title,

From this and the succeeding Minute Books, the following extracts are principally taken as illustrative of the Company’s History from this period:

1556. At the end of the first book is a very long memorandum written and signed by Thomas Knot, Master, to the effect that on the 26th March, 1556, he made humble suit to the Lord Mayor, Sir Will^m. Garrett and the Aldermen, in the name of the Company, for the exemption of the Company from finding or setting forth any soldiers or men of war at any time thereafter, when it might be that the Citizens of London should be required to do so, either by sea or land, “fforasmoche as the same Company are alwayes at every such tyme and tymes very sore burdened and chardged otherwise hereafter expressed, that is to saye, They are comaunded and bounden to prepare and fynde so manye Surgeons and so many other men attendinge upon them at every tyme and tymes that it shall fortune the King” to send out soldiers by sea or land, and “the same Company doe alwayes prepare fynde and send furthe for every one houndreth of suche Souldyers one Surgeon and a man attending upon him.” Upon which representations the Lord Mayor and Aldermen were pleased to grant to the Company, that on future occasions when the like requisitions might “fortune to be layed or appointed to or upon theym, that then they in every suche case upon their gentle suyte and request made unto the Lorde Mayor and courte of Aldermen for the tyme beinge for and concernynge their sayd dischardge for and in consyderac͠on of the causes above remembered, shalbe as gentelye and charytably holpen eased and releaved in that behalf as the wayte and ymportaunce of the burden that the Cytie at every suche tyme shalbe chardged w^th all will reasonablye permytt and suffer.”

The memorandum then proceeds to state that the Lord Mayor and Aldermen advised the Master to cause a remembrance of the above (being only a promise by word of mouth) to be entered and recorded in the Book of Ordinances of the Company, which was done.

1555. In Henry Machyn’s Diary for this year, is the following reference to a Romish procession, winding up with a dinner at Barbers’ Hall.

1558. This year (8th June) the Company procured an Inspeximus Charter from Philip and Mary, which is still in our possession, and has a most beautifully executed title, the initial letter representing the King and Queen seated on the throne, and the border containing various heraldic badges; the seal unfortunately is damaged.

It is noticeable in this Charter that the confirmation is to the Governors of the “Barbers,” and not “Barber-Surgeons,” although the latter was then the legal style of the Company, but probably this was another clerical error.

1560. This year (6th January) the Company obtained an Inspeximus Charter from Elizabeth, still preserved at the Hall; it has a title in much the same style as the preceding charter, but the seal is very much damaged.

ELIZABETH, Dei gracia Anglie FFrancie, et hibernie Regina fidei defensor, &c. Omnibus ad quos presentes littere pervenerint salutem.

Inspeximus litteras patentes Dn̄i P. et Dn̄e M. Sororis nr̃e precharissime nuper Regis et Regine Anglie de confirmac͠oe factas in hec verba Philippus et Maria dei gracia, &c. . . . . . . . . Testibus nobis ip̃is apud Westmonasterĩu octavo die Junii Annis regnoꝜ nr̃oꝜ quarto et quinto. Nos autem lrãs predcãs ac omĩa et singula in eisdem contenta rata habentes et grata ea pro nobis heredibus et successoribus nr̃is quantum in nobis est acceptamus et approbamus ac ea Diɫcis nobis Georgio Geñ nunc magistro mistere BarbitonsoꝜ Willm̄ Grene Thome Bayly et Joh̃i Smarthawyte Gubernatoribus ejusdem mistere et Successoribus suis ratificamus et confirmamus prout lrẽ predcẽ in se racionabiliter testantur. In cujus rei testimonium has lrãs nrãs fieri fecimus patentes. Teste me ip̃a apud Westmonasteriũ sexto die Januarii Anno regni nr̃ secundo.

Cotton.
Taxat̃ finis ad x^l. vj^s. viij^d.

In Machyn’s quaint Diary, we find the following entries:—

1567. Elizabeth inaugurated the first State Lottery in England, as a means of providing money, and a very peremptory mandate was directed by the Lord Mayor to the various City Companies, commanding them to adventure therein.

1st February, 1568. The Barber-Surgeons put in 40^s. for the “use, profet and benefyt of the hall,” but did not draw a prize, and indeed none of the Companies reaped any advantage by the speculation, the Lottery being simply a trap into which they were ordered to walk.

The proposal for this Lottery was as follows:—

Stow says that this Lottery was commenced to be drawn on the 11th January, 1569, at the West Door of St. Paul’s, and continued drawing day and night until the 6th May following.

It was a common practice of the Companies to put in their money under mottoes, and some curious ones are recorded, many being composed with a quaint sarcasm on the probability of prizes being obtained.

Herbert (Hist. of the Twelve Livery Companies) gives some interesting particulars of the State Lotteries, and quotes a motto used by the Merchant Taylors which pretty clearly indicates their opinion of the business;

Some of the prizes were ridiculously small, e.g., 1s. 2d., 2s. 1d., etc., and great dissatisfaction was expressed at the principal prizes remaining unpaid to the winners.

1573. The Company received a precept from the Lord Mayor for a “loan” of money to make provision of wheat for the City, and the same was by the Court ordered to be complied with. This “corn custom” is very fully treated of by Herbert, and was virtually a tax upon the companies, who were each rated and compelled to find a certain proportion of corn to be stored by the City, and sold at such times as when, there being a scarcity, the markets would otherwise rise, were it not for the immense stock kept by the City. This custom survived for many years under certain modifications; as we shall see hereafter, our Company built a granary in 1633, and stored their own corn.

The precept above referred to was as follows—

The next entry would seem to indicate some contemplated State interference with the Company’s property, and the answer was probably not in exact accordance with the truth, for on the 28 May, 1576, a precept in the Queen’s name, having been received, calling upon the Master and Wardens to return to class="tal plhir"nt of the revenue of their lands, and of their goods, “the answere was that the true revenewe of the landes was xx^ti markes whereof the most pˀte went forthe and is disbursed in peñcons, and that we had no goods.”

1578. A precept was received as follows,

To the Wardens
of the Companie
of Barbor
Surgins.

By the Maior.

Thyes shalbe to will and require yo^u and in her maiesties name streitlie to charge and comaunde yo^u that w^th all convenient spede yo^u appointe and pˀvide the number of twelve hable and sufficient pˀsons being Iournemen appnˀtices or others wc^h are fremen of this Cittie and inhabitinge w^thin the same beinge of agilitie and honest of behavio^r betweene the age of xix yeres and xl^ti w^ch are fitt to be trayned for harquebus shott, evˀy one of them havinge a murrion, a sworde and dagger, and a caliver w^th sufficient furniture for the same, and one half pounde of powder, besides touche powder whereof Three of the same pˀsons to be house holders and free men of yo^r saide Companie, and that yo^u certyfie me the saide Maior the names and sir names of all yo^r saide number where and w^th whome they dwell, of what Companie they be free, and what Captaynes or other skilfull men that be of yo^r saide Companie or whome yo^u knowe inhabitinge w^thin this Cittie fitt to trayne or leade the same men of there names and dwellinge places. And that they be all in a redines furnished as aforesaide to muster in there hose and dublets onlie, or dublets hose and jerkins w^thin xiiij^en daies next ensuinge the date hereof. And for the levyenge of monie for the saide furniture And for the charge of powder yo^u shall collect suche reasonable somẽs of monie as yo^u shall finde mete for the saide pˀporc͠on, by waie of reasonable assesment of evˀy sevˀall welthie and hable pˀson of yo^r Companie. Wherein we require yo^u in anie wyse to spare the powrer sorte of ffremen although yo^u somewhat more largelie burden the ritche. Yoven at the Guildhall of this Cittie of London the xv^th daie of Marche 1577.115

Sebright.

In pursuance of this precept a levy was made upon ninety freemen, who contributed £19 17s. 11d. (in sums ranging from 1^s to 6^s 8^d) and upon ten “foreins” who paid in all £3. The Expenses of the soldiers, and their arms, powder, etc., are all set out in detail (see Appendix D).

1585. It was agreed “that o^r Companie by reason of the often and earnest preceptes from the Lorde maior to move unto some liberall puttinge in of monie into the Lottery for Armo^r, that o^r Companie should put in x^li yf that might satisfie for all the Companie viz^t the Clothinge vj^li xiij^s iiij^d and the yeomanry v m’kes.”

29th September, 1586. The Lord Mayor had issued sundry precepts to the Company for the “buyeinge of certein goune powder amountinge in waight to       of one Mr. Henry Dale Hab’dassher at the price of x^d le ɫi. and yt was agreed the saide powder should be bought and that Mr. Swaldell [Master, 1593] should go to chuyse it, and he to have the same powder for viij^d the pounde.”

10th March, 1589. It was ordered that the gunpowder directed by another precept to be provided by the Company, should be bought and that it should be kept “in the Armorie howse in convenient place for feare of daunger of ffier.”

29th March, 1596. It was ordered that £40 “ship money” should be “lent” by the Company to the City, which is the earliest mention of this obnoxious tax in our books.

8th August, 1596. “Yt was agreed that the som̃e of £xxx^ti shalbe lent unto the Cytty for the payenge of Souldiers wages and other charges diffrayed about the Spanishe voyage.” This was an Expedition of certain ships (furnished by the City) under the Earl of Essex and Sir Walter Raleigh “to annoye the King of Spaine.” The English then sacked and burned Cadiz, burnt the Spanish navy, and on their return home, says Stow, “great triumph was made at London for their good successe.”

18th August, 1598. At this Court came a precept from the Lord Mayor, commanding the Company in Her Majesty’s name to “lend” £100 to the Queen for six months, for suppressing rebels in Ireland. The demand was, as usual, of a most peremptory nature, and the Court ordered £100 to be paid to the Treasurers appointed by the City.

6th August, 1599. A precept came from the Lord Mayor in the Queen’s name, commanding the Master and Wardens to deliver to the freemen the Company’s armour in “suche order as it maye be, in safetye readie for her Maiesties service,” whereupon the Master took for his own use “one muskett fflaske and tuche boxe one headepeece and one rest.” Eleven other members of the Company had armour delivered out to them, as “one caliver fflaske and tuche boxe, sworde and dager girdle and hangers and headepeece.”

1599. A precept was received on 11th November, commanding the Company to be in attendance on the Queen in her progress from Chelsea to Westminster, which is not only curious for the quaintness of its description of the persons who were to be appointed, but affords a glimpse at the magnificence of Royal processions three hundred years ago.

To the Maister
and Wardens of
the Companye of
Barbor-surgeons.

By the Maior

Where her Ma^ts moste gratiouse pleasure and comaundement is this pˀsente daie signified unto me the lorde Maior from the right ho: the lorde Chamberline of her Ma^ties moste honorable householde that myselfe and my Bretheren thaldermen with a conveniente number of the beste and moste graveste Cittyzens of this Citye shoulde uppon Tewesdaie nexte in the Afternoune wayte and attende uppon her highnes royall pˀson from the Towne of Chelsey unto her highnes princlie pallace at Westminster in as honorable and statelye sorte as conveinentlye maye be pˀformed. In accomplishment of w^ch her highnes said comaundement, These shalbe to chardge and comaunde you in her Ma^ts name to pˀpare not onlye your selves, but alsoe provide and have in a readines the full number of eighte pˀsons of the moste graveste talleste and comliest pˀsonages of your saide Companye, everye of them to be well horsed and appareled in velvet coates and chaynes of goulde And that not onlye your sealves but alsoe everye of the saide eighte pˀsones maye have one footeman with twoe staffe torches to waite and attende upon him, and to be all in a readines well and substancially horsed appareled and appointed as aforesaide in Cheepeside by twoe of the clocke of the saide afternoone to attende uppon me and my bretheren thaldermen to waite upon her moste excellente Ma^tie from Chelsey aforesaide to her highnes saide pallace of Whitehall, Whereof see you faile not at your pˀill and as you will answere the contrarye if throughe your negligence any parte of this service shall not be thoroughelye pˀformed. Guihalde the ix of November 1599.

Sebrighte.

In pursuance of the above precept the Master with seven other Members of the Court were appointed to attend, and eight freemen were nominated as torchbearers.

1600. The fee simple of three houses in Monkwell Street was this year purchased by the Company of William Fyninge for £112!

11th November, 1600. In obedience to a precept it was ordered that twelve members of the Court “well mounted on horseback and apparrelled in all poynts accordingely,” together with twelve freemen “to wayte uppon them w^th evˀy one twoe staffe torches in his hande,” were to meet at the Hall on the following Thursday (13th November) and to ride with the Lord Mayor to Chelsea to conduct the Queen to Westminster. This procession is thus referred to in Stow’s Annals; “On the thirteenth of November 1600, her Maiestie being most honourablie attended on, by the most honourable Prelates, and Nobles, and Judges of the Realme, was received neere unto Chelsey, by the Lord Maior of London, with his brethren the Aldermen all in Scarlet, besides to the number of five hundred citizens, in coates of velvet, and chaines of gold, on horesbacke, every of them having two staffe torches to attende on them: And they all waited on her, to her royall Pallace at Westminster.”

9th November, 1602. Various members of the Company “were appoynted to ryde w^th the M^r to meete her Ma^tie on Saterdaie next” at Chelsea.

9th April, 1603. A precept was received commanding the Company to contribute £12 10s. 0d. towards the cost of the reception of James I by the City, whereupon an assessment was made upon the freemen for the same, and the Masters made “choyce of sixe pˀsonable menn for Wiflers to attend the Livˀye of this Companye when his Ma^tie goeth to be crowned.”

20th April, 1603. The following precept requiring the Company to assist in the reception of the King “in greater number and more statelie and sumtiows shewe then hath bene at any time heretofore within the memory of man in the like case pˀformed,” will be read with interest;

To the M^rs and Wardens
of the Company of
Barbor Surgeons

By the Maior

Where the most high and mightie Prince James o^r most dread & soveraygne Lord is by the grace of god shortlie to make his repaire from his Kingedom of Scotland into this his Realme of England and so consequentlye to this his honorˀble Cittie and chaymber of this his imperyall Crowne. And for that it is agreed by mee and my Breethrⁿ the Aldrẽn of the same Cittie that not onelie o^r selves but the full number of five hundred of the best and gravest Cittizens should accordinge to o^r dueties wayte and attend uppon his royall pˀson at his approch nere to this Cittie in greater number and more statelie and sumtiows shewe then hath bene at any time heretofore within the memory of man in the like case pˀformed, Towards the accomplishm^t of w^ch number your company is appoynted to pˀvid the full number of Twelve pˀsonns, These therefore shalbe to chardge and commaund you in his Ma^ties name to prepare not onely yourselves but also to p’vid the full number of Twelve persons of the most grave and Comlyest pˀsonages of youre said Companye, everie one of them to be well horsed and apparrelled w^th velvet Coates and w^th sleaves of the same and chaynes of golde, and not onely yourselves but every of the saide pˀsons to have one comely pˀson well apparrelled in his dublet and hose to attend uppon him one116 foote. All which pˀsons to be in redines well and substonciallie horsed apparrelled and appoynted as aforesaid w^thin one daies warneing to be signified unto you to attend on mee and my Bretheren the Aldrẽn of the same Cittie, to attend and wayte uppon his most exelent Ma^tie as aforesaid. And that uppon Saturdaie morneinge next you doe certifye to mee in wrytinge the names and S^rnames as well of youre selves as of all other pˀsons free of youre company that you shall appointe for this service. Of all w^ch pˀsons you are to have a regard that noe man for insufficiency in any respect be turned back to the disgrace and discredit of youre company, nor a mann unfitt furnished and appointed for so honorable a service. And hereof fayle you not, as you will answer the contrary if through youre defalt any parte of this service shal not be fullie pˀformed.

Guyldhull this Twenteth of Aprill 1603

Sebright.

9th August, 1603. James soon attempted to borrow (as he termed it) of the Companies. “Where a pˀcept was directed to õr M^rs. for the lone of money to the Kinge, wee are to answer that wee have none.”

Perhaps this reply sufficed on this occasion.

22nd October, 1603. London was this year visited with a great Plague, and in consequence there was no Lord Mayor’s Show.

To the Wardes̃ of
the Compãie of
Barbor Surgeons

By the Maior.

Theise are to will and require you that you take speciall knowledge herby that for avoydinge of infecc̃on by assemblie of people this tyme of gods vizitac̃on It is thought meate therbe noe shewe made the morrowe after Simond and Judes daie next, it is intended that youre Companie be dischardged thereof for their Attendac̃e for that tyme.

Sebright.

This xxij^th of October 1603.

7th February, 1604. The Court having considered the many abuses “comited against the weale of this Company” decided to apply for an Act of Parliament which should confer upon them extended powers, and appointed a Committee for the purpose, with the Recorder and Mr. Wilbraham as counsel.

20th October, 1604. From an entry of this date, it seems that it had been decided to apply for a fresh Charter, instead of an Act of Parliament, and a summary of the clauses (twenty-seven in number) which it was desired to have embodied therein is set out in full. As the Charter was obtained, it is unnecessary to give these suggested clauses here (they may be seen in Mr. D’Arcy Power’s book, p. 361). The 16th one is, however, curious enough, declaring the “openinge searinge and imbalmeinge of the dead corpes to be pˀply belongeinge to the science of Barbery and Surgery, And the same intruded into by Butchers Taylors Smythes Chaundlors and others of macanicall trades unskillfull in Barbery or Surgery, And unseemely and unchristian lyke defaceinge disfiguringe and dismembringe the dead Corpes, And so that by theire unskillfull searinge and imbalmeinge, the corpes corrupteth and groweth pˀntlie contagious and ofensive to the place and pˀsons approachinge.”

30th January, 1605. The Charter of James I is of this date, but not now in our possession; there are, however, two copies of it at the Hall, one of which was made in a vellum book in 1658. It was in Latin of prodigious length; but the following are the clauses as I make them out, and will suffice for this work.

1. It grants to the Company of Barber-Surgeons that it shall be ruled by four Masters or Governors and twenty-six Assistants.

2. Power given to the Masters to make lawful assemblies, to keep Courts in their Common Hall, and therein to consult, counsel and decree touching their Statutes, Laws and Ordinances, for the good rule, state and government of the Company.

3. Power to make laws, etc., for the government of the Masters or Governors, and of all and singular persons using the mysteries of Barbery or Surgery within the City of London, the liberties and suburbs thereof.

4. Power to punish offenders by penalties, fines, and imprisonments.

5. Fines to be levied by distress by the officers of the Company.

6. Nomination of John Laycock as Master, and of the three Wardens.

7. The present Masters to continue in office until the Monday next before the feast of St. Bartholomew the Apostle, and until the election of new Masters.

8. The present Masters and Assistants to continue on the Court for life, unless removed for misbehaviour or other good cause.

9. Upon the death or dismissal of an Assistant, the vacancy to be filled up by the Court.

10. Assistants to be sworn on admission.

11. The Masters, or the more part of them, to choose twelve persons of the mystery (six whereof to be expert Surgeons), which twelve were to be the Electors to choose the new Masters or Governors on the Monday next before the feast of St. Bartholomew.

12. Of the four Masters, two to be Surgeons.

13. The Masters elected to be sworn to the due execution of their offices.

14. Any member elected a Governor, to be ever after an Assistant.

15. If a Governor be dismissed for misconduct, another to be chosen in his place in the form provided.

16. The twelve Electors to be sworn.

17. Power of search, oversight, reformation, government, and correction, as well of free as of foreign professors of Barbery and Surgery in London and its suburbs.

18. Power of entry into Shops of Barbers and Surgeons.

19. Power to oversee and approve or condemn plasters, ointments, instruments, etc.

20. Power to examine Barbers and Surgeons.

21. Power to prohibit ignorant persons, or such as shall wilfully refuse to be examined, from practising.

22. Power to admit skilful persons to practise Surgery.

23. Power to reject and destroy all noxious or improper medicines, ointments, instruments, etc.

24. The Masters finding on their search any impostors, ignorant persons, or refusers to be examined, the same to be bound to their good behaviour.

25. No butcher, tailor, waxchandler or other persons, to cut, dissect or embalm any dead body, but the same to be done by members of the Company approved and appointed by the Masters or Governors of the Barber-Surgeons.

26. The Masters or Governors and admitted Surgeons, to be discharged from Watch, Ward, Inquests or Juries, and the office of Constable, and from assessments for the same.

27. Power to purchase lands, etc.

28. Ratification of the old liberties and franchises of the Barber-Surgeons, and of their lands.

29. All Mayors, Bailiffs, etc., to be aiding and assisting the Masters or Governors in the execution of their offices.

Christian IV, King of Denmark, brother-in-law of James, paid a visit to England in 1606, and was sumptuously entertained. In accordance with the custom of the time, there was a grand pageant and procession in the City, in which all the Companies took part, and the following precept for the same was received by us;—

By the Maior.

To the M^r & Wardens of the
Company of Barbor Surgeons

Ffor the bewtefieinge of the streetꝭ and lanes w^thin this Cittie against the passage of the Kingꝭ most excellent mat^ie and the Kinge of Denmarke their nobilitie and trayne from the Tower through this Cittie. Theis are in his Ma^tꝭ name straightlie to charge and command you that all delayes & excuses sett aparte you have and provide yo^r rayles in a readines for the livery of yo^r company to stand in and to be sett up in the streetꝭ against wednesday the xxx^th day of July at the furthest. And likewise that yo^r railes against that tyme be hanged with blew azure cloth & garnished w^th Banners & streamers in the most bewtifull manner that may be, as formerlie in like solempnities hath bin accustomed. And that you likewise have and provide sixe whifflers at the least to evˀy score of yo^r livery well apparrelled w^th white staves in their handes to stand with their backꝭ to the Common railes over against your yo^r Companies railes for the better and quieter ordering of the streetꝭ through which his ma^tie shall passe. And hereof faile you not at yo^r pˀill. This xxj^th of July 1606.

Sebrighte.

Three days after the receipt of the above, came another precept demanding £5 from the Barber-Surgeons towards the City’s expenses to be incurred about the Pageant.

The two Kings landed at the Tower, from Greenwich, on the 31st July, on which day the City gave itself up to the gayest doings and rejoicings. A curious and interesting description of the pageant is to be found in a rare tract by H. R., 1606, preserved at Guildhall Library. Howes also gives an entertaining account of the proceedings, and relates how the King of Denmark “seriously observed the unimaginable number of gallant Ladies, beauteous virgins, and other delicate Dames filling the Windowes of every houss with kinde aspect saluting” him as he passed by. He also tells us of the melodious harmony, the Latin speech, the pastoral device, and the fountains which ran with wine, etc.

It seems that on this great occasion one of the Marshalls had endeavoured to take our Company “down a peg” in order of precedence. This was, however, successfully resisted, and the Clerk proudly records the following in the Minutes on the same day:

1606. Notwithstanding the new charter granted in the previous year, the Court found itself unable to regulate the practice of Barbery and Surgery without an extended set of By-Laws, which were now obtained and are still preserved at the Hall. They are in English, on eight large skins of parchment, beautifully engrossed with a handsomely illuminated title, the initial containing the Barber-Surgeons’ arms, and distributed over the heading are the arms of the Master and Wardens in 1606, viz.: John Peck, Edward Rodes, William Fynynge and John Fenton.

The By-Laws are allowed by Thomas Lord Ellesmere, Lord Chancellor; Thomas Earl of Dorset, Lord Treasurer; and Sir John Popham, Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas; who send “greeting in our Lord God Everlasting,” and enact Ordinances of such fearful length, that to a layman it passes comprehension how the draughtsman could have kept his head clear whilst he travelled through such a sea of prolixity, and, to a great extent useless, repetition. If the Chancellor and his colleagues troubled themselves to read through and understand the document to which they have appended their seals, they must have uttered very sensible sounds of relief when they came to the sealing; the recapitulation of the mere heads of this extraordinary production, will probably be found wearisome to the reader, viz^t:

    1. Recital of an Act of Parliament, 24th Feby., 19 Henry VII.
    2. Oath of a freeman.
    3. Oath of the Masters or Governors.
    4. Oath of an Assistant of the Livery.
    5. Oath of the Electors.
    6. Oath of the Clerk.
    7. Oath of a “foreign” Surgeon.
    8. Oath of the Wardens of the Yeomanry.
    9. Oath of an Assistant of the Yeomanry.
   10. Oath of the Beadle.
   11. Oath of the Porter.

   12. Every person shall appear upon summons under a penalty of 3^s. 4^d., and for not keeping the hour, a fine of 2^d. to be imposed.
   13. Masters neglecting the day of Election, the distribution of Ferbras’ alms, or the payment of rents, to forfeit £5.
   14. No great Election dinner to be kept without the consent of a Court of Assistants, under a penalty of £5.
   15. The allowance for a great dinner to be 20 marks, and for a small one £4.
   16. Manner of Election of Masters or Governors.
   17. Time of Election.
   18. Twelve Electors to be chosen.
   19. Electors to be sworn.
   20. The Masters omitting any next in Election out of their Bills, the Electors to choose others.
   21. The order after Election.
   22. A refuser of the office of Master or Governor to be fined 40^s. and to be eligible to be chosen again.
   23. Or may be absolutely discharged of such office on payment of £10.
   24. And on refusal to pay such fines, to be dismissed out of the Court of Assistants and out of the Livery.
   25. If the Electors choose such refuser to further place, before he have paid his fine, each Elector to forfeit 40^s.
   26. Every person chosen into the Livery to pay £5 if he have not served as Warden of the Yeomanry, and if otherwise then 40^s.
   27. Election of two Stewards of the Mayor’s feast, and two Stewards of the Anatomy; £8 to be allowed to the former and £6 to the latter.
   28. Refusers of the Office of Steward to forfeit £13 6s. 8d. each.
   29. The Common Seal to be kept under lock and key.
   30. Time of the audit and appointment of eight auditors.
   31. Day for reading “General Rules.”
   32. View of the Company’s lands to be made yearly in October.
   33. Allowance for the view dinner.
   34. “Search” to be made twice in the year.
   35. Apprentices to be presented within one month after they are retained in service, under a penalty of 40s.
   36. Indentures to be prepared by the Clerk before presentation.
   37. The Clerk to make all indentures.
   38. Every liveryman may keep three apprentices.
   39. No decrepit, diseased or deformed apprentice to be retained by any Barber or Surgeon.
   40. No person to teach any but his apprentice.
   41. No person to put away his apprentice, without an order of Court.
   42. No person to entice away another’s apprentice or servant.
   43. Every person to enroll his apprentice.
   44. The Court to punish disobedient apprentices after its discretion.
   45. No freeman to “open shop” before he hath served one year as journeyman.
   46. No Barber to use more than one shop.
   47. No Surgeon to serve by sea or land before he and “his furniture” be examined and viewed.
   48. Reformation of abuses in disobedient masters and servants.
   49. No person to serve as a journeyman unless free of the Company.
   50. No person to use surgery before he be examined and admitted.
   51. No person to examine but the Examiners.
   52. No Examiner to be chosen but by the Court.
   53. Every Surgeon to be at every lecture on Surgery.
   54. No Surgeon to defraud another of his patient.
   55. No Person to shew his porringers, saucers or basons with blood therein.
   56. Every patient in danger of death or maim to be presented to the Masters.
   57. No person to take such presentation but a Master or Governor.
   58. Ordinance against unskilful practice in Surgery.
   59. No Anatomy to be dissected out of the Common Hall.
   60. Anatomies to be decently buried.
   61. Warrant to create a Yeomanry.
   62. No “Courts of Assistants” to be held on Tuesdays.
   63. No Court of Assistants to be under the number of sixteen persons.
   64. Order of precedence in speaking.
   65. Every Member to go and sit in his due place.
   66. Ordinance against contentious and troublesome persons.
   67. Ordinance against revealers of Court secrets.
   68. No alien or stranger to bear the office of Master or Governor.
   69. Ordinance against unseemly behaviour towards the Masters or Governors.
   70. Ordinance against blotting or defaceing of books, pictures or monuments.
   71. Ordinance against any of the Livery refusing to attend in his Livery gown.
   72. Pensions for decayed members.
   73. Warrant to search for hurt persons and malefactors.
   74. As to quarterage.
   75. Third Warden’s duties as to receipts.
   76. And as to payments.
   77. Duties of Fourth or Renter Warden.
   78. Renter Warden to furnish accounts.
   79. As to the Audit.
   80. Ordinance against Sunday trading by Barbers.
   81. As to fines and penalties.
   82. Power to the Beadle to distrain (under a Warrant signed by the Masters) for all fines; also power to dismiss disobedient persons, and to inflict corporal punishment.

Penalties of varying amounts are specified for breaches of any of the foregoing Ordinances.

The By-Laws are signed “Ellesmere, Canc̃,” “T. Dorset” and “Jo: Popham,” and the three seals of their arms are pendant.

This Court Room was built within the circular Bulwark at the west end of the old Livery Hall, from which it was shut off by a screen wall or partition; many years later this screen was removed, and the whole thrown into one large apartment, and used as the Livery Hall.

1608. The Colony of Virginia (so named from the Virgin Queen Elizabeth, in whose reign it was discovered) was in an unsatisfactory condition by reason of its scanty population, want of enterprise and other causes; whereupon the Council of Virginia endeavouring the prosperity of the Colony, sent a letter to the Lord Mayor propounding a scheme of emigration and colonisation to be undertaken by the City, which should ease the Metropolis “of a swarme of unnecessarie inmates,” make the fortunes of the emigrants (and of the “undertakers”) and benefit the Colony. This letter is so interesting that no apology is necessary for reproducing it here.

The City took up the scheme heartily, a large sum was subscribed and a great number of emigrants crossed the water. The Barber-Surgeons invested £25, but never received anything for it again.

6th January, 1609. In obedience to a precept from the Lord Mayor, £10 was paid to the Chamberlain, towards the construction of a Garner for the use of the City.

25th May, 1610. A precept came from the Lord Mayor calling upon the Company “to be readie in yo^r bardge well and richlie sett forthe before vii of the clocke in the morning” on the 31st January, to go to Chelsea to meet the eldest son of James I, on which occasion he was to go from Richmond to Whitehall to be created Prince of Wales; whereupon the following minute is recorded:—

1611. In this year came a precept from the Lord Mayor, by authority of the King, complaining of “the abuse growing by excesse and straunge fashions of apparell, used by manye apprentises, and by the inordynate pryde of mayde servaunts and women servaunts in their excesse of apparell and follye in varietie of newe fashions, and to admonish them to have a due and speciall care to see a spedye reformac͠on had in everye one of their servaunts.” What effect this had upon the apprentices and servants of the Barber-Surgeons we are not told, but doubtless they were properly admonished.

1st July, 1614. A precept was received to the effect that the King had determined to borrow £100,000 of the City, and that the Barber-Surgeons were assessed at £600 towards this loan, which they were to lend, or which they were coolly informed they could compound for, by an absolute fine of £30! As the Court well knew that they would never again see a halfpenny of the £600 if lent, they quickly and wisely determined to pay the £30.

Profiting by past experience, the next extracts show that the Court proceeded warily in the matter of “adventuring” in the State Lottery.

17th October, 1614. The Court having collected a sum of money for the Lottery, it was ordered that it should not be paid to the Treasurer, Sir Thos. Smith, until the Company shall be “assured” by a Bill of Adventure under seal “for their adventure unto virgynia, as also that it shalbe published in print certeynelie when the lotterey shalbe drawen.”

The College of Physicians had been for many years very jealous as to the Barber-Surgeons trespassing on their preserves, and as far back as 12th November, 1595, wrote a long letter to their “verie loving freends” the Master and Wardens, cautioning the members of the Company against practising physic, and stating that no few of them were culpable in the matter, but that the College had hitherto forborne to molest or punish them; the letter continues, “but for that we now see by daily experience that upon our lenetie and sufferance this inconvenience more and more increaseth, insomuch that both in credit and otherwise, it seemeth to touch us more neere than well can be indured; We have therefore thought it good to put you in mynd thereof, and therewithal earnestly and freendlie to request you, that among yourselves some such discreet order may be taken heerin, that the like offence hereafter maie not be committed by them or any of theirs. Wherein if we shall perceave you as ready to fulfil our honest request, as we are willing to maintain good amytie and concord with you and your Companie, we wilbe very glad thereof and geve you thanks therefore. If not, then as we are fully minded to defend our privileges and to deal with the particular offendors therein, as order of law and our ordinances in that behalf requireth; so we trust the body of your Societie will not be offended therewith. And so we bid you most hartelie farewell.”

The above letter is taken from Dr. Goodall’s History of the College of Physicians. Dr. Goodall gives several instances of Barber-Surgeons and Apothecaries being fined or imprisoned for practising physic; and, indeed, there seems to have been a strife waging between the College and the Company for a long period.

1617. The Physicians in 15 James I obtained a Charter confirming their Charter of 10 Henry viij, with several additional privileges and clauses in restraint of the privileges of the Barber-Surgeons, who thereupon petitioned the King that that Charter might not be confirmed by Act of Parliament, as the Physicians were desirous that it should be. The King on 4th February, 1620, ordered that the petitioners should be left to seek any lawful remedy either in Parliament or otherwise, as they might be advised, and accordingly on 23rd April, 1624, they presented a petition to the House of Commons, who ordered that the Physicians’ Patent should be brought into the Committee of Grievances, and both parties heard by Counsel, the consequence of which was that the Physicians proceeded no further with their Bill.

1632. Later on the Physicians endeavoured again to obtain a supremacy over the Barber-Surgeons, and on 13th June, 1632, procured an Order in Council which made it incumbent upon Surgeons in certain serious and specified cases of Surgery, to call in a “learned Physitian,” and to enforce this order they procured the Attorney General to exhibit a Bill in the Star Chamber in which the obnoxious clause was inserted, but on a Petition of the Barber-Surgeons complaining of the injury that would thereby accrue not only to themselves, but to the public, the King, by an Order of Court dated 22nd July, 1635, directed the clause to be struck out.

After the Restoration, the Physicians again endeavoured to procure an Act of Parliament confirming their Charter, whereupon the Barber-Surgeons claimed to have a clause inserted in the Act in the nature of a proviso that nothing therein contained should be construed to the prejudice of their privileges, and again the Physicians seem to have been checkmated, for they allowed their proposed Act to fall through.

Kings’ Barbers and Kings’ Surgeons seem to have secured substantial benefits from their official positions, as the following notices (from Domestic State Papers at the Record Office) testify.

25th August, 1625. There is a letter of this date from Sir James Fullerton to Secretary Conway, intimating that it is His Majesty’s pleasure to grant to Michael Andrews (Master 1635 and King’s Surgeon) a pension of £150 per annum for life.

17th December, 1625. And at this date is a grant to Thomas Caldwell (Master 1627 and King’s Barber).

In addition to stray grants like the above, the perquisites and fees attaching to the Office of King’s Barber were very lucrative, and Mr. Caldwell must have done exceedingly well out of the following stroke of business.

January, 1626. Whereas his Ma^tie hath bene pleased to appoint Mr. Thomas Caldwell his Ma^ts servant and Barber to make provisions of all such necessaries as are to be used at the Ceremony of Bathing the Kn^ts of the Bath at this his Ma^ties Coronac͠on to be holden on the 2^d day of February next at Westm^r as to his place by auntient custome belongeth I do therefore will and require all such whome it may concearne to take notice thereof hereby for permitting him to doe and performe all such services as hath bene accustomed in that behalfe & for delivering such necessaries in kynd or allowance of money to the valeu thereof as shalbe by him required for the same according to the auntient custome heretofore used therein. The number of the said Kn^ts for whome such provisions are to be made being 80, by his Ma^tie appointed to receave that degree.

Arundell & Surrey.

Examined by W^m Ryley
Lancaster Herald

Mr. Caldwell does not appear to have left his widow well provided for, as we read under date 10th July, 1643:

1624 and 1625. In the minutes of this period are constant notices of the “visitation,” and of “the contagious tyme.” The Plague raged with great severity in London in 1625, and it is said that over 40,000 died of it in the year. The Company appear to have been very liberal in their gifts of money to any who had the least claim upon them, the relief being frequently stated to have been given by “reason of the hardnes of the tymes.”

1628. This year the Company were compelled to “lend” the King £360, which they with great difficulty raised, the greater part being borrowed at interest to enable them to do so. They also paid £30 towards a “present” (?) of £5,000 given by the City to the Palsgrave (Frederick, Prince Elector Palatine, son-in-law of James I).

15th August, 1629. On this day was sealed the Company’s new Charter from Charles I. It is in Latin on five large skins of parchment with the Great Seal of England pendant. There is a portrait of the King with a stiletto beard in the initial letter, and an ornamental heading along the top of the first skin. This Charter ratifies that of James I, directs that public lectures on Surgery shall be given, and confirms and somewhat varies the old regulations for the governance of the practitioners of that science.

22nd October, 1629. The Company evidently began now to kick at the numerous demands made upon its purse by the authorities, for a precept coming from the Lord Mayor demanding £12 10s. contribution towards a pageant, it was ordered that it be not paid until the Court was satisfied that it could be legally demanded, and enquiry made as to whether or no other Companies had paid similar contributions.

1632. The fabric of old St. Paul’s being in a lamentable state of decay, the celebrated Archbishop Laud wrote a letter to the Barber-Surgeons asking a contribution towards its repair. Ever ready to assist in good works, the Company cheerfully devoted a very considerable sum towards that object, notwithstanding the comparative poverty to which they had been reduced (in consequence of the grievous impositions made upon them by the authorities in the shape of forced loans and other unconstitutional demands). Moreover, they recorded their benefaction, in a delightfully expressed minute, which will be found at the end of the following letter.

1633. This year the Company built a granary at the Hall, for the store of Corn.

12th July, 1633. A new set of By-Laws was framed and allowed by the proper authorities. These are extant on twelve great skins of parchment, more wordy and of greater length than those of 4th James I! They are, however, very similar to those, with technical alterations and amendments here and there, and provision is made for Lectures on Surgery, demonstrations of anatomy, and for the better Examination of Surgeons. Clause 19 provides that any freemen of the mystery who shall use any arts, trades or sciences other than Surgery “shall be accepted, reputed, adjudged and taken for Barbars.” Empirics and impostors were to be rigorously dealt with, and the Court was to have supervision over all Navy Surgeons, their chests, medicines and instruments. No Barbers or Surgeons were to be impressed for the Navy without license of the Court, and numerous regulations were made for the government of the Company.

The document is signed by Richard Earl of Portland, Lord Treasurer; Sir Thomas Richardson and Sir Robert Heath, the Lords Chief Justices; the seals of the first two are still pendant, but that of Sir Robert Heath is missing.

1636. Spurred into further action for the advancement of the science of Surgery, which their extended powers under the new By-Laws had conferred upon them, the Company determined upon building a Theatre for the delivery of Lectures, and for anatomical purposes, etc. This they set about in 1636, employing the great Inigo Jones as their Architect, who about this period also designed and carried out the present beautiful Court Room or Parlour, one of the best proportioned and prettiest rooms in London.

INTERIOR OF COURT ROOM.

The piece of ground on which it was proposed to erect the Theatre was then on lease to the Company from the City. The Lease was dated 29th March, 7 Charles I (1631), and made between the Mayor, &c., of London, of the one part and the Masters, &c., of the Barber-Surgeons, of the other part. In consideration of £20 paid by the Company the City leased to them lwark and the houses Roomes and buildings therein or thereupon made or erected, And all that ground or garden plott with thappurtenñces scituat lyinge and beinge in the parish of St Olave in Silver Street in the Citie of London next unto the Wall of the same Citie there of the one side, and the landes of the saide Maisters or Governors and others on the other side late in the tenure or Pg157 Pg158 Pg159 occupac͠on of the right honoro^ble Henry late Lord Wyndsor deceased or of his assignes and now in the tenure or occupac͠on of the said Maisters,” etc., from the feast of the Annunciation, 1631, for forty-one years at a rent of £3. The lease contained the usual covenants of a repairing lease, as also one “that neither they the saide Masters or Governors their successors nor assigns shall or will att any time or times during the said Terme suffer any Inmate or Inmates to dwell in any part of the premises afore demised.”

5th May, 1636. There is an Indenture of Lease of this date made between the Mayor, &c., of London, and the Masters, &c., of the Barber-Surgeons, which after reciting the last mentioned lease proceeds: “And whereas the said Maisters or Governors of the Misterie and Comonaltie of Barbars and Surgians of London for the better enhableing of them in the Arte of Surgerie Doe intend to erect and build a decent Roome or Theatre on part of the premisses for the keeping therein A learned and constant Lecture in the Theorie and practiqʒ partꝭ of Surgerie As also to pˀforme their publique operac͠ons of Anatomies and other exercises thereunto belonging, Which will be verie chargeable to them Wherein the said Maior and Cominaltie and Citizens are desirous and willinge to aide and further the saide Maisters or Governors in the setting forward of soe necessarie and comendable a worke tendinge to the generall good of the whole kingdome,” wherefore the Mayor, &c., leased the said premises to the Company for a further term of 200 years upon the expiry of the lease then running, at the same rent of £3 per annum, the Lessees covenanting to build the Theatre within seven years.

A plan of the Theatre is preserved in a collection of the works of Inigo Jones, at Worcester College, Oxford, and a short description of it is found in Hatton’s New View of London, 1708. The curiosities in the Barber-Surgeons’ museum of those days will excite a smile when compared with the collection now at Lincoln’s Inn Fields. Hatton says that the Theatre was built in “an elliptical form, and commodiously fitted up with four degrees of seats of cedar wood, and adorned with the figures of the seven liberal sciences, and the twelve signs of the zodiac. Also containing the skeleton of an ostrich, put up by Dr. Hobbs, 1682, with a busto of King Charles I. Two humane skins on the wood frames, of a man and a woman, in imitation of Adam and Eve, put up in 1645; a mummy skull, given by Mr. Loveday, 1655. The sceleton of Atherton with copper joints (he was executed) given by Mr. Knowles in 1693. The figure of a man flead, where all the muscles appear in due place and proportion, done after the life. The sceletons of Cambery Bess and Country Tom (as they then call them), 1638; and three other sceletons of humane bodies.”

Hogarth has, in ghastly style depicted the dissection of a criminal in this Theatre, in which the skeletons above referred to are seen in niches in the wall.

ESTATE IN MONKWELL STREET

The plan of the Company’s Estate, has been kindly supplied for this work by Mr. Charles John Shoppee, as surveyed by him in 1869, previous to the demolition of the old Livery Hall, Kitchen, etc. The Theatre had been pulled down in 1784, and houses erected on its site; the Theatre is, however, shewn upon this plan, as being more interesting than the houses which supplanted it. In 1636 the Company commenced the erection of the Livery Hall and present Court Room, the work being carried out from the designs and under the superintendence of the celebrated Inigo Jones, the Livery Hall was, however, burnt in 1666, and that shown upon the plan is the one which was erected after the Great Fire.

5th September, 1636. The Plague was again abroad in London, and the Court, for fear of infection by meeting together, resolved as follows:

23rd September, 1636. The Lord Mayor having requested the Company to nominate “twoe Surgians to take care of those that were infected with the plague in this Cittie & liberties,” the Court thought that two was a wholly insufficient number and nominated six Surgeons to be presented to the Court of Aldermen.

2nd October, 1636. £5 was ordered to be paid in to the Chamber of London towards the relief of the poor, stricken with the Plague.

30th March, 1637. The Company were assessed to pay £10 “ship money,” whereupon an order was made that they should forbear to pay it, and a Committee appointed to wait on the Court of Aldermen to petition against the assessment. The application was, however, unsuccessful, as by an Order of Court, 29th March, 1638, the money was directed to be paid.

8th November, 1638. The Court of Aldermen having assessed the Company to furnish 80 quarters of corn in lieu of 60 as heretofore provided, it was resolved to petition against it. This would be a very important matter to the Company as the assessments for all public purposes were made upon the City Companies pro rata with their corn quarterages, and if the 80 quarters were allowed to stand, it would raise all the future assessments 33 per cent. The result however, of the protest does not appear in the minutes.

28th October, 1640. On receipt of a precept from the Lord Mayor, it was ordered that three barrels of Gunpowder should be bought and stored.

1640. The Company unwillingly agreed to lend the King £400, and were put to great inconvenience in raising the money, which was required by Charles for his campaign in Scotland.

After several skirmishes with the Scots, the English Army was at length disbanded, and the King went himself to Scotland to negotiate the difference which had arisen by his attempted interference in Church matters in that Kingdom; he returned to London in November, 1641, and the following minute refers to the preparations made by our Company to meet him.

(Then follows a list of the freemen chosen.)

The “Riding out” on this occasion must have been a magnificent sight, if all of the Companies spent proportionately to the outlay of ours, which was no less than £39 17s. 10d. upon decorations, etc., for those taking part in the procession. Strype informs us that—

1643. The relations between the King and the City having become estranged in the fearful distractions of these times, Charles endeavoured to conciliate the citizens with a message, which was publicly read at Guildhall on the 13th January, and later on he sent a circular letter to the Masters of the several Companies requiring them to call their freemen and apprentices together, to read to them a copy of a letter which he had sent to the City on the 17th January. The Court of the Barber-Surgeons met on Tuesday, 24th inst., and cautiously record that they would have summoned their freemen for the next day, but that it was a fast day and that in the interim an order had come from the Committee of Safety that the letter, etc., should not be read.

1644. The Company seem to have become greatly impoverished by the venture in Ireland, the rebuilding of their premises, and the forced loans to the King and the Parliament. In a certificate given by the Master and Wardens (5th September, 1644) to be produced in a suit in which they were defendants, they state that their debts are £3,000, and that they can get no return of any of the money lent for public purposes, or even the interest of it.

If the Stuarts acted in an unconstitutional manner in their oppressive demands upon the Companies, the Roundheads were as bad, with just this difference, that, with all their pretensions to purity, piety and high-mindedness, they did not hesitate to practise actual dishonesty in their modus operandi of squeezing the Companies, as the following painful incident from our books testifies:—The Company had borrowed from Mr. Richard Wateson, one of the Assistants, £1,200 upon sealed bonds, for the express purpose of meeting the demands which had been made upon them by the King and Parliament from time to time. Mr. Wateson having been declared a “Papist and Delinquent,” his property was seized, and the Bonds of the Barber-Surgeons, found in his strong chest, were taken to the Committee for Gloucester and Hereford, sitting at Grocers’ Hall. These worthies, in conjunction with the Committee for Sequestrations, came down upon the Company and demanded payment of the £1,200 for which they had given their bonds to their brother, Mr. Wateson. The Court deeming this a monstrous piece of injustice, hesitated to comply, whereupon the Committees threatened to seize the Company’s entire estate; and then the Court resolved to petition Parliament, but the House not sitting for some time the petition could not be prosecuted, and the Committee being urgent, the Company most reluctantly agreed to pay down £400 and to have the bonds cancelled. Although these shameful terms were definitely agreed upon, the Committees a few days later broke faith, demanding £400 cash and the Company’s bond for another £100, to which the Company, like the lamb with the wolf at its throat, nolens volens, consented. The iniquity of this business was made apparent to the Committees, who were well aware that the Company had incurred the debt to Mr. Wateson in order to meet the previous rapacity of themselves, and yet they hesitated not to compel the Company to submit to a further fine of £500 for having complied with their demands in the past, besides manifesting the dishonesty proposed by them in offering to cancel the debt due by the Company to Mr. Wateson.

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.

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:—

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

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 10s., 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 2s. 6d., 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,

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.

OLD ENTRANCE TO BARBER-SURGEONS’ HALL.

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:—

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.

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.

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:

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
the Company of Barber Surgeons.

By the Mayor.

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.

17th April, 1718. The following record was ordered to be made of the “reasons” for disposing of this property:

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.

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.

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,

Whereupon it was ordered—

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—

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—

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.

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.		Assistants.		Mr. Samuel Rutter.
Mr. John Barnwell.				Mr. Robert Scrooby.
Mr. John Truelove.				Mr. Richard Swithin.
Mr. William Haddon.				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.

8th August, 1751. Mr. John Brooks attended and produced a Deed to which he requested the subscription of the Court; this deed recited that by an Act of Parliament passed in the 10th year of Queen Anne, it was enacted that a duty of 2d. per lb. should be laid upon all starch imported, and of 1d. per lb. upon all starch made in Great Britain, that no perfumer, barber, or seller of hair-powder should mix any powder of alabaster, plaster of Paris, whiting, lime, etc. (sweet scents excepted), with any starch to be made use of for making hair-powder, under pain of forfeiting the hair-powder and £50, and that any person who should expose the same for sale should forfeit it and £20. Also that by further Acts additional duties were laid upon starch. And by an Act passed in the 4th year of George II the penalties were somewhat mitigated. “And whereas the said laws with respect to hair-powder have by experience been found not to answer the end proposed by the Legislature, the sum arising by the said duties upon starch and hair-powder having gradually lessened, whilst the fair traders have been great sufferers by the practice of those who by the greatness of the duty have attempted to make vend or use the said prohibited articles. And whereas the trade or business of making vending or dressing of Perukes or other Ornaments of hair for the head and also of cutting and dressing the hair of the head being considered as distinct from the business of Barbers is under no regulation whatever,” etc., the parties whom Mr. Brooks represented (and whose names were signed to the deed) had, therefore, agreed to join in an application to Parliament for reducing the duties on hair-powder, as also for incorporating all persons carrying on the trade of Barbers and Peruke-makers within the Bills of Mortality, into one joint Corporation or Body politick, and for restraining persons from exercising those trades who had not served seven years’ apprenticeship.

It was stated that subscriptions towards defraying the costs of the proposed Bill had been paid to Messrs. Gosling & Bennett, Bankers in Fleet Street, that John Paterson, Esq., Clerk of the Company, was Solicitor for the Bill, and Mr. John Brooks was Secretary of the Petitioners.