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

The initial letter T is reduced from one in the Audit Book 1614–15.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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