It was generally the practice, when a member wished to be translated to another Company or entirely discharged, that he should pay a fine for his dismission. In 1724, Mr. John Bamber, a Surgeon, informing the Court that he intended to practise as a Physician and to become a Member of the College of Physicians prayed for his discharge, which was granted to him on payment of thirty guineas, and there are other entries to the like effect.
The regulations for the governance of the members are very fully contained in the Ordinances referred to elsewhere, and it would therefore be tedious to further allude to them here. On a perusal of the extracts from the minutes, etc., many curious particulars will be seen concerning both freemen and liverymen who were liable to be expelled for not being “able” (i.e., solvent) and also for not attending in their livery gowns and hoods upon summons. There are many and often reminders to the livery to appear in their gowns with their hoods upon their shoulders, and there are also cases in which individuals were forbidden to wear their gowns and hoods by way of punishment. The dress of the livery has been well described in Herbert’s Livery Companies, and Planche’s Costume, and we can see it in our great Holbein picture, though the dresses worn on that occasion were of a much richer description than those in daily use.
It will be seen that the Livery were constantly going out in procession in days of old. There were the services at St. Paul’s on Christmas and Candlemas days, the Lord Mayor’s procession, the setting of the watch on Midsummer Eve, the celebration of 5th November, the anniversary of Gowrie’s Conspiracy, the Election Service at St. Olave’s, Silver Street, days of thanksgiving and humiliation, Royal progresses and Civic pageants. To all of these the Livery were bidden to go by precept, and on neglect of the summons were fined. In many cases certain of them were appointed to ride on horseback with velvet coats and chains of gold about their necks, and when not so apparelled they appeared in their gowns of black and scarlet, with their hoods upon their shoulders. What would we not give for a photograph of one of these gorgeous scenes wherein we should see the “liverie of our solempne and grete fraternite” riding “ayenst,” say, Queen Elizabeth in 1599?
Our earlier records of freemen are unfortunately lost, the first register commencing in the year 1551, but at Guildhall I have discovered several admissions of freemen Barbers to the freedom of the City, and here place a few of them upon record. The first is in 1309:—
Thomas Orgor barbitonsor admissus fuit in libtãte civitatis & jurˀ &c. die sabĩ pˀxima post festñ scĩ Edmundi Regis & martirˀ anno R. E. filˀ R. E. tcĩo coram Nich̃o de ffarendon Joh̃e de Wyndesore & Henrˀ de Dunolm Aldris Et dat commitati xxs quos pˀdcĩ Aldr̃i recepˀunt.
(Translation.) Thomas Orgor, Barber, was admitted into the freedom of the City and sworn, etc., on Saturday next after the feast of Saint Edmund the King and Martyr in the third year of King Edward, the son of King Edward, before Nicholas de Farendon, John de Windsor and Henry de Durham, Aldermen, And gave to the Commonalty 20s., which the aforesaid Aldermen received.
Other entries are much in the same form, a few of which, abridged, follow:—
1309. John de Dodinghurst, Barber, admitted and sworn, etc., Friday next after the feast of St. Thomas the Apostle; paid half a mark.
1310. Ralph the Barber admitted, etc., 16th March; paid one mark.
1310. Gilbert Blaunchard, Barber, admitted, etc., 1st April; paid 10s.