The Annals of the Barber-Surgeons of London

by Unknown

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.