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. The Court, having considered the application, decided to contribute Twenty Guineas, but the matter seems to have been in abeyance for eighteen months, as the petition to the House of Commons was not sealed by the Company until the 7th January, 1753. 13th January, 1753. The petition was this day presented and is recorded in the Journals of the House; it states, among other things, that the Company “are in danger of being unable to support themselves and that the petitioners who exercise the art of Peruke making in the liberties and neighbourhood of the said City are not a body corporate, nor under any order or regulation; for want whereof great frauds are practised in the said manufacture to the discouragement of the fair trader, and manifest injury of the consumer, And therefore praying the House that leave may be given for the bringing in a Bill for incorporating the Peruke makers as well within as without the liberties of the City of London, and within such distance thereof as the House shall think fit, with the said petitioners”--the Barbers’ Company. This petition was referred to a Committee, but no report of that Committee is entered in the Journals. 4th December, 1764. The Peruke makers turned up again in 1764, for we find in the Minutes that certain of them attended with the draft of a petition to the King, to which they asked the assent of the Court. This petition which strangely commenced “We the Company of Barbers _and Peruke makers_,” stated that the suppliants laid before his Majesty the distresses into which the Peruke makers had fallen by reason of the change of fashion, and thus appeals to the King, “Where can we look for relief but there only where it is to be found, for as the Fashion your Majesty approves will very justly be a pattern to your subjects, We most humbly hope not to be too bold in wishing Perukes may soon be as much in fashion as the wearing of hair is at present, which will increase the Revenue, give happiness to the indigent and distressed Peruke makers, and increase the many great unmerited Favours, We as a Company have received from Royal Hands!” 16th January, 1765. The Court took this ridiculous petition into consideration, and of course refused to adopt it, informing the suppliants that they were concerned to observe the decay in their trade, as it was connected by usage with that of Barbery, but as the Charters of the Company did not extend to Peruke making, the Court could not with propriety address his Majesty on the subject. [Illustration] [Illustration: THE COMMITTEE ROOM, BARBERS’ HALL.] [Illustration] EXTRACTS FROM COURT MINUTES, ETC., MORE PARTICULARLY RELATING TO THE INTERNAL HISTORY OF THE COMPANY.