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{a}unte[93] of this Cytie usyng or havyng a greate berde of more notable pˀlyxitie[94] 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{r}te 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. [93] Inhabitant. [94] Prolixity. 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