W. Carew Hazlitt, in his _Livery Companies of the City of London_ (Lond. 1892) says: ‘In the Elizabeth, as in the Henry VIII. Charter, the White Bakers had taken the initiative in drawing the makers of brown bread, whose business was far more limited and unimportant, into union with them on unequal terms, and the latter body dissented and renounced; whereupon the Queen was advised by the Lords of the Council to recall her patent. This proceeding seems, for a time, to have caused the matter to drop; but in 19 James I., June 6, 1622, the Brown Bakers succeeded in securing separate incorporation, with a common seal, a Master, three Wardens, and sixteen Assistants, as well as all other usual rights and powers. We hear nothing further of the matter till 1629, when the two bodies were still separate, the White Bakers being assessed for a levy by the City in that year at £25 16_s._, the other at £4. 6_s._, a proof of the relative weight and resources of the disputants, which is confirmed by the proportions contributed by each to the Ulster scheme a few years prior, namely, £480 and £90. In 1654 the Brown Bakers had apparently relinquished their independent quarters at Founders’ Hall, Lothbury, as if an union had been arranged; and in 2 James II. the charter was received with the usual restrictions in regard to the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and conformity to the Church of England, but otherwise in such a form as to lead to the belief that it comprehended both sections of the trade.’ The Bakers’ Company ranks very high after the twelve great City Companies, on account of its great antiquity. Its Hall, in Stow’s time, was in ‘Hart Lane, or Harp Lane, which likewise runneth (_from Tower Street_) into Thames Street. In this Hart Lane is the Bakers’ Hall, some time the dwelling-house of John Chichley, Chamberlain of London.’ And in Harp Lane it still is. According to Whitaker’s Almanack for 1904 its livery numbers 152 and its total income is only £1900. Much early legislation was passed regarding bakers and their calling, but, in spite of it all, some bakers did not amend their ways, and an amusing grievance was made by Fabyan as to their punishment. In his _Chronicles_, under date of 1268, and speaking of the harshness of Sir Hugh Bigod, justice, he says: ‘In processe of tyme after, the sayde syr Hughe, wt. other, came to Guylde hall, and kepte his courte and plees there withoute all ordre of lawe, and contrarye to the lybertyes of the cytie, and there punysshed the bakers for lacke of syze, by the tumberell, where before tymes they were punysshed by the pyllery, and orderynge many thynges at his wyll, more than by any good ordre of lawe.’ And Holinshed repeats the story. Nor were their misdeeds confined to their trade, as we may learn from the Archives of the City of London. In fact, their evil deeds were so notorious that the King himself had to take cognizance of them.