View report page

17
Having been authorised by your Worshipful Committee on the 28th June
last to place myself in communication with the Barbers' Company and the
Incorporated Guild of Hairdressers, a letter was addressed to the Clerk of each
of these bodies on the 30th June informing them that the matter was under
the consideration of your Worshipful Committee, who, before coming to any
definite decision, deemed it advisable that the views of their respective
Councils should be ascertained, that I should be glad to confer with them
thereon, and further that the Committee would be pleased to avail themselves
of any suggestions they might have to offer.
In reply, the Clerk to the Incorporated Guild of Hairdressers informed me
that he had been instructed by his Court to arrange a meeting at which he
himself would be present with two gentlemen appointed to assist him. He
also stated that the Guild had had the matter under consideration for some
time past, and that they would willingly co-operate with us.
The Clerk to the Barbers' Company in replying stated that he was requested
to point out that their Court of Assistants had no practical knowledge of the
subject in question, and suggested the Guild of Hairdressers should be
approached in the matter. At the same time he was instructed to express the
appreciation of the Court of the invitation to give their views, which they
would have been happy to do had there been anyone among them qualified to
give the practical and technical assistance required.
The decision of the Barbers' Company is much to be regretted, as I had
hoped that the Company would have availed themselves of the active support
of the Corporation and the public in bringing about reform in the direction
indicated in your Medical Officer's Report, and thus bring themselves into line
with the other City Guilds who justify their existence by taking such interest
as formerly obtained in the trades controlled by them. Moreover, as the
Corporation has at present no statutory power for exercising control over the
trade, it would appear desirable that the Barbers' Company ascertain if they
still retain powers to make Bye-laws for this purpose. In this connection it
is interesting to note that it is stated in Vol. III. of the Report of the
London Livery Companies Commission, 1884, that the Bye-laws made in
1708 by the United Barbers and Surgeons' Company were then in force, and
although it appears that no special record has been made of the proceedings of
the Barbers' Company since their separation from the joint Guild, the
Barbers' Company may from time to time have exercised their power over
City Barbers, even if only to a limited extent.
A Conference subsequently was held, when your Medical Officer of
Health fully discussed the matter with the representatives of the Guild of
Hairdressers, Mr. H. A. Otto Scherf, the Master, Mr. C. J. Edney (Walter
Truefitt), and the Clerk, Mr. W, J. Chamberlain.