Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Scotland.
attend all meetings of the journeymen . He was to have no vote ,, but was merely to see that the money was properly expended , and the rules observed . Should he absent himself ; when required to attend , a fine of £ 10 Scots was to be imposed on the Incorporation , and put into the common purse of the journeymen . It is evident from this that the proceedings of the journeymen were to be thoroughly watched . A spy was to be present at all their meetings , and everything that
they said or did was to be reported to the incorporation . But to make the incorporation still more fully cognizant of their affairs , it was enacted , in the sixth place , that the journeymen were to produce their books for the inspection of the members of the Incorporation wheneverthey should think fit , under a penalty of £ 10 Scots . In the seventh place , it was enjoined that for transacting the business of the new society five journeymen should form a quorum , of which the
purse-keeper or treasurer was always to be one . And last of all , it was laid down that a penalty of £ 100 Scots was to be imposed on the party who failed to observe the terms of the decreet arbitral , and also that the decreet was to be registered in the books of council and session , or others competent ; and accordingly it was registered in the books of the borough court on the 17 th of January , 1715 , in presence of John Duncan , one of the bailies .
a Such , then , is a brief outline of a document which , ever since it was issued , has been regarded as the charter of the Journeymen Lodge . It contains several provisions to which we should now be disposed to take exception , but we must remember that the state of matters in Edinburgh in 1715 was very different from what it is now . At that period the close system of incorporations existed in all its vigour and exclusiveness . Every trade was hedged round by special privileges , on which it would allow no party to encroach . It was evidently to guard the
privileges of the Incorporation of Masons that so much power was conferred by the arbiters on that incorporation to watch over , and virtually to control , the proceedings of the journeymen . It is far from unlikely that a settlement of the dispute was found to be unattainable on any other terms . The incorporation would come forth with its charters , its laws , and established customs , and maintain that it would allow nothing to be done that would infringe the rights which it had received from James II ., or which it had established by long continued
usage . The arbiters would , therefore , find themselves shut up to the necessity of cutting off the claims of the journeymen to the funds of the incorporation , and allowing that body to exercise a strict surveillance oyer the funds and the doings of the new society . On the other hand , they established two important points in favour of the journeymen . They decided , in the first place , that the incorporation
was wrong in putting two of the journeymen into confinement , and carrying away their books , and for these acts was bound to compensate the journeymen by the payment of a considerable fine ; and in the second place , they declared that the journeymen had a right to meet by themselves , and to form an association , for giving the Mason ' s word and collecting fees , and they enjoined the incorporation to grant them an act and allowance to this effect .
" For the sake of securing those two points , the Journeymen were disposed to swallow the objectional parts of the decreet , and to give full effect to its requirements . The case was different with the members of the incorporation . The Deacons were called on several times to pay the fine of £ 100 Hoots , to deliver up the books , to grant the act and allowance , and to appoint a person to keep one of the keys of the cash-box , and attend the meetings of the journeymen , but all these they refused to do unless they were compelled . This was certainly very improper conduct on their part , because they had adhibited their names to a
solemn deed , binding themselves and the whole members whom they represented to adhere to whatever decision the arbiters might give forth . The consequence was , that Robert Winram and William Brodie , on the 15 th and 17 th of April , 1715 , taking with them Henry Graeme , a notary public , and several witnesses , went to the residences of the two Deacons , and there , having obtained an interview with them , charged them to implement the above-mentioned conditions . Tho Deacons returned for answer that they would obtempor the decreet ,, when and in what manner they thought fit . The two journeymen thereupon protested and took instruments in the . notary ' s hand , that the Deacon ^ that refused to give
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Scotland.
attend all meetings of the journeymen . He was to have no vote ,, but was merely to see that the money was properly expended , and the rules observed . Should he absent himself ; when required to attend , a fine of £ 10 Scots was to be imposed on the Incorporation , and put into the common purse of the journeymen . It is evident from this that the proceedings of the journeymen were to be thoroughly watched . A spy was to be present at all their meetings , and everything that
they said or did was to be reported to the incorporation . But to make the incorporation still more fully cognizant of their affairs , it was enacted , in the sixth place , that the journeymen were to produce their books for the inspection of the members of the Incorporation wheneverthey should think fit , under a penalty of £ 10 Scots . In the seventh place , it was enjoined that for transacting the business of the new society five journeymen should form a quorum , of which the
purse-keeper or treasurer was always to be one . And last of all , it was laid down that a penalty of £ 100 Scots was to be imposed on the party who failed to observe the terms of the decreet arbitral , and also that the decreet was to be registered in the books of council and session , or others competent ; and accordingly it was registered in the books of the borough court on the 17 th of January , 1715 , in presence of John Duncan , one of the bailies .
a Such , then , is a brief outline of a document which , ever since it was issued , has been regarded as the charter of the Journeymen Lodge . It contains several provisions to which we should now be disposed to take exception , but we must remember that the state of matters in Edinburgh in 1715 was very different from what it is now . At that period the close system of incorporations existed in all its vigour and exclusiveness . Every trade was hedged round by special privileges , on which it would allow no party to encroach . It was evidently to guard the
privileges of the Incorporation of Masons that so much power was conferred by the arbiters on that incorporation to watch over , and virtually to control , the proceedings of the journeymen . It is far from unlikely that a settlement of the dispute was found to be unattainable on any other terms . The incorporation would come forth with its charters , its laws , and established customs , and maintain that it would allow nothing to be done that would infringe the rights which it had received from James II ., or which it had established by long continued
usage . The arbiters would , therefore , find themselves shut up to the necessity of cutting off the claims of the journeymen to the funds of the incorporation , and allowing that body to exercise a strict surveillance oyer the funds and the doings of the new society . On the other hand , they established two important points in favour of the journeymen . They decided , in the first place , that the incorporation
was wrong in putting two of the journeymen into confinement , and carrying away their books , and for these acts was bound to compensate the journeymen by the payment of a considerable fine ; and in the second place , they declared that the journeymen had a right to meet by themselves , and to form an association , for giving the Mason ' s word and collecting fees , and they enjoined the incorporation to grant them an act and allowance to this effect .
" For the sake of securing those two points , the Journeymen were disposed to swallow the objectional parts of the decreet , and to give full effect to its requirements . The case was different with the members of the incorporation . The Deacons were called on several times to pay the fine of £ 100 Hoots , to deliver up the books , to grant the act and allowance , and to appoint a person to keep one of the keys of the cash-box , and attend the meetings of the journeymen , but all these they refused to do unless they were compelled . This was certainly very improper conduct on their part , because they had adhibited their names to a
solemn deed , binding themselves and the whole members whom they represented to adhere to whatever decision the arbiters might give forth . The consequence was , that Robert Winram and William Brodie , on the 15 th and 17 th of April , 1715 , taking with them Henry Graeme , a notary public , and several witnesses , went to the residences of the two Deacons , and there , having obtained an interview with them , charged them to implement the above-mentioned conditions . Tho Deacons returned for answer that they would obtempor the decreet ,, when and in what manner they thought fit . The two journeymen thereupon protested and took instruments in the . notary ' s hand , that the Deacon ^ that refused to give