Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Scotland.
effect to the . Decreet , and , therefore , were liable to pay the penalty of £ 100 Scots . " ¦¦> ¦ "" The journeymen having resolved to pursue this matter with vigour , Andrew Graeme was instructed to draw out a charge of horning . The man of law of course was nothing loath , and lost no time in preparing the document . Due time was , however , given to the recusants to recede from their refractory intentions ; but as they showed no symptom of yielding , the charge was served on them on the 16 th
of July , by James Cleland , messenger-at-arms . A copy of the charge was a few years ago accidently discovered among some waste paper by David Laing , Esq ., of the Signet Library , and was presented by him to Brother Andrew Kerr , who properly deposited it in the charter-box of the Journeymen Lodge . It is a long document , written on one side of a piece of paper that measures four feet in length . It repeats the whole of the decreet arbitral , and details the steps taken by the journeymen to cause the Deacons to fulfil their part of the arrangements as decided on by the arbiters .
" A charge of horning , as is well known , is drawn out in the name of the sovereign , and therefore the messenger is charged as follows : — ' Our will therefore is , and we charge you strictly and command , that incontinent these our letters seen ye pass and in our name and authority command and charge the said Deacons , James Brownhill and William Smellie personally , or at their dwelling places , to make payment to the complainers of the sum of £ 100 Scots , to deliver up their books , and to procure an act and allowance , & c / / All this to be done within six days after they be charged by you , under the pain of rebellion and putting * them
to the horn ; wherein if they failzie ( the said six days being past ) , that incontinent thereafter ye denounce them our rebels , and put them thereto , and ordain their hail moveable goods and gear to be escheat and inbrought to our use , for their contempt and disobedience and immediately after your said denunciation that ye use the hail remanent order against them prescribed by our Act of Parliament made thereanent , and sicklyke that ye in our name and authority , for said
offence , arriest , appryse , compel , poynd , and distrenzie all and sundry cornes , cattle , horses , nolt , sheep , insight plenishing , debts , somes of money , maills , fermes , profits , and dutys of land , and all moveable goods and gear whatsoever , pertaining and belonging to the said James Brownhill and William Smellie , wheresoever , and in whose hands soever , the samen may or can be apprehended , to the avail and quantity of the sum of money above written . '
{( After this formidable charge was served , matters began to wear rather a serious aspect . In the course of six days , the effects of the two Deacons were liable to be seized , and disposed of to the amount of £ 200 Scots , with expenses . A meeting of the parent Lodge was summoned on -the 27 th July , that is , eleven days after the charge was served . Ten members were present . The Deacon gave a statement of the case as it then stood , and asked what was to be done . The unanimous opinion was , that the charge should not be complied with , but that
application should be made for a suspension , and the Deacons supported in their resistance . As no statement is made in justification of this step , we are now apt to think that it was most factious , and unfair . It was a violation of a solemn engagement . The Deacons had , before competent witnesses , subscribed a deed of submission to arbiters , in part selected by themselves , and approved of and authorized by the Court of Session . They advanced no allegation that the arbiters had acted in any way unfairly , and yet we find that time after time they refused to implement the decision which the arbiters had given , and that they now resolved to take measures , if possible , to set it entirely aside ,
" It is very doubtful if the points at Issue were ever properly adjusted , or the penalties paid . I have as yet discovered no document that throws light on these points . " One thing is very evident , that the Lodge and Incorporation of Mary ' s Chapel did not succeed in crushing the journeymen . The members of the new Lodge still kept banded together , they still held their meetings , they still initiated members , and levied dues , * and they succeeded in giving such a showing of their case , as secured the sympathy and approbation of the Lords of Council and Session , otherwise it is not very likely that their Lordships would have presented them
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Scotland.
effect to the . Decreet , and , therefore , were liable to pay the penalty of £ 100 Scots . " ¦¦> ¦ "" The journeymen having resolved to pursue this matter with vigour , Andrew Graeme was instructed to draw out a charge of horning . The man of law of course was nothing loath , and lost no time in preparing the document . Due time was , however , given to the recusants to recede from their refractory intentions ; but as they showed no symptom of yielding , the charge was served on them on the 16 th
of July , by James Cleland , messenger-at-arms . A copy of the charge was a few years ago accidently discovered among some waste paper by David Laing , Esq ., of the Signet Library , and was presented by him to Brother Andrew Kerr , who properly deposited it in the charter-box of the Journeymen Lodge . It is a long document , written on one side of a piece of paper that measures four feet in length . It repeats the whole of the decreet arbitral , and details the steps taken by the journeymen to cause the Deacons to fulfil their part of the arrangements as decided on by the arbiters .
" A charge of horning , as is well known , is drawn out in the name of the sovereign , and therefore the messenger is charged as follows : — ' Our will therefore is , and we charge you strictly and command , that incontinent these our letters seen ye pass and in our name and authority command and charge the said Deacons , James Brownhill and William Smellie personally , or at their dwelling places , to make payment to the complainers of the sum of £ 100 Scots , to deliver up their books , and to procure an act and allowance , & c / / All this to be done within six days after they be charged by you , under the pain of rebellion and putting * them
to the horn ; wherein if they failzie ( the said six days being past ) , that incontinent thereafter ye denounce them our rebels , and put them thereto , and ordain their hail moveable goods and gear to be escheat and inbrought to our use , for their contempt and disobedience and immediately after your said denunciation that ye use the hail remanent order against them prescribed by our Act of Parliament made thereanent , and sicklyke that ye in our name and authority , for said
offence , arriest , appryse , compel , poynd , and distrenzie all and sundry cornes , cattle , horses , nolt , sheep , insight plenishing , debts , somes of money , maills , fermes , profits , and dutys of land , and all moveable goods and gear whatsoever , pertaining and belonging to the said James Brownhill and William Smellie , wheresoever , and in whose hands soever , the samen may or can be apprehended , to the avail and quantity of the sum of money above written . '
{( After this formidable charge was served , matters began to wear rather a serious aspect . In the course of six days , the effects of the two Deacons were liable to be seized , and disposed of to the amount of £ 200 Scots , with expenses . A meeting of the parent Lodge was summoned on -the 27 th July , that is , eleven days after the charge was served . Ten members were present . The Deacon gave a statement of the case as it then stood , and asked what was to be done . The unanimous opinion was , that the charge should not be complied with , but that
application should be made for a suspension , and the Deacons supported in their resistance . As no statement is made in justification of this step , we are now apt to think that it was most factious , and unfair . It was a violation of a solemn engagement . The Deacons had , before competent witnesses , subscribed a deed of submission to arbiters , in part selected by themselves , and approved of and authorized by the Court of Session . They advanced no allegation that the arbiters had acted in any way unfairly , and yet we find that time after time they refused to implement the decision which the arbiters had given , and that they now resolved to take measures , if possible , to set it entirely aside ,
" It is very doubtful if the points at Issue were ever properly adjusted , or the penalties paid . I have as yet discovered no document that throws light on these points . " One thing is very evident , that the Lodge and Incorporation of Mary ' s Chapel did not succeed in crushing the journeymen . The members of the new Lodge still kept banded together , they still held their meetings , they still initiated members , and levied dues , * and they succeeded in giving such a showing of their case , as secured the sympathy and approbation of the Lords of Council and Session , otherwise it is not very likely that their Lordships would have presented them