Town Council of Burgh, and Bailie Court. - Burgh of Barony.
Tailors of Edinburgh v. Their Journeymen
Date: 10 December 1762 Case No. No 386.
It belongs to the Magistrates to make regulations between the tailors and their journeymen.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The spirit of mutiny showed itself some time ago among the workmen in the city of London, and came to such a height as to require the aid of the legislature. The same spirit broke out afterward among the journeymen-tailors of Edinburgh, who erected themselves into a club or society, keeping in particular a list of the journeymen out of service, under pretext of accommodating the masters more easily with workmen, but in reality to enable themselves to get new masters, if they differed with those they served. When any of them deserted their service, they entered their names in that list, and were immediately again employed, as other masters were under a necessity to take them or to give up their business. The master-tailors suffered many inconveniencies from this combination, which among other hardships produced encrease of wages from time to time. The journeymen had always breakfasted in their master's houses to save time; but upon a concert among them, they all of them deserted their work about nine in the morning, declaring their resolution to have the hour betwixt nine and ten to themselves in all time coming. The desertion was the more distressing, as it was made when the preparing some clothing for the army required the utmost dispatch. This occasioned a complaint to the Bailies of Edinburgh, who found, “that the defenders and other journeymen tailors of Edinburgh are not entitled to an hour of recess for breakfast; that the wages of a journeyman-tailor in the said city ought not to exceed one shilling per day; and that if any journeyman tailor not retained or employed, shall refuse to work when required by a master on the foresaid terms, unless for some sufficient cause to be allowed by the Magistrates, the offender shall, upon conviction, be punished in terms of law.”
This cause being brought to the Court of Session by advocation, it was thought of sufficient importance for a hearing in presence; and the result was to approve the regulations of the Magistrates.
The only difficulty was, whether the foresaid regulations did not encroach upon the liberty of the subject. It was admitted, that they did in some measure; but then the Court was satisfied of their necessity from the following considerations. Arts and manufactures are of two kinds. Those for luxury and for amusement are subject to no rules, because a society may subsist comfortably without them. But those which are necessary to the well being of society must be subjected to rules, otherwise it may be in the power of a few individuals to do much mischief. If the bakers should refuse to make bread, or the brewers to make ale, or the coalliers to provide coals, without being subjected to any controul, they would be masters of the lives of the inhabitants. To remedy such an evil, there must be a power placed somewhere; and accordingly this power has been long exercised by Magistrates of burghs and Justices of Peace, under review of the sovereign court. The tailors by forbearing to work cannot do mischief so suddenly; but people must be clad, and if there be no remedy against the obstinacy of the tailors, they may compel people to submit to the most exorbitant terms.
Another point debated, was the propriety of the foregoing regulations. Upon which it was observed, that the regulation of the wages is even admitted by the defenders themselves to be proper, because they have acquiesced in it, without complaint. And yet if this article be admitted, the other regulations follow of necessary consequence; for it is to no purpose to fix wages, without also fixing the number of working hours; and it is to no purpose to fix either, if the defenders have the privilege to work or not at their pleasure. Their demand of a recess between nine and ten, which they chiefly insist for, is extremely inconvenient because of the time it consumes, especially in a wet day, when they must shift and dry themselves to avoid sullying the new work they have on hand. And as for health, they will never be denied by either their masters, or by the Judge, a whole day at times for exercise.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 362. Sel. Dec. No 202. p. 262.
*** See Tailors of Edinburgh against White, No 375. p. 7607, Div. 14. h. t.
