"I think it was in the year 1784 that the Question came to be decided
between the _journeymen Shoemakers_; whether those who had learn'd without
serving an _Apprenticeship_ could follow the Trade."

[Footnote: That is _as journeymen_: for there was no question that they
could not as _Masters_ on their _own_ account. That a person may work as a
_journeyman_ without having served an apprenticeship, had already been
determined, T. 9. G. 3. _Beach v. Turner_. Burr. Mansf. 2449. A person
also who has not served an Apprenticeship may be a partner, contributing
money, or advice and attention to the accounts and general concerns of the
Trade, provided that he does not actually exercise the Trade, and that the
acting partner has served. Vide _Reynolds_ v. _Chase_, M. 30. G. 2. Burr.
Mansf. 2. 1 Burn. J.P. Apprent. Sec. 12. L.]

"The Man by whom _Robert_ and I were employ'd, Mr. Chamberlayne, of
_Cheapside_, took an active part against the lawful journeymen; and even
went so far as to pay off every man that worked for him that had joined
their Clubs. This so exasperated the men, that their acting Committee soon
looked for _unlawful men_ (as they called them) among _Chamberlayne's_
workmen."

They found out little _Robert_, and threatened to prosecute _Chamlerlayne_
for employing him, and to prosecute his Brother, Mr. _G. Bloomfield_, for
teaching him. Chamberlayne requested of the Brother to go on and bring it
to a Trial; for that he would defend it; and that neither _George_ nor
_Robert_ should be hurt.

In the mean time _George_ was much insulted for having refus'd to join
upon this occasion those who call'd themselves, exclusively, the _Lawful
Crafts_. _George_, who says he was never famed for patience, (it is not