115 



APPRENTICE. 



APPRENTICE. 



U6 



accordingly, we find in the 16th and 17th centuries a constant succes- 

 sion of tumults, and some instances of serious and alarming insurrec- 

 tions arising among the apprentices. Thus the fatal riot in London 

 against foreign artificers, which took place on the 1st of May, 1517, 

 and from which that day was called ' Evil May Day,' was commenced 

 and encouraged by the apprentices. 



In the year 1595, certain apprentices in London were imprisoned by 

 the Star-Chamber for a riot ; upon which, several of their fellows 

 assembled and released them by breaking open the prisons. Many of 

 these were taken and publicly whipped by order of the Lord Mayor. This 

 caused a much more formidable disturbance ; for 200 or 300 apprentices 

 assembled in Tower-street, and marched with a drum in a warlike manner 

 to take possession of the person of the Lord Mayor, and, upon the prin- 

 ciple of retaliation, to whip him through the streets. Several of the 

 ring-leaders in this riot were tried and convicted of high treason. (See 

 ' Criminal Trials,' vol. i. p. 317.) 



In the troubles of the civil wars the apprentices of London took an 

 active part as a political body ; numerous petitions were presented 

 from them to the parliament, and they received the thanks of the 

 House " for their good affections." Nor did they confine their inter- 

 ference merely to petitions, but, under sanction of an ordinance of 

 parliament promising to them,security against forfeiture of their inden- 

 tures, they were inrolled into a sort of militia. They also took part in 

 the restoration, and in the reign of Charles II. they were frequently 

 engaged in tumults. The last serious riot in which they were con- 

 cerned took place in 1668. On this occasion they assembled them- 

 selves tumultously together during the holidays, and proceeded to pull 

 down the disorderly houses in the city. For this exploit, several of 

 them were tried and executed for high treason. 



In 1681, when Charles II. wan desirous of strengthening his hands 

 in every way against the corporation of London, he thought it neces- 

 sary to endeavour to secure the favour of the apprentices, and sent 

 them a brace of bucks for their annual dinner at Sadler's Hall, where 

 several of his principal courtiers dined with them. The apprentices, 

 however, were divided in opinion ; for there were numerous petitions 

 from them both for and against the measures of the court. 



Subsequently to this time their union appears to have been gradually 

 dissolved, and we do not find them again acting together in a body. 

 After they had ceased, however, to form a separate class, the laws 

 which had called them into existence, though partially repealed as to 

 some trades, continued generally in force ; nor was it until a very late 

 period that the progress of more liberal opinions finally put an end 

 to them. But the exclusive spirit which had dictated them was so far 

 modified by the spirit of English liberty, that the monopolies upheld 

 by them were never so strictly enforced, nor the evil of them so much 

 felt in this country as on the continent. For not only were the 

 apprentice-laws condemned by the liberal and speculative philosopher, 

 but they found no favour in the courts of law. They were frequently 

 reprobated by judges and legal writers ; and Lord Mansfield denounced 

 them as being " against the natural rights of man, and contrary to the 

 common law rights of the land." Acting upon this view of the impolicy 

 of the system, the decisions of the courts tended rather to confine than 

 to extend the influence of the statute of Elizabeth, and thus the 

 operation of it was limited to market-towns, and to those trades which 

 were actually in existence at the time it was passed. And although 

 in consequence of this doctrine, many absurd anomalies and inconsis- 

 tencies were introduced, yet the exclusion of some manufactures, and 

 particularly of the principal ones of Manchester and Birmingham, from 

 the operation of the act, had probably a favourable effect in causing it 

 to be less strictly enforced even against those who were held to be 

 liable to it. It was proved by a mass of extremely interesting evidence 

 produced before a committee of the House of Commons in 1814, that 

 the provisions of the statute of Elizabeth neither were, nor could be, 

 earned into effect in our improved state of trade and manufactures. 

 An alteration in the law could therefore be no longer delayed. And 

 though the question was brought before the legislature on a petition 

 praying that the 5th Eliz. c. 4, might be rendered more effectual, the 

 result was the ]>assing of an act (54 Geo. III. c. 96) by which that 

 statute, so far as it enacts that no" person shall exercise any trade with- 

 out baring served a seven years' apprenticeship to it, was wholly repealed. 

 There is in the act of 54 Oeo. III. c. 96, a reservation in favour of the 

 customs and bye-laws of the city of London, and of other corporate 

 towns, but in general the necessity of apprenticeship, as a means of 

 access to particular trades, is abolished, and a perfect liberty, in this 

 respect, is established. Moreover by the act to provide for the regu- 

 lation of municiiKvl corporations (5 ft 6 Will. IV. c. 76, s. 14), any 

 iw may use any trade in boroughs, although not free of the city 

 or borough, or of the trading company. 



Apprenticeship, though no longer absolutely necessary, still con- 

 tinues to be the usual mode of learning a trade, and as such is 

 recognised by law ; it may therefore be useful to mention, in a sum- 

 mary manner, some of the [catling provisions of the law upon the 

 subject. By the common law, an infant, or person under the age of 

 twenty-one years, being unable to contract any obligation except for 

 his own benefit, cannot bind himself apprentice so as to entitle his 

 master to an action of covenant fur departing his service, or other 

 breaches of tlic in-li-iitun-. The statute of 3 Eliz. c. 4, SB. 42, 43, 

 enacts that . n I>MIK! l>y indenture according to the statute, 



although within the age of twenty-one, shall be bound as amply, to 

 every intent, as if he were of full age. But by these words of the 

 statute, the infant is not so bound as that a remedy lies against him 

 upon any covenant of the indenture ; and it has therefore been a 

 common practice for a relation or friend to be joined as a contracting 

 party in the indenture, and engaging for the faithful discharge of the 

 agreement. But by the custom of London, an infant, unmarried and 

 above the age of fourteen, may bind himself apprentice to a freeman of 

 London, and it is said that, by force of the custom, the master may 

 have such remedy against him as if he were of full age, and conse- 

 quently an action of covenant. Any person under the age of twenty- 

 one years is, by 5 Eliz. c. 4, ss. 35, 36, compellable to be bound 

 apprentice, if so required by any householder using half a plough of 

 land in tillage. The same act also provides that the binding must be 

 by indenture, so that binding by deed-poll, or by an agreement to 

 execute an indenture, on a parol binding, have been held not to 

 constitute an apprenticeship, though, by statute 31 Geo. II. c. 11, 

 a binding by deed not indented enabled a person to gain a settle- 

 ment, and now no deed is required to be indented. 



By statute of 43 Eliz. c. 2, confirmed by 8 & 9 Will. III. c. 30, and 

 by subsequent acts, the churchwardens and overseers of a parish, with 

 the assent of two justices of the peace, might bind children of paupers 

 apprentices till the age of twenty-one, and not only persons in 

 husbandry and trade, but gentlemen of fortune and clergymen might 

 be compelled to take them, subject to appeal to the sessions ; but by 

 the 7 & 8 Viet. c. 101, the powers for compelling persons to take parish 

 apprentices were repealed ; and under the same statute, all bindings 

 of parish apprentices are now made by guardians of the poor (instead 

 of churchwardens and overseers), and they need not be allowed by 

 justices, but are subject to the rules of the poor-law commissioners. 

 Parish apprentices may also be bound (7 & 8 Viet. c. 112; 14 15 

 Viet. c. 96) to the sea service. Various regulations have been made 

 by several acte of parliament, and in particular by 56 Geo. III. c. 139, 

 for ensuring that parish apprentices shall be bound to proper masters, 

 and securing them from ill-treatment. The statute (14 & 15 Viet. 

 c. 11) provides for the apprentices being periodically visited by the 

 parish officers. Special provisions also exist, regulating apprenticeship 

 in mills and factories, and in mines and collieries, and also in respect 

 of chimney-sweepers. A settlement is gained by apprentices in the 

 parish where they last resided forty days during the service (13 & 14 

 Car. II. c. 12). [Poou LAW ; SETTLEMENT.] 



An indenture cannot be assigned over, either by common law or 

 equity, but by custom it may. Thus, by the custom of London and 

 other places it may be done by a " turn-over." Parish apprentices 

 may also (32 Geo. III. c. 57, s. 7), with the consent of two justices, be 

 assigned over by indorsement on the indentures. 



An indenture is determinable by the consent of all the parties to it ; 

 also by the death of the master, apprenticeship being a personal trust 

 between master and servant. But it is said that the executor may 

 bind the apprentice to another master for the remainder of his term. 

 And if there is any covenant for maintenance, the executor is bound to 

 discharge this as far as he has assets. In the case of a parish appren- 

 tice (32 Geo. III. c. 67,s. 1), this obligation only lasts for three months, 

 where the apprentice-fee is not more than 51., and the indenture is 

 then at an end, unless upon application by the widow or executor, &c., 

 of the master to two justices, the apprentice is ordered to serve such 

 applicant for the remainder of the term. By the custom of London, 

 if the master of an apprentice die, the service must be continued with 

 the widow, if she continue to carry on the trade. In other cases, it is 

 incumbent on the executor to put the apprentice to another master of 

 the same trade. By the Bankrupt Act, 12 & 13 Viet. c. 106, the 

 bankruptcy of a master is a complete discharge of an indenture of 

 apprenticeship ; and where an apprentice-fee has been paid to the 

 bankrupt, the court is authorised to order any sum to be paid out of 

 the estate for the use of the apprentice which it may think reasonable. 



A master may by law moderately chastise his apprentice for mis- 

 behaviour. He cannot, of his own accord, discharge him. But if he 

 have any complaint against him, or the apprentice against his master, 

 on application of either party to the sessions, by 5 Eliz. c. 4, or to 

 two justices in the ease of a parish apprentice, by 20 Geo. II. c. 19, 

 and other acts, a power is given to punish or to discharge the appren- 

 tice, and in some cases to fine the master. If any apprentice, whose 

 premium does not exceed 101., run away from his master, he may be 

 compelled (6 Geo. III. c. 25) to serve beyond his term for the time he 

 absented himself, or make suitable satisfaction, or be imprisoned for 

 three months. If he enters another person's service, his master is 

 entitled to his earnings, and he may bring an action against any one 

 who has enticed him away. On the other hand, by the statute, 14 & 15 

 Viet. c. 11, masters or mistresses of apprentices or servants are legally 

 liable to provide them necessary food, clothing, &c. ; refusing or 

 neglecting to do so, or assaulting them so as to endanger life, or 

 permanently injure health, they are guilty of misdemeanour, punishable 

 by imprisonment not exceeding three years. 



In London, moreover, in case of misconduct by the master towards 

 the apprentice, or by the apprentice towards the master, either party 

 may summon the other before the chamberlain, who has power to 

 adjudicate between them, anil, upon the disobedience or refractory 

 conduct of either party, may commit the offender to Bridewell. 



