main results to which these institutions tended; and for these purposes a more effective instrument than apprenticeship could hardly be found. To exercise a trade, it was necessary to be free of the company or fraternity of that trade; and as the principal if not the only mode of acquiring this freedom in early times was by serving an apprenticeship to a member of the body, it became easy to limit the numbers admitted to this privilege, either indirectly by the length of apprenticeship required, or more immediately by limiting the number of apprentices to be taken by each master. So strict in some instances were these regulations, that no master was allowed to take as an apprentice any but his own son. In agriculture, apprenticeship, though in some comparatively later instances encouraged by positive laws, has never prevailed to any great extent. The tendency to association indeed is not strong among the agricultural population, combination being, to the scattered inhabitants of the country, inconvenient and often impracticable; whereas the inhabitants of towns are by their very position invited to it. Subsequently to the twelfth century, apprenticeship has prevailed in almost every part of Europe-in France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, and probably in other countries. It is asserted by Adam Smith, that seven years seem once to have been all over Europe the usual term established for the duration of apprenticeThere seems, ships in most trades. however, to have been no settled rule on this subject, for there is abundant evidence to show that the custom in this respect varied not only in different countries, but in different incorporated trades in the same town. In Italy, the Latin term for the contract of apprenticeship was acconventatio. From an old form of an Italian instrument, given by Beier in his learned work De Collegiis Opificum, it appears that the contract, which in most respects closely resembled English indentures of apprenticeship, was signed by the father or other friend of the boy who was to be bound, and not by the boy himself, who testified his consent to the agreement merely by being present. In France, the trading associations prevailed to a great extent under the names of "Corps de Marchands" and "Communautés." Many of them had been established by the crown solely for the purpose of raising revenue by the grant of exclusive privileges and monopolies. At the latter end of the seventeenth century there were in Paris six "Corps de Marchands," and one hundred and twenty-nine "Communautés," or companies of tradesmen, each fraternity having its own rules and laws. Among these bodies the duration of apprenticeship varied from three to eight or ten years. It was an invariable rule in the "Corps de Marchands," which was generally followed in the "Communautés," that no master should have more than one apprentice at a time. There was also a regulation that no one should exercise his trade as a master until, in addition to his apprenticeship, he had served a certain number of years as a journeyman. During the latter term he was called the "compagnon" of his master, and the term itself was called his "compagnonage." He had also, before being admitted to practise his trade as master, to deliver to the "jurande," or wardens of the company, a specimen of his proficiency in his art, called his "chef d'œuvre." He was then said "aspirer à la maîtrise." The sons of merchants living in their father's house till seventeen years of age, and following his trade, were reputed to have served their apprenticeship, and became entitled to the privileges incidental to it without being actually bound. These companies or associations were abolished at the Revolution, when a perfect freedom of industry was recognised by law, and this, with a few exceptions, has continued to the present day. But though the contract of apprenticeship, so far as a fixed period goes, has ceased in France to be imperative upon the artisan, it has not fallen into disuse; a law of 22 Germinal, An XI. (12th April, 1803), prescribes the rights and duties both of master and apprentice. It does not, however, lay down any particular form, and leaves the time and other conditions of the contract to be determined by the parties. In Germany, though we find the same M 2 institution, it varies not only in the name, but has some other remarkable peculiarities. The companies, there called gilden, zünfte, or innungen, appear, both on account of moral and physical defects, to have refused admission to applicants for freedom, at the discretion of the elders or masters. They seem to have occasionally admitted workmen who had not served a regular apprenticeship into the lower class of members of a trade; but only those were allowed to become masters who had gone through the regular stages of instruction. The course, which continues to the present day, is as follows:The apprentice, after having served the term prescribed by his indenture (aufdings-brief), is admitted into the company as a companion (gesell), which corresponds in many respects to the French compagnon. Having passed through the years of his apprenticeship, called lehrjahre, satisfactorily, he becomes entitled to receive from the masters and companions of the guild a certificate, or general letter of recommendation (kundschaft), which testifies that he has duly served his apprenticeship, and has been admitted a member of the company, and commends him to the good offices of the societies of the same craft, wherever he may apply for them. With this certificate the young artisan sets out on his travels, which often occupy several years, called wandel-jahre, supporting himself by working as a journeyman in the various towns in which he temporarily establishes himself, and availing himself of his kundschaft to procure admission into the fellowship and privileges of his brother-workmen of the same craft. On his return home, he is entitled, upon producing certificates of his good conduct during his wandel-jahre, to become a master. In Germany, the periods of servitude have varied in different states and at different periods; in general, the term is seven years; but in some instances an apprenticeship of five or three years is sufficient. Neither in Ireland nor in Scotland have the laws relating to associated trades or apprentices been very rigorously enforced. In Ireland the same system of guilds and companies certainly existed; but, as it was the policy of the English government to encourage settlers there, little attention was paid to their exclusive privileges: and in 1672 the lord-lieutenant and council, under authority of an Act of Parliament, issued a set of rules and regulations for all the walled towns in Ireland, by which any foreigner was allowed to become free of the guilds and fraternities of tradesmen on payment of a fire of 20s. A statute containing very similar enactments was passed in 19 George III. The term of apprenticeship, also, in Ireland, was of a moderate length, five years being required by 2 Anne, c. 4, for the linen manufacture, which, by 10 George I. c. 2, was reduced to four years. It is asserted by Adam Smith, that there is no country in Europe in which corporation laws have been so little oppressive as in Scotland. Three years are there a common term of apprenticeship even in the nicer trades, but there is no general law on the subject, the custom being different in different communities. It is, perhaps, impossible to ascertain precisely at what time apprenticeships first came into general use in England. But that the institution is one of very old date is certain, being probably contemporaneous with the formation of the guilds or companies of tradesmen. It appears from Herbert's 'History of the Twelve Livery Companies of London,' that in 1335, when the warder's accounts of the Goldsmiths' Company begin, there were fourteen apprentices bound to members of the company. In the statutes of the realm, however, there is no reference to such an institution for about 200 years after the guilds are known to have existed, apprentices being first incidentally noticed in an act (12 Rich. II. c. 3) passed in 1388. In 1405-6 (7 Henry IV. c. 17) a statute was passed which enacted that no one shall bind his son or daughter apprentice unless he have land or rent to the value of 20s. by the year; the cause of which provision is stated to be the scarcity of labourers in husbandry, in consequence of the custom of binding children apprentices to trades. In the act (8 Henry VI. c. 11) which repealed this statute in favour of the city of London, the putting and taking of apprentices are stated to have been at that time a custom of London time out of mind. The same statute was repealed (by 11 Henry VII. c. 11) in favour of the citizens of Norwich, and (by 12 Henry VII. c. 1) in favour of the worsted-makers of Norfolk; and in the former act we find the first mention of any particular term of servitude, the custom of the worstedshearers of Norwich being confirmed by it, which required an apprenticeship of seven years. Except in London, it does not appear that at an early period there was in England any uniform practice in this respect. but that the duration of the apprenticeship was a matter for agreement between the parties to the contract. In Madox's Formulare Anglicanum there is an indenture of apprenticeship dated in the reign of Henry IV., which is nearly in the same form as the modern instrument; and in that case the binding is to a carpenter for six years. It is, however, probable that before the statute of 5 Eliz. c. 4, the term of apprenticeship was seldom less than seven years. In London, the period of seven years at the least was expressly prescribed by the custom as the shortest term; and Sir Thomas Smith, in his Commonwealth of England, written about the time of the passing of the statute of Elizabeth, says, in reference to the previous practice, that the apprentice "serveth, some for seven or eight years, some nine or ten years, as the master and the friends of the young man shall think meet, or can agree together." The statute of 5 & 6 Edw. VI. c. 8, which enacts that no person shall weave broad woollen-cloth, unless he has served a seven years' apprenticeship, may be adduced as a further proof that this term was fast becoming the customary one. By 5 Elizabeth, c. 4, it was declared that no person should "set up, occupy, use, or exercise any craft, mystery, or occupation, then used or occupied within the realm of England or Wales, except he should have been brought up therein seven years at the least as an apprentice." But neither by that statute nor by the customs of London and Norwich, which were excepted by the act, was a longer term of apprenticeship than seven years forbidden. The following are some of the chief provisions of the statute of Elizabeth :-Householders who have at least half a ploughland in tillage may take any one as an apprentice above the age of ten and under eighteen, until the age of twenty-one or twenty-four as the parties may agree. Householders of the age of twenty-four in cities may take apprentices in trades for seven years, who must be sons of freemen not being labourers nor engaged in husbandry. Merchants in any city or town corporate trafficking in foreign parts, mercers, drapers, goldsmiths, ironmongers, embroiderers, or clothiers, are not to take any apprentices, except their own sons, unless their parents have 40s. freehold a year. Persons residing in market-towns, if of the age of twenty-four, may take two apprentices, who must be children of artificers, but merchants in market-towns are not to take any apprentices other than children whose parents have 31. a year freehold. In the following trades the children of persons who had no land might be taken as apprentices: smiths, wheelwrights, ploughwrights, millwrights, carpenters, rough masons, plasterers, sawyers, limeburners, brick-makers, bricklayers, tilers, slaters, healyers, tile-makers, linenweavers, turners, coopers, millers, earthen-potters, woollen-weavers, weaving housewife's or of household cloth only and none other, cloth-pillers, otherwise called tuckers or walkers, burners of ooze and woad ashes, thatchers, and shinglers. Woollen cloth-weavers, except in cities, towns corporate, or markettowns, are not to take as apprentices children whose parents were not possessed of 31. a year freehold, but they might take their own sons as apprentices: the woollen-weavers of Cumberland, Westmoreland, Lancashire, and Wales were exempted from the operation of this clause. There was a clause in the act which gave to one justice the power of imprisoning persons (minors) who refused to become apprentices. The justices were empowered to settle disputes between masters and apprentices, and could cancel the indentures. This statute of Elizabeth was repealed in 1814 by 54 Geo. III. c. 96. The London apprentices, in early times, were an important and often a formidable 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 concerned took place in 1668. On this occasion they assembled together tumultuously 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. was desirous of strengthening his hands against the corporation of London, he thought it necessary to endeavour to secure the favour of the apprentices, and sent them a brace of bucks for their annual dinner at Sadlers' 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. body. They derived consequence from their numbers, the superior birth of many of them, and the wealth of their masters, but particularly from their union, and the spirit of freemasonry which prevailed among them. The author of a curious poem published in 1647, entitled The Honour of London Apprentices, observes, in his preface, that "from all shires and counties of the kingdom of England and dominion of Wales, the sonns of knights, esquiers, gentlemen, ministers, yeomen, and tradesmen, come up from their particular places of nativity and are bound to be prentices in London." He also mentions "the unanimous correspondence that is amongst that innumerable company." In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries there are recorded a constant succession of tumults, and some instances of serious and alarming insurrections 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 MayDay,' 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-rights of man, and contrary to the comstreet, and marched with a drum in a warlike manner to take possession of the person of the Lord Mayor, and, upon the principle of retaliation, to whip him through the streets. Several of the ring-operation of it was limited to marketleaders in this riot were tried and convicted of high treason. (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 from them were presented to the parliament, and they received the thanks of the House "for their good affections." Nor did they confine their interference merely to petitions, but, under sanction of an ordinance of parliament which promised them security against forfeiture of their indentures, they were enrolled into The apprentice laws were enacted at a time when the impolicy of such legislation was not perceived. But opinion gradually became opposed to these enactments, and the judges interpreted the law favourably to freedom of trade. Lord Mansfield denounced the apprentice laws as being "against the natural mon law rights of the land." Accordingly the decisions of the courts tended rather to confine than to extend the effect of the statute of Elizabeth, and thus the towns, and to those crafts, mysteries, and occupations which were in existence at the time it was passed. And although, in consequence of this doctrine, many absurd decisions were made, 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 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 carried 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 5 Eliz. c. 4, might be rendered more effectual, the result was the passing of an act (54 Geo. III. c. 96) by which the section of that statute which enacts that no person shall exercise any art, mystery, or manual occupation without having served a seven years' apprenticeship to it, was wholly repealed. There is in the act of 54 Geo. III. c. 96, a reservation in favour of the customs and bye-laws of the city of London, and of other cities, and of corporations and companies lawfully constituted; but the necessity of apprenticeship as a means of access to particular trades is abolished, and a perfect liberty in this respect is established. Apprenticeship however is one mode of acquiring the freedom of municipal boroughs. tom, the master may have such remedy against him as if he were of full age, and consequently an action of covenant. By the statute 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 4, 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-four; but by 18 Geo. III. c. 47, they could not be retained as apprentices beyond their 21st year. Under other acts, not only persons in husbandry and trade, but gentlemen of fortune and clergymen, may be compelled to take pauper children as apprentices. But if such master is dissatisfied, he may appeal to the sessions. Parish apprentices may also be bound (2 & 3 Anne, c. 6) to the sea service; and masters and owners of ships are obliged to take one or more according to the tonnage of the vessel. The number of apprenticed seamen who were registered in 1840, pursuant to 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 19, was 24,348. Various regulations have been made by several acts of parliament, ana in particular by 56 Geo. III. c. 139, for Apprenticeship, though no longer le- ensuring that parish apprentices shall be gally necessary (except in a few cases), bound to proper masters, and securing still continues to be the usual mode of them from ill-treatment. By 4 & 5 learning a trade or art, and contracts of Will. IV. c. 76, s. 61, justices must eerapprenticeship are very common. By tify that the rules of the Poor Law Comcommon law, an infant, or person under missioners as to the binding of parish the age of twenty-one years, being ge- apprentices have been complied with, but nerally unable to form any contract, can- the Poor Law Commissioners have not not bind himself apprentice so as to entitle yet issued any rules and regulations on his master to an action of covenant for this subject. In 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, leaving his service or other breaches of for the further amendment of the Poor the indenture. The statute 5 Eliz. c. 4, Law, the Commissioners are invested s. 42 and 43, enacts that every person with the power of carrying out certain bound by indenture according to the matters relating to parish apprentices. statute, although within the age of twenty- There is a clause in the act abolishing one, shall be bound as amply, to every compulsory apprenticeship. In 1842 an intent, as if he were of full age. But by act was passed which extends the power these words of the statute, the infant is of magistrates to adjudicate in cases in not so bound that an action can be main- which no premium has been paid. (5 Vict. tained against him upon any covenant of c. 7.) A settlement is gained by apprenthe indenture; and it has therefore been tices in the parish where they last resided a common practice for a relation or friend forty days in service (13 & 14 Charles to be joined as a contracting party in the II. c. 12). [SETTLEMENT.] By 5 & indenture, who engages for the faithful 6 Vict. c. 99, all indentures whereby fedischarge of the agreement. But by the males are bound to work in mines are custom of London, an infant, unmarried, void. and above the age of fourteen, may bind himself apprentice to a freeman of London, and it is said that, by force of the cus An indenture cannot be assigned over, either by common law or equity, but by custom it may. Thus, by the custom of |