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 The same statute was repealed (by 11 Henry VII.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, ex-cept 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.

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.

Apprenticeship, though no longer legally necessary (except in a few cases), still continues to be the usual mode of learning a trade or art, and contracts of apprenticeship are very common. By common law, an infant, or person under the age of twenty-one years, being generally unable to form any contract, cannot bind himself apprentice so as to entitle his master to an action of covenant for leaving his service or other breaches of the indenture. The statute 5 Eliz. c. 4, s. 42 and 43, enacts that every person bound by indenture according to the statute, although within the age of twentyone, 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 that an action can be maintained 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, who engages 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 cus

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 ensuring that parish apprentices shall be bound to proper masters, and securing them from ill-treatment. By 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 76, s. 61, justices must certify that the rules of the Poor Law Commissioners as to the binding of parish apprentices have been complied with, but the Poor Law Commissioners have not yet issued any rules and regulations on this subject. In 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, for the further amendment of the Poor Law, the Commissioners are invested with the power of carrying out certain matters relating to parish apprentices. There is a clause in the act abolishing compulsory apprenticeship. In 1842 an act was passed which extends the power of magistrates to adjudicate in cases in which no premium has been paid. (5 Vict. c. 7.) A settlement is gained by apprentices in the parish where they last resided forty days in service (13 & 14 Charles II. c. 12). [SETTLEMENT.] By 5 & 6 Vict. c. 99, all indentures whereby females are bound to work in mines are void.

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; it is also determined by the death of the master. 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 apprentice (32 Geo. III. c. 57, s. 1), this obligation only lasts for three months, where the apprentice-fee is not more than 57., 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, 6 Geo. IV. c. 16, s. 49, it is enacted, that the issuing of a commission against a master shall be a complete discharge of an indenture of apprenticeship; and where an apprentice-fee has been paid to the bankrupt, the Commissioners are authorized to order any sum to be paid out of the estate for the use of the apprentice which they may think reasonable. A duty on apprentices' indentures, varying with the premium, was first imposed by 8 Anne, c. 9.

A master may by law moderately chastise his apprentice for misbehaviour; but he cannot discharge him. If he has 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 case of a parish apprentice, by 20 Geo. II. c. 19, and other acts, a power is given to punish or to discharge the apprentice, and in some cases to fine the master. If any apprentice, whose premium does not exceed 10., run away from his master, he may be compelled (6 Geo. III. c. 25) to serve be

yond his term for the time which 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.

In London, in case of misconduct by th. 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, and, upon the disobedience or refractory conduct of either party, may commit the offender to Bridewell. The wardens of the different LiveryCompanies had formerly jurisdiction in matters of disputes between the apprentices and mas ters in their respective crafts; and in Herbert's 'History of the Twelve principal Companies' there is some curious informa tion respecting regulations for appren tices, their dress, duties, &c.

We cannot fairly judge the institution of Apprenticeship, without an accurate examination of the circumstances under which it arose. That it had its uses cannot be doubted, and the continuance of the practice in this country, since it has ceased to be required by law, is some evidence in favour of the institution. Except in the case of surgeons and apothecaries, proctors. solicitors, attorneys, and notaries, there is now no apprenticeship required by law in England.

The impolicy of the old apprentice laws as they existed in France and England has been shown by many writers (Droz, Economie Politique, p. 114, &c.; Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, book i chap. 10). These laws and regulations were either part of the system of guilds, or were made in conformity to the objects of such system. Adam Smith says that apprenticeships were "altogether unknown to the ancients;" and "the Roman law is perfectly silent with regard to them." This may be so: but as the guilds er companies in Rome (collegia) were very numerous, it is possible that they had for their object to limit the numbers of those who should practise their several arts and mysteries; and apprenticeships might be one mode of effecting this, though it is true, as Adam Smith observes, that there appears

to be "no Greek or Latin word which expresses the idea we now annex to the word apprentice, a servant bound to work at a particular trade for the benefit of a master, during a term of years, upon condition that the master shall teach him that trade." It has been observed on this, that such a word could not have been required, when nearly all who worked for a master were slaves. But if many or most of the workmen were slaves, the masters were not, and the members of the companies could not be slaves. Adam Smith asserts that long apprenticeships are altogether unnecessary; and he affirms that "the arts which are much superior to common trades, such as those of making clocks and watches, contain no such mystery as to require a long course of instruction." But in this and other passages, he rather underrates the time that is necessary for attaining sufficient expertness in many arts, though he truly observes that agriculture, in which our law never required apprenticeship, and in which apprenticeship is little in use, and “many inferior branches of country labour, requires much more skill and experience than the greater part of mechanic trades." Wherever the law allows the contract of apprenticeship to be unrestrained, its terms will be regulated by custom, which though it may be sometimes unreasonable or absurd, must finally adapt itself to true principles in a country where industry is free and wealth is consequently accumulating. Those who have an art, mystery, craft, or trade to teach, and can teach it well, and give a youth every opportunity of learning it sufficiently, will always be sought after by parents and guardians of children in preference to other masters, and the terms of the contract will be less favourable in a pecuniary point of view to the parent or guardian than in cases where the master cannot offer those advantages. The good master may require a sum of money with the apprentice, and may require his services for a longer period than is necessary for him to master the mystery, craft, or trade. In other cases a master may often be glad to get an apprentice, that is, in other words, a servant, for as long a time as he can, and without requiring any money with him. The contract of ap

| prenticeship in various trades will, as already observed, be regulated by custom, but it cannot remain unaffected by the general principles of the demand and supply of labour.

In most professions of the more liberal kind there is in England no contract of apprenticeship; the pupil or learner pays a fee, and has the opportunity of learning his teacher's art or profession if he pleases. Thus a man who intends to be called to the bar pays a fee to a special pleader, a conveyancer, or an equity draftsman, and has the liberty of attending at the chambers of his teacher and learning what he can by seeing the routine of business and assisting in it. But he may neglect his studies, if he pleases, and this will neither concern his master, who can very well dispense with the assistance of an ignorant pupil, and gets the money without giving anything for it, nor the public. For though the barrister is admitted by the inns of court without any examination, and may be utterly ignorant of his profession, no mischief ensues to the public, because the rules of the profession do not permit him to undertake business without the intervention of an attorney or solicitor, and no one would employ him without such intervention. But the attorney or solicitor is required by act of parliament to serve a five years' appren ticeship, the reasons for which are much diminished since the institution of an examination by the Incorporated Law Society in Chancery Lane, London, before he can be admitted to practise. Indeed a part of the time which is now spent in an attorney's office would be much better spent at a good school, and would perhaps cost the parent or guardian as little. There is frequently a fee paid with an apprentice to an attorney or solicitor, and there is a stamp duty of 120l. on his indentures; so that it is probable that the raising of revenue was one object in legislating on this matter. Persons who practise as physicians serve no apprenticeship, but they are subjected to examinations; all persons who practise as apothecaries must serve a five years' apprenticeship. The reasons for this apprenticeship also are much diminished by the institution of examinations, at which persons are rejected