# Supplement to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Editions of the Encyclopædia Britannica/Apprentice

​APPRENTICE. The nature and object of the engagement contracted between the apprentice and his master, has been sufficiently explained in the body of this work. As, however, numerous laws have been passed, particularly in England, for the purpose, not only of guaranteeing the performance of this contract, but of regulating also the terms upon which it should be entered into by the respective parties, and of defining the relative duties of each, it will be necessary shortly to state the most important of these regulations.
In that country, the 5th Eliz. continued for a long period to be the leading statute on this subject; but its regulations were at length found to be fraught with such numerous inconveniences, arid to be so ill adapted to the present improved state of the mechanical trades, that, by the 54th Geo. III. several of its most material provisions were repealed. By the 5th Eliz. it was required, in order to give validity to the contract of apprenticeship, that the apprentice should be bound by a regular deed; and, by the custom of some places, it was necessary that the deed or indenture should he enrolled. In London the custom is, that all indentures be enrolled, within a year, before the Chamberlain; and, if this form shall have been neglected, it is enacted that a writ of scire facias shall issue upon the petition of the Mayor and Aldermen, to show cause why it was not enrolled. If it shall be found that this omission proceeded from the fault of the master, the apprentice may sue out his indentures, and be discharged; and, if otherwise, the contract ceases to be binding on the master. The 5th Eliz. c. 4, § 25, also provided, that no apprenticeship could be constituted except by indenture; and it was found, that, under a different instrument, a master could not maintain an action against a person for enticing away and detaining his apprentice. The same act provided, that no agreement to execute indentures of apprenticeship should constitute a ​sufficient binding, although a service of seven years might have been duly performed under it. To give validity to the indenture, it was not only necessary to comply strictly with the provisions of the 5th Eliz.; but every person who engaged apprentices against the terms of that act, was made liable to a penalty of L. 10.
By the common law, every person is left at liberty to follow whatever trade or employment may be agreeable to him. But, as it was supposed that great injury would result to the public if unqualified persons were to exercise the various crafts and mysteries connected with the mechanical trades, it was specially provided, by the 5th Eliz., that no person should exercise any art or craft, unless he had previously qualified himself for it by a regular apprenticeship, under a penalty of L. 400 for every month. Considerable doubts were always entertained as to the trades to which this statute applied; and, as the Courts of law do not seem generally to have favoured the principle of the statute, their decisions tended rather to confine than to extend the restriction. It was at length agreed that the law was only applicable to such trades as existed at the time of passing the act, and to such, also, as implied some mystery or craft. The operations of the statute was also held to be limited to market-towns; it being supposed necessary for the convenience of the inhabitants of country villages, that the same person should exercise different trades, even though he had not been regularly bred by a seven years’ apprenticeship to each. These various limitations of the statute gave rise to many very absurd distinctions, which plainly shewed how very unsuitable this antiquated law was to the present advanced state of the mechanical trades. It was found, for example, that a coachmaker could neither himself make, nor employ journeymen to make lis coach-wheels, but that he behoved to buy them of a master wheelwright, this last trade having been exercised in England before the 5th Eliz. But a wheelwright, though he has never served an apprenticeship to a coachmaker, might either himself make, or employ journeymen, to make coaches, the trade of a coachmaker not having been prohibited by the statute, as not being exercised in England at the time it was passed. All the great manufactures which, in modern times, have arisen throughout England, in Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, Wolverhampton, were, on this account, exempted from the restrictive operation of this law, and the perfection to which they have arrived, seems a practical proof of its inutility for the encouragement of trade.
The effects of those restrictions imposed by the 5th Eliz. were at length felt to be so injurious, that, in the year 1813, petitions were presented to Parliament, from various manufacturing towns, for a repeal of certain parts of this exceptionable statute; and the 54th Geo. III. was accordingly passed, by which all the penalties and prohibitions imposed by the 5th Eliz. on those who should exercise any trade or mystery, unless qualified by six or seven years’ apprenticeship, were repealed. That part of the statute was also repealed, which enacted that no person should become an apprentice except in strict conformity to the provisions of the 5th Eliz., and which rendered all indentures contrary to this act null and void. In opposition to this, it was provided, that all indentures, or covenants, which would otherwise be valid, should now be valid, anything in the 5th Eliz. to the contrary notwithstanding.
In the incorporated trades, bye-laws have generally been enacted, for the purpose of restraining each master to a certain number of apprentices, and those bye-laws have, in many cases, been confirmed by the public laws of the kingdom. In Sheffield, it is a standing rule in the corporation of cutlers, that no master cutler can have more than one apprentice at a time. In Norfolk and Norwich, no master weaver can have more than two apprentices, under a penalty of paying L. 5 per month to the King. The 5th Eliz. c. 4, § 33, enumerates various trades in which the master is obliged, under a penalty of L.10, to keep one journeyman for every three apprentices. No master hatter can have more than two apprentices anywhere in England, or in the English plantations, under a penalty of L. 5 per month. Most of these statutes, however, are now so ill adapted to the state of trade and manufactures, that in practice they are very generally evaded.
The engagement contracted between the master and apprentice is entirely of a personal nature, arising from the confidence they mutually place in each other; the master engaging to instruct the apprentice in his business, and to take care of his health and morals, while the latter engages, in like manner, for a return of faithful and diligent service. The transaction thus rests on the personal qualities of the two parties, and indentures are, therefore, not transferable to third persons. By the death of the master the contract is annulled, and a new engagement, with another master, can only be entered into by the consent of the apprentice. A different custom, however, prevails in London, where one freeman can transfer his apprentices to another freeman, without any injury to the original engagement. Where the maintenance of an apprentice forms one of the conditions of his service, the death of the master does net dissolve this obligation, his executors being bound to discharge it in so far as it can be done out of the effects left by the deceased. By the 32d Geo. III. (c. 57, § 5,) parish apprentices may, with the consent of two justices, be assigned over, by indorsement of their indentures, to third parties; and the person declaring his acceptance of the assignment, shall he bound to perform all the duties of a master to the apprentice, for the residue of his term. Where the master of a parish apprentice dies, upon whose binding no larger a sum than L. 5 has been paid, it is provided, that the covenant for maintenance of the apprentice shall not remain longer in force than three months.
A master is entitled by law to use moderate chastisement in the event of any misbehaviour on the part of the apprentice. But he has no right to treat him with any unnecessary harshness; and in that case, by the 20th Geo. II. c. 19, § 3, he may, on the complaint of any parish apprentice, or of any other apprentice, on whose binding there is no larger a sum than L. 5, be summoned before any two justices, and, ​on proof of the alleged facts, the apprentice may be discharged by a certificate under the hands of the justices. In like manner, by § 4, on the complaint of the master on oath, of misbehaviour on the part of the apprentice, he may be summoned before the two justices, who may commit him to the house of correction to hard labour for any time, not exceeding a kalendar month, or they may, as in the former case, sign a certificate for his discharge. By § 5, either party has the privilege of an appeal to the next Quarter Sessions. If an apprentice, with whom a premium under L. 10 has been paid, shall absent himself from his master’s, service, it is provided, by the 6th Geo. Ill. c. 25, that he shall either serve for so long a time beyond the period of his service, or make any other suitable satisfaction to his master for the loss of his labour. In case of his refusal, he may be apprehended, and brought before a justice, who may determine the satisfaction that shall be made; and, on his refusal to comply with this determination, he may be committed to the house of correction for three months. The master may make application for compensation within seven years after the expiration of the term of apprenticeship. Either party may appeal against the decision of the justices to the Quarter Sessions.
By the common law, minors may bind themselves out as apprentices, and if they serve out their regular term, they are entitled to all the privileges of apprentices. But no minor can contract such an obligation as will entitle the master to maintain an action against him, provided he either departs from his service, or commits any other breach of his engagement. He may indeed correct him in his service, or complain to a Justice of the Peace to have him pursued according to the 5th Eliz. But no remedy lies against a minor for breach of any such covenant. The children of paupers may, however, be apprenticed out by the overseers, with consent of two Justices, and in this case (5th Eliz. c. 4; 43d Eliz. c. 2. Cro. Car. 179.), the indenture is obligatory, though the apprentice be under age. In consequence of the incapacity of the minor to enter into any regular contract of apprenticeship, the usual practice is to procure some of his friends to become surety for his due performance of the engagement into which he enters. According to the custom of London, a minor above the age of fourteen, may bind himself apprentice to a freeman in London by indenture, with proper covenants, and these covenants are in law equally binding as if he were of full age.
Indentures were formerly subject to a variety of duties which were imposed by successive acts, and these duties necessarily gave rise to a series of intricate enactments, which frequently occasioned much perplexity and inconvenience. By the 44th Geo. III. c. 98, § 8, all those numerous duties were consolidated into one simple duty on the stamp, which varies from 14 shillings to 19 guineas, according to the premium which is paid with the apprentice. By the 43d Geo. Ill. c. 161, an annual duty is imposed of L. 1, 1s. on every apprentice who pays a premium above L. 20.—See Jacob’s Law Dictionary.—Smith’s Wealth of Nations, with Notes, and an additional volume of Dissertations, by David Buchanan. (O.)