The Sun.
London, England, 1825-10-07 00:00:00

CRUELTY TO FEMALE APPRENTICES

T CEE '1:. —Yesterday Joseph Gilbert, of St
Thomas-street, Brick-lane, Bethnal-green, a silk-weaver, at-
tended before Mr. TWYFORD and Mr. OSBORNE, the Magis-
trates, upon a summons charging him with having cruelly beaten
Mary Anne Childs, a young woman about seventeen years of
age, and who has been his apprentice for the last three years
and a half.
M. A. Childs related a long course of cruelty practised upon
her by her master and mistress. The langliage used by them
in her hearing was (she said) such as could • not be repeated :
and about a fortnight ago her master threw.a half pint pot at
her, which struck heron the head and Cut her severely.

%Ir. Tw'Vriatto=—AndWity did you not come here then ?
Apprentice,--1 did, your Worship, come. here, but my master
followed and persuaded me to go home, solemnly. assuring me
that the like circumstance should not take plAce again with-
standing his promise, he yesterday beat me with one of the rothi
used in the business, until my shoulders were black, and a few
days htTcre he struck me a violent blow behind the head with a
" tatitoe."

Kennedy, the officer, explained that the " tantoe" was sn
instrument by which they turned in their work, arid Was much
larger than the rods, but that either was a very unfit institiment
•to correct a young female with.
Apprentice—Your Worship. he scarcely s,iffers me to go to
(thatch more than once Of twice a year. .
TWYFORT)—That of itself will be sufficient groutid for
our discharging the apprentice from her indentures. •. .
.A
young woman, about 2fl years of age, another apprentice,
corroborated the statement of the first witness.

TWYFOltD—What:saY7You, i%lr. (iilbert, to allthis ?
Gilhert77They were turned out of the Sunday .Schcol for
misbehaviour; beSides, my employer has lost upward's of td:
per yard•of the last piece of cloth wrought by thti elder ap-
prentice.
Mr. T'a-I,Fonts—'—But how has it happened that you winked
at their not.going to Chinch on Sundays, or that ~ou'diiinet
insist, asotheir master, that they should go? .
,Andzis to the in-
jury they have done the work, it will be serving you to be re-
lieved from them.
_

Tbe Magistrateq, after conferring together for a short tints;
desired that a notice should be served on the parish otlicers,4o;
as to give them an opportunity of recovering the pretniiim they
advanced ; that the -apprentices shoUld be discharged; and
that. they should riot,be,suirered to return under the same roof
with their master, but.that they shOtild he sent to the pariah
workhouse .for the Dlght; until the indentures shouldhe.e.a;:-
celled.


PRICE SEVENPENCE

EXEMPTIONfromSERVING on. JURIES.

YestPrday a Meeting, of the Inhabitants of St;
Andrew, Holborn, was held in the Inquest WooM, " to take
into consideratlon a circular signed by the Ward:Clerk; requir-
ing infiabitants, from the ageof 21 to 60, to return themselves
as Jurors, iriebntravention of -immemorial, custom of exenp-
tion."

Mr. HARMS, the Churchwarden, in the. Chair. • •
The CHAIRMAN commenced by reading the requisition call-
ing the Meeting, and briefly explained the objbci! OF it: '
Mr. BEAUCHAMP said, the question they, had met tollecile
was, whether they would submit to be deprivred' of a right
which they had enjoyed fin ages, or take ~the necessary _steps
towards establishing it. The prescriptive right they claimed
had been for
,years *acknowledged, but the Origin la it was for-
gotten, and the proof of it unfortunately lost. A document had
recently been found in the British. Museum, which proved such
a, right formerly existed. It was as follows :--
'Mss. Had. Mis.—British Museum, N 3. 5,900 in, the hand-
writing of Mr. John Bagford. Malcolm, London, 2nd /yd. page
.500—

" And likewise at Holbourne listrrs within this 30 years wit,'
two clay es hie weeke kept a small Market by Country littgel.
lers ror.veal, pork, and lowly, but fly an Agreement between
the City and the Inhabitants, they being excused from Juneyesi,
they have consented to the disuse of it, although there remain
some Butebers, Poulterers, and Fishmongers.
" Dated 1657.1'

_ - -.-
No doubt
,such an, agreement had,beep entered into, and it
was probably still in existence„ and if proper exertion was used
it !night befound. ,He did not, wish' .the pais!: .to incur any
considerable expence, but still he wished some further inquiry
to be made: Mr. Peel's Act stated, that all per:vs having any
Prescription, Charter,
.ora:its, pr Writ, should continue rto.ealjoy
the tatne, in as'ample a' manner as before the passing of the Act.
He concluded by. proposing a resolution, to the effect; that in
the'opinion of the Meeting the inhabitants of St. Andrew were
exempt frotn. serving on Juries.,
Mr. SicEr.x. said, if the parish had such a privilege, it was
their duty:to prt-serve it. lie thought :the Act -of Parliainent
confirmed the prescriptiye right they claimed, and which he.
had no doubt was purchased by their fore.fathers. He t:tad
lately found in his house an inventory of fixtures taken. silitte
years since, on which was writteri-=" Privileged froM serving
on Juries.." He then seconded the motion. • •

Mr. PONTIF EX.; a Solicitor, said, his opinion there was
no chance of establishing their claim. A prescription; was le-
gaily defined to be a right attached to the person, anti .a cus-
tom as a right attached to •a place, The 'word custom vra's
omitted in the Act of Parliament, and he thought theY,would
never be able to prove a prescription.
Mr. JONES said, the second section of the' Act enumerated
the places and .persop' who. were entitled 'to 'exemption.- He
thought the Law Officers of the parish ought to have watched
the progress of the Bill, and procured the insertion of a •clause
exempting the inhabitants of St. Andrew's parish ; .but he
feared they had no chance left of establishing their claim.
Mr. icosom, the Vestry Clerk, said the -paper which had
been found in the British Museum said the exemption' was
granted by an agreement • with 'the City. , The City had only
the power of exempting parishes from serving on Juries.in 41e
Lord Mayor's Cowt. lie had no doubt that when the agree-
ment was made, the parish of St. Andrew's surrendered to the
City some privilege in exchange. lie had waited upon 'the
City Solicitor and some ether gentlenpn upon. the subject, to
procure their assistance in endeavouring to find the agreement ;
.but they were not at all disposed to afford it, and refused to
suffer an inspectirzi of the City Records. .
Mr.. PONTIFEX said, if the parish had ever obtained a
Charter granti,,g them the exemption, they would have hall no
occasion to have made the agreement with the City already
mentioned. He had no doubt of the existence of. the custom:
which, however, he considered contrary to the public good. It
was laid doWn in 2 Danvers, 424 end 427, that a custom con-
trary to the public good, or injurious to a multitude, and be;
neficial to some particular persons, is repugnant to the law of
il'sithigi-erantkerue/W "id. "a avk a'isMivtreu, 'as nV
chance of success. ,„

The Resolution was then Put and Carried by a considerable
majority.
Mr. SoAyEs said he was of opinion that many years since
the parish o& St. Ahdrew had, by the perfortnanee ()flame pub-
lic duty, acquired a public right. To persons.like.himself,who
were engaged in business, time was money, and as a great.deal
of their time would be occupied, if they were compelled to
serve on Juries, he thought they ottght, to enforce their ..claim
of exemption.
Several other Gentlemen addressed the Meeting, and a variety
of Resolutions were agreed' to.
A Committee was then appointed to draw up a case for the
opinion of Counsel, after which thanks were voted to the, Mk-
man; anti the Meeting separated.