observation and from history, that the public opinion is seldom very generally expressed for or against any measure for a continued length of time without some good foundation. We therefore consider a long, marked, and unvaried disapprobation of, call it even prejudice against, a particular system, as that sort of primâ facie evidence in its disfavour, which should induce us to pause, and examine, with much scrupulousness, the arguments in its support, before we assent to its utility. To apply this to the subject of the Apprentice Laws: we find them universally condemned by all writers upon political economy as unnecessary, and therefore oppressive restrictions, as tending to establish monopolies, which are on all hands confessed to be evils, as hindering, rather than encouraging, extension and improvement in trade. One great proof of the universality of this opinion is, that it has never been proposed hitherto to extend these laws to any trades established since their enactment, but they have been wholly confined to those trades which were in being at that time. Why they should at this day be considered as more applicable to those trades, than to others of recent invention, we cannot exactly discover; and surely, without at all arraigning the wisdom of our ancestors, we may allow, that what may have been advantageous, and almost necessary, in the reign of Elizabeth, in the infancy of our manufactures, may, in process of time, from various causes, have become not only useless but inju

rious.

But, in order to give the reader a more perfect idea of the nature of this law, we will introduce him to the little tract before us, in which the restrictive clauses of the act are enumerated.

"The object is stated in the preamble of the 5 Eliz. cap. 4. to be to banish idleness and advance husbandry;' and to attain this object, it is enacted, (sec. 4.) That every person not above 30 years of age, or not married, who has used certain crafts for three years, shall serve and be retained in the said crafts, if required, unless he have land of 40s. a year; or goods amounting to 101.; or is retained in husbandry; or in any other craft; or in the service of a nobleman, &c.; or have a convenient farm in tillage. But by Sec. 7. Every person between 12 and 60 years of age, shall be compelled to serve in husbandry, with similar exceptions.

"And further it is enacted, (Sec. 26.) That any householder in a corporate town, shall or may take the son of any freeman, of that or any other town, not occupied in husbandry or being a labourer, as an apprentice, according to the custom of London, but if (Sec. 27.) he be a merchant, mercer, draper, goldsmith, ironmonger, embroiderer, or clothier, the parent must have in land 20s. a year.

"And householders being artificers in market towns, (Sec, 28.) may also take the sons of other artificers of any town within the same shire, provided they are as before not already husbandmen or labourers; but if they are of any of the before mentioned trades, then the parents must have 60s. in land.

"To certain laborious trades, however, enumerated Sec. 30.) such as thatchers, lime and ore and wood-ash burners, brick and tile makers, bricklayers, tylers, slaters, wheel, plough, and millwrights, sawyers, carpenters, smiths, plaisterers, &c. wherever they may dwell, apprentices may be taken, though the parents have no land. But apprentices to woollen weavers in villages, must have 60s. in land.

"All indentures are void (Sec. 42.) that are contrary to this Act: and (Sec. 33.) taylors, shoemakers, and 'woollen manufacturers that have three apprentices, shall keep one journeyman.

"And by (Sec. 31.) it is also prohibited to carry on, or exercise, or set any other person to work at any craft or mystery carried on in England or Wales, at the time of passing the Act (1562), without having served an apprenticeship thereto, under a penalty of 40s. a month,

"None of these restrictions* have in the memory of man been enforced except the last. They have all been rendered obsolete by tacit consent as wholly incompatible with the interests and prosperity of commerce, on which it had at length been found that the riches and power of the country depended. From the last, an appearance of exclusive privilege has been derived, and the penalty attached has afforded opportunity to individuals to enforce it. Is is this then which it is now desired to repeal.

"It is clear from the clauses which have been quoted, that the persons who were permitted to become tradesmen and artificers, were the sons of freemen and artificers only, and in some cases they must possess landed estates: and that husbandmen and labourers were excluded and not permitted to quit husbandry and enter into trade. That is, in plain English, as the Statute itself truly ex

*"Even the advocates for the continuance of this Act are ashamed of them, and desire their repeal, because forsooth, they tend to prevent the growth of genius,' as if that was not the tendency of the whole Act: and because every person has a common right of instruction; as if every person had not also a com mon right' to get his bread in the manner he thought best. Whilst they exclaim against the monopoly of instruction and demand it as of common right,' they insist on keeping to themselves a mo. nopoly of employment! The monopoly, if it were one, was granted on conditions-they want to get rid of the conditions and keep the monopoly! Have they forgotten the late outcry against the monopoly of the East-India trade? Besides, if this Act were strictly enforced, 99 out of 100 journeymen, apprentices, and masters, would be found to be 'illegal.'”

presses

presses it, husbandry was to be advanced by the restraint of trade. Is this then an Act to be contended for at the present day? Is it fit to extend the restraints of such an Act over the arts and manufactures and inventions of the present age? or even to continue them against the improvements of the crafts and mysteries' of Elizabeth's time?" P. 4.

We should observe of the 31st section, that it is somewhat imperfectly stated in this pamphlet, the words in fact being "unless he shall have been brought up therein seven years at the least as an apprentice:" which we mention, because the length of apprenticeship required by the statute is one of the great grievances of which complaint is now made. We cannot deny that this statute must have been passed under the very erro-. neous notion, which we sincerely hope is now exploded, that the trading and agricultural interests are in this country opposed to each other. As far therefore as its object is the advancing agriculture at the expence of trade, it cannot, we think, be defended. Upon what ground then shall its defenders, for such there are, take their stand? There are two other points which the framers of this Act had in view: viz. the promotion of industry, by binding those who would otherwise be idle, in a legal obligation to work; and the providing that none but skilful workmen should be employed in any business. Here the advocates for the Apprentice Laws take up their position; and it is in fact the only tenable one: they entrench themselves behind a passage in Blackstone, which is not however a very formidable outwork, when it is considered that the learned commentator scarcely can be said to give an opinion in it. We allude to the well-known passage in the first book of the Commentaries. We will extract it entire.

"This law, with regard to the exclusive part of it, has by turns been looked upon as a hard law, or as a beneficial one, according to the prevailing humour of the times: which has occasioned a great variety of resolutions in the courts of law concerning it; and attempts have been frequently made for its repeal, though hitherto without success. At common law every man might use what trade he pleased, but this statute restrains that liberty to such as have served as apprentices: the adversaries to which provision say, that all restrictions (which tend to introduce monopolies) are pernicious to trade; the advocates for it allege, that unskilfulness in trades is equally detrimental to the public, as monopolies. This reason indeed only extends to such trades, in the exercise whereof skill is required: but another of their arguments goes much further; viz. that apprenticeships are useful to the commonwealth, by employing of youth, and learning them to be early industrious; but that no one would be induced to undergo a seven years servitude, if others,

others, though equally skilful, were allowed the same advantages without having undergone the same discipline: and in this there seems to be some reason. However, the resolutions of the courts have in general rather confined than extended the restriction. No trades are held to be within the statute, but such as were in being at the making of it: for trading in a country village, apprenticeships are not requisite; and following the trade seven years, without any effectual prosecution (either as a master or a servant) is sufficient without an actual apprenticeship."

agree

Here then the learned commentator can only be taken to express as his own opinion, that there is some reason in the argument of those who consider the apprentice laws as conducive to industry. And in this we are disposed in a great measure to with him; still however we think that it is not by means of the compulsory binding of seven years that this object can be best effected, but by allowing parents to bind their children for any number of years they may think necessary or convenient, and subjecting them, when so bound, as at present, to the summary controul of justices of the peace. It is indeed said that young men will be more likely to work with readiness, and to acquire habits of industry and regularity, when they find such a line of conduct bringing money into their own pockets, than when they know that all their earnings must go to their master: and this may, to a certain extent, be true; still however experience must, we think, teach us, that at all events in the early years of apprenticeship, the fear of correction has more influ ence over the mind, than the prospect of gain and reward: though an apprentice may feel disposed to thwart his master, when he is old and skilful enough to be of essential service to him, in order to get himself discharged, yet should he be threatened with a visit to the House of Correction, or some such salutary punishment, we do not doubt this inclination would be speedily suppressed. The 31st clause of this Act, by prohibiting the exercise of any trade, unless the party had been apprenticed thereto, appears to confirm an old law not then repealed (the 37th of Edward the 3d )

"That artificers and handicraft people, shall hold every one, to one mystery only *."

"But

"The liberal construction of the judges on this point is well known; with due reference to them, however, if they had not been 80 liberal, but had constantly enforced the Act, it would not have been permitted to have remained to this day, on the statute-books. But if it be contended, that a person may be apprenticed to more trades than one, and therefore have an equal right to follow them

VOL. II. SEPTEMBER, 1814.

T

A

all,

"But it would be an idle waste of time, to dilate further on this point. Let us hear no more, however, of high sounding claims to a vested interest' in a pretended encouragement of trade, which in fact was, and was intended to be, a positive restraint and prohibition. But, if it had been otherwise, is this single clause, of a law passed in semi-barbarous times, the only law, which like those of the Medes and Persians, it is not permitted to alter? Is a law passed 250 years ago, when the commerce of London*, which was carried on by 200 citizens only, was more than of that of the whole kingdom, when the whole of the exports of the country did not exceed 2,500,000l. and of that consisted in one article woollen cloth, which was even then exported in an unfinished state? Are the acts of a queen, who had so little regard for trade as to prohibit the growth of one of the most useful plants, because she did not like the smell of it-of a queen of whom it is remarked by the historian, that if she had gone on for a tract of years, at her own rate, England would have contained at present as little industry as Morocco, or the coast of Barbary are the Acts of such a period to be esteemed inviolable, and unalterable?

"What, however, was the immediate consequence of the Act? The diminution of the quantity of shipping! By a remonstrance from the Trinity-house in 1602, it appears that the seamen, and shipping had decayed one third in twelve years! and the fine cloth was in such little credit, that it was with great difficulty king James could induce his courtiers to wear it.

"But in fact, it was found impracticable and impolitic to carry this law fully into effect, and in the memorable language of lord Kenyon, The ink with which it was written was scarce dry when the inconvenience of it was felt,' and when the religious persecutions in the Netherlands drove the manufacturers into this country, and the benefits of trade were better understood, the judges endea voured to quibble it away, and actually decided, that serving an apprenticeship to any one trade, for seven years, entitled a man to carry on any other. In every age, they have concurred in annuling it as much as was in their power. At one time, a master has been permitted to carry on a trade, for the future, because he has already violated the law for seven years with impunity. At another, a journeyman has been excused, because it was said, he might do some trifling part of the work, and the act only imposed the penalty against masters for employing "illegal men," not upon the men for working as if working at a trade was not exercising it! Again, it has been determined, that the girths were no part

all, it destroys the plea of the advocates of the 5th of Elizabeth, that it requires seven years apprenticeship to become master of one."