« EdellinenJatka »
Justices to consent.
Apprentices' age, immaterial.
Condition of the master.
But this must be with the consent of two or more justices, in whom the statute vests the power to make an order. (1)
Formerly the age of the apprentice was of no importance. No is mentioned in the 43 Eliz. c. 2., or in the 8 & 9.W.III. c. 30. which gives the appeal, and compels the master to receive the apprentice. The statute 5 Eliz. c. 2., mentions ten years of age; but that respects apprentices in husbandry, which may require greater bodily strength than most other occupations, such as a female child bound to housewifery; and the statute 5 Eliz. c. 2. cannot be connected with 43 Eliz. c. 2., which is for the sustenance of the poor. In other instances the legislature had not considered seven as too tender an age. The children of vagrants might at that age be bound out; and the strength and ability of children, which, from seven years of age to ten, must vary greatly in point of fitness in this respect, is matter of consideration and discretion in the magistrates; and, independent of any statutable regulation, seven years is at common law the age of puberty. It was held, therefore, that a girl of eight years old might be bound out as an apprentice, to be brought up in housewifery, and that the master might be compelled to take her. (2)
But now by 59 Geo. III. c. 139. s.7. no child shall be bound out as a parish apprentice until it shall have attained the age of nine years.
So the condition of the master is immaterial. may be bound apprentice by the parish to a day labourer, to learn housewifery, and it will be good, unless it is found to be fraudulent. (3)
(1) Ib. and see ante, Vol. I. Rex v. Clapp, 3 Term Rep. 107. and 56 Geo.III. c. 139.
(2) Rex v. Saltern, Cald. 444. And see ante.
(3) Rex v. St. Margaret's, Lincoln, Burr. S. C. 728.
Who may be compelled to take an Apprentice.
43 Eliz. c.2.
1. All inhabit-
THE 43 Eliz. c.2. s. 5. directs the parish officers to bind the children of poor persons "where they should see convenient." This has been held to give a power to bind them to all inhabitants, and also to all occupiers of lands within the parish, although residing out of it; for the general the parish proviso of the statute was to make a provision for the maintenance of the poor, and the first clause in mentioning those who have to contribute to such maintenance, describes two sorts of persons, namely, inhabitants and occupiers of lands, &c. Amongst other provisions for the poor, the fifth section gives power to the parish officers, with the assent of the two magistrates, to bind poor children apprentices where they shall see convenient. It is true, indeed, these words cannot be taken so generally as they purport, because they cannot compel mere strangers, who stand in take them. no relation to the parish, to take such an apprentice; but I think that the context of the statute furnishes the means of circumscribing the general extent of these words; and that context I took from the sixth clause, which imposes other burthens of the same nature on occupiers of lands, &c. as well as inhabitants. The general object of the act was to compel all those who had any property in the parish to contribute their due proportion towards the maintenance of the poor; and the receiving apprentices is one mode of contributing to their general relief. (1)
But it is said, that if this construction be put upon the statute the party may be doubly charged: in the parish in
(1) Per Lord Kenyon C. J., Rex v. Clapp, 3 Term Rep. 107. But Rex v. Clowerly, 1 Bott, 587. Pl. 786. is contra.
But mere strangers not compellable to
So of apprentices put out by incorporated districts.
3. Joint occupiers, whether
which he lives, in respect of his inhabitancy; in that in which he has lands, in respect of his occupation of them. But if he find himself aggrieved, he may appeal to the sessions, and we must take it for granted that the justices will do what is right. They are to adapt the charge to the size of the property that the person possesses, and these are incidental charges which fall on him in respect of that property. (1)
The law is the same as to apprentices bound according to the 20 Geo. III. c. 36., which passed for obviating doubts touching the binding and receiving of poor children apprentices, in pursuance of acts made for relief of the poor, within incorporated hundreds or districts. It enacts that "nothing in the act shall be construed to compel any person to take any such poor child apprentice, unless such person shall be an inhabitant, and occupier of lands, &c. in. the parish to which said child belongs." But the use of the words, inhabitants and occupiers, does not extend the meaning more than if the term, inhabitants, which occurs. in 43 Eliz. c. 3., had been only employed. (2) "The word has been held not to be confined to resiants. And Lord Coke, in his reading on the 22 Hen. VIII. c. 5. relative to the repairing of bridges by the inhabitants of counties, says, that the word, inhabitants, includes those who occupy lands in the county, though they do not reside there. For some purposes, inhabitants and occupiers are synonimous terms. Where a person derives a benefit from property, which he occupies in a parish, he is liable to contribute to the ease of it." (3)
And a person is equally liable where he resides out of residing within the parish, and occupies premises within it jointly with or without the others who dwell there, and have apprentices bound to parish, are seB. was a partner with eleven others, in a manu
(1) Eod. Jud., ibid.
(2) Rex v. Tunstead and Happing, 3 Term Rep. 523.
(3) Per Lord Kenyon C. J., ibid.
factory of earthen ware, in the township of H. The partnership was rated for lands and buildings in H. to the amount of 270l. a-year, of which 237. a-year is the appellant's share. Two of the partners resided within the township, and had each of them an apprentice. B. resided in L. a township adjoining; and upon a poor child from H. being appointed and tendered to him to be his apprentice individually, he appealed. But the court of quarter sessions, and afterwards the King's Bench, upon a case stated, held him liable to take one. For the appellant occupied lands in the parish to the amount of 231. per annum, that being his aliquot part of the whole; and in respect of that occupation, he is bound, according to the case of Rex v. Clapp, to take the apprentice. (1) It is not an occupation of the partnerships' land and houses by two of the partners, to the exclusion of the rest. Each may reside there if he pleases. (2)
and a custom to the contrary immaterial.
And land is not the only property, in respect of which 4. Occupier of a person becomes liable to receive an apprentice. An inhabitant was held liable to receive one, for the sheaf or great tithes of the parish, although the case stated that, in respect of the said tithes, no apprentice had heretofore been bound; but that the custom of binding in that parish had been upon lands of ten pounds per annum, and upwards. (3)
5. Quære, whether inhabitants not oc
No case determines whether a rateable inhabitant of sufficient ability, but without real property in the parish, be compellable to receive an apprentice. But the principle of cupiers liable. those already cited, namely that this is one mode of contributing to the sustentation of the poor, seems to extend to such cases, and decide, that all who are liable to con
(1) Rex v. Barwick, 7 Term Rep. 33.
(2) Per Lawrence J., ibid. and see Vol. I. 49. (1) and (2).
6. A binding
to a stranger residing in another county is valid.
tribute to the relief of the poor of the parish, must receive apprentices, provided they are enabled by their circumstances to do so. Indeed it seems to have been determined that clergymen are compellable to take them, or at least are chargeable to contribute towards putting apprentices out. (1)
A person who is neither an inhabitant nor occupier of property in the parish cannot be compelled to receive an apprentice from it; yet, if he consent to take one, the binding is good, and confers a settlement (2), although the master reside in a different county. (3)
to take ap
Of compelling Masters to provide for their Apprentices.(4)
It seems to have been the better received opinion, that compel master the justices might force a master to take an apprentice, prentice prior prior to 8&9 W. III. c.30.; for a power to compel the master to receive him, is consequential to the authority given the justices by the statute to put him out. (5) But the point was considered as doubtful, and Lord Kenyon C. J. observes, "masters could not be compelled to
to 8 & 9 W.III. c. 30.
But not to provide for them.
(1) 1 Bott, 608. Pl. 841. cites Dalton, who states it upon credible information, as the opinion of all the judges.
(2) Rex v. St. Margaret's, Lincoln.
(3) Rex v. St. Nicholas, Nottingham, 2 Term Rep. 726.
(4) As to discharging an apprentice from his indentures, see ante, Vol. I. chap. xxi. sect. 3.
(5) Anon. Salk. 67. Rex v. Gillifer, T. Raym. 65. 1 Lev. 84. S. C. Henton v. Steers, T. Raym. 65. in marg. Rex r. Fairfax, 1 Show. 76. 5 Mod. 269. S. C. But see Rex v. Trevilian, 2 Str. 1268.