The London apprentices, in early times, were an important and often a formidable body. They derived consequence from their numbers, the superior birth of many of them, and the wealth of their masters, but particularly from their union, and the spirit of freemasonry which prevailed among them. The author of a carious poem published in 1647, entitled The Honour of London Apprentices, observes, in his preface, that " from all shires and counties of the kingdom of England and dominion of Wales, the sonny of knights, esquiers, gentlemen, ministers, yeomen, and tradesmen, come up from their parti cular places of nativity and are bound to be prentices in London." He also men tions "the unanimous correspondence that is amongst that innumerable company." In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries there are recorded a constant succession of tumults, and some instances of serious and alarming insurrections among the apprentices. Thus the fatal riot in Lon don against foreign artificers, which took place on the 1st of May, 1517, and from which that day was called Evil May Day,' was commenced and encouraged by the apprentices. In the year 1595, certain apprentices in London were im prisoned by the Star-Chamber for a riot ; upon which, several of their fellows as sembled and released them by breaking open the prisons. Many of these were taken and publicly whipped by order of the Lord Mayor. This caused a much more formidable disturbance ; for 200 or 300 apprentices assembled in Tower street, and marched with a dram in a warlike manner to take possession of the person of the Lord Mayor, and, upon the principle of retaliation, to whip him through the street& Several of the ring leaders in this riot were tried and con victed of high treason. (Criminal Trials, voLi.p. 317.) In the troubles of the civil wars the apprentice, of London took an active part as a political body ; numerous petitions from them were presented to the parlia ment, and they received the thanks of the House " for their good affections." Nor did they confine their interference merely to petitions, but, under sanction of an ordinance of parliament which pro mised them security against forfeiture of their indentures, they were enrolled into a sort of militia. They also took part in the Restoration, and in the reign of Charles II. they were frequently engaged in tumults. The last serious riot in which they were concerned took place in 1668. On this occasion they assembled together tumultuously during the holi days, and proceeded to pull down the disorderly houses in the city. For this exploit several of them were tried and executed for high treason.
In 1681, when Charles II. was desirous of strengthening his hands against the corporation of London, he thought it necessary to endeavour to secure the favour of the apprentices, and sent them a brace of bucks for their annual dinner at Sadlers' Hall, where several of his principal courtiers dined with them. The apprentices, however, were divided in opinion ; for there were numerous petitions from them both for and against the measures of the court. Subsequently to this time their union appears to have been gradually dissolved, and we do not find them again acting together in a body.
The apprentice laws were enacted at a time when the impolicy of such legis lation was not perceived. But opinion
gradually became opposed to these enact ments, and the judges interpreted the law favourably to freedom of trade. Lord Mansfield denounced the appren tice laws as being "against the natural rights of man, and contrary to the com mon law rights of the land." Accord ingly the decisions of the courts tended rather to confine than to extend the effect of the statute of Elizabeth, and thus the operation of it was limited to market towns, and to those crafts, mysteries, and occupations which were in existence at the time it was passed. And although, in consequence of this doctrine, many absurd decisions were made, yet the exclusion of some manufactures, and particularly of the principal ones of Manchester and Birmingham, from the operation of the act, had probably a favourable effect in causing it to be less strictly enforced even against those who were held to be liable to it. It was proved by a mass of evidence produced before a committee of the House of Commons in 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 le gally 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 ge nerally unable to form any contract, can not 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 twenty one, 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 main tained 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 chs tom, the master may have such remedy against him as if he were of full age, and consequently an action of covenant.