THE OLD APPRENTICESHIP
Prior to the nineteenth century and the beginning of factory legislation
the conditions of boy labour were determined in and through the industrial
organization of the times. Of this organization, so far as the youthful
worker was concerned, the indentured apprenticeship system formed the most
characteristic feature. The history of the apprenticeship system falls
into three periods. In the first the gilds were the predominant factor; in
the second the State, by prescribing a seven years' apprenticeship,
insured the continuance of the system; in the third the industrial
revolution and the triumph of _laissez-faire_ ushered in the age of decay
and dissolution.
I.
THE AGE OF THE GILDS.
During the Early and Middle Ages the gilds constituted the central feature
of the industrial organization. The merchant gilds began to come into
existence in the second half of the eleventh century.[2] They were
societies formed for the purpose of obtaining the exclusive privilege of
carrying on trades. Later they became either identified with the municipal
body, or a specialized department of that authority. The craft gilds
appeared about a century later, and were associations of artisans engaged
in a particular industry. It is not necessary here to enter on a
discussion of the complex relations between these two kinds of gilds. The
subject is obscure, but, so far as concerns the regulation of boy labour,
the general facts are unquestioned.
Either by obtaining a royal charter of their own or by using the authority
of the municipality, the gilds were enabled to prescribe, down to the most
minute details, the conditions under which the trades of the district were
carried on. The control was essentially of a local character, varying from
place to place; it was, moreover, a control with, for all practical
purposes, the full force of the law at its back. "The towns and even the
villages had their gilds, and it is certain that these gilds were the
agencies by which the common interests of labour were protected." [3]
The gild organization included three classes of person--the apprentice,
the journeyman, and the master.
_The Apprentice._--The apprentice paid the master a premium, and was
indentured to him for a period of years, usually seven. He lived in his
master's house, and received from him, in addition to board and clothing,
wages on a low and rising scale. The master engaged to teach him his
trade, and the boy promised to serve his master honestly and obediently.
The following is a typical example of a fifteenth-century indenture:[4]
"This indenture made the xviii of September the year of the reign of King
Edward the iiiith the xxth between John Gare of Saint Mary Cray in the
county of Kent, cordwainer on that oon partie and Walter Byse, son of John
Byse sumtyme of Wimelton, in the same county, fuller on that other partie,
Witnesseth that the saide Walter hath covenanted with the saide John Gare
for the time of vii yeres, and that the saide John Gare shall find the
saide Walter mete and drink and clothing during the saide time as to the
saide Walter shall be according. Also the saide John Gare shall teche the
saide Walter his craft, as he may and can, and also the saide John Gare
shall give him the first yere of the said vii yeres iii{d} in money and
the second yere vi{d} and so after the rate of iii{d} to an yere, and the
last yere of the saide vii yeres the saide John Gare shall give unto the
said Walter x shillings of money. And the saide Walter shall will and
truly keep his occupacyon and do such things as the saide John shall bid
him do, as unto the saide Walter shall be lawful and lefull, and the saide
Walter shall be none ale goer neyther to no rebeld nor sporte during the
saide vii yeres without the licence of the saide John. In witness whereof
the parties aforesaide chaungeably have put their seales this daye and
yere abovesaide."
_The Journeyman._--At the expiration of the identureship the apprentice
became a journeyman. The change of status, beyond bringing with it a rise
in wages, made no great difference to the youth. He usually continued to
work for his master, and not infrequently remained a lodger in his house.
To some extent the master was still responsible for the good conduct of
his journeymen. Various regulations forbade the master to entice away the
journeymen of others and the journeymen to combine against the masters.
_The Master._--By a somewhat similar process of growth and without any
sudden break in social status, the journeyman became a master. Between
journeyman and master there were no class distinctions. Both worked at
their craft; and, in an age preceding the era of capitalistic production
on a large scale, the need of capital to start business on his own account
presented no difficulties which could not easily be overcome by any
intelligent journeyman.
Period of apprenticeship, hours and conditions of work, wages and
premiums, were all rigidly determined by the rules of the gild. Through
its officers the gild visited the workshops, inspected the articles in
process of manufacture, satisfied themselves as to their quality,
prescribed methods of production, were empowered to confiscate tools not
sanctioned by the regulations, and settled all disputes between the three
classes of persons concerned. Masters, journeymen, and apprentices alike
benefited by an organization which was created and controlled in their
common interests; while the general public were well served in the system
of expert inspection which guaranteed the quality of the goods supplied.
The gild, in short, was "the representation of the interests, not of one
class alone, but of the three distinct and somewhat antagonistic elements
of modern society--the capitalist _entrepreneur_, the manual worker, and
the consumer at large." [5]
From the point of view of the boy's training the system presented unique
advantages. To the age of twenty-one, and sometimes twenty-four, he was
under control. Living in the same house as his master, that control was
paternal in character, inspired by a living and individual interest in his
welfare. He received a thorough training in the trade to which he was
indentured. Finally, when apprenticeship was over, he found ready-made for
himself an opening that led upwards from the journeyman to the small
master. Under this system there was no boy his own master from an early
age, no master irresponsible for the conduct of his boys outside the
workshops, and no blind alley of boy employment that closed with boyhood
and ended in the sink of unskilled labour.
It its best days the gilds represented something more than a privileged
trade organization. The close connection between the gilds and the
municipality guarded the interests of the public. "The city authorities
looked to the wardens of each craft to keep the men under their charge in
order; and thus for every public scandal, or underhand attempt to cheat,
someone was responsible, and the responsibility could, generally speaking,
be brought home to the right person." [6] Further, there was no sharp
barrier between trade and trade. It is true that no one could enter a
trade without being apprenticed, but the person who had served his seven
years' apprenticeship in any one trade became free to follow all trades
within the city.[7] The gild system represented therefore something very
different from the individualist methods of modern times. There was in a
real sense, at any rate in each town, a trade organization under no
inconsiderable amount of collective control.
But the organization of the gild was suited only to the conditions of a
more or less primitive society. For a country rising rapidly to a front
place in the commercial world it was ill adapted. Increasing trade brought
wealth and a desire for wealth; and with wealth came power to those who
possessed it. The richer members of the gild gained the upper hand in the
administration of its affairs and oppressed the poorer.[8] The gild was no
longer an association of equals; and the weaker went to the wall.
Competition turned the methods of production in the direction of cheapness
rather than good quality; and the supervisory functions of the gild
disappeared. In general the whole system, rigid and inelastic, became a
heavy drag on the industrial organization. The members had paid for their
privileges in money and a long apprenticeship, and bitterly resented the
appearance of intruders not hall-marked by the gild. With shortsighted
policy, the gilds limited admissions by exacting high entrance-fees, and
strove to secure the maximum of benefits for the smallest possible number.
No longer an association of equals, united by common interests and a
common outlook; no longer a guarantee of excellence in matters of
craftmanship; no longer the guardian of the interests of the general
public, but a narrow sect claiming exclusive privileges--the gilds, rent
by strife and envy within, and regarded with open hostility by those
outside, drifted slowly towards that inevitable end which awaits those who
seek to sacrifice the needs of all on the altar of the selfish desires of
the few. "In the sixteenth century," says Dr. Cunningham, "the gilds had
in many cases so entirely lost their original character that they had not
only ceased to serve useful purposes, but their ill-judged interference
drove workmen to leave the towns and establish themselves in villages
where the gilds had no jurisdiction." [9] They received their death-blow in
the year 1547, through the legislation directed against the property of
the semi-religious bodies. With the decay of the gilds and their final
dissolution passed the ancient system which had for centuries regulated
the conditions of boy labour. So far as the boy was concerned the system
was founded on three principles: It recognized his need for prolonged
control and supervision, and made provision for the need by securing for
him, through his master, an interest at once individual and paternal. It
recognized the need for a thorough training in the mysteries of the craft;
and it recognized the need that, at the close of this training, the lad
should find opening out for him a career for which he had been specially
prepared. And it made provision for these needs by its scheme of
inspection and control carried on by those responsible for the common
interests of the trade. In short, the gild organization, in its earlier
and flourishing days, may justly be regarded as satisfying the conditions
of a true apprenticeship system.
II.
THE STATUTE OF APPRENTICES.
If the gild system was dead, the principles for which it stood and made
provision continued to be as important as ever. Nor under the industrial
conditions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries did there appear to
be any practical difficulty in the way of enforcement. The small master
remained, and with him remained the possibility of an effective
apprenticeship system. Regulated by custom or by the municipal authority,
apprenticeship lost nothing of its old vitality. Indeed, with the increase
of trade and the increasing profits derived from trade, it became more
popular than ever. None the less, signs are not wanting that people were
conscious of faults in the industrial organization. Into the statute book
of the period creep frequent allusions to intruders who had entered the
trade other than through the door of apprenticeship. There was nothing new
in these complaints; they existed even in the best days of the gilds. "We
seem at a very early time," says Mrs. Green, "to detect behind the gild
system a growing class of 'uncovenanted labour,' which the policy of the
employers constantly tended to foster, their aim being on the one hand to
limit the number of privileged serving-men, and on the other to increase
the supply of uncovenanted labour." [10] But with the decay of the
supervisory functions of the gild these complaints became more frequent.
The condition of this "uncovenanted labour" has always been the unsolved
problem in any apprenticeship system. If uncovenanted labour is allowed to
enter a trade on the same terms as those who have served an
apprenticeship, the latter have clearly a grievance. They have paid for
their privilege in premium and long service at low wages, and not
unnaturally demand some assured recompense in return. If, on the other
hand, uncovenanted labour is rigidly excluded, there is no method of
rapidly increasing the supply of workers in times of expanding trade. From
this dilemma there is but one way of escape. All boys, irrespective of the
trades they follow, must pass through a system of apprenticeship before
they are permitted to earn the wages of a man. Two conditions are
necessary to success. First, all boys without exception must serve an
apprenticeship; secondly, having served this apprenticeship, they must not
in their employment be restricted to the trade to which they have been
indentured.
As already shown, the gilds, at any rate in certain districts, allowed a
person who had served an apprenticeship in one trade to be free of all the
trades of the town. The gilds satisfied the second condition, and in their
earlier days, when they included the majority of the population, they
satisfied to a large extent the second condition as well. To satisfy the
first condition was clearly, as will appear later, the intention of the
Statute of Apprentices.
But apart from the problem of uncovenanted labour, the disappearance of
the controlling influence of the gilds left many anomalies. Here
apprenticeship was regulated by custom, here by charter, and there left
undetermined. In one place a certain period of service was exacted, in
another place a different period. Finally, in the minds of the leaders of
the day there was firmly fixed the belief that, as trade was becoming the
life-blood of the nation, there was need of a general and consolidating
Act giving the force of law to what was often only a floating custom
applicable in a certain district.
In the reign of Elizabeth these growing feelings of discontent found voice
in an Act which marks an epoch in industrial legislation. It is usually
known as the Statute of Artificers and Apprentices. After reciting the
confusion that existed in previous legislation, the preamble continues:
"So if the substance of as many of the said Laws as are meet to be
continued shall be digested and reduced into one sole law and Statute, and
in the same an uniform Order prescribed and limited concerning the Wages
and other Orders for Apprentices, Servants and Labourers, there is good
hope that it will come to pass, that the same law (being duly executed)
should banish Idleness, advance Husbandry, and yield unto the hired
person, both in the time of Scarcity and in the time of Plenty, a
conventient Proportion of Wages." [11]
We are here concerned with the Act only so far as it affects the
conditions of boy labour. The principal regulations are the following:
"No person shall retain a servant in their services (_i.e._, in employment
for which apprenticeship was required) under one whole Year." [12]
Husbandmen may take apprentices "from the age of 10 until 21 at least," or
till twenty-four by agreement.[13] Householders in towns may "have and
retain the son of any Freeman not occupying Husbandry nor being a Labourer
... to serve and be bound as an Apprentice, after the Custom and Order of
the City of London, for seven years at the least so as the Term and years
of such Apprentice do not expire or determine after such Apprentice shall
be of the Age of twenty-four Years at the least." [14] "None may use any
manual occupacyon unless he hath been apprenticed to the same as
above." [15] "If a person be required by any Householder to be an
Apprentice and refuse he may be brought before a justice of the peace who
is empourred to commit him unto Ward, there to remain until he be
contented, and will be bounden to serve as an Apprentice should
serve." [16]
The Elizabethan Poor Law gave additional powers with regard to the
compulsory apprenticing of those likely to fall into evil ways, and made
it lawful for churchwardens and overseers "to bind any such children as
aforesaid to be Apprentices, when they shall see convenient, till such Man
child shall come to the age of four-and-twenty yeares." [17]
Taken together, these two Acts gave to public authorities large powers of
control over the growing boy. They did not, indeed, provide that everyone
should be apprenticed, but in the majority of occupations no one could be
employed unless he had served his time. Nor did they allow a person who
had been apprenticed to one trade to work at another. But they applied the
system of compulsory apprenticeship to all parts of the country, and they
made provision for the proper care, by way of apprenticeship, of neglected
children. People of the time were clearly of one mind in their desire to
supervise, through the State, the training of the youth. "Contemporary
opinion held that it was neither good for society nor trade that the young
man should enjoy any independence. 'Until a man grows unto the age of
xxiii yeares he for the moste parte, thoughe not alwayes, is wilde,
withoute Judgment, and not of sufficient experience to govern himself. Nor
(many tymes) grown unto the full or perfect knowledge of the arte or
occupation that he professed.'" [18]
As to the general effect of the far-reaching Statute of Apprentices, it is
not possible to do better than quote Dr. Cunningham: "A proof of the
wisdom of the measure seems to lie in the fact that we have no complaints
as to these restrictions in the Act or proposals for amending the clauses,
but that, on the contrary, there was, on more than one occasion, a demand
that it should be rigorously enforced, so that the industrial system of
the country should be really reduced to order." [19] For more than two
centuries, without amendment, the Act remained in force; and while it
lasted it provided at least the possibility for the adequate training and
supervision of the youth of the country.
These two centuries constitute the second stage in the history of boy
labour regulation. From a superficial point of view there appears no
essential difference between this period and the preceding. In the first
apprenticeship was enforced through the action of the gilds, in the second
by special legislative enactment. In either case apprenticeship was, for
all practical purposes, compulsory; but here the similarity ends.
Under the regime of the gilds apprenticeship was enforced, but in addition
its conditions were determined by a careful system of regulation. The
gild, an association representing the three classes concerned--masters,
journeymen, apprentices--supervised the industrial organization in the
interests of all alike. In the best days of the gilds the trade, as a
whole, inspected the workshops; the trade, as a whole, watched over the
training of the youth; the trade, as a whole, so fixed the number of those
entering, that at the conclusion of the apprenticeship there was room in
the ranks of the skilled artisan for those who had learned their craft.
During the disintegration of the gilds, this second factor gradually
disappeared. The Statute of Apprentices did indeed make apprenticeship
compulsory, but provided no efficient system of regulation. Measures were
frequently advocated and occasionally embodied in Acts for determining the
proportion of apprentices to journeymen, but never proved effective. We
see gradually emerging the struggle between the conflicting interests of
those engaged in production. A seven years' apprenticeship, enforced by
law, gave the employers a source of cheap labour, and we begin to hear
complaints that the number of apprentices was unduly multiplied and that
boys were taking the place of men. To what extent this practice prevailed
it is not easy to ascertain; but there is no question that, at any rate
among one class of apprentice--the pauper apprentice--abuses were grave
and frequent.
The whole story of the pauper apprentice forms an ugly episode in the
industrial history of the period. The Statute Book is punctuated with
frequent allusion to his unfortunate lot, coupled with proposals for
reform, for the most part ineffective. As already mentioned, the overseers
had large powers of compulsorily apprenticing the children of the poor. A
sum was paid to the employer, the lad handed over, and no steps taken to
guard his well-being or guarantee his training. It was inevitable that
under conditions such as these abuses should occur. The employer found
himself provided with a continual supply of lads, bound to serve him until
the age of twenty-one, or sometimes twenty-four; he was not troubled by
visits of inspectors; he could use them as he pleased. The luckless
apprentices were herded together in overcrowded and insanitary dwellings;
they were overworked and underfed; they learned no trade, and were
regarded as a cheap form of unskilled labour. If they misbehaved
themselves the justices of the peace would punish them; if they ran away
the law would see to it that they were returned to their masters; if they
complained of ill-treatment there was no one to substantiate the charge.
Whole trades seemed to have flourished by exploiting the parish
apprentices; and not infrequently the overseer, himself an employer, made
a comfortable profit out of their misfortunes.[20] In his "History of the
Poor Law" Sir G. Nicholls summarizes the legislation on the subject.[21]
With the rapid increase in the number of paupers at the close of the
eighteenth century these evils multiplied, and to an increasing extent
engaged the public attention.
If one class of apprentice was thus exploited, it is difficult to resist
the conclusion that, in a less degree, others suffered in a similar way.
Compulsory apprenticeship, without effective regulation, brought with it
the danger of compulsory servitude. The State was conscious of the danger,
and duties of supervision were laid on the justices of the peace. The
State was likewise conscious of the value of apprenticeship, and gave much
attention to the subject. A Commission of Charles I. dealt with the
problem, while an Act of James I. was concerned with the misuse of
apprenticeship charities, which led to children being brought up in
idleness, "to their utter overthrow and the great prejudice of the
commonwealth." [22] But legislation proved incapable of preventing evils
which increased rapidly as the years went by. From the standpoint of the
boy the second period, whose characteristic was compulsion without
supervision, was distinctly inferior to the first, when the gilds
regulated the affairs of the trade for the common good. But if the
apprenticeship system was weakening and abuses on the increase, an
effective training was always possible. The small master still remained,
there was still the call for the all-round craftsman, and the huge changes
in methods of production, that were destined to appear later, still lay in
the mists of the future.
III.
THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.
It was the invention of the steam-engine and the consequent introduction
of machinery that ushered in the period of the industrial revolution. In
the trades affected the consequences were immediate, profound, and
disastrous for boys, journeymen, and small masters alike. "On the whole,
machinery rendered it possible in many departments of industry to
substitute unskilled for skilled labour." [23] In branches of certain
trades boys took the place of men. "Under the new conditions (of
calico-printing) boys could be employed in what had been hitherto the work
of men; so that, in the introduction of machinery, complaints began to be
made by the journeymen as to the undue multiplication of apprentices.
There was one shop in Lancashire where fifty-five apprentices had been
working at one time and only two journeymen; it was obvious that under
such circumstances the man who had served his time had very little hope of
obtaining employment." [24] A system of compulsory apprenticeship, under
such conditions, was exploited for the benefit of the employer, and led
inevitably to the injury of the boy. The latter was bound and could not
escape, while the former could readily find an excuse for discharging an
apprentice. Further, with the growing division of labour and the
separation of boys' work from men's work, training became less easy. The
boy was kept to a single operation, and when his time was up found no
further call for his services. The position of the workmen in the trade
appeared desperate. Owing to the competition of boys and the decrease in
the demand for his skill, wages were rapidly falling, and at the same time
the price of corn was rising by leaps and bounds. The small master, unable
to compete with the cheapness of the machine-made goods, fared as badly as
the journeyman. Both appealed to Parliament for redress, "usually
demanding the prohibition of the new machines, the enforcement of a seven
years' apprenticeship, or the maintenance of the old limitation of the
number of boys to be taught by each employer." [25]
But appeals of this kind fell on deaf ears. The spirit of the age was
against interference, and opposition to all form of regulation was rapidly
growing. The Statute of Apprentices was disliked by the large employers,
and an eager agitation began for its repeal. Though obsolescent, it was
still sufficiently alive to be troublesome. A seven years' apprenticeship,
it was argued, was unnecessarily long; weaving, for example, could be
learnt in two or three years. A Commission was appointed to consider the
question, and the large employers pointed out "that the new processes
could be learnt in a few months instead of seven years; and that the
restriction of the old master craftsman to two or three apprentices apiece
was out of the question with the new buyers of labour on a large
scale." [26] In the House of Commons "Mr. Sergeant Onslow urged the repeal
of the Act, and remarked that 'the reign of Elizabeth was not one in which
sound principles of commerce were known.' The true principles of commerce
(said another M.P.) appeared at that time to be misunderstood, and the Act
in question proved the truth of this assertion. The persons most competent
to form regulations with respect to trade were the master manufacturer,
whose interest it was to have goods of the best fabric, and no legislative
enactment could ever effect so much in producing that result as the merely
leaving things to their own courses and operations." [27] The skilled
craftsmen, on the other hand, petitioned in favour of compulsory
apprenticeship. But in the growing enthusiasm for the theory whose sole
tenet lay in the belief that the haven of prosperity lay in the mid-ocean
of uncontrolled liberty, all pleas in favour of regulation were treated
with contempt. The famous Chalmers, speaking of the Statute of
Apprentices, declared that "this law, so far as it requires
apprenticeship, ought to be repealed, because its tendency is to abolish
and to prevent competition among workmen." [28]
In the year 1814 the Statute of Apprentices was repealed;[29] and with its
repeal the State washed its hands of all responsibility for the well-being
of the youth of the land. Henceforth things were to be left "to their own
courses and operations." It is no doubt true that there remained the
"Health and Morals of Apprentices Act," passed in 1802; this Act
prescribed certain conditions as to hours of work and sanitation. But the
Act in itself was utterly "ineffective," [30] and for all practical
purposes employers were unfettered in their use or misuse of children.
There remained one more blow to be struck before the condition of the boy
touched the lowest level of misery reached in the whole history of this
country; and it was soon struck with that relentless vigour which marked
the actions of the reformer in those times.
After the repeal of the Statute of Apprentices there was for the lad no
sort of legal guarantee of training, no kind of State supervision over his
conduct; he could work how and when it pleased him or his parents. But the
Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 made it necessary for him to work how and
when it pleased his employer, and took from him all possibility of
effective choice. This Act abolished the allowance system in aid of wages.
Salutary and even necessary as some reform of the kind was, in the
particular way in which it was carried out it fell with crushing force on
the unfortunate children. Hitherto parents could receive so much per child
out of the rates; from henceforth this was to be illegal. Wages indeed
rose, but rose slowly and in patches. The earnings of the child were
required to make existence even possible for the family. A foreign and
impartial student of English affairs has made this truth abundantly clear:
"Even granted that the labourer himself now needed no allowance, what had
he in place of the allowance for his family and the out-of-work relief?
Something in place of these he must have, for even labourers' families
must live.... What was the way out? The labourer must sell more labour
power; and since his own was already sold, he must put that of his family
upon the market. This was how the problem of the married man was
solved.... We have already seen that the expansion of the gang system took
place mainly after 1834; it appears that the exploitation of child-labour
and women's labour is the main characteristic of the period between the
Poor Law and the Education Acts. When Dr. Kay was examined before the
Lords' Committee on the Poor Law Amendment Act, he described the
astonishment of travellers at the number of women and children working in
the fields, and traced their increased employment to the Poor Law. In his
own words: 'The extent of employment for women and children has most
wonderfully increased since the Poor Law came into operation. It has had
that effect by rendering it necessary that the children should be so
employed in order to adjust the wages to the wants of the family....' And
a country clergyman gave expression to similar views in 1843: 'By these
allowances their children were not then obliged, as now, to work for their
subsistence. Their time was at their own disposal; and then they were
sent more regularly to the schools. But since the new Poor Law this has
been reversed.'" [31]
Those persons who nowadays talk genially of the ease with which the new
Poor Law was enforced, would do well to remember that the ease was
purchased at the high price of the physical and moral deterioration of the
children. Chalmers had got his way, there was now free competition among
the workmen; and free competition among the workmen meant then, as it has
always meant since, the unregulated slavery of the weak.
With the repeal of the Statute of Apprentices and the passing of the Poor
Law Amendment Act, the old apprenticeship system came to an end. No longer
capable of being controlled in the common interests of the trade and the
community, no longer capable of being enforced by statutory enactment, the
apprenticeship system in its ancient form, though it might linger among
certain industries, was destined slowly to disappear. We may regret its
disappearance, as the vanishing of a fragment of an old-world life; but
repinings are idle unless directed toward the search for some substitute
adequate to the needs of the present.