§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)asked the Home Secretary whether the City Chamberlain had the right to sentence any City apprentice to 14 days' solitary confinement in the City bridewell for neglecting to carry out any order of his master; whether lately an apprentice was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment for a trivial offence, the evidence not being taken on oath; and whether the Government would bring in a measure to abolish this Court?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,) Birmingham, E.The City Chamberlain informs me that he has an ancient customary jurisdiction in connection with the Mayor's Court to 832 adjudicate on disputes between masters and apprentices. I beg to refer the hon. Member to the second Report of the Commissioners on Municipal Corporations on this subject (1837, No. 60, appendix, p. 100). The committal of an apprentice to the bridewell for misconduct is in accordance with the custom of the City, and provisions for his reception and treatment are made in a scheme for the management of the bridewell, approved by the Court of Chancery in 1860. In the particular case referred to, the apprentice was not sentenced to solitary confinement, and his offence was not a trivial one. He had been twice previously warned by the Chamberlain for his misconduct. Evidence is not taken on oath, but an apprentice is not imprisoned unless he admits the facts alleged against him, and only in cases of incorrigible conduct. I have reason to believe that the Chamberlain's Court is distinguished for its impartial administration and care of the rights of apprentices, and the Government do not propose to bring in a measure to abolish the Court.