Neff 1996

Journalhttp://jfh.sagepub.
com/
of Family History
Pauper Apprenticeship in Early Nineteenth Century Ontario

Charlotte Neff
Journal of Family History 1996 21: 144
DOI: 10.1177/036319909602100203
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jfh.sagepub.com/content/21/2/144
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Journal of Family History can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jfh.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jfh.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
>> Version of Record - Apr 1, 1996
What is This?
Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

PAUPER APPRENTICESHIP IN
EARLY NINETEENTH CENTURY ONTARIO
Charlotte Neff
The primary formal mechanism for dealing with orphaned and abandoned chil-
dren in Ontario before Confederation was apprenticeship. This legally recognized
form of home placement originated in the English PoorLaw and was provided for
in provincial legislation in 1799 and, in detail, in 1851, as well as in a Toronto
municipal statute in 1846, despite the rejection by Ontario of the English Poor
Law. Surviving apprenticeship indentures and court records suggest that individu-
als were aware of and made use of this legislation. Aside from its use privately
pauper apprenticeship was used as early as the 1830s by organizations arranging
for the immigration of poor British children and by organizations assisting the
orphans of immigrants. Home placements, including apprenticeship, were also
used extensively by children’s homes after mid-century, even for quite young
children. Pauper apprenticeship thus emerges as highly significant in the history
of provision for dependent children.
In the preindustrial English-speaking world, apprenticeship had two functions. First,

there was trade apprenticeship, which was the primary means of training young people
for skilled trades and professions. Second, there was what may be called pauper
apprenticeship, which developed in England as part of the Poor Law system as a means
of providing for orphaned, abandoned, neglected, and poor children (referred to
hereafter as dependent children), usually in private homes. Although the Poor Law
itself was not adopted in Ontario,’ pauper apprenticeship was used, being formally
sanctioned by legislation in 1799.~ The implementation of the foster care system of
home care for dependent children with the Children’s Protection Act, 1893,~ was touted
by J. J. Kelso, the primary architect of the act and first superintendent of neglected and
dependent children under the act, as an innovation:
Charlotte Neff is a member of the Bar of Ontario and is an associate professor in the Department of Law
and Justice at Laurentian University, Ontario, Canada. Her previous publications include the "Corpora-
tions" title for Canadian Encyclopedic Digest (Western) (1985), "Scandinavian Elements in the Wantage
Code of Æthelred II, (The Journal of Legal History, 1989), "Res Ipsa Loquitur in Canadian Medical
Malpractice Cases 1975-1988" (International Journal of Medicine and Law, 1991), and "The Ontario
Industrial Schools Act of 1874"(Canadian Journal of Family Law, 1994). She is currently researching the
use of apprenticeship by children’s homes in Ontario prior to Confederation, as well as the legal
arrangements for British juvenile immigrants to Ontario prior to Confederation.

144-1

145
Many people even in humble circumstances are to be found generously prepared to

offer the shelter of their home to motherless boys and girls, but this has not been taken
advantage of for the benefit of our own children until quite recently. The field has4
been entirely given over to the colonization of the destitute children of Great Britain.4
Kelso was, however, not wholly accurate in this assessment, as home care had been
used as a primary means of providing for dependent children through out the nineteenth
century, both pursuant to private arrangements and by institutions and organizations
that existed to help dependent children.’
Sometimes this was pursuant to an informal arrangement, the relationship not being
defined. In other cases, the children were said to be adopted, although there was no
legal sanction for this relationship 6
Adoption as we know it did not exist in Ontario
until well into the twentieth century.~
There was no legal protection afforded to either
party where a child was said to be adopted, although sometimes &dquo;adoptive parents&dquo;
were formally made guardians of the children. The acts of incorporation of some
children’s homes authorized adoption but provided no detail. Such arrangements were
made for children of all ages, although usually they were younger than when appren-
ticed, and therelationship was normally considered to be permanent. Adopted children
were more likely than apprentices to be treated as part of the family. Despite the lack
of legal recognition of the relationship, adoptions seem to have been quite common.
Older children who were sufficiently mature and experienced to take up employ-
ment might be placed in service. While they might not yet be as productive as adults,
their positions would not have been much different from adults in service and they
would normally have been treated as live-in employees. If there was any formal agree-
ment, the term of the service would have been relatively short. Legally, therelationship
was subject to employment law.
Where legal protection of a home placement of a dependent child was sought,
apprenticeship was used. This was a more formal relationship, being subject to a
written indenture or articles that generally bound the child to the ages of eighteen to
twenty-one. While masters took apprentices because they could be useful to them, the
major purpose of an apprenticeship was to teach the child a useful trade or occupation.
In the case of dependent children, this was normally farming or service in the home,
and for them, a major purpose was also to secure a home and the care and guidance
normally provided by parents. Whether they were treated as servants or virtually as
family would have varied enormously.
In the article that follows, the origins and nature of apprenticeship, both trade and
pauper, will be explored in more detail: Evidence for the extensive use of pauper
apprenticeship in nineteenth-century Ontario in a variety of situations will then be
considered. This evidence suggests that, even before 1893, home placement was a
primary means of providing for dependent children, even by children’s institutions.
ENGLISH APPRENTICESHIP LAW
Trade Apprenticeship Law in England8

Child labor was normal in preindustrial England, being integral to the economy.
Most children worked in the fields, as it was primarily an agrarian economy, just as
Ontario would be for much of the nineteenth century. No special training was required

146
for this, as the children would be working with their family and would learn what they
needed from their parents. This type of relationship would be the model in Ontario for
pauper apprenticeship, which was conceived as providing dependent children, both
boys and girls, the home and training that parents would normally give. However, there
were also trades that boys had to learn. They did so by working with a person in
the trade, usually on a one-to-one basis. It was for these situations that the apprentice-
ship relationship was developed. It had appeared in England as a legally recognized
relationship by the thirteenth century. Its major features were that there was a legally
sanctioned contract that had a fixed term, seven years being the most common. The
youth, who would be about fourteen, left home and lived with his master, who taught
him a trade in return for his services. Later, apprenticeship was adopted by the guilds,
the associations of tradesmen, as required for members of their associations. Thus it
became a tool of quality control on the part of the guilds, who supervised the
apprenticeships and to an extent protected the apprentices from abuse, as well as a
means of creating trade monopolies. Guild apprenticeship was firmly entrenched by
the fifteenth century. In the sixteenth century, it was sanctioned by an Elizabethan
statute, which gave apprenticeship legislative force as a system of compulsory tech-
nical training enforced by the guilds. By the eighteenth century, the system was
degenerating and falling into disfavor as industry began to develop. The rigid control
of the guilds, as well as long fixed terms of apprenticeship, did not suit the new method
of production. Furthermore, the dominant laissez-faire individualist philosophy also
dictated that people should not be tied by rigid rules and forced to belong to organiza-
tions (guilds) if they did not so wish.
Pauper Apprenticeship in England9

Pauper apprenticeship was modeled to an extent on trade apprenticeship. However,
the statutory authority was different as it operated within the Poor Law, and normal
apprenticeship rules did not apply. As a result, pauper apprentices did not have the
guilds to protect them as did trade apprentices. Furthermore, no one really cared how
good their situations were, the major objective being to ensure that the children would
not become public charges. The children were to be kept busy, off the streets, fed, clothed,
and housed. They were seldom taught any concrete skills to help them through life.
Pauper apprenticeship started in
the time of Henry VIII, in the sixteenth century,
after trade apprenticeship was well entrenched but before it became fully regulated
under Elizabethan statute. It was introduced as an intrusive measure, not facilitative,
as trade apprenticeship might be seen. The original act required vagrant children five
to fourteen to be arrested and apprenticed. Later, under Elizabethan Poor Law, children
of parents who could not support them were to be apprenticed by parish authorities
with the approval of two justices of the peace. The term was up to age twenty-four for
males, and twenty-one for females. While the law did appear to dictate that parish
authorities be proactive in seeking out needy children, there is little evidence that they
were. They had enough trouble finding homes for the children who were obviously a
problem. Parish families could be and regularly were forced to take in apprentices, and
it became normal to pay them to keep the children. Children were accordingly taken
in not because of the contribution they could make to the family but rather as a
civic duty.

147
Records from the seventeenth century forward show thatpauper apprenticeship was
extensively used. Most pauper apprentices in the seventeenth century were bound to
farming and domestic positions, but later, with industrialization, it became common
to bind them to factory work. This is when the system came to be seen as seriously
abusive. The central problem, as with the Old Poor Law as a whole, was that it was
locally administered, the parish being responsible for its own poor. In apprenticing
children, the parish objective, accordingly, was to rid itself of the children, preferably
to another parish, to ensure that the children would not be charges on its poor rate in
the future. The parish did not focus on doing good for the child but on relieving itself
of a burden and blight.
LEGAL PROVISION FOR APPRENTICESHIP IN ONTARIO
Trade Apprenticeship in Ontario
The trade apprenticeship system was adopted in Ontario as a matter of practice, but
there was no domestic legislation governing the relationship until 1851.1° In common
practice, trade apprenticeships seem to have been assumed to have been as they had
traditionally been in England, and the law of England was by and large assumed to
apply, including the forms of indenture in use there. This followed from the adoption
in 1792 of English civil law. However, courts found that the Elizabethan statute itself
was not in force, being not suited to conditions in Ontario. For example, the statute
assumed the existence of guilds, but trades in Ontario had little if any formal organi-
zation. Apprenticeship was instead treated as an individual relationship with much
more flexibility than in Britain: &dquo;An apprentice is one under age, who is bound by
indenture to serve his master or mistress for a term of years during his minority.&dquo;&dquo; This
approach fit not only with the differing socioeconomic conditions in Ontario but also
with the more laissez-faire nineteenth-century attitudes that were in part the cause of
the Elizabethan apprenticeship system being under challenge in Britain.
Trade indentures were assessed by the courts as a special form of contract by a
minor. At common law, service contracts were seen as being to the advantage of a child
and therefore not void, as were other contracts by minors, but only voidable. Whether
a particular contract was actually to the advantage of the individual concerned was to
be judged in each case on reasonableness grounds-was there a quid pro quo? If a
child promised to work, did the master promise to provide work and pay?12 Under the
Elizabethan statute, the minimum term for apprenticeships was seven years. However,
the seven-year term was already out of favor in England, and generally contracts for
less than seven years were found to be voidable and not Void.13 Whenever the issue
was raised in Ontario courts, the Elizabethan statute, and thus the seven-year rule, was
found to be not in force; and contracts for less than seven years were ruled voidable
only, and only at the option of the minor. 14
Girls were never specifically excluded by law from trade apprenticeships, but their
participation in trades was rare to nonexistent. Hence trade apprenticeships can be
viewed as relevant to boys only.

148
Pauper Apprenticeship in Ontario

Unlike trade apprenticeship, pauper apprenticeship had clear legislative authority
from an early date. In 1792, in one of its first pieces of legislation, Ontario declared
that the complex English Poor Law system, which was subject to serious criticism in
England, would not apply in Ontario.15 However, despite the 1792 act, at least one
aspect of English Poor Law was formally adopted in 1799, pauper apprenticeship.l6 It
is not clear why this aspect of the Poor Law received legal sanction at this early date
while others did not, although this may have had to do with the growing dissatisfaction
in England itself with the Poor Law,17 The main purpose of the 1799 act appears to
have been to provide the authority to public officials to apprentice children, the major
aspect that provides a strong link to the English Poor Law system. It provides little
detail about the relationship itself. In the case of an orphan or a child abandoned by
both parents, the town wardens had the power to apprentice. If the father had
abandoned a child, then the mother had the power, IS Town wardens did not have the
power to override the wishes of surviving relatives who were able and willing to
support the child. The apprenticeship was to be evidenced by written indenture, signed
by the town wardens or mother, and countersigned by two justices of the peace. The
term of apprenticeship was to be up to age twenty-one for males and age eighteen for
females. If the children were fourteen or older, they had to consent to the apprentice-
ship. No other details about the terms of the apprenticeship were given. These would
likely have been governed by the law respecting trade apprenticeships, although there
is no evidence that this was ever questioned in court.
In 1827, An Act respecting the Appointment of Guardians extended the power to
apprentice to guardians appointed under that act, again subject to the consent of two
justices of the peace. The term of the apprenticeship was the same, but the act provided
tat the ward was to consent, with no lower age stated.&dquo; The purpose of the appren-
ticeship was to provide dependent children, both girls and boys, with the guidance,
education,2° and training they would normally have received in their own home. There
was no intent to provide any significant upward mobility for dependent children but
rather to give the education and skills necessary to maintain them as self-sufficient
working poor, &dquo;to promote and encourage habits of honest industry.,,21 For boys, it was
thought that the most appropriate training was in farm work, as it got them away from
the perceived ill effects of urban life, and was the most likely means of earning an
honest wage for those of the poorer classes. However, apprenticeship to a trade at a
later date was not precluded. For girls, training in keeping a home was considered
essential, as this is what they would have learned from their mother in the normal
course and would need to know once they married and set up their own household.
Furthermore, girls and women from the poorer classes who needed to earn a living
normally placed themselves in service in middle- and upper-class homes, and hence
they were being trained for suitable work. Placement in service on a farm was normally
preferred for girls, as it was for boys.22
The first detailed legislation dealing with apprenticeship came in 1846 shortly after
the colonial legislature had granted the City of Toronto authority to pass bylaws with
respect to both trade and pauper apprenticeships.23 The city chose, however, to deal
explicitly only with pauper apprenticeship, although some of the terms also applied to
indentures signed in the normal course by parents or guardians (&dquo;An Act to authorize
the Apprenticeship of Minors in certain cases, and to regulate the duties of Masters

149
and Apprentices,&dquo; s. 3, 7),24 As the major urban center and point of entry for Ontario
immigrants, Toronto bore the brunt of the less desirable effects of mass immigration
of poor British people. One of the major problems people felt ought to be addressed,
partly in their own interests and partly in the interests of the children, was the problem
of vagrant children, many of whom were the orphans of immigrants. Although little
heralded, this act was one of the first major legal efforts to deal with the issue. It
provided for apprenticeship by civic officials-the mayor and one alderman, or two
aldermen-of orphaned, deserted, and vagrant children; juvenile offenders; and the
children of parents imprisoned as vagrant or disorderly. The children were to consent,
and the term of the apprenticeship was to be up to age twenty-one for both males and
females. The parties were to sign an indenture or articles in writing. Few details of the
terms of such indentures were provided, except that, in absence of a term to the con-
trary, a master or mistress was to provide for the apprentice while sick or disabled from
working (s. 4), and that the apprenticeship would lapse on the death of the master or
mistress. Indentures could be assigned with the consent of all concerned (s. 7).
Provision was made for the resolution of disputes upon the bankruptcy and so forth of
the master or mistress (s. 6). Detailed provision was made for penalties for breach of
the terms of the indenture, which were treated as offenses rather than civil matters.
Whether the 1846 Toronto act had any practical effect is not clear. In any case, it
was soon effectively replaced by a statute that applied throughout Ontario. In 1851,
an act was passed &dquo;to provide for binding Apprentices for a less term than seven years&dquo;
and to define &dquo;the law relating to Apprentices more clearly.&dquo;25 Indentures for terms less
than seven years were in reality probably not a problem because courts had declared
them only voidable anyway. The motivation for the act was likely that it had become
desirable, as the population expanded and the economy became more complex, to have
a more comprehensive, authoritative statement of the law. It provided for apprentice-
ship in some detail, although not purporting to repeal the application of English
apprenticeship law, which would hence have remained in force to the extent it was not
changed by the newest act. It provided for both trade and pauper apprenticeships, the
major distinctions being the age of the apprentice and the person who had authority to
approve the apprenticeship. Orphaned and deserted children, as well as children of
imprisoned parents and children &dquo;dependant upon any public charity for support,&dquo;
could be apprenticedby a civic official’ with both the master’s and the child’s consent.
There was no age restriction on this type of apprenticeship, unlike the provision
concerning trade apprenticeship, which authorized &dquo;any parent, guardian, or other
person having the care or charge of any Minor&dquo; to apprentice such minor with his or
her consent, but only if the child was fourteen or older.27 Children sixteen or older
could apprentice themselves. The statute did not incorporate the provision of the 1799
act permitting the mother of a child abandoned by its father to apprentice a younger
child with the approval of two justices of the peace, but it was likely deemed to remain
in effect and was incorporated into the Apprentices and Minors Act in 1859 2g The
remaining provisions of the act, which provided for transfer of indentures, the general
duties of masters and apprentices, and for penalties for breach of terms of the indenture
(which as in the 1846 act were treated as criminal rather than civil matters), made no
distinction between the types of indentures.

150 J
Legal Authority of Children’s Homes to Apprentice

The 1851 act did not provide the authority that children’s homes were soon to find
they wanted to indenture younger children placed out in private homes, nor did a later
provision giving the lieutenant governor in council the power to authorize any charitable
society to exercise the power to apprentice boys age fourteen and girls age twelve;29
and hence it was necessary that the officers of each home be granted this power in their
respective acts of incorporation, which was normally done.3° It was, for example, pro-
vided in the incorporation statute of the Hamilton Orphan Asylum that
the said Ladies’ Committee of Management shall, and may send out to service, and
apprentice thereto, or to any healthy trade or business, all youths, male or female,
having the protection or aid of the said Institution, to such person or persons, and
upon such terms, as to the said Ladies’ Committee of Management may seem fit and
proper; and for that purpose shall have power, on behalf of and for such youths
and themselves, to enter into and make with any person or persons with whom such
youths may be placed by the said Ladies’ Committee of management, articles of
apprenticeship and agreement; and that such articles of agreement may be enforced
as well by action at law or in equity for breach thereof warranting any such action, as
by summary application to a Magistrate or Justice of the Peace (who is hereby authorized

and empowered to act thereon,) on any such occasion as would, according to the laws
of this Province, warrant the interference or adjudication of any one or more Justice
or Justices of the Peace in disputes between masters and apprentices; Provided always,
that a copy of the articles or indenture apprenticing such youth shall, within three days
from the time when such articles or indenture were executed, be lodged with the Clerk
of the Common Council of the City of Hamilton, who is hereby required to file
such copies. 31
Indeed, the need for the power to apprentice was often cited as a major reason to
incorporate. Homes that had n ot yet incorporated sometimes apprenticed their children
through another home that did have apprenticeship powers.32
English Pauper Apprenticeship and

Upper Canadian Pauper Apprenticeship Compared
Superficially, pauper apprenticeship in Ontario resembled its English model. How-
ever, in practice, it was very different as a result of the very different socioeconomic
conditions in the colony. Ontario had a rapidly expanding labor-intensive agrarian
economy. Reliable farmhands and domestic servants were difficult to find.33 Pauper
apprentices were seen as sources of cheap labor and as potentially productive adult
workers. Accordingly, those seeking to place children, even in large numbers, normally
had more masters applying for apprentices than they had children to placed These
masters were willing to pay the children for their contributions to their households
rather than be paid to take them, as in England.
Also, in England, pauper apprenticeship formed part of a complex Poor Law system
that itself was not in effect in Ontario. The most important difference arising from this
was that the system was entirely voluntary, with justices of the peace being empowered,
not mandated, to act in loco parentis in apprenticing children. No one could be forced
to take in a pauper child to meet his obligations, nor were there any officials charged

151
with seeking out poor children to be indentured. As a result, it is likely that there were
fewer blatant abuses of the system.
EVIDENCE FOR THE EXTENT OF USE

OF PAUPER APPRENTICESHIP IN ONTARIO
Indentures
If we could find large numbers of surviving apprenticeship indentures, this would

be the best evidence for the extent of use of the relationship. However, an extensive
survey of Ontario archives has turned up from the first,three quarters of the nineteenth
century only thirty-one indentures, of which about seventeen could be classed as
pauper apprenticeships.35 This could mean that apprenticeship was rare or that legal
formalities were seldom followed, which, based on other evidence to be considered
below, was not true. It may alternatively have been deemed not important to retain
these documents, a conclusion supported by the nonexistence of apprenticeship
indentures in the archives of the cities of Toronto and Hamilton. B oth cities were named
as repositories for the indentures from children’s homes within their jurisdiction, and
the records of thesehomes suggest that they did so file their indentures, yet these have
not survived in either archive.36
The seventeen pauper indentures date from 1802 to 1869. These were judged to be
pauper on the basis of the age of the apprentice (most are young), the circumstances
of the apprenticeship, and the nature of what the apprentice was to learn in the
apprenticeship. Seven of the apprentices were girls, ten were boys. Three of them might
be classed as both pauper and trade apprenticeships, as the children were older and
were being apprenticed to a trade. Ten apprenticeships were appropriately approved
by public authorities or officials of children’s homes in accordance with the prevailing
legislation; one indenture was signed by only one justice of the peace plus two other
witnesses. This indicates that people were aware of and made use of apprenticeship
legislation. Six more indentures were signed by relatives alone (in three cases, by
mothers; in one case, by the father; in one case, by both parents; and in one case, by a
grandfather). These latter six had no legislative sanction as there was no provision for
apprenticeship of children under fourteen except under the pauper apprenticeship
provisions or the incorporation statutes of children’s homes, which required sanction
by public authorities or the officials of the homes. However, they might have been
upheld at common law if challenged. The three indentures signed by mothers alone
(in 1819, 1842, and 1855) suggest that mothers may frequently have assumed greater
authority over their children than the law actually qtated.37
Court Records of Apprenticeship
The 1791 act mandated that two justices of the peace witness all pauper apprentice-
ships but not that this be done through a court process. Nevertheless, such appren-
ticeships are occasionally referred to in the Minutes of the Courts of General Quarter
Sessions. For example, in 1817, a mother of four children was cited for contempt of
court with the father of the three younger children. When she appeared, the court ruled
that &dquo;the said Children should be bound out according to Law, as the mother of the

152
said Children is not able to support them and the father has left them destitute of
the necessaries of life.&dquo; The due apprenticeship of the oldest child is recorded one year
later, at which point he is called an arphan 38 A six-year-old boy &dquo;abandoned by his
father and left without an adequate provision by his mother&dquo; was apprenticed later that
year. On the same day the court also ordered
that the Town Wardens in each and every Township throughout the District, shall at
the request of any Magistrate in the District, visit any Indented apprentice within their
Township and report to such Magistrate, the situation of such apprentice. That the
Clerk of the Peace do notify the same publickly.39
This would suggest that the Court thought that pauper apprenticeship was used with
sufficient frequency to require that responsibility for such apprentices be made clear.
However, this court indentured only the two children already mentioned in the sixteen
years for which the record is published, and thus, if such public apprenticeship was
common, it must not normally have been approved in open court. It may be that the
two cases publicly dealt with were ones where there was some public demand to deal
with the situation and hence the public authorities took a more active role in seeking
homes for the children. The first case at least involved a degree of public initiative that
is not hinted at in the legislation, although it is not clear from the record whether the
mother opposed the move. Other cases may have involved much more passive
involvement by the public, or at least the judicial, authorities.
Demand for Apprentices
There is considerable evidence that the demand was high for apprentices, both trade
and pauper. Evidence for the demand for trade apprentices comes primarily fromnews-
paper advertisements by masters looking for apprentices.’o Advertisements by poten-
tial apprentices seeking positions were rare, suggesting they were in high demand.
Advertisements by individuals seeking pauper apprentices or on behalf of depen-
dent children seeking positions were rare but did occasionally appear.41 Advertise-
ments by organizations in the business of finding homes for children were more
common 42 However, records of homes placing children suggest that there were
normally more requests for children than there were children available to be placed,
and that little recruitment of potential masters was required.43
Legal Disputes Concerning Apprenticeship

That apprenticeship relatively common can also be surmised from the fre-
was
quency with which problems with apprentices are referred to in various sources.
Unfortunately, it is not always possible to identify the nature of the relationship,
whether trade or pauper; and where it can be determined, it can usually be assumed
that it was a trade apprenticeship. As already indicated, breaches of apprenticeship
terms were generally treated as criminal, and hence it is in the criminal legal records
that much of the evidence can be found.
The most common obvious problem from the point of view of masters was with
apprentices running away, which can be surmised from the frequency of newspaper
ads warning readers about runaways. In some cases, the hope was to have the

153
apprentice returned, but, in most cases, the intent seems to have been to advertise their
alleged evil character. Advertisements might also warn that an apprentice had been
dismissed for misbehavior contrary to the terms of apprenticeship 44 Criminal actions
against runaways also show up from time to time in accounts of court proceedings for
leaving employment45 and in crime statistics. Unfortunately, the statistics do not
usually distinguish between apprentices and employees with a contract of service,46
Apprentices also sometimes brought actions against their masters for, for example,
mistreatment&dquo; or nonpayment of wages.&dquo;
There is also one record of a pauper apprenticeship not duly executed being
successfully challenged by the mother of the child. This occurred in 1789, before the
1799 act. Cases like this may have been part of the impetus for the 1799 act, as the
court appears to have been sympathetic to those who had apprenticed the children,
noting that the motives were &dquo;humane and laudable,&dquo; and seemed to consider the
mother of the children as undesirable, as she was ordered to leave the district.
Nevertheless, it found the &dquo;business not strictly legal,&dquo; as the parents did not consent
to it; the court also found the contract to be inadequate, as the master was not bound
to give the children any education or train them for any trade 49
Apprenticeship of New Immigrants

The systematic emigration and apprenticeship of large numbers of poor British
children in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century is well documented in both
contemporary and secondary sources, 50 Such emigration had been promoted as a
means of providing for-and ridding the country of-pauper and delinquent children
from early in the nineteenth century.51
The first organized effort to bring such children
to Canada was in the mid 1830s. The Children’s Friend Society brought seventy-six
boys and girls to Canada in 1834 and 1835, and perhaps more in 1836. Most, if not
all, of these children were formally apprenticed.52
The society is better known for the
of
emigration large numbers of children to the Cape of Good Hope in the 1830s, a
venture that eventually was subject to substantial criticism and not only ended the
operations of the Children’s Friend Society but also brought the whole idea of the
emigration of children into disrepute.53
Emigration remained an attractive option for
many, but open emigration was for some years restricted to those fourteen and older.
In the 1850s and 1860s, significant numbers of youths and young women fourteen to
eighteen were sent to Canada by reformatory schools, Ragged Schools, Irish Poor Law
Unions, and others. 54 However, few of these young people were apprenticed. Instead,
they normally entered into standard service contracts with relatively short terms and
were free to arrange the terms themselves. Those who did enter into apprenticeship
contracts apprenticed themselves to trades, not as pauper apprentices.
Pauper apprenticeship was, however, used for another group of immigrant children,
the orphans of immigrants, although information about them is scanty. While the
immigration reports do give statistics concerning the numbers who died on the sea
voyage from England, they never comment on the fate of those orphaned as a
consequence. Others were orphaned after their arrival, especially in cholera years,
sometimes on Grosse Isle but also in Toronto, as there was a tendency to rush the
immigrants forward to their final destination, despite the protests from Toronto and
other centers that this compounded the cholera epidemic. In 1832, the first of the bad
cholera years, a Society (or Committee) for the Relief of Orphans, Widows and

154
Fatherless, caused by the Cholera was formed as an offshoot of the Society of Friends
to the Stranger in Distress / Society for the Relief of the Sick & Destitute. Orphans
and half-orphans (the fatherless) &dquo;bound
were out&dquo; (apprenticed) or &dquo;distributed
among the charitable throughout the country,&dquo; and their mothers supplied with &dquo;situ-
ations.&dquo; From August 1832 to August 1834,535 children were provided for.55 The year
1847 was another particularly bad one for cholera, and, again, special provision was
made in Toronto for widows and orphans. From the start of the epidemic to 2 February
1848, 423 widows and children were received in the Widow and Orphan Asylum;&dquo;
of these, 334 were placed in situations in or near the city, with the children apparently
normally being apprenticed. 57
Pauper apprenticeship was perhaps also used for the children of the many single
and widowed women who emigrated to Canada, although evidence for this is slight.
Although Canadian authorities welcomed single females, they discouraged women
with young children from coming to Ontario, on the grounds that they would have
difficulty finding situations with such &dquo;incumbrences,&dquo;S8 although it was thought that
small numbers with children older could be accommodated. It likely was
seven or
thought that these children could work,often as apprentices .59 Despite such discour-
agement from the authorities, many mothers and children appear to have been sent to
Ontario.&dquo;
Apprenticeship by Children’s Homes

The most extensive evidence for the use of apprenticeship comes from the records
of homes established for the care of dependent children. The first permanent institution
in the province that took in large numbers of children was the Toronto House of
Industry, which was established in 1837. The first permanent children’s home per se
was the Hamilton Orphan Asylum, which opened in 1848. The first home in Toronto
exclusively for children was the Protestant Orphan’s Home, opened in 1853. By 1870,
there were at least ten such children’s homes in the provinCe.61 This rapid growth in
the number of institutions providing for children has generally been interpreted as
representing a very major change in provision for dependent children, both in the
philosophy of those caring for the children and the practice, home placements being
seen to have fallen into disfavor. From this perspective, the 1893 Children’s Protection
Act, with its provision for foster care of children in private homes, represented a
revolutionary change in attitudes and practices away from institutional care. However,
these conclusions are arguably based on rather superficial assessments of the evidence
available, as even those who have looked in some detail at these homes have tended
to rely on what was said in rules and regulations, annual reports, and the like, rather
than on detailed studies of the children themselves and what happened to them.62 This
has resulted in a deemphasis of the extent to which dependent children continued to
be placed in private homes, even by children’s institutions.
The following discussion is based on a detailed analysis of the records of what
happened to individual children at the Toronto Protestant Orphans’ Home and the
Hamilton Orphan Asylum and, to a lesser extent, the Toronto House of Industry. Some
information has also been included from the Toronto Boys’ Home and the Toronto
Girls’ Home, although the time-consuming analysis of these records has not yet been
completed. The data to be presented suggest that, while many children did spend
relatively long periods in the homes, virtually all of those who did not return to relatives

155
also spent long periods in private homes, and most spent far more of their childhood
in private homes than in institutions.
The Toronto House of Industry relied the least on institutionalization and the most
on placement in private homes. Its rules provided that children should be placed in
private homes, preferably in the country, as soon as possible;63 and the evidence
suggests that this was done. It was intended even before the institution opened to obtain
the power to apprentices but this did not happen until 1851.65 Despite the lack of
power to apprentice, however, children were placed out from the start. In the first two
years of operation (1837 and 1838), fifty-four were placed out, double the average
number of children in the home for the period. Thereafter, until 1862, the lowest num-
ber of children placed out in a year was ten, the highest twenty-eight, with an average
of about eighteen. During the same period (1839 to 1862), the average number of chil-
dren in the house was twenty-three.66 This suggests that the vast majority of children
admitted to the house were fairly quickly placed out in private homes. Thereafter, the
number of children placed dropped dramatically, without explanation. With the num-
ber of children’s homes rising almost yearly at this time, the House of Industry
probably ceased to view itself as having any primary responsibility for children.
Though it continued to take in children, these likely were increasingly members of
families that hoped to stay together.
The period for which there is the greatest detail about the apprenticeship practices
of the House of Industry is 1853 to 1859. During this period, 199 people applied for
a child from the home, and 128 were sent children. The children varied in age from
two to sixteen, with most being between eight and ten. Most were sent out within one
year, often within a few days or weeks. A very few had longer stays of two to five
years.67 The House of Industry also acted for a period between 1858 and 1864 as a
clearing house for youths fourteen to eighteen coming from England looking for
positions. Most stayed in the house for only a few days. It is never stated that these
children were apprenticed, nor is it clear whether they were included in the admission
statistics of the house for these years.68
There is also considerable evidence that after 1851, when the House of Industry
was incorporated, the children placed out were normally apprenticed. There is no
evidence that prior to 1851 the trustees of the house attempted to find ways to
apprentice the children placed, despite their apparent desire to do so. Evidence for the
use of formal apprenticeship after 1851 comes from references in the annual reports
to the children apprenticed;69 from the superintendent’s correspondence from 1854 to
1878, which contains numerous letters concerning children apprenticed;&dquo; and from
the existence of an &dquo;Apprentice Fund&dquo; from at least 1859. 71
The Protestant Orphans’ Home and Female Aid Society, Toronto, (Toronto Protes-
tant Orphans’ Home) was incorporated in 185172 and admitted its first child on 4 May
1853. Fairly extensive records of the home exist for the period from its founding and
even before, including detailed registers of children admitted .73 The act of incorpora-
tion made no provision for the placing out of children, providing only that the purpose
of the association was to provide &dquo;relief and support to friendless orphans and destitute
females. ,,74 However, an amendment one year later, prior to the opening of the home,
provided that it could &dquo;put and bind out as an apprentice, any child or minor under the
charge, care or protection of the Corporation&dquo; and that the Apprentices and Minors Act
would apply to such apprenticeships, &dquo;so far as may be consistent with the Rules&dquo; of
the Corporation. 7.5 More detailed provision was made for apprenticeship in the rules

156 J
and regulations of the home first passed by the managers before or shortly after the
home opened.76 The rules provided that the managers were to satisfy themselves as to
&dquo;the respectability and competency&dquo; of the masters (IV [VI.]); character evidence was
to include a certificate of a clergyman (IX. [XL]). The secretary was to inquire about
apprenticed children at least once per year (VI. [VIIL]), and masters were to submit a
written statement at least once per year (IX. [XI.]). Children were to remain in the
home for at least one year (VIII. [X.]) and until age twelve before being apprenticed
(IX. [XI.]). In 1855 or 1856, detailed forms of indenture were adopted!7
The Hamilton Orphan Asylum was opened in 1848 by the Ladies Benevolent
Society of Hamilton to provide for orphans they found while visiting the poor of the
city to determine their need for aid. In 1852, it was incorporated with the power to
&dquo;send out to service, and apprentice thereto, or to any healthy trade or business,&dquo; the
children under its protection or receiving aid from it.7s The surviving records for the
Hamilton Orphan Asylum are not as extensive as for the Toronto Protestant Orphans’
Home, but they do likewise include a detailed register .79 If they had any detailed rules
about the placing of children, they appear not to have survived.
Table 1 compares the placement practices of the Toronto Protestant Orphans’ Home
and the Hamilton Orphan Asylum. Of the approximately 450 children&dquo; admitted to
the Toronto Protestant Orphans’ Home from 1853 to 1869, about half were placed in
privatehomes. Most were apprenticed, some were adopted-with more girls than boys
being adopted-and a few were said to have been both apprenticed and adopted. Most
of the remaining children returned to relatives, normally parents, after relatively brief
stays in the home. The pattern at the Hamilton Orphan Asylum as seen in the records
of the 538 children admitted from 1848 to 1880 was similar, although fewer were
adopted and none were said to have been apprenticed and adopted.
Many references to indentures and the inclusion in the annual financial records of
details of the apprentice fund from 1858 suggest that children from the Toronto Home
said to have been apprenticed were formally indenlured.&dquo;l The occasional references
to forms suggest that the detailed procedure as laid out in the rules was adhered to for
apprenticeships.82 It is not entirely clear in the early years, however, whether the
Hamilton Asylum formally apprenticed their children. The column in the register
recording their departure was headed &dquo;Date of Apprenticeship,&dquo; but where details are
provided in addition to the date, the term &dquo;apprenticeship&dquo; is not always used.
However, there are comments even from before the home was incorporated that
suggest a formal apprenticeship. For example, it is said of one boy apprenticed in 1848
that he &dquo;served out his time and received a yock [sic] of oxen ,,,83 From 1872, it becomes
quite clear that children were formally apprenticed, as there is a separate record for
apprentices from that time listing the child’s name, the date of apprenticeship, the date
of expiry of the apprenticeship, amounts deposited by their master in the apprentice-
ship fund, the name and address of their master, and often other details*
Despite the rule at the Toronto Protestant Orphans’ Home that children would not
normally be apprenticed before age twelve, most were apprenticed between the ages
of nine and twelve, although few were apprenticed before age nine and none before
the age of six. Furthermore, a significant percentage of the children were admitted to
the home at or near the age at which they would normally be apprenticed pursuant to
the practices of the home, suggesting that many parents effectively used the home as
a placement service. Further, despite the rule that children be kept in the home at least
one year prior to being apprenticed, thirty-five percent of apprenticed girls and fifteen

0
00
Go
4
#
c
Tt
00
$
$
£ a)
c’s
si
B E
o<
Oo
o#
0 r-
~!
’M 0
iiE
EL >.
0
c
l12
a) 2-
~ 00
~<
a o
0 -=
1E CD
s&dquo; ’S
U)
N=
razz E
,~ ...
2
0
~ .a m
t0
,~ <0c 10
c
E
a) c0
(o O
m
0 ~- p
t0 &horbar; E
0 0
m
00 L.: -0
$o (o -
’~ -
Z
3 ~i =0
-010
m
w
N
~,z a cco-ar.L
.S
w
<
-§2
U U
,2O ODT
nt0
CD 4D
.0 -0
ii
Z5
(0 J3
157

158
percent of apprenticed boys were placed earlier. On the other hand, most children spent
quite long periods in the home prior to being apprenticed, although the average stay
for girls was significantly shorter than for boys.
Children at the Hamilton Orphan Asylum were apprenticed, on average, at a
younger age and after shorter stays than at the Toronto Protestant Orphans’ Home; al-
though at both institutions, girls were younger and stayed for shorter periods. Also,
unlike at the Toronto Home, at the Hamilton asylum, many girls were apprenticed
under the age of six, as well as a few boys. The Hamilton asylum was also used to an
extent as a placement service for older girls, with age ten being treated in practice as
the normal placement age. Between 1848 and 1867, of the thirteen girls admitted
between the ages of ten and fifteen, only two were in the home more than six months.
Between 1867 and 1880, of the nine girls admitted aged ten to sixteen, five were placed
within six months. It was also unusual for boys over ten to stay in the asylum more
than a few months before being placed, with only seven of forty admitted at age ten
or older staying more than a year. After 1857, twelve years of age also became the
normal upper limit for admission of boys, with only two older boys being admitted
thereafter, both aged thirteen and both in 1877, with neither being placed by the
asylum. The group that spent the longest in the Hamilton asylum comprised boys six
years or younger on admission, and for many of them, it was almost the only home
they knew. From 1848 to 1867, there were thirty-nine such boys, only eight of whom
were placed out within one year and four more within two years. Seventeen stayed
four years or more, some up to twelve years. From 1867 to 1880, of the twenty boys
aged six years or younger on admission, one was placed quickly, in three months, the
next shortest stay being twenty-six months. Again, seventeen boys stayed four years
or longer, up to eleven years. Younger girls did not stay nearly so long; as of the
twenty-one girls admitted at age six or younger between 1848 and 1867, twelve were
placed within one year, six more within two. The remaining three stayed between four
and five years. Between 1867 and 1880, fourteen girls were admitted at age six or
under. Of these, two were placed within one year, eight more within two, and only one
stayed over four years.
Both homes, but especially the Toronto Protestant Orphans’ Home, may have used
adoption to reduce the period spent in the institution by some young children. These
children were four to six years younger on placement than those who were apprenticed,
and they had spent a significantly shorter time in the home, although some still stayed
for long periods, as long as six years.
The annual reports of the Toronto Boys’ Home show that that home too made
extensive use of both home placements and apprenticeship.85 The home was opened
in 1859 but was not incorporated until 1861. Until that time, boys were apprenticed
through the House of Industry. Between 1860 and 1882, more than 333 boys were
placed in situations, and of these, at least 122 were formally apprenticed, according to
the individual annual reports.&dquo; A summary in the annual report for 1880 stated that
300 boys had been apprenticed, but this may refer to the total placed out, as the practice
of the home was to place boys on trial before the indentures were signed. Adoptions
were only occasionally mentioned. With respect to their placement policies, in 1860,
the managers &dquo;resolved that no boy shall be sent to a permanent situation until he has
been one year in ’the Home’ except under particular circumstances and where the
employers will provide that the boy shall receive good instruction in which case a boy
can leave in nine months Toronto Boys Home,&dquo;87 a policy that was incorporated in the

159
formal rules by 1870. The rules said nothing about age except that boys were not to
be admitted before age five, a rule that seems seldom to have been broken. The board
did have some policy about age, as they would from time to time refuse applications
for boys on the grounds that all the boys were too young; but one gets the impression
this may sometimes have been an excuse not to give a boy to particular individuals,
as a short time later, placements of boys with other masters would be approved. It is
very clear from the minute books that the boys were formally indentured after trial
periods. For example, the board was meticulous about approving the signing of
indentures with a formal motion. In addition, the annual reports show in the financial
statements an apprenticeship fund from 1873 that from its size had clearly been
building up for some years, with sums being paid out from 1870.
The Toronto Girls’ Harness also made extensive use of home placement for its
children, but there is little evidence for the use of formal apprenticeship, although it
was provided for in the act of incorporation.89 The register and annual reports refer
only to placement in service and adoption, with sixty-three girls said to have gone to
service and fifty-four for adoption in a six-year period from 1864 to 1869. As to their
policy with respect to age of placement and time to be spent in the home, it is stated
in the annual report for 1864: &dquo;Applications are constantly being made to obtain from
the Home, as servants, children about nine or ten years of age. Such applications are
more numerous than can be supplied.&dquo; It was also stated that it would be best to keep
children for a while to determine their character and to teach and train them.
The growth of children’s institutions during the second half of the nineteenth
century resulted in part from a belief in the merits of institutional care as a mechanism
for appropriately socializing neglected and dependent children.9° An important ele-
ment in this may have been segregation, which extended in many cases to schooling
being provided in the home rather than in the common schools.91 However, the
placement practices discussed above suggest that a major objective in practice was to
place children in private homes at as young an age as possible and thus minimize the
period of their stay in the institutions. This is not to say that many children did not
spend long periods in an institution, but it seems likely that this was more a result of
their own personal characteristics and problems and of the desires and needs of both
their own families and the families seeking children than of the wishes of the
institutions in practice. If the Hamilton Orphan Asylum was typical, this was particu-
larly true for young boys, as families appeared not to be interested in having boys until
they could be useful. This core of young children who stayed more than four
years-forty boys and seven girls between 1848 and 1880 for the Hamilton Orphan
Asylum92-would have been the most obvious of the inmates of the homes and were
likely the focus of attention of those who criticized the placement practices of
children’s homes. If this were so, however, critics were failing to note that this group
represented only about nine percent of the admissions during this time and approxi-
mately twenty percent of the total child years spent in the asylum during that time
(assuming an average of fifty children per year in the asylum). It must also be
remembered that the time spent in a private home was for almost all children, even for
those who stayed longer than four years in an institution, much greater than that spent
in an institution, suggesting that these private homes would have been far more
influential to their development. Thus, with the institution of the foster care system in
1893, the reality from the point of view of the children probably did not change quite
so drastically as rhetoric might suggest.

160 J
In practice, these institutions promoted family life over institutional care just as the
Children’s Aid Society movement would in the late nineteenth century. Not only did
these institutions attempt to place their children in private homes at as young an age
as possible, they also provided a refuge for many children-nearly half of those
admitted-whose parents were temporarily unable to care for them.93 On the other
hand, while the 1893 act was premised on avoiding institutionalization of children for
long periods and did not provide for it, in reality, large numbers of children who were
taken from their parents under the 1893 act did in fact end up in such long-term care,
either in inadequate &dquo;temporary&dquo; shelters or in one of the children’s homes.94
The relative significance of the work of institutions in providing home placements
for children can also be judged by comparing the number of children placed by them
with the number placed in foster homes in the first few years of operation of the 1893
act. From 1893 to 1898, 828 children were provided with foster homes, an average of
165 per year, although the numbers were increasing, with 225 placed in 1898.95 By
comparison, we have seen that the Toronto House of Industry placed on average about
18 children per year between 1839 and 1862, the Toronto Protestant Orphans’ Home
11 per year from 1853 to 1869, the Hamilton Orphan Asylum 8 per year from 1848 to
1880, the Toronto B oys’ Home 12 per year from 1859 to 1883, and the Toronto Girls’
Home 19 per year from 1864 to 1869. These five homes alone thus placed approxi-
mately 68 children per year. Given that the number of such institutions was rapidly
increasing from 1860, to at least ten in 1870 (excluding the House of Industry, which
by that time was placing few children) and nineteen in 1879,96 and that the population
of the province increased from 1.4 million in 1861 to 2.2 million in 1901, the role of
the children’s institutions in placing children in private homes prior to 1893 was at
least as, if not much more, significant than the role of the Children’s Aid Societies in
the few years immediately thereafter.
coNCLUSioNs
There is thus substantial evidence that for the first half of the nineteenth century,
home placement, very often under a formal indenture of apprenticeship, was the pri-
mary means of providing for dependent children. From the 1830s, with the establish-
ment of the Toronto House of Industry, institutions played an increasingly important
role in the care of such children. However, home placement continued to be a primary
method of providing for such children, even if they were for a period in the care of an
institution. While legal formalities may not have been followed by all homes, many
were fairly meticulous about protecting the relationship with formal apprenticeship in-
dentures. Pauper apprenticeship, probably the most common form of homeplacement,
thus emerges as highly significant in the history of provision for dependent children
and should probably be recognized as of much greater importance in laying the
groundwork for the acceptance of the foster care system than it has been in the past.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am indebted to local, municipal, provincial, and national archivists in Ontario and
England for their assistance in locating, photocopying, and microfilming material used
in this article. Without their help, the research necessary to complete this article could
not have been conducted.

161
NOTES
1. The Province of Ontario came into existence only in 1867 with Confederation. During
the colonial period under consideration here, it was known, until 1841, as Upper Canada, and
from 1841 to 1867 as Canada West. In the text of this article, Ontario is used for the sake of
clarity, whereas Upper Canada is retained in references in the notes.
2. "An Act to provide for the Education and Support of Orphan Children," Upper Canada,
Statutes, 1799, 39 Geo. 3, c. 3.
3. "An Act for the Prevention of Cruelty to, and better Protection of Children," Ontario,
Statutes, 1893, 56 Vict., c. 45.
4. "Third Report of Work under the Children’s Protection Act Ontario" for 1895, Ontario,
Sessional Papers,
1896, no.17, p. 27. For late nineteenth century accounts of the merits of foster
care overinstitutional care, see evidence of J. J. Kelso, "Report of the Commissioners Appointed
to Enquire into the Prison and Reformatory System of Ontario, 1891," (hereafter"Prison Reform
Commission, 1891"), Ontario, Sessional Papers, 1891, no. 18, pp. 723-9; idem, Early History
of the Humane and Children’s Aid Movement in Ontario 1886-1893 (Toronto: L. K. Cameron,
1911), 42-3, quoting from J. S. Willison, "Observations," Globe (Toronto), October 19, 1888;
and "First Conference on Child-Saving Work in Ontario" in "Second Report of Work under the
Children’s Protection Act for the year ending December 311894" (hereafter "First Conference
on Child-Saving"), Ontario, Sessional Papers, 1895, no. 29, pp. 8 (Hon. J. M. Gibson), 10
(Hon. G. W. Allan). Modern accounts also often deemphasize the use of home placements prior
to the institution of the foster home system. See Richard Splane, Social Welfare in Ontario
1791-1893 (Toronto: University of Thronto Press, 1965), 259, who acknowledges the use of
home placements by children’s homes but argues that they came to be used only for children
twelve or older, with institutional care coming to be seen as the primary function of the homes.
A shift over time from apprenticing to long-term care is also argued by Andrew Jones and
Leonard Rutnam, In the Children’s Aid: J. J. Kelso and Child Welfare in Ontario (Toronto,
University of Toronto Press, 1981), 27. While this article does not deal extensively with the
post-Confederation period, statistics presented below that extend as late as 18821end no support
to this theory of a significant shift in emphasis over time. Furthermore, formalrules emphasizing
long-term care cited below date from early in the history of these institutions. Perhaps the
judgment on children’s homes is based on practices after the implementation of foster care. With
children’s aid societies taking over primary responsibility for home placement of dependent
children, institutions, to survive, would have had to emphasize their institutional role. For
example, Neil Sutherland, Children in English-Canadian Society (Toronto, University of
Toronto Press, 1976), 95, comments on their "determined effort to survive and even flourish in
the new intellectual context." See also 114-5.
5. Kelso himself must have been well aware of the hyperbole in this statement, as his First
Report of work under the Children’s Protection Act, 1893, for example, is full of references to
the placement practices of institutions. Ontario, Sessional Papers, 1894, 57 Vict., no. 47.
6. Re Davis (1909), 18 O.L.R. 384 (H.C.).
7. The first Ontario legislation providing for adoption was "The Adoption Act, 1921,"
Ontario, Statutes, 1921, 11 Geo. 5, c. 55.
8. See O. J. Dunlop, English Apprenticeship and Child Labour. A History (London: Unwin,
1912); Ivy Pinchbeck and Margaret Hewitt, "The Twin Disciplines of Work and Worship 1.
Apprenticeship" in Children in English Society, vol. 1 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1969), chap. 9.
9. See the references in note 8, especially Dunlop, English Apprenticeship and Child
Labour, chap. 16, as well as E. G. Thomas, "Pauper Apprenticeship," Local History, 14 (1981):
400-6.
10. Canada, Statutes, "An Act to amend the Law relating to Apprentices and Minors," 1851,
14 & 15 Vict., c. 11.

162
11. W. C. Keele, The Provincial Justice or Magistrate’s Manual, being a complete digest of
the criminal law and a compendious and general view of the Provincial Law, with practical
forms, for the use of the Magistracy of Upper Canada (Toronto: Upper Canada Gazette
Office, 1835), 19. Keele devoted several pages to a description of the law applicable to
apprenticeship, and provided a number of forms as well, including a "Common form of an
Indenture of Apprenticeship."
12. MacGregor v. Sully (1900) 31 O.R. 535 (Div. Ct.).
13. Keele, The Provincial Justice or Magistrale’s Manual, 19.
14. Fish v. Doyle Hilary term,1st Wm. 5, January 5, 1831; and Dillingham v. Wilson (1841)
6 Q.B.R. (Old Ser) 85-7.
15. "An Act Introducing the English Civil Law into Upper Canada," Upper Canada, Statutes,
1792, 32 Geo. 3, c. 1.
16. See note 2.
17. The reasons for the rejection of the Poor Law remain a matter of speculation. J. C. Levy,
"The Poor Laws of Upper Canada," in Law and Society in Canada in Historical Perspective,
Studies in History, vol. 2, ed. D. Bercuson and L. A. Knafla (Calgary: University of Calgary,
1979); Rainer Baehre, "Paupers and Poor Relief in Upper Canada," Canadian Historical
Association Historical Papers (1981): 58; and Russell C. Smandych, "William Osgoode, John
Graves Simcoe, and the Exclusion of the English Poor Law from Upper Canada," in Law,
Society, and the State: Essays in Modern Legal History, ed. L. A. Knafla and S.W.S. Binnie
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995), 99-129.
18. Until 1855, mothers had no authority over their children by law unless specifically
granted, as here. In that year, Ontario legislation gave judges the power to grant custody of
children under twelve to their mothers. In 1887, the age limit was removed, and mothers were
given the right to guardianship to their children. Constance B. Backhouse, "Shifting Patterns in
Nineteenth-Century Canadian Custody Awards," in Essays in the History of Canadian Law,
Vol. 1, ed. David H. Flaherty (Toronto, University of Toronto Press,1981), 212-48.
19. Upper Canada, Statutes, 1827, 8 George 4, C. 6, s. 2.
20. It is clear from all the sources that a basic education was deemed necessary for these
children, both boys and girls, although one year was often considered sufficient in the early
years. As early as 1789, an indenture was nullified by a Court of General Quarter Sessions, in
part on the grounds that it failed to provide for the education of the child. Minutes of the Court
of Quarter Sessions of the District of Mecklenburg-Town of Kingston, October 12, 1789;
extracts edited by Adam Shortt, EarlyRecords of Ontario, Kingston, 1900. The indentures listed
below, footnote 34, all required that the apprentice be taught reading, writing, and, by the late
1830s, arithmetic. The children’s homes later in the century all provided education for their
children-sometimes in a schoolroom in the home, sometimes in the local common school—
education being one of the stated objects of virtually all of them. See a list of the objects of the
homes in the "Tenth Annual Report of the Inspector of Asylums, Prisons and Public Charities"
for 1877, Ontario, Sessional Papers, 1878, 41 Vict., no. 4, pp. 175-6.
21. "An Act to incorporate ’The Boys’ Home’ of the City of Toronto," Canada, Statutes,
1861, 24 Vict., c. 114, Preamble. Even J. J. Kelso late in the century felt that the foster homes
found for children should be suited to their background:
It is desirable that the right class of homes should be found for these children ... As
these children are taken in nearly every case from the poorer classes, they will be
more at home and more likely to thrive among working people of modest pretensions.
First Report of work underthe Children’s ProtectionAct, 1893, Ontario Sessional Papers, 1894,
57 Vict., no. 47, p. 26.
22. The records of all the homes considered below show that in the vast majority of cases,
children were placed on farms. As to the merits of such country placements, see, for example,

163
House of Industry Annual Report 1846, City of Toronto Archives SC35HBox2: "The Institution
has been the means of providing homes in the country for upwards of 140 children ... thus
saving them from the contagion of bad example." J. J. Kelso late in the century cited another
reason for sending the children to the country:
A great evil, to which public opinion has frequently been directed, is the steady
gravitation of population to large cities, robbing the smaller towns of their importance
and business activity, and leaving the rural districts with a force insufficient to develop
the resources of the soil. If this be true, should it not be the constant aim of those
engaged in juvenile rescue work to deport to rural districts as many dependent children
as possible, at such an age as will enable them to acquire a taste for their new
surroundings, and if we are not ourselves able or willing to meet the demand, should
we exclude other children from these benefits?
FirstReport ofwork under the Children’s ProtectionAct, 1893, Ontario, ,1894,

Sessional Papers
57 Vict., no. 47, p. 33. In 1852, a member of the legislature objected to the incorporation of the
Hamilton Orphan Asylum on the grounds that it was better to send the children to the country.
Globe (Toronto), November 20, 1852. See also the Globe commentary on the 1884 report of
the Toronto Boy’s Home. Globe, November 20, 1885.
23. "An Act to amend the Act of Incorporation of the City of Toronto," Canada, Statutes,
1846, 9 Vict., c. 70, s.17.
24. Passed December 7,1846, published in the Globe (Toronto), December 23 and 26,1846.
25. See note 10.
26. In incorporated towns and cities, it was the mayor, recorder, or police magistrate, and in
the counties it was the chairman of the Court of General Quarter Sessions of the Peace. "An Act
to authorize the Apprenticeship of Minors in certain cases, and to regulate the duties of Masters
and Apprentices," s. 2.
27. Ibid., s.1.
28. Consolidated Statutes of Upper Canada,
1859, c. 76, s. 3.
29. Ontario, Statutes, "An Act respecting Apprentices and Minors," 1874, 38 Vict., c.19, s. 4.
30. Canada, Statutes: "An Act to incorporate The House of Industry of Toronto," 1851,14 &
15 Vict., c. 35, s. 4; "An Act to amend the Act, intituled, An Act to incorporate The Orphans’
Home and Female Aid Society, Toronto," 1852, 16 Vict., C. 71; "An Act to incorporate the
Trustees of The Hamilton Orphan Asylum," 1852, 16 Vict., c. 67, s. 9; "An Act to incorporate
’The Boys’ Home’ of the City of Toronto," 1861, 24 Vict., c. 114, s. 4; "An Act to incorporate
’The Orphan’s Home and Widows’ Friend Society,’ of Kingston," 1862, 25 Vict., c. 97, s. 5;
"An Act to incorporate the Boys’ Industrial School of the Gore of Toronto," 1862, 25 Vict., c. 82
(there is no other evidence in public records or published archival indexes of the existence of
this home, which was established by Roman Catholics); "An Act to Incorporate The Girls’ Home
and Public Nursery of the City of Toronto," 1863, 26 Vict., c. 63, s. 4; "An Act to incorporate
the Children’s Industrial School of the City of Hamilton," 1864, 27 & 28 Vict., c.145, s. 3 (this
later became the Girls’ Home Hamilton); "An Act to incorporate The Orphans’ Home of the
City of Ottawa," 1865, 28 Vict., c. 62, s. 4.
31. "An Act to incorporate the Trustees of The Hamilton Orphan Asylum,", 1852,16 Vict.,
c. 67, s. 9.
32. The Toronto Boys Home did not initially have the power to apprentice but did so through
the House of Industry. 1860 1st AR p 5-6, Ontario Archives, Toronto Boys Home Records,
Series E, MU 4932.
33. As to the shortage of servants in the mid-nineteenth century, see, for example, MichaelA.
Peterman and Carl Ballstadt, eds., Forest and Other Gleanings: The Fugitive Writings of
Catharine Parr Traill (University of Ottawa Press, 1994), 169; Susanna Moodie, Roughing it
in the Bush, (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1962), 139-42; Anne Langton, A Gentlewoman

164
in Upper Canada, ed. H. H. Langton, (Toronto: Clarke Irwin, 1964), 43-4; British Parliamentary
Papers, Irish University Press series, Canada vol 13 Part IV p.11 (1839), Emigration vol. 21 p.
229-30 (1841), Canada vol 21 pp192-196 (1854), Canada vol. 22 p. 678, 694 (1858), Canada
vol 24 p. 64 (1860).
34. See below footnotes 41 and 42.
35. Professional indentures have been excluded. The following is the complete list of pauper
apprenticeships:
Indenture of Apprenticeship between Mary Aulthouse and John Ham, February 6, 1802,
Lennox and Addington County Museum Small Collections, 32312-32313;
Indenture of Apprenticeship between John Ross for Michael Gray to Alex Urquhart, April
19, 1803, Archives of Ontario, Toronto, Urquhart Family Papers, MV 3053;
Indenture of Apprenticeship between Leonard Lewis and Richard Arnold Esq., March 21,
1807, Archives of Ontario, F-775, Miscellaneous Collection #3, MV 2101;
Indenture of Apprenticeship between James Clark and Noah Fairchild, March 14,1809, Eva
Brook Donly Museum, Simcoe, Ontario, Fairchild Papers;
Indenture of Apprenticeship between Alexander Cameron and Alexander McMartin, April
2, 1819, Archives of Ontario MV 1968, Alexander McMartin Papers, Series E-6;
Apprenticeship agreement between Mary Ann Thompson and Henry Nelles; January 1,
1825, Archives of Ontario, Nelles Family Papers, reproduced in Beth Light and Alison
Pioneer and Gentlewomen of British North America 1713-1867 (Toronto: New
Prentice,
Hogtown Press, 1980), 18;
Apprenticeship Indenture regarding Sarah Mae Clauerty, October 2,1832, County of Prince
Edward Archives;
Indenture of Apprenticeship between Gwendelam Israel and John Benson Children’s Friend
Society [plus letter regarding same], November 1, 1836, Lennox and Addington County
Museum, John Benson Papers, 3831-2, 3221-4;
Apprenticeship of Edward Davis, an abandoned child, by the Town Wardens of Waterloo to
Christian Schwartentruber, June 1, 1839, Waterloo Historical Society Annual, Vol. 57
1969 80;
Form for Indenture of Apprenticeship of James Johnstone to Malcolm Dingwall, October
12,1840, PAC, MG24I18, Kenneth McPherson Papers, Vol. 1 Legal Documents;
Indenture or Bond of Apprenticeship of Alexander McVicar to Alexander McNaughton,
March 31,1842, PAC, MG24I18, Kenneth McPherson Papers, Vol.1 Legal Documents;
Indenture of Apprenticeship between Martin Dowd and Charles Otis Benson, April 17,1849,
Lennox and Addington County Museum, Charles Otis Benson Papers [see also guardi-
anship document], 10279-10282;
Apprenticeship of Catharine Aiken to Wilson Stodders, October 9, 1855, Archives of
Ontario, MV 3277, Stoddart Papers, Accession 9560;
Indenture of Apprenticeship between John Crawford, John Pearson, Henry Moad and
William Hayes Jackson, 1855, Archives of Ontario, F-2040 F.J. French Papers, MV 1109
#14;
Articles of Apprenticeship between Robert Lancaster and John Ford through Toronto House
of Industry, June 29, 1861, City of Toronto Archives, SC 35R Box 1 File 3;
Articles of Apprenticeship between Mary Anne Green and David Harrison through the
Ottawa Orphans’ Home, December 10,1869, Ottawa City Archives, MG 7-9-140, Ottawa
Orphans’ Home.
Apprenticeship between Abigail Moor and John Lowden through the Ottawa
Articles of
Orphans’ Home, April 3, 1866, Ottawa City Archives, MG 7-9-139, Ottawa Protestant
Orphans’ Home.

165
36.I have determined this through telephone and written inquiry of the two city archives.
See "An Act to incorporate the Trustees of The Hamilton Orphan Asylum," 1852,16 Vict., c. 67,
s. 9; "An Act to incorporate ’The Boys’ Home’ of the City of Toronto," 1861, 24 Vict., c. 114,
s.4.
37. See note 18.
38. Minutes of the Court of General Quarter Sessions of the District of London, May 3,1817,
May 10, 1817, May 16, 1818 (the father of the younger 3 children is noted to be a "deserter
from the incorporate militia," December 15, 1813), reproduced in Alexander Fraser, Twenty-
Second Report of the Department of Public Records and Archives of Ontario, 1933, Ontario,
Sessional Papers, 1934, no. 16.
39. Ibid., October 16, 1817.
40. A newspaper clippings index from local papers in the Upper Canada Village Reference
Library, Morrisburg, includes 36 advertisements for apprentices, dating from 1829 to 1867 but
with most from the 1850s. Such advertisements were common in most newspapers, for example,
"Wanted By the Subscriber, an Apprentice to the Cabinet business, & likewise a Journeyman
or two.... Thomas Wallis, York" (The Colonial Advocate, March 2, 1826); "An Apprentice
Wanted by the subscriber, an active lad, aged about fourteen or fifteen years, of respectable
connections and fair character, as an apprentice to the Hatting Business. Apply to Joseph Rogers
York" (Colonial Advocate, May 18, 1826); "Wanted A Respectable youth, from 14 to 16 years
old, as an apprentice to the Dry Goods business, to engage for a term of years. One of a tolerable
education from the Country would be preferred. Apply to Wm. Wilson. Kingston (Kingston
Chronicle & Gazette, February 8, 1834);"Wanted Several Experienced Milliners and Cloak-
makers. Also, apprentices. Apply to Betley & Kay’s Toronto (Globe (Toronto), November 6,
1847). Tradesmen advertising included printers (the most common), tanners, wagon makers,
harness makers, blacksmiths, carpenters, saddlers, carriage makers, tailors, tinsmiths, cabinet-
makers, boot and shoe makers, and merchants.
41. "An Apprentice to Farming Wanted. The subscriber wishes to take a boy of from 8 to 12
years of age into his family to work on a farm—he would be required to engage till he is of age.
Apply to Thos. Barbour—Scotch Block, Esquesing, Ontario" (Colonial Advocate September
20 and 27, 1827); see also "Boy Wanted to Hire" (Colonial Advocate, January 21, 1828);
"Orphan Boy: An Orphan Boy—a fine, healthy child of three years of age will be apprenticed
to a respectable Farmer or Tradesman, till he is eighteen years of age, he must be brought up
and educated as one of the family. The parents, of the name of Robinson, came to this country
from England, in the year last, and died in the city of Emigrant Fever. Apply to either of the
undersigned. A. T. McCord. J. S. Howard (Globe (Toronto), July 29, 1851).
42. See the advertisement by the Children’s Friend Society regarding 100 children arriving
in Kingston for whom apprenticeships were required, Kingston Chronicle & Gazette, May 7,
11, 14, 18, 21, 25, and 28, 1836; "Notice is hereby Given, that Women, Boys and Girls, as
Servants and Apprentices, can be procured at the Widows’ and Orphans’ Asylum. Application
to be made at the Institution, corner of Bathurst and Queen Streets, West, Toronto" (this asylum
existed for a short period from the summer of 1847 to May 1848) Globe (Toronto), December
1 and 8, 1847); "Appeal to the Citizens of Toronto, on Behalf of the Widows and Orphans of
Destitute Immigrants Dying Here (Globe, August 21, 1847);"Widows’ and Orphans’ Asylum.
Notice is hereby given that this establishment is to be closed on Monday the 15th inst., and that
no Widows or Orphans can be admitted after this date. J. S. Howard. Secretary" (Globe, May
6, 1848); "Six Orphan Boys, between the ages of Fourteen and Four years; and Two Orphan
Girls one five years and the other ten months old, all healthy children of Highland Emigrants,
have been placed in the House of Industry by the Highland Relief Committee, till situations or
homes can be obtained for them elsewhere" (Globe, September 1, 8,18, 20, 22, and 27; October
2, 6,16, 18, 23, 25, 27, and 30; November 3, 1849); "House of Industry. Several Boys recently
arrived from England, of ages from 12 to 16 years, are now in the above Institution, and the

166 J
Trustees are anxious to apprentice them out to farmers or others in the country" (Globe, June
21, 1858); see similar ad in Globe, August 23, 1859.

43. Of the 199 people who applied for children, 128 are noted as receiving children. Toronto
House of Industry Register of Applications for Children 1853-1859, City of Toronto Archives,
SC 35 D Box 2 File 2. The Toronto Boys Home frequently noted in its annual reports that the
demand from farmers for boys was much greater than could be supplied. Annual Reports for
1866, 1869, 1873 Ontario Archives, Toronto Boys Home Records, Series E, MU 4932. The
Toronto Girls Home noted that the demand for girls aged 9 or 10 as servants was greater than
they could supply. Baldwin Room, Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library, L30 Protestant
Children’s Homes, Girls’ Home, Annual Reports 1863, 1864, 1866.
44. For example: "Ran away from the Subscriber, on Sunday last, Henry Hayes, an
indentured apprentice to the shoe-making business, ... [personal description and details regard-
ing another man who stole from him] Whoever will cause wither or both of the above to be
( Upper Canada Gazette,
apprehended shall receive a reward of 20 Dollars. David Wilson. York"
February 4, 1819); "Ran away from Subscriber, Bakerman Phillips apprentice to the Tanning
and Currying Business. Adam Hubbs" (Free Press (Hallowell Ontario), March 22, 1831);
"RUNAWAY FROM The subscriber, last night. An indentured apprentice, named James Evans.
This is to forbid all persons from harboring or trusting him on my account. Azel Cook" (Kingston
Chronicle & Gazette, August 10 and 24, 1833); "Run away Patrick Ward, blacksmith apprentice
with Wm. D. Clark, Bastard Township" (Brockville Statesman, March 2, 1847); "Stop a
Runaway Apprentice! Ran Away from the Subscriber on Sunday morning, the 26th ultimo, An
Indentured Boy to the Boot and Shoemaking Business, named Thomas Gibbons. Areward of
ten Dollars will be paid to any person who will deliver him back to me. And I hereby forbid any
person from this date employing him, under penalty of the Law. Willson Reid" (Glo be (Toronto),
October 27; November 6 and 24, 1847); "Printing Apprentice of P. E. Gazette office has run
away—to caution other printers from hiring him" (Prince Edward Gazette Picton, May 18,
1848); "James Poole’s printer’s apprentice has run away before the end of his contract"
(Carleton Place Herald, August 15, 1854).
45. "Schedule of convictions at the Quarter sessions for the United Counties of Lanark and
Renfrew. It would appear that an apprentice to Charles Rice of the Courier was charged with
leaving the employment of his master and was sent to jail" (Perth Courier, December 14,1855).
46. "Report of the High B ailiff of Toronto," Globe (Toronto), February 26, 1848 (apprentices
or servants deserting employers: males, seven; females, one); "Report of the High Bailiff of
Toronto," Globe, March 7,1849 (apprentices and servants deserting employment: males, eleven;
females, five).
47. See, for example, Minutes of the Court of Quarter Sessions of the District of Mecklenburg-
Town of Kingston (extracts edited by Adam Shortt, Early Records of Ontario, [Kingston,1900])
July 15, 1793 (apprentice ordered to stay with master despite complaint of ill treatment); and
April 23, 1799 (apprentice discharged from indenture because he was employed as a domestic
drudge rather than as an apprentice hatter and he was not given enough food). "Dispute between
Master and Apprentice," Acharge of assault was made by apprentice against master ; charge was
dismissed. The apprentice produced a written indenture in court. Globe (Toronto), December
13,1856.
48. See, for example, "A Sensible Provision in an Apprentice’s Indenture," Toronto Globe,
March 7, 1859, in which an apprentice sued for wages not paid while he was ill. The master
claimed that there was no provision for payment of wages during illness, but the indentures
were produced and there was such a clause, so the wages were ordered paid.
49. Minutes of the Court of Quarter Sessions of the District of Mecklenburg, October 12,
1789.
50. the Immigration of British Children," Ontario, Sessional Papers,
"Special Report on
1897-1898, 60; Helen I. Cowan, British Emigration to British North America (Toronto:
no.
University of Toronto Press, 1961), 221-3; W. S. Shepperson, British Emigration to North

167
America (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1957), 116-22; Joy Parr, Labouring
Children: British Immigrant Apprentices to Canada, 1869-1924 (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s
University Press), especially ch. 5; Stanley C. Johnson, A
History of Emigration from the United
Kingdom to North America 1763-1912 (1913; reprint, London: Frank Cass, 1966), ch. 12;
Patricia Rooke and R. L. Schnell, Discarding the Asylum: From Child Rescue to the Welfare
State in English-Canada (1800-1950) (Lanham, MD: University of America Press, 1983),
ch. 6, 7.
51. For a discussion of the debates about the merits of child emigration, see Elaine Hadley,
"Natives in a Strange Land: The Philanthropic Discourse of Juvenile Emigration in Mid-
Nineteenth-Century England," Victorian Studies 33 (1990): 411-37.
52. British Parliamentary Papers, Irish University Press series, Emigration, vol. 19, pp. 300
(1834); 330,338,340,341 (1835); Kingston Chronicle & Gazette, June 6,1835, note regarding
twenty boys arrived in Kingston from Bytown and sent on to Toronto; Kingston Chronicle &
Gazette, May 7,11,14,18, 21, 25, and 28,1836, advertisement by the Children’s Friend Society
regarding 100 children arriving in Kingston for whom apprenticeships were required; later
advertisements suggest that not all these children arrived (Kingston Chronicle & Gazette,
"Children’s Friend Society," a notice that only 15 of the children had arrived, which ran from
June 22, 1836, through March 1837; a note in the paper on July 23, 1836, indicated, however,
that "a number of Children from the Children’s Friend Society of London are expected in this
place in a few days."). One indenture of a child by the society has survived: Indenture of
Apprenticeship between Gwendelam Israel and John Benson Children’s Friend Society [plus
letter regarding same], November 1, 1836, Lennox and Addington County Museum, John
Benson Papers, 3831-2,3221-4. See also Margaret Angus, "Health, Emigration and Welfare in
Kingston 1820-1840," in Oliver Mowat’s Ontario, ed. Donald Swainson (Toronto: Macmillan,
1972), 132-3. Concerning the objects and organization of the society, see also Kingston
Chronicle and Gazette, June 14, 1834; April 1, 1835; April 25 to June 3, 1835. There were
moves to establish a branch in Toronto but no evidence that it was active. City of Toronto
Archives, Toronto City Council Papers, Joseph Talbot to R. B. Sullivan, mayor, March 14,1835:
RG1 B1 Box 1 File 9; Report of a Select Committee, May 18, 1835: RG1 B1 Box 1 File 9.
"Report from the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Colonisation from Ireland with
Minutes of Evidence, 1847," British Parliamentary Papers, Irish University Press series, Emi-
gration, vol. 4, pp. 140-1, evidence of J. M. Brydone, Esq., who extols the virtues of assisted
emigration from Ireland, especially Colonel Wyndham 1839-1847; he notes that the sons and
daughters of assisted emigrants could be apprenticed in Ontario, as he had personally seen being
done in 1834 to 1837.
53. Edna Bradlow, "The Children’s Friend Society at the Cape of Good Hope," Victorian
Studies 27 (1984): 155-77.
54. Brief details are provided about some of these youths from 1855 to 1861 in the annual
immigration report of A. C. Buchanan, the chief emigration agent for Canada stationed at
Quebec City. British Parliamentary Papers, Irish University Press series, Canada, vol. 21,
pp. 300, 305, 356, 361, 496, 501; Canada, vol. 22, pp. 686, 689; Canada, vol. 23, #606, p. 14,
16; Canada, vol. 24, p. 47,52,64,118,125. Toronto House of Industry Register of Boys arriving
at House of Industry from England 1858-1868 provides details of 169 youths from reformatory
schools in England who stayed briefly in the house (4 more drowned on the voyage over and 4
others did not go to the house), usually only a few days, until they obtained a position, which
was normally found for them by the house. City of Toronto Archives, SC 35 D Box 2 File 3.
The annual reports of one of these reformatory schools, Red Hill Farm School, operated by the
Royal Philanthropic Society, provide further details about their emigration schemes and include
letters from some of the boys, including some who went through the House of Industry. #2271,
Surrey Record Office, County Hall, Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey, England, available on
microfilm. The Ragged School Union Casebook of London Boys Given Assisted Passage to
Canada, c. 1860 (Guildhall Library London MS. 5754, microfilm in Public Archives of Canada)

168
provides information on fifty-seven youths, forty-five of whom went to Canada in 1856, 1857,
and 1858. It was kept for a very short time, a little over two years, as the entries for the boys
who sailed on the North American, August 25, 1858, contain no details about what happened
to them after their arrival inCanada, as the other entries do. The latest information recorded in
the casebook is from September 1858, when reports were received from two of the boys. The
Ware Family Papers (RB 1228 Surrey Record Office) include letters dating from 1851 to 1870
to Martin Ware from boys from the Grotto Passage School, Marlybone, London (there is also
reference to the Field Lane School) who emigrated, some to Ontario. Beginning in about 1849,
large numbers of single females, from age fourteen, came to Canada, especially from Ireland,
having their passage paid by their parishes or landlords. Those without children seem to have
been in great demand in Ontario as domestic servants, but, again, they worked under service
contracts not as apprentices. British Parliamentary Papers, Irish University Press series, Canada,
1849, vol.19, pp. 62,76; Canada, 1850, vol. 19, pp. 422-3; Canada, 1851, vol. 20, pp. 92, 109;
Canada, 1852, vol. 20, pp. 481-502; Canada, 1854-1855,vol. 21, pp. 192-6,296; Canada, 1860,
vol. 24, p. 47. This emigration of single females occurred despite the express disapproval of
British authorities. British Parliamentary Papers, Emigration, 1840, vol. 21, p. 571.
55. Annual report of meeting held December 14, 1833, National Archives of Canada MG
24-A40 vol. 29 File 8591; Christian Guardian, September 17,1834; Report of A. C. Buchanan,
Chief Agent for the Superintendence of Emigrants in Upper and Lower Canada, Quebec, 12th
December 1832 British Parliamentary Papers, Irish University Press series, Emigration, Vol. 19,
p. 192. Buchanan notes that 850 widows and orphans were returned to Britain in 1832 out of
51,746 immigrants. The number of children dealt with in Toronto was hence significant by
comparison.
56. See note 42.
57. British Parliamentary Papers, Irish University Press series, Canada, vol. 17, p. 402 (to
put these numbers in perspective, in 1847, 38,560 arrived in the city, and 1,124 died in the city);
"Appeal to the Citizens of Toronto, on behalf of the Widows and Orphans of Destitute
Immigrants Dying Here," Globe (Toronto), August 21,1847, (appeal for support with statement
of objects); "Notice is Hereby Given, ..." Globe, December 1, 8, 1847 (advertisement of
availability of women, boys, and girls as servants and apprentices.)
58. British Parliamentary Papers, Irish University Press series, Canada, 1858, vol. 22, p. 678,
685, 694; Canada, 1859, vol. 23, p. 5.
59. British Parliamentary Papers, Irish University Press series, Canada, vol. 20, p. 496;
Report from the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Colonisation from Ireland With
Minutes of Evidence, Emigration, 1847, Vol. 4, pp.140-1, evidence of J.M Brydone, Esq., who
extols the virtues of assisted emigration from Ireland, especially that of Colonel Wyndham
1839-1847; he notes that the sons and daughters of assisted emigrants could be apprenticed in
Ontario as he had personally seen being done in 1834 to 1837.
60. See note 54 concerning the immigration of single young women. As to immigrant women
with children, see note 58. Poor Law authorities may have sent children with their mothers as
an alternative to sending them alone, which they may have preferred to do but had difficulty
doing in the 1850s.

61. "Third annual Report of the Inspector of Asylums, Prisons, &c., for the Province of
Ontario," Ontario, Sessional Papers, 1870, no. 6.
62. Rooke and Schnell, who have done the most extensive study to date of nineteenth century
Canadian children’s homes, refer extensively to the records of various children’s homes but rely
on anecdotal support for their conclusions rather than a systematic study of what happened to
the children. They also have a tendency to accept what was stated in the rules or by the managers
of the homes as evidence for what happened as a general rule. Rooke and Schnell, Discarding
the Asylum, especially chap. 5.

169
63. House of Industry Board Minutes, vol. 3, April 25, 1848, to December 21, 1858, "Rules
for the Government of the House of Industry," "Rules for the Superintendent," no. 7, City of
Toronto Archives SC 35A Box 1.
64. House of Industry Board Minutes, vol. 1, June 12 and July 24, 1837, City of Toronto
Archives SC 35A Box 1.
65. House of Industry Board Minutes, vol. 3, May 30, July 25, 1850; February 12, March
27, May 29, July 31, August 19, September 23, November 11,1851, City of Toronto Archives
SC 35A Box 1; "An Act to Incorporate The House of Industry of Toronto," Canada, Statutes,
1851, 14 & 15 Vict., c. 35.
66. House of Industry Annual Report, 1870, City of Toronto Archives SC 35A Box 1 File
15.
67. Toronto House of Industry Register of Applications for Children 1853-1859, City of
Toronto Archives, SC 35 D Box 2 File 2.
6 8. Toronto House of Industry Register of B oys arriving at House of Industry from England
1858-1868, City of Toronto Archives, SC 35 D Box 2 File 3.
69. For example, Toronto House of Industry Annual Reports: for 1852, "Report of the
Trustees of the House of Industry," Globe (Toronto), January 29, 1853; for 1854, "House of
Industry: Annual Meeting of Subscribers," Globe, January 26, 1855; for 1859, "House of
Industry," Globe, January 14,1859; also in City of Toronto Archives, SC 35 F Box 1.
70. City of Toronto Archives, SC 35 K Box 1. These include comments about applications
for children, requests to masters to sign the indentures sent them, and requests for money owed
for apprentices.
71. House of Industry Accounts in Annual Reports, from 1859 forward, City of Toronto
Archives, SC 35 F Box 1.
72. "An Act to incorporate The Orphans’ Home and Female Aid Society, Toronto," Canada,
Statutes, 1851, 14 & 15 Vict., c. 34.
73. The records of the home are in the Baldwin Room, Metropolitan Toronto Reference
Library, L30. These records include the Register for 1853-1869 (hereafter Original Register:
one part of this register records the children by date of entry, another—"Children who have left
the Home"—by date of departure); Register for 1853-1902 (hereafter Register Copy: for the
early period, at least, this is a copy that compiles information from the various sections of the
Original Register and some other sources; the entries in it are numbered); Minutes of the Board
and Annual Meetings (Vol. 1, June 16, 1851, to April 5, 1852; Vol. 2, 1853 to 1864, hereafter
Minutes); and Annual Reports from 1854 (both original and microfilm copies available). The
information about individual children included name, age, date of arrival, circumstances of their
admission (including often some details about surviving parents), date of departure, reason for
departure, name of person to whom they were apprenticed or by whom adopted where
applicable, names of individuals who recommended the family in which they were placed, and
sometimes follow-up details. In addition, detailed information about money sent to the home
to be deposited in accounts for apprentices was recorded in the Annual Reports.
74. "An Act to incorporate The Orphans’ Home and Female Aid Society, Toronto," Canada,
Statutes, 1851, 14 & 15 Vict., c. 34, preamble.
75. Canada, Statutes, "An Act to amend the Act, intituled, An Act to incorporate the Orphan’s
Home and Female Aid Society, Toronto," 1852, 16 Vict., c. 71.
76. Rules and Regulations of the Orphans’ Home & Female Aid Society, Toronto, 3rd Annual
Report for 1853-54, 5-10 (hereafter Rules 1854). The rules were later amended slightly, with
the relevant rule numbers changed and the text of the apprenticeship agreement removed (see
Annual Report for 1859). The wording of the other provisions did not change, although the rule
numbers did; the number in square brackets is that for the 1859 Rules.
77. Minutes February 26 and March 26,1856, Annual Reports for 1855-6 and 1856-7, where
the forms of indenture were reproduced.

170
78. "An Act to incorporate the Trustees of the Hamilton Orphan Asylum," Canada, Statutes,
1852, 16 Vict., c. 57, s. 9.
79. The records are to be found in the Hamilton Public Library, Special Collections.
Microfilm reel #453 includes the registers of the asylum from its opening in 1848 to 1886. This
exists in two versions to 1869. It is the second version, pages 298-589, which is normally cited
here (referred to as Register). In addition, there is a Record of Orphans’ Apprenticeships, pages
962-1106, which includes much detail about children apprenticed from 1872 to 1898 (cited as
Record of Apprenticeships). From 1869 into the twentieth century, there is also the formal register
required by the inspector of asylums, but it is not informative for the purposes of this study.
80. There are 506 entries in the Register. However, many children were admitted more than
once and are shown as a separate entry each time. Also, for some children placed, the full details
required for the analysis thatfollows were notprovided and thus are not included in the numbers.
81. Annual Reports 1858 forward.
82. See for example Minutes April 24, 1855, Register Copy entry 291.
83. Register entry 6, p. 302. Of another boy apprenticed in 1850 it is said he "left his master
before the expiration of his apprenticeship." Register entry 21, p. 310.
84. Record of Apprenticeships.
85. The records of the Toronto Boys Home are held by the Archives of Ontario. Toronto
Boys’ Home Papers F831, Series E, MU 4928 to MU 4933. They include Minute Books of
Weekly Meetings from 1865 to 1901, Minute Books of Special and Monthly meetings from
1859 to 1897, and Annual Reports from 1860 to 1883. The Rules were reproduced in the Annual
Reports. Unfortunately, no Registers have survived. Considerable information about the chil-
dren can be gleaned from the Minute Books, but this is a very time-consuming job thatI have
not yet completed. I accordingly cannot as yet reach any conclusions about ages or lengths of
stay in the home of children placed out.
86. The numbers placed are not given for 1863, nor are the numbers apprenticed for 1860
to 1862, 1875, 1876, and 1880.
87. Weekly Minutes, March 12, 1860, vol. 7.
88. Baldwin Room, Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library, L30 Protestant Children’s
Homes, Girls’ Home. The records include Registers from 1859 to 1926, Annual Reports from
1857 to 1925, and Minutes of the Board from 1891. The register does not, unfortunately, seem
to have been well kept and appears less reliable than that of the other homes discussed so far.
For example, while the annual reports show sixty-three placed in service and fifty-four adopted
from 1864 to 1869, the register shows only about thirty-one placed in service and twenty-nine
adopted from 1860 to 1876.
89. "An Act to Incorporate The Girls’ Home and Public Nursery of the City of Toronto,"
Canada Statutes, 18b3, 26 Vict., c. 63, s. 4
90. Rooke and Schnell, Discarding the Asylum, 135; "Industrial School," Globe (Toronto),
February 28, 1849; "First Annual Report of the Board of Inspectors of Asylums, Prisons, &c."
for 1860, Canada, Sessional Papers,
1861, no. 24: "General Report" and "Special Report of Mr.
Inspector Meredith for the year 1860: Boys’ Home, Toronto" (n.p.); "Second Annual Report of
the Board of Inspectors of Asylums, Prisons, &c." for 1861, Canada, Sessional Papers, 1862,
no. 19: "Separate Report of Mr. E. A. Meredith: Homes or Houses of Refuge for Destitute and
Neglected Children" (n.p.); "Annual Report of the Board of Inspectors of Asylums, Prisons, &
c." for 1864, Canada, Sessional Papers,
1865, no.14: "Separate Report of Mr. Terence J. O’Neill
for the year 1864: Vagrancy" 79-83; Canada, Report of the Royal Commission on the Relations
of Capital and Labor in Canada: Evidence—Ontario (Ottawa 1889), 159-65 (evidence of W. H.
Howland). "Prison Reform Commission, 1891" (evidence of W. H. Howland): 689-97.
91. Rooke and Schnell, Discarding the Asylum, 150-61.
92. There were in addition to the thirty-four boys and four girls aged six or younger on
admission mentioned above, four boys and one girl aged seven or eight who stayed four years
or longer between 1848 and 1867 and two boys and two girls from 1867 to 1880. The total does

171
not, however, include a very small number of children who were taken by relatives after longer
stays in the home—the vast majority of these were taken out again within one year—or who
died after longer stays.
93. The managers of the Toronto Boys Home said of these children in their 1872 Annual
Report (13th AR, p. 6):
Thirty-one boys were removed by parents "having been in most cases merely placed
by them temporarily in the ’Home’, on account of their being out of employment, or
suffering from protracted illness. Many of these cases were very painful ones, and
highly deserving of assistance, and it was a cause of great thankfulness to the managers
to be able to afford shelter to these children, who otherwise would undoubtedly have
suffered great want, which, in its turn, would have led them into vice and misery.
Nevertheless, they would have preferred that some of these children remain under the care of
the home:
The Managers would call attention to one great difficulty under which they laboured
and which can only bemet b y Legislative interference viz the case of those unfortunate
children placed under their care while their worthless parents are undergoing impris-
onment for drunkenness and disorderly habits; no sooner are they released than they
seek out and claim their children, as by them they can more readily obtain the means
of indulging their favourite vices. As the law now stands a child must have been
convicted of a crime before it can be placed by authority in a position to be trained to
habits of obedience and order and to receive religious instruction.... it is much to be
wished that power could be given to the Magistrate to make the removal of their
children from them the penalty of a third or fourth conviction for drunkenness on the
part of the parents.
1863, 4th Annual Report p. 7. See also the 3rd Annual Report of the Ottawa Orphans’ Home
(1868, p. 6 National Archives of Canada), where the managers speak in positive terms of ten
children who received temporary care before being returned to their parents. Rooke and Schnell,
Discarding the Asylum, 145, 148, thus appear to have been incorrect in concluding that the
homes did not welcome such use of their facilities. Their anecdotal evidence supporting this
conclusion appears to be based on complaints about specific parents or classes of parent rather
than complaints about the practice in general.
94. John Bullen, "J. J. Kelso and the ’New’ Child-Savers: The Genesis of the Children’s Aid
Movement in Ontario," in Dimensions of Childhood: Essays on the History of Children and
Youth in Canada, ed. Russell Smandych et al. (Winnipeg: University of Manitoba, 1991),147-8.
Also published in (1990) 82:2 Ontario History 107. Sutherland, Children in English-Canadian
Society, 113.
95. Sixth Report of work under the Children’s Protection Act Ontario for the year ending
November 30th 1898, Ontario, Sessional Papers, 1899, p. 22.
96. Annual Reports of the Inspector of Asylums, Prisons and Public Charities, Ontario,
Sessional Papers, 1871 and 1880, p. 268.I have excluded the House of Industry, Newsboys
Lodging and the Infants’ Home in Toronto, as well as some other homes not exclusively for
children of placeable age.

Neff 1996

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Neff 1996

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journalhttp://jfh.sagepub.

Pauper Apprenticeship in Early Nineteenth Century Ontario

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jfh.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

>> Version of Record - Apr 1, 1996

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

In the preindustrial English-speaking world, apprenticeship had two functions. First,

arrangements for British juvenile immigrants to Ontario prior to Confederation.

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

Many people even in humble circumstances are to be found generously prepared to

ENGLISH APPRENTICESHIP LAW

Trade Apprenticeship Law in England8

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

Pauper Apprenticeship in England9

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

LEGAL PROVISION FOR APPRENTICESHIP IN ONTARIO

Trade Apprenticeship in Ontario

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

Pauper Apprenticeship in Ontario

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

Legal Authority of Children’s Homes to Apprentice

by summary application to a Magistrate or Justice of the Peace (who is hereby authorized

English Pauper Apprenticeship and

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

EVIDENCE FOR THE EXTENT OF USE

If we could find large numbers of surviving apprenticeship indentures, this would

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

Demand for Apprentices

Legal Disputes Concerning Apprenticeship

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

Apprenticeship of New Immigrants

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

Apprenticeship by Children’s Homes

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

FirstReport ofwork under the Children’s ProtectionAct, 1893, Ontario, ,1894,

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

21, 1858); see similar ad in Globe, August 23, 1859.

University of Toronto Press, 1961), 221-3; W. S. Shepperson, British Emigration to North

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

doing in the 1850s.

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on January 15, 2014

You might also like