HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0096 and id is 1 raw text is: THE QUEEN V. EPSOM
and lightermen on the river Thames, between Yantlet Creek and Windsor. And
the only question is, Whether the by-law is authorized by the Act, which (stats. 57
and 58) empowers the Mayor and aldermen to make such by-laws as they shall
think proper, for the [1001] government and regulation of the freemen of the said
Company, and the boats, vessels, and other craft to be rowed or worked within
the limits of this Act, provided the said by-laws be not inconsistent with any of
the laws of this Kingdom, or the provisions and directions in this Act contained, and
be allowed by a Judge of one of the superior Courts at Westminster.
The appellant's counsel contended that the by-law is inconsistent with the laws
of this Kingdom, and the provisions and directions contained in the Act, as it seeks
to prevent any freeman of the Company from setting at work to row, or permit or
suffer to be set at work to row, or in any manner navigate, any lighter, barge, boat,
or other craft, upon the said river Thames, within the aforesaid limits, any other
person not being a freeman of the said Company. This, it is said, would render it
penal for a freeman, in case his barge were in danger of sinking from some unforeseen
peril, to call in the assistance of a non-freeman to save her. But we think that the
by-law is not directed against the employment of any persons on such an emergency,
and applies only to the employment of persons for the ordinary rowing and navigation
of the barge or other craft. We are then told that it would prohibit a freeman from
permitting any non-freeman to assist in rowing or navigating his barge, although not
for hire, and although the barge may not at the time be navigated with a view to
hire. We doubt very much whether this would be a setting at work to row, or
permitting to be set at work to row, or navigate, within the meaning of the by-
law. But, if it were, we do not think that the by-law would be bad. A by-law
cannot be said to be inconsistent with the laws of this Kingdom merely [1002]
because it forbids the doing of something which might lawfully have been done before,
or requires something to be done which there was no previous obligation to do;
otherwise a nominal power of making by-laws would be utterly nugatory. No maxim
of the common law has been pointed out which is violated by this regulation.
But the objection was chiefly rested on sections 102 and 103 of the Act, which
forbid only the employment of non-freemen, when servants of the owners of lighters
or other large craft, for carrying their own goods, or the employment of non-freemen
in lighters or other craft carrying passengers for hire, or goods or merchandize for
hire. Certainly neither of these sections, nor any part of the Act, goes the full length
of the by-law in prohibiting the employment of non-freemen in rowing and navigating
barges on the Thames. But the by-law is not necessarily inconsistent with the pro-
visions and directions of the Act, although it forbids that which the Act did not
forbid. It does not seek to forbid any thing which the Act directed to be done : and
there is no provision of the Act which, the by-law being enforced, will not have its
full operation. With the sanction of a Judge, a power is given of making a by-law
beyond the provisions and directions of the Act, if not inconsistent with them. The
by-law operates directly only on freemen of the Company: and, in as far as non-
freemen may be prevented from working in barges without hire, it can hardly be
said that they can complain of any encroachment on the freedom of trade. Those in
whom the power of making by-laws on this subject is vested might have reason to
believe that it would conduce to the safe navigation of the river Thames to require
that the barges of freemen should be navigated exclusively (1003] by persons who
have been regularly trained as watermen or lightermen.
We cannot be influenced by the arguments founded upon the supposition that
this Company is an odious monopoly. Taking care that it usurps no privileges which
have not been lawfully conferred upon it, we are bound to suppose that it has been
created and continued for the public good, and to put a reasonable construction on the
laws passed for its protection.
Conviction affirmed.
THE QUEEN against THE INHABITANTS OF EPSOM. Wednesday, May 2d, 1855.
The requisites prescribed in sects. 1, 2, 3 of stat. 28 G. 3, c. 48, to be observed
in binding a boy apprentice to a chimney sweeper, as to the approbation of justices,
the form of the indenture, and the insertion therein of the apprentice's age,
4 RLAft BL. IM0.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0096&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)