However, in the 200 years since the Act was passed, there has been just one reported prosecution (the case of R v Costello and Bishop) – and that was way back in 1910.

The Act is one of 328 due for repeal under the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill now before the House of Lords. Other laws on the list govern the management of various workhouses and the workings of the East India Company.

Parliamentary notes on the Bill (PDF format, 3.2Mb) explain the origins of the Act, which may be seen as a precursor to the many and varied provisions now in force governing employment references (subscription required).

The Bill came about after householders in the Cities of London and Westminster had petitioned Parliament follwoing a series of incidents in which gullible individuals had taken on servants on the strength of false references.

One petitioner, Dr Richard Brocklesby (pictured here), a former surgeon-general with the British Army, complained that his house had been robbed as a result of knowledge acquired by a servant who had obtained the post in this way.

In response, Parliament created five new criminal offences:

* falsely impersonating a master or mistress and giving a false character reference;

* falsely pretending in writing that a servant had been hired for a particular time or in a particular capacity;

* falsely asserting in writing that a servant had left their job at a particular date or that they had never been employed;

* falsely claiming to have served in a particular job or offering a false certificate of character; and

* falsely pretending not to have been previously hired as a servant.

The first three sections penalised employers and those pretending to be employers, while the fourth and fifth penalised servants themselves.

In addition to this lot, the only other provision of the Act which remains in force is a clause absolving servants of liability if they informed on their collaborators and a conviction resulted.

According to the briefing given to parliamentarians today, the Act is no longer needed because much of the law governing references is now covered by civil law, while the general criminal law is sufficient to deal with anyone giving bogus references to get a job.

Here is a rather length extract from a 1792 House of Commons committee report on the background to the Act which gives the details:

“Sir Adam Ferguson reported from the Committee, to whom the Petition of several Householders within the Cities of London and Westminster, for themselves and others, was referred; That the Committee had examined the Matter of the said Petition, and had directed him to report the same, as it appeared to them, to the House; and he read the Report in his Place; and afterwards delivered it in at the Clerk’s Table: Where the same read; and is as followeth; viz.

To prove the Allegations of the said Petition, Doctor Richard Brocklesby gave the Committee the following Information: That within these Three Years, being in Want of a Servant, he advertised; upon which a proper Servant, seemingly, offered, and referred him to the Master of a House in Chappel Street, May Fair, where there was every Appearance of Credit and Character: The pretended Master gave the Man an excellent Character, and the Witness hired him: That having served him a little more than a Month, he told the Doctor that his Service would not suit him; whereupon he was discharged the same Night he had also persuaded Three other Servants to quit the Service of the Doctor at the same Time That, within a few Days after the Servants left him, his House was robbed, and Plate, which cost nearly £200, was taken from a Chest where it was usually kept, and which was in a Room on the Ground Floor, behind his Study the Robbers did not appear to have gone to any other Part of the House. Early in the Morning, it was perceived that One of the Windows in the Drawing Room, where there are Pictures (and which Room is not commonly used) was open, and supposed to have been left so before the Servants left the House; for by this Window the Robbers appeared to have entered, from a Foot Mark found on the Lamp Iron, and on the Ledge of the Window, the Shutter of which is usually secured by an Iron Bar across it, but on which no Mark of Force appeared.

The Witness further said, That he procured a Warrant, and had all the Servants before a Magistrate, but nothing could be made out against them, although their Lodgings were searched That, on the Examination of the Man Servant above mentioned, he owned before the Magistrate that he had paid a Guinea to the Keeper of the House in May Fair for a Character, and was to give him in Proportion to the Time of his Stay in the Doctor’s Service That the Magistrate sent to the House in May Fair, and it was found that the pretended Housekeeper had decamped a Fortnight before; and on Investigation of his Character, he appeared to have been on the Suspicious Books at Bow Street.

John Free, Esquire, being next examined, informed your Committee, That about Two Months since, being in Want of a Coachman, he was much pleased with the Appearance of a Man who offered himself to him in that Capacity, particularly so when he told him he had lived in his last Place Three Years and a Half; that he had left it about a Month, and that his Reason for so doing, was on Account of his Master’s having put down his Carriage on some Family Misfortunes He told him his Master’s Name was Pointer, that he lived in Suffolk, but came to London about this Time of the Year for Three or Four Months, and was then at his usual Place of Residence when in Town, at Doctor Palin’s, No.48, Great Russell Street, Bloomsbury The next Morning, on being told by the Coachman that his Master would be in the Way, the Witness called on Mr Pointer, who confirmed all the Coachman had said, and gave him so good a Character, that the Witness almost suspected the Truth of what he said; however, the Appearance of the House, and a Servant in Livery, soon did away his Suspicions, and he hired the Coachman⎯That, about a Week afterwards, having some Company, a Friend of his directly knew him, from his having lived with his Father about a 247 Twelvemonth past⎯this rather alarmed him, and, from some Words that dropped from his Friend, he began to fear he had received a false Character of his Servant That the witness interrogated the Servant, and on his not giving a satisfactory Account of himself, ordered him to take off his Livery, and quit his House That, after paying him his Wages, he again interrogated him, and brought him to confess, that Pointer was a Man notoriously in the Habit of giving false Characters to Servants out of Place, and that for what he had said of him he had paid him One Guine He said, a Fellow-servant who had been successful in getting into a Family by this Man’s Means, had advised him to adopt this Method That the Witness called at Doctor Palin’s this Morning, and found the Impostor was gone; but from his Landlord’s Account, be understood that he had hired his Lodgings for a few Weeks, passing himself off for a Man of Property in Gloucestershire, but that he had been discovered by some Person in the Neighbourhood, and had left his House The Witness was also informed that he went by the Names of Punter, Pointer, and Prichard; by the latter Name he has endeavoured to find him out, particularly at a Place that he often frequents, the Orange Tree, in Orange Street, Bloomsbury, a Rendezvous for Servants out of Place.

The Witness further said, That this Man has carried on the Trade a long Time, hiring Lodgings at different Times in reputable Situations, and passing himself for a Country Gentleman, come to Town for a short Time And he added, That a Friend of his had made Application to Sir Sampson Wright, who informed him that the Person above mentioned was well known at the Public Office, but advised him to let the Matter drop, as nothing could be done towards punishing him”.