Dublin apprentices
admitted to freedom 1468-1470
Niall C.E.J. O’Brien
The origin of the apprenticeship
system is unknown. The term apprentice appears as early as 1261 in a London
ordinance and Bristol was one of the first cities after London to make enactments
for apprentices. By the fifteenth century other towns and trade guilds followed
with their own laws. Parliament soon got involved to regulate the different
bye-laws which had developed across the country. Various Acts of Parliament
were issued which culminated with the statute of 1563 which made apprenticeship
compulsory for all who wished to enter a trade. It was not until the reign of
George III that this legal obligation was repealed though it had become a dead
letter long before then.[1]
The development of apprenticeship, during medieval times,
from a private contract between a master and his pupil, into a universal,
recognised state system suited all concerned. To the master it gave complete
control over a pupil while the latter benefited from good training. For the
trade guilds, the system regulated the flow of new entrants and so prevented
over-supply of the market and with consequent cutting of prices and wages by
traders. It also prevented inferior workmanship. The town corporations also
earned money by charging 6d to enrol an indenture, and collected a further 4s
6d for granting an apprentice freedom to trade in the borough. The state also
earned money from a good tax-paying group while keeping the feudal rights of
the principal government ministers from collapse.[2]
In January 1470 the Dublin
assembly ordained that all apprentices taken on for term of years should within
the first year entered their names in the city court books and pay 4 pence to
the recorder for the enrolment. Anybody who does not present themselves at
enrolment was to be refused the franchise of the city.[3]
This ordnance was kept for many years and was renewed in June 1577 with the
additional measure that a special register book to be kept of the terms and
years of each apprenticeship. The clerk of the Tholsel was to check that all
the current apprentices in the city were fully enrolled. The price of enrolment
was set at 4 pence and that of the indenture at 2 shillings.[4]
The earliest record of the
admittance of people to the franchise of Dublin after serving a term of
apprenticeship was in October 1468 but it is certain that earlier records once
existed. The opening paragraph of the franchise roll said that people should be
“sworn in the usual form” which clearly points to earlier activity. Each
freeman was to make residence in the city bounds within a year and a day.[5]
Craft people and merchants admitted
to the franchise and thus made freemen of the city was a coveted status for
medieval people. Having the freedom allowed people to trade in the city, to
open a shop and to engage in a craft trade like a hooper or shoemaker. Freemen
could trade at a reduced rate of fees compared to a non-freeman. Dublin freemen
also had favourable trading status in other towns and in areas controlled by
the English administration.
Map of medieval Dublin - a place well known to our apprentices
The trades admitted in 1468 included
three glovers, two hoopers, two merchants, and one shoemaker, baker, skinner,
pewterer, dyer, mariner, tailor, smith along with one woman as a wine-taverner.
Another group of people were not admitted directly to the franchise. These
included any bakers, fishers or butchers. These trades were closely regulated
by their own guilds and thus had first call on who should be admitted to the
franchise.[6] Having
disallowed these people the city council admitted Richard Calf as a baker who
had served an apprenticeship.[7]
Another group not admitted to the
franchise were people of the Irish nation. On the issue of Irish people the
city assembly decided against admittance. Yet it would seem that some existing
freemen were taking on Irish people as apprentices. At the start of May 1469
the city assembly directed that all craft-men within the city could only take
on apprentices of English birth (from England and the parts of Ireland
controlled by the English). If a freeman took on an Irish apprentice he would
lose his franchise while an un-freeman would be fined 40 shillings.[8]
The exclusion of Irish people
from apprenticeship had to do with security concerns. A city ordinance before
1460 states that “no merchant’s apprentice was to be admitted to the franchise
until he had a bow, sheaf of arrows, light helmet and a sword of his own”.
Craft apprentices were to be equipped with a bow, arrows and a sword.[9]
Over the succeeding decades
further acts to control apprentices and the apprentice system were passed by
the city assembly. In May 1582 the Dublin assembly issued a grave concern about
apprentices going to taverns of ill-repute and wasting their master’s goods.
They feared the wrath of God with apprentices keeping women prostitutes. A fine
of £10 was to be imposed on any convicted of such activity.[10]
In September 1605 young men, who
had served their apprenticeships, complained to the city council that they
could not gain admittance to the trade guilds unless they paid £4 or provide a
“great dinner”. The council ordered that every young artisan who had served his
apprenticeship should in lieu of the dinner pay twenty shillings. If refused
admittance the artisan should be free to excise his trade independently.[11]
In May 1606 the city council
ordered that apprentices who wore locks of hair or had long hair were to be
whipped. The masters were bound to have this punishment inflicted in the trade
guild hall by the porters in disguise.[12]
Further discussion
More apprentices were admitted
after 1470 but they are not recorded here. Finding records for the above
apprentices is difficult. For starter the franchise roll is just a list of
names of people and by what means they are admitted as freemen. The detailed
apprentice books that we see at Bristol and other English cities came later in
the mid Sixteenth century. Thus we don’t know with whom the above apprentices
served their time. We also don’t know where the apprentice came from – were
they from the Dublin area or from other parts of Ireland.
Finding information on the
apprentices after they got the freedom of Dublin is also difficult. The
assembly records between 1507 and 1533 have not survived and this would be the
period when the apprentices would have grown in standing and possibly serve on
the city assembly or be senior enough to take leases on city property.[13]
Of the 53 apprentices admitted to
the franchise between 1468 and 1470 the most persons admitted (17) were merchants,
including one woman merchant. Some of these merchants were possibly involved
with international trade or trade with other parts of Ireland. It is also
possible that many of these merchants could be better described as
shop-keepers, serving the local trade in Dublin. This high level of new
merchants suggests that the Dublin economy was very much a trading economy
rather than a centre of major manufacture. To help protect this trade and the
city population a rate of 3 pence was fixed on each shop to pay for the city watchmen.[14]
It is possible that the high proportion of merchants admitted to freedom compared to other trades could be accounted for by the intention of many of the qualified merchants to return home to their native place. Having trained and gained admittance to the freedom of Dublin would be of great benefit to their business back home. They could come to Dublin and trade on favourable terms and thus have an advantage over their competitor merchants back home.
To help the international
merchant the admittance of three mariners confirmed the importance of Dublin as
one of the chef ports of Ireland. Among the other admitted trades there were
five in the glove making craft. Gloves were important for horse riding and
using work horses. The glove-maker was an important trade in a time when the
horse was a very important animal. There were five smiths admitted. The smith
made horse shoes for the horses, farm implements for the farmer, and nails for
the builder along with all other works that involved iron products.
Tudor period glove-maker: image from heartengland.blogspot
Other people working with metals
include the goldsmith, the pewterer (making household vessels of pewter), the
coiner (making coins or trade tokens so people can “shop til they drop”) and
the two hoopers (making barrels or rims for cart wheels). The other trades admitted
to franchise included shoemakers, butchers and pipers (two people for each
trade); carpenter, skinner, baker, dyer, tailor, wine-taverner, and coiner (one
person for each trade). Five apprentices were admitted without giving their trade
of which four of these were women. It is difficult to even speculate as to what
trade these people had. An inn-keeper or seamstress was the usual occupation
for women but as we saw women could also be merchants and thus guess work cannot
be properly used in for these five apprentices.
It is hoped to examine Dublin
apprentices in more detail in the decades after 1470 and particularly in the
sixteenth century when more records are available
Dublin apprentices admitted to freedom 1468-1470
Admitted to the franchise on
fourth Friday after 29th September 1468 after serving apprenticeship[15]
Henry Walsh = shoemaker
Peter Walsh = skinner
Richard Calf = baker
Thomas Burton = glover
John Tovey = glover
Richard Wylcoke = glover
John White = pewterer
Maurice Mulghan = hooper
John Savage = merchant
John Cottrell = merchant
Robert Rede = hooper
Thomas Higgin = dyer
Robert Clerk = mariner
Hugh Leche = tailor
John Lange = smith
Isabella Naugle = wine-taverner
Admitted to the franchise in
fourth Friday after Easter 1469 after serving apprenticeship[16]
John Mortimer = merchant
John Ray = merchant
Matthew Loghan = coiner
Richard Kenan = butcher
Reys Walshe = piper
John Talbot = piper
Richard Gavane = smith
Thady Wygmore = mariner
Admitted to the franchise on
fourth Friday after 24th June 1469 after serving apprenticeship[17]
Philip Walsh = butcher
Admitted to the franchise on
fourth Friday after 29th September 1468 after serving apprenticeship[18]
Johanna Ryan = merchant = shortly
after Johanna Ryan was admitted as a freeman of Dublin she got married to
Nicholas Nangle, shoemaker. On the fourth Friday after 29th
September 1470 Nicholas Nangle was admitted a freeman because he was married to
a freeman.[19]
John Begge = merchant
Roger Nangle = merchant
Robert Rocheford = merchant
Patrick Logan = smith
John Herford = smith
Johanna Walsh = no trade given
Nicholas Keating = no trade given
Admitted to the franchise on
fourth Friday after 25th December 1469 after serving apprenticeship[20]
John Fleming = shoemaker
Peter White = carpenter
Thomas Francis = glover
Henry Purcell = mariner
John Iirrell = merchant
Alice Cornwalsh = no trade given
Nicholas Fernes = smith
Thomas Whitacre = merchant
Martin Eustace = merchant
Nicholas Brown = goldsmith
Admitted to the franchise on
fourth Friday after Easter 1470 after serving apprenticeship[21]
Thomas West = merchant
Philip Samson = merchant
John Passelow = merchant
Thomas Neill = merchant
Admitted to the franchise on
fourth Friday after 24th June 1470 after serving apprenticeship[22]
Margery Dennyse = no trade given
Admitted to the franchise on
fourth Friday after 29th September 1470 after serving apprenticeship[23]
Robert Roger = merchant
Johanna Gellows = no trade given
Nicholas Tyrrell = glover
Admitted to the franchise on fourth Friday
after 25th December 1470 after serving apprenticeship[24]
John Chillam = merchant
==========
End of post
=============
[1]
Denzil Hollis (ed.), Calendar of the
Bristol Apprentice Book 1532-1565, part 1, 1532-1542 (Bristol Record
Society, Vol. XIV, 1948), p. 3
[2]
Hollis, p. 6.
[3]
John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of
Ancient Records of Dublin (19 vols. Joseph Pollard, Dublin, 1889), Vol. 1,
p. 338
[4]
John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of
Ancient Records of Dublin (19 vols. Joseph Pollard, Dublin, 1891), Vol. 2,
p. 118
[5]
John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of
Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, p. 330
[6]
Howard B. Clarke, ‘Angliors ipsis Anglis: the Place of Medieval Dubliners in
English History’, in Surveying Ireland’s
Past: Multidisciplinary Essays in Honour of Anngret Simms, edited by Howard
Clarke, Jacinta Prunty & Mark Hennessy (Geography Publications, Dublin,
2004), p. 60
[7]
John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of
Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, pp. 330, 331
[8]
John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of
Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, p. 331
[9]
Howard B. Clarke, ‘Angliors ipsis Anglis: the Place of Medieval Dubliners in
English History’, in Surveying Ireland’s
Past, edited by Clarke, Prunty & Hennessy, p. 71, note 133
[10]
John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of
Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 2, pp. 164, 165
[11]
John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of
Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 2, p. 450
[12]
John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of
Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 2, p. 459
[13]
John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of
Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, p. 394 note 2
[14]
Howard B. Clarke, ‘Angliors ipsis Anglis: the Place of Medieval Dubliners in
English History’, in Surveying Ireland’s
Past, edited by Clarke, Prunty & Hennessy, p. 58
[15]
John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of
Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, pp. 330, 331
[16]
John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of
Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, p. 332
[17]
John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of
Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, p. 334
[18]
John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of
Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, p. 337
[19]
John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of
Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, p. 344
[20]
John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of
Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, p. 338
[21]
John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of
Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, p. 340
[22]
John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of
Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, p. 340
[23]
John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of
Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, p. 344
[24]
John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of
Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, p. 344
No comments:
Post a Comment