Dublin
masters and apprentices in the time of Henry VIII
Niall
C.E.J. O’Brien
In an earlier post [http://celtic2realms-medievalnews.blogspot.ie/2014/04/dublin-apprentices-admitted-to-freedom.html]
we saw apprentices in the 1460s made freemen of Dublin. But apart from knowing
their names and their trades we knew nothing else about the apprentices. It
would have been nice to know where the apprentices came from; were their Dublin
natives or from elsewhere in Ireland, and who were their masters in trade. A number
of documents from the time of Henry VIII provide a window into this dark world
and add more biography to a new set of apprentices. These Henry VIII documents were
not made to give a record of the apprenticeship but were made because people
had served their apprentices in ways contrary to the statue of apprentices. The
information is therefore very scratchy and possibly not a general reflection of
Dublin apprentices in the time of Henry VIII.
Nicholas
Queytrot
The first document was
made on 11th May 1525 when twelve jurors met at the Barons of the
Exchequer court in Dublin. They found that Nicholas Graytrot (Queytrot) of
Dublin, merchant, took John, son of Richard Stonys of Rush, husbandman, as
apprentice on 10th May 1522 for 7 years although John’s father
didn’t have an income above 20 shillings.[1] This
was contrary to the statue of 7 Henry IV c. 17 (England). We are not told what
punishment was given to Nicholas Queytrot for his offence. The punishment must
have been not have been that effective as in November 1541 Nicholas Queytrot
was back in court for breaking the same law. His offence was having taken
Richard Tyrrell as apprentice while Tyrrell’s father had less than 20 shillings
of income.[2]
The earliest reference
to Nicholas Queytrot comes from April 1504 when he was given licence to make a
stairs somewhere in the city for the city assembly.[3]
Later we learn that since the 1520s Nicholas Queytrot had lease on one messuage
and 30 acres in Ballimo, Co. Dublin along with William More. In 1543 it was
reported that Nicholas Queytrot rented three shops in St. Audoen’s parish from
the former Abbey of St. Thomas. Nicholas was supposed to pay a rent of 6
shillings 8 pence per year for the shops but since the dissolution paid nothing.[4]
Clearly Nicholas Queytrot believed in taking advantage to suit himself where
ever he could get it.
The managers of Dublin
did not look down on Nicholas Queytrot cutting corners. Instead he was given
important jobs in the city. In 1530 he was one of the auditors for the city
assembly and kept this job until 1537.[5]
But Nicholas Queytrot
did not always get his own way. In October 1537 he got a lease for 41 years on
a house and garden outside the Dame’s Gate in Dublin from the proctors of St.
Olave’s. This house was formerly owned by the Abbey of St. Augustin of Bristol.
Yet by 1552 the mayor of Dublin had taken possession of the house and rented it
to Walter Tyrrell.[6]
Richard
Leyne & William Pippard
At the same court
sitting of 11th May 1525 the jury found Richard Leyne or Lence of
Dublin, merchant, similarly took John, son of Robert Geffray of Kenure,
fisherman, at Kenure, Co. Dublin on 12th August 1522 contrary to the
same statue of 7 Henry IV c. 17 (England). A few years later in 1531 John
Geffray was mentioned in a list of jurors in the court of the Barons of the
Exchequer.[7] It
is not clear if this was the same person as John Geffray the apprentice.
A medieval court of the exchequer
On 12th June
1526 another jury assembled at the Barons of the Exchequer to find that William
Pippard of Dublin had taken in Patrick, son of Richard Walsh as apprentice at
Rathskal, Co. Dublin on 20th August 1523. This apprenticeship was
against statue because Richard Walsh did not possess lands worth more than £20
per annum at the time of his death on 1st May 1523. The offence did
not bar William Pippard from future sittings of the Barons of the Exchequer
where he was a jury member in 1531.[8]
The same court siting
found against Nicholas Gooding who had taken Patrick, son of Martin Bermingham
at Holywodrath, Co. Dublin. Nicholas had broken the statue of 7 Henry IV c. 17
(England) and 10 Henry VII c. 22 (Ireland).[9]
The
offending apprentice’s statues
The statue of 7 Henry
IV c. 17 in the first part of its text repeated an earlier statue of 12 Richard
II c. 5 which said that “he or she which use to labour at the plough or cart or
other labour or service of husbandry till they be of the age of twelve years,
that from henceforth they shall abide by the same labour, without being put to
any mystery or handicraft, and if any covenant or bond of apprentice be from
henceforth made to the contrary the same shall be holden for none”. The object
of this act was to keep as many people as possible at work on the land and so
be available for military service.[10]
But by the time of
Henry IV (1406) the economic reality had changed and well off agricultural
labours wanted greater economic freedom. Thus the statue of 7 Henry c. 17
having repeated that of 12 Richard II c. 5 continued to state that “no man or
woman of what estate or condition they be, shall put their son or daughter of
whatever age he or she be to serve as apprentice to no craft nor other labour
within any city or borough in the realm, except he have land or rent to the
value of twenty shillings by the year at the least”. The better off agricultural
labourers could now send their children away from farming and get a trade in
the wider economy. Over the next century the better off children left the land.
Statistics from Bristol show that of the 1,450 apprentices enrolled between
1532 and 1542, 266 were children of husbandmen, a far greater proportion than
from any other trade.[11]
The Irish statue of 10
Henry VII c. 22 confirmed all the statues made in England as binding in
Ireland.[12]
The text of the statue was destroyed in 1922.
Robert
Bayly & Patrick Boyce
Meanwhile back in
Dublin the courts were trying to stop children from poorer backgrounds leaving
the land. On 29th October 1526 the Barons of the Exchequer found
that Robert Bayly of Dublin, merchant, came to Huntstown, Co. Dublin on 20th
May 1524 and took Walter, son of Robert Field of same as apprentice for 7 years
although Robert Field did not have an income over 20 shillings per year.[13]
It is interesting to note that all these offending masters went out from Dublin
to where the apprentice lived to make the deal. It would be many years later
(1556) before the city assembly decreed that every apprenticeship must first be
recorded by the town clerk before it was to be valid.[14]
By the same October
1526 court sitting Patrick Boyce of Dublin, merchant took Thomas, son of
Patrick Fullam of Bullock, Co. Dublin on 20th August 1524 when
Patrick Fullam had an income less than 20 shillings.[15]
This Patrick Boyce was possibly the same Patrick Boyce, merchant and Alison,
his wife, who were granted next presentation to the church of St. Patrick’s,
Donabate for 20 years beginning at Michaelmas 1501 from the Priory of Grane. In
June 1519 Patrick Boyce and Alison, along with Walter Cruise, took the church
and tithes of Kilmahode for 20 years (£20 per annum) from the Priory of Grane.[16]
Home
town of Dublin apprentices
Earlier in this article
we wondered from where did the Dublin apprentices come from. The court cases
cited in this article have the apprentices coming from various places in County
Dublin. Is this because most Dublin apprentices came from the surrounding
county or is it that the courts knew the people involved and so could identify the
apprentices of poor parents? The evidence is not yet available to determine
where the ordinary Dublin apprentices came from. Instead we are left with
observing the courts trying to stop poor people from becoming apprentices.
A model of medieval Dublin looking south over the River Liffey and the city
Why should merchants take poor people for apprenticeship
Most of the trade masters who broke the rules of the statue of 7 Henry IV c. 17 appear to be merchants. These people you would suspect were rather educated and could understand laws and writing. So why did these merchants break the law and expose themselves to prosecution? The court cases mentioned do not give any further information on the offences and certainly no clear statement why the merchants broke the law.
A possible reason could be the payment of debts. These merchants travelled the countryside selling goods to anybody who would but their goods, be they rich or poor customers. If the poor customers suffered hard times, they could quickly find themselves unable to repay the merchant. The poor family would then offer one of their children to the merchant in payment of the debt.
The merchant would get cheap labour as the apprentice could not complain very well as he was breaking the law and should not have made himself available for apprenticeship. Thus the merchant could give the apprentice food and lodges and little else and get a good worker in return. The poor family had their debt cleared and gave one of their children an opportunity to advance out of poverty. This of course is all speculation - yet it would not be the first time that poor people were exploited by a rich merchant and still the number of such cases continued to appear in the records.
Further
court cases in 1541
On 14th
November 1541 before Sir John Plunket, the Chief Justice a number of masters
were charged with taking as apprentices the sons of people with less than 20
shillings per year income contrary to the statues of 7 Henry IV c.17 (England)
and 10 Henry VII c. 22 (Ireland). The most detailed of these cases was that of Tadeus
Duff of Dublin, merchant, who came to Newcastle, Co. Dublin on 10th
March 1541 and took William Coskre, son of Edmund Coskre, as apprentice for 7
years.
This was not the first
time that Tadeus Duff found himself in court for breaking statues. In June 1536
he was charged with importing £20 of goods from England without importing bows.
Tadeus Duff returned to court in April 1539 for the same offence of failing to
import bows.[17]
The latter court appearances were bad example for a person who was bailiff of
Dublin in 1536. In 1554 the city assembly renewed the ruling that every
merchant bringing goods from England was to bring a consignment of yew bows or
pay 40 shilling fine for each offence.[18]
Meanwhile the other
masters charged at the court of November 1541 for taking on apprentices from
poor backgrounds were listed in the barest detail compared to Tadeus Duff. Thus
we have: James Fitz Simon took Richard Walsh; Thomas Roger took Thomas Verdun;
Henry Plunket took William Bannen; John Morey took Peter Fanyage; Henry Talbot
took David Bysset; Nicholas Pentent took Patrick Pentent, son of the vicar of Moorechurch;
Thomas Fynene took Nicholas Fynene; Patrick Tansy took John Hanne and Nicholas
Queytrot of Dublin took Richard Tyrrell. The last master charged, Nicholas
Queytrot, was the only one in the list with an address. It is presumed that the
other charged masters were also from Dublin but they could also be from other
towns.[19]
In 1535 Thomas Field of Dundalk, merchant was charged at the Barons of the
Exchequer court in Dublin for taking John More as apprentice when his father
had land worth less than 20 shillings per year.[20]
Some of the offending
masters can be identified with Dublin and some of these offending masters
should have shown better example. In 1536 James Fitz Simon was master of the
works for the city assembly and in 1538 he was mayor of Dublin. Another
offending master, Thomas Fyane was one of the two city bailiffs in 1540.[21]
Another offending
master was Nicholas Pentent who was a merchant of Dublin in 1536 when he was
charged with imported goods without importing bows contrary to statue. He was
charged with the same offence in February 1548.[22] In
1554 Nicholas Pentent was elected alderman in place of Nicholas Stanyhurst.[23] By
Easter 1560 Nicholas Pentent had risen to the highest position in the city when
he was made mayor-elect of Dublin. But Nicholas Pentent would never make it to
the top job. The same Easter he was in England trying to sort out his financial
affairs, yet without success. In September 1560 Nicholas Pentent was removed as
alderman for what were called “certain grave reasons”.[24]
The Patrick Pentent of
Moorechurch was possibly a relation and may be the son of William Pentent,
vicar of Moorechurch in 1548.[25]
The offence against the
apprentice laws didn’t restrict the rise in society of another master, Thomas
Roger. In 1554 he became one of the auditors for the city assembly and in 1555
became mayor of Dublin.[26]
A
poor apprentice made good
The practice of taking
on apprentices whose fathers had less the 20 shillings per year continued to
occur despite all the above prosecutions. In 1556 ten masters, including John
Challener of Dublin, merchant, took on apprentices contrary to the statue of 7 Henry
IV.[27]
Unfortunately we have no published franchise roll for Dublin in the time of
Henry VIII. It is therefore difficult to known if the apprentices caught up in
these various offences against the law overcame any difficulties involved and
prospered. One of the apprentices in the 1541 court case, Thomas Verdun, did
get on well and was in June 1558 made one of the city auditors.[28] In
December 1562 Thomas Verdun was appointed one of the masters of the city works.[29]
The life of Thomas
Verdun shows how the movement of people will occur no matter how many statues were
passed against them. The life also gives us the biographical information that
was so lacking in the earlier article dealing with franchise roll of the 1460s.
============
End of post
============
[1]
Margaret C. Griffith (ed.), Calendar of inquisitions
formerly in the Office of the Chief Remembrancer of the Exchequer prepared from
the MSS of the Irish Record Commission (Stationery Office, Dublin, 1991),
no. H VIII 25
[2]
Margaret C. Griffith (ed.), Calendar of
inquisitions of the Chief Remembrancer of the Exchequer, no. H VIII 147
[3]
John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of
Ancient Records of Dublin (19 vols. Joseph Pollard, Dublin, 1889), Vol. 1,
p. 393
[4]
Margaret C. Griffith (ed.), Calendar of
inquisitions of the Chief Remembrancer of the Exchequer, nos. H VIII 44,
165
[5]
John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of
Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, pp. 395, 401
[6]
Margaret C. Griffith (ed.), Calendar of
inquisitions of the Chief Remembrancer of the Exchequer, no. E VI 39
[7]
Margaret C. Griffith (ed.), Calendar of
inquisitions of the Chief Remembrancer of the Exchequer, nos. H VIII 25, 61
[8]
Margaret C. Griffith (ed.), Calendar of
inquisitions of the Chief Remembrancer of the Exchequer, nos. H VIII 27, 61
[9]
Margaret C. Griffith (ed.), Calendar of inquisitions
of the Chief Remembrancer of the Exchequer, no. H VIII 27
[10] D.
Hollis (ed.), Calendar of the Bristol
Apprentice Book, 1532-1565, Part 1, 1532-1542 (Bristol Record Society, Vol.
14, 1948), p. 10
[11] D.
Hollis (ed.), Calendar of the Bristol
Apprentice Book, 1532-1565, Part 1, 1532-1542, p. 11
[12]
David B. Quinn, ‘Government printing and the publication of the Irish statues
in the sixteenth century’, in Proceedings
of the Royal Irish Academy, Volume XLIX, Section C, No. 2 (1943), p. 98
[13]
Margaret C. Griffith (ed.), Calendar of
inquisitions of the Chief Remembrancer of the Exchequer, no. H VIII 28
[14]
John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of
Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, p. 457
[15]
Margaret C. Griffith (ed.), Calendar of
inquisitions of the Chief Remembrancer of the Exchequer, no. H VIII 28
[16]
Margaret C. Griffith (ed.), Calendar of
inquisitions of the Chief Remembrancer of the Exchequer, nos. H VIII 96,
130
[17]
Margaret C. Griffith (ed.), Calendar of
inquisitions of the Chief Remembrancer of the Exchequer, nos. H VIII 84,
134, 147
[18]
John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of
Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, pp. 400, 436
[19] Margaret
C. Griffith (ed.), Calendar of inquisitions
of the Chief Remembrancer of the Exchequer, no. H VIII 147
[20]
Margaret C. Griffith (ed.), Calendar of
inquisitions of the Chief Remembrancer of the Exchequer, no. H VIII 70
[21]
John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of
Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, pp. 400, 403, 407
[22]
Margaret C. Griffith (ed.), Calendar of
inquisitions of the Chief Remembrancer of the Exchequer, no. H VIII 84, E
VI 11
[23]
John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of
Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, p. 441
[24] John
T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of Ancient Records
of Dublin (19 vols. Joseph Pollard, Dublin, 1891), Vol. 2, pp. 10, 13
[25]
Margaret C. Griffith (ed.), Calendar of
inquisitions of the Chief Remembrancer of the Exchequer, no. Eliz 36
[26]
John T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of
Ancient Records of Dublin, Vol. 1, pp. 437, 448
[27]
Margaret C. Griffith (ed.), Calendar of
inquisitions of the Chief Remembrancer of the Exchequer, no. P & M 16
[28] John
T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of Ancient Records
of Dublin, Vol. 1, p. 473
[29] John
T. Gilbert (ed.), Calendar of Ancient Records
of Dublin, Vol. 2, p. 27
No comments:
Post a Comment