Conditions of medieval apprenticeship in Bridgwater

Conditions of medieval apprenticeship in Bridgwater

Niall C.E.J. O’Brien

On 11^th November 1424 Michael, son of John Laleye of Ireland made an indenture of apprenticeship with John Davy, tanner, of Bridgwater and his wife Joan Davy. I have written before about apprenticeships, on this blog and with articles in published historical journals. In most cases the information on these apprentices comes from edited manuscripts where the essential information about the apprenticeship is given, such as, name of the apprentice; name, occupation and address of the apprentice’s father; name and occupation of the master and the name of his wife; the term of the apprenticeship in years (7 years is the usual basic term); the end of term payment and possibly the fee for gaining freedom of the borough. Sometimes an indenture will also say that the apprentice was to have “one tool of every kind for the said craft”.[1]

West Quay at Bridgwater - highest point of navigation on the River Parrett

It was with delight, therefore, that I recently came across the fully transcribed indenture giving the conditions of the apprenticeship between Michael Laleye and John Davy. These conditions are outlined below.  

1.      The first condition of the apprenticeship was that Michael Laleye agreed to “put himself servant and apprentice to the aforesaid John and Joan [Davy] according to the use and custom of the city of London”.[2]

2.      The second condition was that for the full term of the apprenticeship (10 years) Michael Laleye would keep for the “master and mistress in all things well and faithfully shall serve, their secrets and counsel shall keep, [and] their lawful and honest commandments everywhere gladly do”.[3] The modern phrase of “industrial espionage” is clearly an ancient activity and John Davy desired to protect his business from competitors.

3.      The apprentice then agreed that “From his service by day and night he shall not unlawfully absent himself”.

4.      This was followed by further conditions that the apprentice “shall do them no damage or dishonour, nor see it done of other but that so his power shall hinder, or forthwith give warning thereof to his master and mistress”.

5.      The apprentice “shall not waste their goods, nor lend them to any one without their leave or special mandate”.[4] In 1648 Richard Hunt tried to use a similar condition to be quitted of his apprentice, Joseph Griffin, by falsely accusing him of stealing money.[5]

6.      The apprentice will with “all goods and chattels of his aforesaid master and mistress which are in his care to guard he shall give good and faithful account, whenever and as often as he may be suitably required to do”.

7.      “Matrimony with any woman within the aforesaid term without licence of his aforesaid master and mistress he shall not contract”.

8.      “Fornication or adultery within or without their premises with any domestic of theirs he [the apprentice] shall not commit”. If Michael Laleye did commit such crimes and was convicted he “shall double his whole service aforesaid in the service of the master and mistress aforesaid, or shall make them some reasonable amends according to the decision of trustworthy men such as the parties shall decide to choose between them”.[6]

     This condition could also apply to family members of the master, if John Davy had children in 1424. In his will made in 1461 John Davy mentioned two of his daughters, Joan and Katherine. There may have been other daughters who were deceased by 1461. There is no indication of the age of the two daughters but Katherine was married to Thomas Eyre. This would make Katherine Davy at least 20 years old yet there is no evidence that she was alive in 1424.[7]  

9.      If Michael Laleye quitted his apprenticeship before the end of term then he should will and agree “that the aforesaid master [John Davy] and mistress [Joan Davy] or their attorney in this behalf by virtue of the present indenture may seek him in whosesoever service he may be found and bring him back to his former service without contradiction made of the aforesaid apprentice or the same detainer of him”.[8]

     Although not stated as a condition of this indenture it is noted in other cities and towns that if a master died or if master and apprentice both agreed to a change then an apprentice could be “turned over” to another master of the same trade. Some commentators stated that an apprentice could be bought and sold to another master but the right of change was controlled by the trade guild or town council and if any money was transacted it would go to these governing bodies.[9]

10.  For all of these conditions the master, John Davy and his wife, Joan, were to “practice, teach and instruct” Michael Laleye “in the arts and goods they use, by the best means they can”.

11.  The master and mistress were to find the apprentice “meat and drink, clothing linen and woollen and all other things necessary for him as is suitable to be found for such apprentice during the term [10 years] aforesaid, paying the same apprentice moreover at the end of the above said term 6 shillings 8 pence [6s 8d] of lawful money of England”.

The indentured was witnessed by at least five people from Bridgwater.[10] After the indenture was made in 1424 Michael Laleye seems to disappear from the records. We presume that he served the full ten years of his apprenticeship and kept to the conditions outlined above. The nature of surviving documents is that only bad news gets into the press and survives. If Michael Laleye appears in no court proceedings at the borough court or elsewhere it is presumed that he was a good apprentice who behaved himself and obeyed all the rules. As his name does not appear in later records of the borough of Bridgwater it is likely that Michael Laleye returned to Ireland after the ten years.

Of course the master could also break the conditions of an apprenticeship. Later court documents record cases in this regard. One example from Wiltshire, in 1637, recounts that Edward Starkye was charged with abusing and beating his apprentice, John Dracott.[11] John Davy does not appear as that kind of master. Instead, after taking his first apprentice, Michael Laleye in 1424, John Davy went on to accept other apprentices in 1426, 1432, 1433 and 1437. The conditions of these apprenticeships were on the same terms as outlined above for Michael Laleye.[12] If John Davy was a bad master it is likely that he would not have been able to receive these other apprentices. 

John Davy went on from 1424 to have a successful business as a tanner and died in 1461 leaving his second wife, Matilda and the two daughters previously mentioned, Joan and Katherine.[13] And it all began with an indenture of apprenticeship in 1424.

============

other articles on apprenticeships include:


Youghal apprentices at Bristol 1532-1565 = https://www.academia.edu/4116330/Bristol_apprentices_from_Youghal_1532-1565_in_Journal_of_the_Cork_Historical_and_Archaeological_Society_Vol._115_2010_


Wexford apprentices at Bristol 1532-1565 = https://www.academia.edu/3852259/Wexford_apprentices_in_sixteenth-century_Bristol_in_Journal_of_the_Wexford_Historical_Society_No._23_2011-12


Dublin apprentices admitted to freedom 1468-1470 = http://celtic2realms-medievalnews.blogspot.ie/2014/04/dublin-apprentices-admitted-to-freedom.html

============

End of post

============

---

[1] Elizabeth Ralph & Nora M. Hardwick (eds.), Calendar of the Bristol Apprenticeship Book 1532-1565, part II, 1542-1552 (Bristol Record Society, vol. 33, 1980), no. 1391

[2] Thomas Bruce Dilks (ed.), Bridgwater Borough Archives 1400-1445 (Somerset Record Society, Vol. 58, 1945), no. 616

[3] Thomas Bruce Dilks (ed.), Bridgwater Borough Archives 1400-1445, no. 616

[4] Thomas Bruce Dilks (ed.), Bridgwater Borough Archives 1400-1445, no. 616

[5] J.S. Cockburn (ed.),  Western Circuit Assize Orders 1629-1648, a calendar (Royal Historical Society, London, 1976), no. 1214

[6] Thomas Bruce Dilks (ed.), Bridgwater Borough Archives 1400-1445, no. 616

[7] Rev. F.W. Weaver (ed.), Somerset Medieval Wills 1383-1500 (Somerset Record Society, Vol. 16, 1901), p. 195

[8] Thomas Bruce Dilks (ed.), Bridgwater Borough Archives 1400-1445, no. 616

[9] D. Hollis (ed.), Calendar of the Bristol Apprenticeship Book 1532-1565, part 1, 1532-1542 (Bristol Record Society, vol. 14, 1948), p. 7

[10] Thomas Bruce Dilks (ed.), Bridgwater Borough Archives 1400-1445, p. 81

[11] J.S. Cockburn (ed.),  Western Circuit Assize Orders 1629-1648, a calendar, no. 501

[12] Thomas Bruce Dilks (ed.), Bridgwater Borough Archives 1400-1445, nos. 628, 655, 657, 673

[13] Rev. F.W. Weaver (ed.), Somerset Medieval Wills 1383-1500, pp. 194, 1955

Dublin masters and apprentices in the time of Henry VIII

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 11^th 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 10^th 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 11^th 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 12^th 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 12^th 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 20^th 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 1^st 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 29^th October 1526 the Barons of the Exchequer found that Robert Bayly of Dublin, merchant, came to Huntstown, Co. Dublin on 20^th 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 20^th 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 14^th 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 10^th 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