Showing posts with label glove-maker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label glove-maker. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Fiell the Glover in thirteenth century Gloucester

Fiell the Glover in thirteenth century Gloucester

Niall C.E.J. O’Brien

This article follows the historical records relating to Fiell the Glover who lived in Gloucester in the mid thirteenth century. As his name suggests Fiell worked as a glover which was an important job in the medieval period. Soldiers, on foot and on horseback wore gloves made of leather or metal called a gauntlet. The advent of firearms from the fifteenth century onwards made hand-to-hand combat rare and as a result, the need for gauntlets disappeared. Fingerless gloves having one large opening rather than individual openings for each finger were sometimes called gauntlets,

During the 13th century, gloves began to be worn by ladies as a fashion ornament. They were made of linen and silk, and sometimes reached to the elbow. Such worldly accoutrements were not for holy women, according to the early 13th century Ancrene Wisse, written for their guidance. Sumptuary laws were promulgated to restrain this vanity: against samite gloves in Bologna, 1294, against perfumed gloves in Rome, 1560.

Ordinary workers and those on horseback would also need gloves to protect their hands and handle objects more firmly. The wool and leather for the glove trade came into Gloucester from the surrounding countryside. There was sufficient wool entering the town for a considerable export trade.[1]

Fiell the Glover

Early records do not exist to say where Fiell the Glover was born or where he learnt the trade of a glover. 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.[2] Fiell had learnt his trade well before 1245 when his name first appears in the records.

View over Gloucester 

Land between the Bridges

In about 1245 Fiell (Fyellus) the Glover, at the wish of his wife Alice, granted to Gilbert of Eldresfeld a piece of land with buildings and appurtenances in Gloucester. The land was situated between the land of William the Bulger (held of the Hospital of St. Bartholomew) and the land of John the Knight (also held of the same Hospital). William the Bulger and John the Knight were two of the witnesses to the grant.[3] A later grant of this land locates the property between the bridges at Gloucester.[4]

In return for the land Gilbert of Eldresfeld was to pay 12d yearly to the service of St. Mary in the church of St. Nicholas. At that time the buildings on the land were worth two silver marks and if the buildings should be destroyed by fire or Gilbert sells on the property, he was to pay Fiell the Glover two silver marks. Among the witnesses were William of Sumer and Roger the Enueise, both reeves of Gloucester, along with Reginald of Eldresfeld, William the Dyer, Reginald the Smith, Robert the Young and Henry Silvester.[5]

Family life and children

Fiell the Glover was married before 1245 to a woman called Alice and they had at least one child, a daughter called Cecily. By 1262 Cecily had married William Joce, a glover in Gloucester. William Joce may have served his apprenticeship with Fiell the Glover. In about 1262-3 William Joce and Cecily granted to the Hospital of St. Bartholomew 2s 6d of annual rent received on the land formerly held by Gilbert of Eldresfeld between the bridges of Gloucester. This land was situated between that of William the Bulger and Robert the Carter (a successor to John the Knight). Among the witnesses were Robert Celi and Robert of Putteleye, town bailiffs, along with Richard Fraunces, Walter of Abenhale, Richard of Sanford, Hugh the Girdler and Richard the Clerk.[6]

At the same time Reginald, son and heir of Reginald of Eldresfeld, released that land between the bridges held by Gilbert of Eldresfeld to the Hospital of St. Bartholomew. This land was held by Gilbert as a gift from Reginald of Eldresfeld senior and Hamfelisia his aunt.[7]

Land outside the East Gate

At about the same time that Fiell the Glover was granting property on the west side of Gloucester he was receiving land outside the East Gate. In about 1245 the Brethren of the Hospital of St. Bartholomew granted in perpetuity to Fiell the Glover a piece of land outside the East Gate of Gloucester. The land was situated between the land of Alexander the Duck and that of Richard Buckepotte. Among the witnesses were William of Sumer and Roger the Enucise, reeves of Gloucester, along with John of Northampton, Richard of Northampton, Henry the Locksmith, Walter Frere, Alex Flury and Walter Bucler.[8]

By 1302 this land beyond the East Gate had somehow reverted to the Hospital of St. Bartholomew and they had granted it to Richard of Keynesham. On 10th February 1302 John, prior of the Hospital, and the Brethren, confirmed the grant of the land to Richard of Keynesham and Mabel his wife and their children. Among the witnesses to the confirmation were Robert the Spicer and Roger the Heiberere, town bailiffs, along with Robert Bernard, William Chose, Willim Payn, Robert Pope, Peter of the Hill and Richard of Hunteleye.[9] For more on the family of Richard of Keynesham see = http://celtic2realms-medievalnews.blogspot.ie/2013/06/keynsham-family-of-gloucester-in-early.html

Meanwhile Fiell the Glover was still alive in 1260 when he witnessed the grant by Juliana Flure, widow of John Flure of Gloucester, of a piece of vacant land outside the East Gate near Goseditch to Henry the Cnusar, burgess of Gloucester. The land was situated between that of the said Henry and Robert of Wells. Among the witnesses to this deed were William of Chiltenham and Roger the Enueise, town bailiffs, along with Henry the Locksmith, Richard son of Mabel, John of Northampton, Richard the Clerk and the said Fiell the Glover.[10] 

Possible relations

Apart from Cecily Fiell, it is not known if Fiell the Glover had any other children. Yet, in about 1285, Benedict Fiell, a glover of Gloucester, granted to Walter of Ouere, cordwainer, a piece of land outside the East Gate of Gloucester. Benedict had Fiell’s first name and was employed in the same trade (children often carried on the same trade as their parents). The granted land was situated between the land of Henry the Cnusere (one of the witnesses of the grant) and the land of Robert Wolnath. Among the witnesses to the grant were Alexander of Bykenor and Walter Sefare, town bailiffs, along with Geoffrey of Cuberley, Richard of Hunteley, Robert Bernard and John the Clerk.[11]

Place of residence and death

The above records show that Fiell the Glover had property on both the east and west sides of Gloucester which shows that he was a person of acquired wealth even if the records elsewhere place the glovers as the poorest of all the leather and skin tradespeople.[12] Yet the records fail to show where he actually lived. His name does not appear in the Gloucester rental of 1455 which recorded the names of property occupants in the time of King Henry III.[13]

It is likely that Fiell the Glover died between 1260 and 1262 as he was alive in the former year but not mention in the latter year when his daughter granted to Bartholomew’s Hospital the land which Fiell the Glover had given to Gilbert of Eldresfeld.[14]

Thus, in the end, we are left with just a few snap shots into the life of Fiell the Glover in thirteenth century Gloucester. But then medieval records are like that. Some type of records, like those relating to property; survive better than others like trade records.

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

End of post

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




[2] Denzil Hollis (ed.), Calendar of the Bristol Apprentice Book 1532-1565, part 1, 1532-1542 (Bristol Record Society, Vol. XIV, 1948), p. 3
[3] W.H. Stevenson (ed.), Calendar of the Records of the Corporation of Gloucester (Gloucester, 1893), no. 425
[4] W.H. Stevenson (ed.), Calendar of the Records of the Corporation of Gloucester, no. 582
[5] W.H. Stevenson (ed.), Calendar of the Records of the Corporation of Gloucester, no. 425
[6] W.H. Stevenson (ed.), Calendar of the Records of the Corporation of Gloucester, no. 582
[7] W.H. Stevenson (ed.), Calendar of the Records of the Corporation of Gloucester, no. 583
[8] W.H. Stevenson (ed.), Calendar of the Records of the Corporation of Gloucester, no. 424
[9] W.H. Stevenson (ed.), Calendar of the Records of the Corporation of Gloucester, no. 763
[10] W.H. Stevenson (ed.), Calendar of the Records of the Corporation of Gloucester, no. 545
[11] W.H. Stevenson (ed.), Calendar of the Records of the Corporation of Gloucester, no. 706
[12] Maryanne Kowaleski, Local Markets and Regional Trade in Medieval Exeter (Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 160
[13][13] W.H. Stevenson (ed.), Rental of all the Houses in Gloucester A.D. 1455 from a roll in the possession of the Corporation of Gloucester compiled by Robert Cole (Gloucester, 1890)
[14] W.H. Stevenson (ed.), Calendar of the Records of the Corporation of Gloucester, nos. 545, 582

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Dublin apprentices admitted to freedom 1468-1470

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