|
THE POOR APPRENTICE
At Harrogate from the Days of Queen Anne
Queen Elizabeth's excellent and comprehensive plan
for the care of the poor, the Act of 1601, had laid on Churchwardens
and Overseers the duty of seeing that poor boys and girls were
taught a trade. These were, therefore, apprenticed to some
craftsman, and an Indenture was drawn up, the contract between
Master and Apprentice defining their respective obligations. In the
oldest Harrogate indentures - the earliest is dated 1713, in the
reign of Queen Anne - it was the apprentice who signed, though it
might be thought that the signature of a minor was of questionable
value. Later, and certainly always after the Apprentices Act of
1792, the document was signed by the father or the township
officers. There are very many of these indentures in Ole township
records: examples are to be found in each of the seven reigns from
Anne's to Victoria's.
It was the Overseers, rather than the Churchwardens, who saw to this
business of apprenticeship, for whether it was done or not affected
the rates. Their natural instinct was to get the child off their
hands at the earliest possible age and, preferably, to apprentice it
to some Master in another township. This would give the child a
"settlement" there. The original township would not be called on to
support it if it should become destitute later in life. A Master,
therefore, who took an apprentice from another township was thereby
conferring a double benefit, and it is not surprising that the few
fees ever paid to Masters by Harrogate went, almost invariably,
outside the township.
By the later 1820's the Harrogate Overseers had adopted an ingenious
Scheme that made it more profitable still to keep their apprentices
in the township. This was, by the way, to work out to the advantage
of the pauper children, for in the first stages of the Industrial
Revolution when the demand for cheap labour was very great none of
the local children were drafted to the factories.
But previously, in the eighteenth century, quite a number were
apprenticed elsewhere. In 1713 and 1718, two girls, both of eight
years of age, were sent to "Bishop Mountaine" (Bishop Monkton) "in
the Liberty of Ripon": they were to serve until 21 - almost
invariably the age at which apprenticeship ended, irrespective of
when it had begun.
Throughout the century - in fact, till about 1830 - there was a
flourishing linen industry in the neighbourhood. In 1718 a boy was
apprenticed to a weaver of Spofforth, who was to teach him the
"Trade Mistery or Occupation of a linnen Weaver." This Master was
exceptionally generous: the lad was to have, during the whole of his
apprenticeship, "for his Wages Two shillings and sixpence a year."
In 1738, another boy went to learn the "art and trade of a Linnen
Weaver" from a craftsman in " Dacre pasture." In 1744, a tailor of
Huby received the curious sum of £3 6s. 6d. for engaging to teach
the "trade of a taler" which he was said to "follow"; in return, he
would give the apprentice "Sixpence every year." In this case, most
exceptionally, the apprenticeship was to end at 20.
No doubt these boys would become skilled craftsmen. But sometimes,
particularly with girls, the apprenticeship was merely nominal, and
the Master got an unskilled worker or household drudge without
paying a wage. Some of the indentures do not even indicate the trade
to be taught. There was one Master, however, who obviously took a
more enlightened view than usual of the skill involved in housework:
he engaged to "instruct and teach" a girl, apprenticed at the early
age of 7, "in the edication of good huswiferie."
The oldest indentures are quite imposing documents. They are signed
and sealed (sometimes with large red seals), and counter-signed - to
make them valid - by two Justices of the Peace, one of whom had to
be " of the Quorum." The phrasing of the indentures resembles the
language of Shakespeare and of the Bible. In that of a boy, James
Blackestone, to Robert Dearlove of "Ribstone loogs" in 1737, the
apprentice engages that he "his said Master well and truly shall
serve, his Secrets shall keep, his Commands (being lawful and
honest) at all times willingly shall perform, and in all Things as a
good and faithful Servant shall demean himself towards his said
Master and all his Family." The Secrets were, presumably, trade
secrets, and the mention of the family was no doubt necessary
because the apprentice lived in.
The Master, on his part, "doth Covenant, promise and agree that he
will educate and bring him up in some honest and lawful Calling, and
in the Fear of God; and that he will find, provide for and allow
unto his said Apprentice sufficient, wholesome and competent Meat,
Drink, Washing, Lodging, Apparel, and other Necessaries meet for
such an Apprentice during all the said term; and at the end of the
said Term shall find, provide for, and deliver unto his said
Apprentice double Apparel of all sorts; (that is to say) one good
and new Suit for the Lord's Days, and another for the Working Days,
of Linnen, Woollen, Hose, Shoes, and all other Necessaries meet for
such an Apprentice to have and wear." To this is added, in writing,
as if it were not then always taken for granted, "Also the said
Robert Dearlove is to teach or cause to be taught, to his said
Apprentice, to read in the English Bible."
Before the Apprentices Act of 1792 limited the duties of both Master
and Apprentice and made indentures simpler, the paragraph defining
the Apprentice's obligations had become such as the following (an
example from 1785):
"hurt or Damage to his said Master (he) shall not do, or Consent
to be done, but to his Power shall let (that is, prevent) it,
and forthwith his said Master thereof warn; Taverns or
Ale-Houses shall not Haunt or Frequent, unless it be about his
Master's Business there to be done. At Dice, Cards, Tables,
Bowls, or any other unlawful Games shall not play: The Goods of
his said Master shall not Waste, nor them Lend, or give to any
Person without his Master's Licence: Matrimony within the said
Term shall not contract, nor from his Master's Service at any
Time absent himself, but as a True and Faithful Apprentice shall
order and behave himself towards his said Master and all, as
well in Words as in Deeds during the said Term: And a true and
just Account of all his said Master's Goods, Chattels, and Money
committed to his charge, or which shall come to his hands,
faithfully shall give at all Times when thereunto required, by
his said Master's Executors, Administrators, or Assigns."
These Executors were legally bound at first to see the
apprenticeship completed: after 1792, their obligations to the
Apprentice ended three months after the Master's death. On the other
hand, a regulation of 1816 was clearly intended to protect
Apprentices. This said that an indenture must be signed first by the
Justices, who could therefore veto any undesirable arrangement.
After this we find many Justices' Orders for Indentures, completed
before the indentures proper were drawn up. The law also insisted on
the keeping of a "Register of Apprentices"; but the Vestry Clerk at
Harrogate performed this duty very imperfectly.
The Overseers saw to the apprenticing, not only of the children in
the Workhouse, but of all poor boys and girls in the township, but
they did. it rather spasmodically. In the 1790's there appear to
have been only one or two apprentices each year, but in 1801 there
were eight boys and fourteen girls. This apparent accumulation from
previous years - and the same thing was to happen later - suggests
that the Overseers, as individuals, did not relish this part of
their duties, and preferred, whenever possible, to leave it for
their successors in office.
Until about 1830, however, most of the boys were put to, a good
trade. Among the Masters were joiners, cabinet-makers, tailors,
shoemakers, cordwainers, smiths, wheelwrights, coach-makers, masons,
builders, butchers, bakers, bleachers, tinners, and, of course,
farmers. But some of the boys can hardly have been trained in the
craft of their Master: the Rev Robert Mitton, of St. John's Chapel,
had an apprentice. There was a girl apprenticed to a milliner; but
the great majority of the girls became household servants. They went
to gentlemen, to doctors and other professional men, and many to the
inns: the Dragon, Queen, Granby, Black Swan and Gascoigne's, in High
Harrogate, and the Swan, in Low Harrogate. Possibly they became
sufficiently skilled to command a good wage.
Soon after Henry Peacock became Workhouse Master and Vestry Clerk in
1825, the Overseers began to insist that it was the obligation of
certain rate-payers to take a poor apprentice. They themselves
decided, with the occasional backing of the Vestry Meeting, which
rate-payers were liable. If anyone refused, a fine of £10 was
demanded - and actually paid. This money was not given, as one might
expect, to the Master who eventually took the apprentice: the
Overseers made no grant except of certain lesser sums - £5 is the
maximum recorded, to Masters resident in other townships. The fines
went to the reduction of the rates. This was by no means an
insignificant contribution: in 1830, it was £240; in 1838, £110; in
1839, £150.
In at least one case, however, the Overseers' victim - a Miss
Turnbull - was protected by the Magistrates, who declared the demand
to be "an injustice." In a number of instances, the Overseers
themselves seem to have had an uneasy conscience, for they were
generous in allowing time to pay. The victims, however; were to
devise an effective answer: they persuaded the Overseers to give a
very wide definition to the term "poor apprentice." In 1830,
Nicholas Carter, already a man of standing, described as a
"Cabinetmaker and Tavern-Keeper" (at what is now the Prospect) was
allowed to count his own son's apprenticeship to himself as
relieving him of liability. In 1834, he again escaped the penalty by
taking his daughter also as apprentice. The fact that she was five
months under the then legal age of nine gives added point to the
evasion.
The keepers of inns or of the then fashionable "Lodging Houses,"
farmers and. butchers seem never to have hesitated to take
apprentices. They welcomed this provision of cheap labour. But
already in 1830 we find Richard Ellis, blacksmith, and Joseph Homer,
joiner, preferring to pay the £10 fine rather than take such
children as were then available. In the same year Dr Shillito and no
fewer than eleven "gentlemen" did the same. In 1831, the Rev. Henry
Mitton did take a girl apprentice but soon after sent her back to
the Overseers, saying that he would rather pay the fine than have
such another. Two other clergymen paid the fine at once, without
risking an experiment: the Rev Thomas Kennion, then in charge of St.
John's, and the Rev. Andrew Cheap, who, as Vicar of Knaresborough,
held a good deal of property in Harrogate. The more astute Joseph
Thackwray, who lived in Pannal township, at the Crown, successfully
appealed on the ground that he was not a householder, though he paid
considerable rates, on the "Montpellier Gardens" for example, in the
township. John Coupland, chemist, was not so fortunate: in 1831, he
was ordered to appear at the Court House at Knaresborough to "Shew
cause why he should not have a pauper apprentice bound to him. "In
1843, Robert Briden was similarly summoned.
There was obvious discontent with the system, even though a Vestry
Meeting in 1837 was induced to pass a resolution "That all Persons
who have Occupied Premises for Four Seasons or Years are liable to
take Parish Apprentices." Apart from the fact that the burden, which
properly belonged to the township as a whole, was borne by the few,
the grievance seems to have been the poor quality of -the
apprentices. Possibly some of them were too old to be 'disciplined.
In 1829, when 40 children (including 7 from the Workhouse) were
apprenticed, their ages ranged from 9 to 16; later, there was
actually a boy of 19. The Justices were usually ready to protect
apprentices from a harsh Master, sometimes even going so far as to
break the indenture, but there is plenty of evidence that the fault
did not always lie with the Master. Of one boy, for example,
discharged as a " Storyteller and Shuffler," it is said that "when
he went on an Errand he could not find the way back, and was always
wanting Money to go to the play with." Rather than try to find a new
Master, he "engaged to be a Turnboy" (that is, a kitchen-boy in a
tavern), because of the "Pockett money" this blind-alley occupation
provided. The temptation to take this easy way might be particularly
strong in Harrogate for those who had been brought up by public
money. This may explain why the craftsmen chose to get their
apprentices elsewhere, even at the sacrifice of £10. Barber John
Dunn, also, who shaved the Workhouse inmates, preferred to pay the
fine rather than, presumably, to risk his livelihood.
Though this ingenious method of reducing the Rates was a fairly
widespread practice, partly forced on townships by the burden of
Poor Relief, few places imposed so big a fine as Harrogate. In
Knaresborough, at this time, there was a special Charity providing a
£10 apprenticeship fee for a number of Masters every year. A
knowledge of this may have enabled the Harrogate Overseers to fix
the amount of the fine, yet strangely enough it did not also suggest
to them that, having collected the £10 from a defaulter, they should
give it to the Master. The best that can be said of the practice is
that it worked out to the financial advantage of the rate-payers.
But if the larger view be taken and the interests of the community
considered it was admittedly a bad system. Many potential "poor
apprentices," who might well have risen from the pauper ranks to
become craftsmen, lost their opportunity because suitable Masters
were offered no adequate fee for their training. These unfortunate
boys and girls were condemned to join the pool of unskilled labour
and their doing so would tend to reduce still further the wages of
the lowest paid workers.
One must admire the astuteness of a Master, one John Ferrington,
tailor, of Star Beck, who in 1843 drove a hard bargain with the
Overseers. The boy he agreed to take was to have "meat and clothes,"
during the whole of his apprenticeship, from the township, and was
to sleep in the Workhouse. . In addition, Ferrington was to have the
"Tayloring Work of the Township." At least one "poor apprentice" was
able to get his chance in life.
|
