England Poor and Charity Apprentices (National Institute)

Poor and Charity Apprentices
Pauper apprentices under the care of parish officials were sometimes apprenticed under the 1563 Statute but after the Poor Law Act of 1601, they came under its rules. The overseers of the poor and the churchwardens, with the approval of two Justices of the Peace, could apprentice any child under 14 (16 after 1696) whose parents could not maintain it. This would last until the age of 24 for a boy (amended to 21 in late 17th century (Camp 2001-5, Cole 1997) and 21 or earlier marriage for girl. One was reported in 1747 in Eling, Hampshire apprenticed to a widow in Storrington, Sussex for 20 years, from age 4 until age 24 (Clasby).

Parish Apprentices
Apprentices were often sent to masters in another parish, as once 40 days of an apprenticeship had been served the child obtained settlement in the new parish. Parish officials found this a convenient way of disposing of pauper children from their tax rolls. This is a possibility to be investigated when an ancestor just appears from nowhere in a parish (Litton). This system was carried to extreme during the rise of the northern cotton mills in the late 18th century when some southern England parishes shipped wagonloads of pauper children to the Lancashire, Cheshire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire textile and cotton mills who welcomed them as a source of cheap labour. Gibbens (1991, 1996-3) gives many examples of these, and Tate says factories agreed to take one idiot in every twenty. London children were being shipped as far away as Glasgow in 1805. These practices were curtailed by acts of 1802 and 1816, and London children could then only be sent 40 miles from home (Camp 1994-1, who quotes Horn 1993). If the pauper parent objected to his child’s placement he would find his own relief money reduced. The small premiums were paid by the overseers of the poor of the child’s parish to the master.

Orphans and poor children were typically bound out as apprentices and they at least had a home, clothes and food which they might not have had otherwise. Boys would be general or agricultural servants, termed husbandry, or put to the sea service. It was also possible for the master to turn over the boy to sea service for the remainder of an apprenticeship. They could also go to factory or mine owners (Litton). Some of the more promising ones would be taken by shoemakers or other crafts where they actually advanced in the world in a useful trade. One such, James Vango, became a top flight weaver and made the silk brocade used for Queen Victoria’s wedding dress (McLinden). Girls were typically put to housewifery or women’s business in a home or inn, or to spinning, and were essentially domestic drudges for labourers and small farmers, but occasionally went to slightly better positions such as millinery. Again, masters could be fined for not providing adequate conditions, but many abused their charges.

Anyone taking an apprentice in husbandry had to be a householder owning and tilling half a ploughland. The parish farmers, tradesmen, shopkeepers and factory owners were expected to each take a share of the pauper apprentices, but in some parishes were allowed to pay a fine for not taking one. One can imagine that some of these children, through malnourishment and ill treatment, were not the best apprentice prospects. Illegitimate boys, might be apprenticed to their biological fathers, either because he genuinely took an interest in them, or because the overseers considered it his duty. Orphans might be apprenticed to uncles or elder brothers, and stepsons to their stepfathers, which ensured that the whole family had the same place of settlement. To ensure a supply of seamen the master of every ship of 30-50 tons had by law to take an apprentice over 10 years old, one more for the next 50 tons, and another for each additional 100 tons.

When the new Poor Law was introduced in 1834 an attempt was made to abolish the binding of pauper apprentices. This proved unworkable but further legislation was passed to curb the worst abuses. In 1844 these changes were enacted:


 * No term was to exceed eight years.
 * No child under age nine, or who could not read and write his own name, was to be apprenticed.
 * No premium was to be paid unless the child was handicapped; this was widely ignored.
 * No-one over 14 was to be apprenticed without his consent.
 * No-one under 16 could be bound without his father’s consent.

In 1851 further changes included:


 * Prosecution of masters who neglected or ill-treated apprentices.
 * A register of all apprentices under age 16 was to be kept.
 * The relieving officer, or other nominated member of staff, was to visit each apprentice at least twice a year.

Thompson (Apprenticeship and the New Poor Law in The Family and Local History Handbook 5th edition, page 44-47. Genealogy Services Directory, 2001) provides an analysis of Leicester Poor Law Union’s relatively humane treatment of its children.

As premiums rose to keep standards up in the trades charity apprenticeships became available from various charitable institutions and individual bequests. These assisted poorer parents not on relief but who could not afford such training, the so-called second poor (Munkton), find the necessary fees for promising children. Some charities were specifically for apprenticing orphans.

Poor Apprentice Indentures
A pauper apprenticeship might be done simply by an agreement between the parish officials and the master and noted in the vestry minutes. An alternative method was to draw up an indenture before 1757 or any properly stamped deed after 1757. These were similar to regular apprenticeship indentures but with slightly different wording. One copy was signed by the master and the Justices of the Peace and kept by the parish. The other, signed by the master and the churchwardens and overseers of the poor, was presented to the apprentice at the end of his time. Even if you have no pauper apprentices in your ancestry you may find your ancestor’s signature on a series of such indentures as a master, magistrate or parish official. With the cotton apprentices it was common for the factory to require only small children and for there to be a clause in the indenture stating that the child would be turned over at about age 14 to a master who would train them in a worthwhile trade (Gibbens 1991, 1996-3). One wonders how many survived that long.

CHART: Pauper Girl Apprenticeship 1792

From Brighthampton, Oxfordshire to Abingdon, Berkshire

CHART: Pauper Boy Apprenticeship 1782

Eling, Hampshire to Lymington, Hampshire [Summary]

Charity Apprentice Indentures
Charity apprentices had better conditions than pauper apprentices in their indentures, which usually ensured reasonably fair treatment and a decent trade rather than menial service. The apprenticeship for my 5th great grandfather John Pantlin (christened 21 Feb 1730 in Send, Surrey) started around the time of his 14th birthday and was paid for by Anne Hayne’s Charity (see chart below). He would have been free on 25th Dec 1750.

________________________________________________________________

Information in this Wiki page is excerpted from the online courses English: Occupation Records-Professions and Trades and English: Occupations-Military and Services offered by The National Institute for Genealogical Studies. To learn more about this course or other courses available from the Institute, see our website. We can be contacted at [mailto:wiki@genealogicalstudies.com wiki@genealogicalstudies.com]

We welcome updates and additions to this Wiki page.