Apprenticeship records; 17th century
[Another free-to-all-subscribers post - this time some unpublished research on 17th century apprenticeships. I’m preparing to go teaching the Jennie Alexander chair class next week, so my shop is mostly torn up with sorting materials and making lists. I have a few things in the pipeline, some chairs and boxes and back to the dressing box project - all for the back half of April & beyond. ]
Like many of you, I read Chris Schwarz’ posts (except the ones about machines, those don’t apply to me), both his substack and his Lost Art Press blog. Recently he had one about apprenticeships - https://blog.lostartpress.com/2024/03/31/send-em-to-coventry/
The examples he culled dated from the early 1830s and before. When I was researching 17th-century joinery, I collected whatever I could about apprenticeships - which was not much. One immediate distinction I see between the cases Chris quoted and most of the 17th-century ones I have found is the size of the shops - in the 17th century there were shops with multiple craftsmen involved, but most were small shops - a “master” and one or two apprentices.
One of the problems researching a subject like that is you get few details unless something goes wrong. Then you get depositions as everyone involved filed into court to tell their side of the story. Much of what I have is from England, but a bit from New England too. It seems there was less structure in the recording of New England apprenticeships. What follows are snippets of things I wrote and never finished, never published, about period craft apprenticeships. I tried formatting it here to include the footnotes, but it’s too much of a pain. I’ll just tuck the sources at the end instead.
Studying a subject like this brings about a few detours - one into language, much of it legal language. In the apprenticeship contracts we often see the term “mystery” - and sometimes interpret that to mean “secrets” - [another word which sometimes shows up]. The mystery part is an old word that roughly translates to “craft” or “trade” - quoting a book on the London Turners’ Company:
“...the word is derived from the old French “meister” or from the Latin, “ministerium” a trade or craft as distinguished from “mysterium”, a secret.” Here’s an example:
“Blanchard Edmond s of John B of Hurstbourne husb to John Blanchard weaver for 7 yrs from Mids next to be instructed in the trade or mystery of weaver and comber. App to have at end £7 and double apparel. 20 Jun 1617”
It’s just the usual legal practice of “why say something once when you can say it two or three times?” The way I see the “keeping his master’s secrets” part that we sometimes see is not so much about how he chops a mortise but more about his business, money, family matters - see the second contract below - which states that the apprentice “shall not…Reveale any of such seacrets that ought to bee kept…”
This is a huge subject and it has kept my interest for decades. What I have collected is too long for one post - so there’s more of this if enough people find it interesting.
“An Act touching divers orders for artificers, laborers, servants of husbandry and apprentices” is the title given to the act that has come to be known as the Statute of Artificers. Dated 1563, this Act established several guidelines detailing the various aspects of apprenticeship arrangements. One important distinction is the length of an apprenticeship and the minimum age at which the apprentice can finish his term:
…after the custom and order of the city of London for seven years at the least so the term and years of such apprentice do not expire afore such apprentice shall be of the age of 24 years…
This act continued to function as the guidelines for apprenticeships in sixteenth and seventeenth-century England, and that practice, with some adaptations, carried over to New England. Typically a contract, or indenture, was drawn up between the apprentice’s parents or guardians, and the craftsman taking on the apprentice. These indentures usually outlined the arrangement between the parties; and were filed with either the trade “Company” or guild, or the local courts. The first record in New England of a joiner training an apprentice is that of Kenelm Winslow and Samuel Jenny, both of Plymouth. The unusual phrasing of this contract is “the full terme of four yeares…” a significantly shorter time than the standard seven years usually cited in English apprenticeship contracts.
Jan 6 1633 Sam Jenny, the sonne of John Jenny, by the consent of the said John, hath bound himself apprentise to Kanelm Winslow, of Plymouth, joyner, for the full terme of four yeares, during wch time the said Samuell shall doe faithfull service, as becometh an apprentise, to the said Kanelm. Also the said Kanelm shall exercise the said Samuell in the joyners occupacon, and shall doe his best to instruct him in his said trade, and at the end of his tyme shall dowble appell the said Samuell. But if the said Kanelm shall remove his dwelling from Plymouth, or the liberties thereof, then this covt to be void
A particularly detailed apprenticeship indenture from Plymouth dated 1653 describes the obligations of both the master and apprentice:
Thomas Savory senior of Plymouth and Ann his wife Doe…covenant with Thomas Lettice of Plymouth aforesaid Carpenter; That their sonn Thomas Savory Juni aged five years or thereabouts…shall Remayne and continue with the said Thomas Lettice untill hee bee of the age of one and twenty years; …after the manner of an apprentice; the said Thomas Lettice is to find unto his said apprentice…meat Drinke apparrell washing and lodgin and all other necessaries fitt for one in his Degree and calling and to teach an Instruct his said apprentice in the arte or trade of an house carpenter in as able a mannor as himselfe is able to prforme it, likewise…the said Thomas Savory is to Doe and prforme unto his said master all faithfull service and not to neglect his said masters business not absent himselfe from the same by night or Day without Lycence from his said Master; hee shall not marry or contracte himselfe in marriage…he shall not Imbezell purloyne or steale any of his goods or Reveale any of such seacrets that ought to bee kept…Thomas Lettice covenanteth…that the said Thomas Savory shalbee by him or his appointment and att his charge Taught to Read and write the English Tongue…Lastly when the term of time abovementioned is by the said Thomas Savory the younger fully attained; that then the said Thomas Lettice or Ann his wife (in case shee bee the longer liver) shall provide for and Deliver unto theire said apprentice two suites of apparell vizt one for best and another for working Daies and also…certaine Carpenters tooles…one broad axe two playnes two Augers and a sett of Chissels; & an hand saw…
The Savory/Lettice contract is more than just an apprenticeship. The boy was only five years old; therefore the assumption is that his parents put him out because they were incapable of caring for him, perhaps having other children still at home and limited means to provide for their family.
[maybe that small person above is going to be an apprentice. Unless they get their head chopped off…]
The indentures were to be kept by both parties, presumably as a defense in case of a disagreement. Thus, when Christopher Stanley of Boston turned over his apprentice to “Issacke Cullimore of Boston in NE Carpenter” the contract they filed with Thomas Lechford, lawyer, referred to “the boy and all writings concerning him…”
Furthermore, craftsmen could be called upon to produce their indentures, to prove that they had served their time as an apprentice, and were therefore qualified to practice their trade. In March, 1607, the Turner’s Company of London executed a search of pulley makers in the city, in an attempt to govern that trade. Among the Company records is a reference to this search, listing among those examined “William Hitchcock, a pulley maker at Wapping, who was bound for seven years and showed his Indentures…” and “Walter Cole, dwelling at Wapping, pulley maker, who had four apprentices, but showed nothing how he came by his trade.”
The New England system lacked the powerful guild structure, but the local civic government sometimes heard similar cases. The following is an extreme example, in which some Boston shipwrights took the law into their own hands, and then claimed they thought this is how things were done in England:
John Roberts, Samll Browne, Samll Addams, Robert Seares, Nathanll Greenwood junr, Josiah Baker, Samll Woody, James updick & William Partman being bound over to this Court to answer for theire forceible taking John Langworthy upon a pole & by violence carrying of him from the North end of Boston as far as the Town dock, which occasioned a great tumult of people; meeting there with the Constable who did rescue him; the partys appearing in Court acknowledged the charge & declared theire ground of so acting towards him was for that hee was an interloper & had never served his time to the trade of a Ship carpenter & now came to worke in theire yard & they understood such things were usuall in England...
Like most aspects of seventeenth-century trades, the day-to-day details of an apprenticeship are unknown; the few details available to the modern researcher refer to things gone wrong, and the matters ended up in the local courts. In October 1658, Steven Pierson, apprentice to Thomas Mulliner, a carpenter in New Haven, Connecticut, charged that
…he was bound to his Mr in England for 7 yeares in wch time he was to teach him ye trade of house carpenter, but whereas 4 yeares & more of ye 7 is past, he hath taught him but little, yt he knowes not how to hew a piece of timber…
Another New Haven carpenter, Jervis Boykin deposed in the case that the boy “might be sent into ye Bay & placed wth some capenter there yt constantly followes his trade”
In England, a craftsman applying for admission to a craft guild was required to show evidence of having served an apprenticeship, and his time as a journeyman. In many cases, he needed to produce a “proof” piece, sometimes called a “masterpiece” of work to establish his ability to perform his trade.
...no person using the misterie was to be allowed to be a master workman, or set up a shop for such work, until he had satisfied the Master, Wardens, and Assistants that he had served seven years as apprentice and two years as a journeyman, and had also made such pieces of work as might be comanded.
from the published history of the London Turners’ Company: “11th November 1614 Lawrence Clarke was fined £3 for setting up his shop without having served two years as a journeyman and was directed to make for his proof piece a linen wheel and bring it to the Hall. On the same day, Thomas Fawken...was ordered to make for his proof piece a man’s arm stool.”
sources:
Margaret Gay Davies, The Enforcement of English Apprenticeship: A Study of Applied Mercantilism 1563-1642 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1956) pp. 271-74
Records of the Colony of New Plymouth in New England, (ed., Nathaniel Shurtleff and David Pulsifer, 12 vols., the Press of William White, Boston, 1855-1861) 1:24
“Extracts from the Deed Books of the Plymouth Colony” quoted in Benno M. Forman, American Seating Furniture 1630-1730, (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1988) pp. 57-8.
Edward Everett Hale, Jr., ed. Note Book kept by Thomas Lechford, Esq. Lawyer, in Boston, Massachusetts Bay, from June 27, 1638 to July 29, 1641, (Cambridge, Massachusetts:1885; reprint, Camden, Maine, 1988) pp. 150, 151:
“Christopher Stanley (of Boston, Taylor) for 10£ 10s assignes the boy, and all writings concerning him, Richard Bayly, to be bound to Issacke Cullimore of Boston in NE Carpenter, his apprentice, to serve him…for 7 yeares…”
The Worshipful Company of Turners of London - Its Origin and History A.C. Stanley-Stone, (London: Lindley-Jones & Brother, 1925) p. 92-3
Notes from Records of the Suffolk County Court 1671-1680, (Boston: Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, 1933) p. 602
Patricia E. Kane, Furniture of the New Haven Colony: The Seventeenth-Century Style (New Haven, Connecticut: New Haven Historical Society, 1993) p. 78; quoting Charles J. Hoadly, editor, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, from 1638 to 1649 2 vols. (Hartford: Case, Tiffany and Company, 1857) 2:361-362.
The Worshipful Company of Turners of London - Its Origin and History A.C. Stanley-Stone, (London: Lindley-Jones & Brother, 1925) pp. 56-7, p. 119.