Can any kind lister throw expert light on the 18th century use of the word "Estate" ? In the Parish Vestry Book of Holwell ( now in Dorset , then an exclave of Somerset ) in 1750-1751 , a number of young people are to be apprenticed , not to individuals but to the estates of named people . I am used to the modern use of the "estate" of a dead person , but is this the use intended here ? There seems to be rather a high proportion of apprenticing to estates of dead people to be likely , or is it ? Was there another use of "estate" at the time which would explain this ? I don't think the usage implies the modern-style "corporate" estates of agribusiness or of "aristo" Woburn style estates . Holwell agriculture was typically pasturing , one of lots of small landowners with tenant farmers and subletting to dairymen , not of big estates . Thus I would have expected that apprenticeships would be to specific individuals , rather than "corporate entities" . Here are the entries - I have not suppressed any apprenticeship entries from these years , so it is a complete "sample" : 18.11.1750 was agreed at a Vestry then held that James Line son of Jno. Line should be put an apprentice to the Estate that Allin T/Fothervile now lives on. Likewise George the son of George Richards to Ambrose Damer. 8.4.1751 Also agreed that Wm. Chaffie son of Thos. Chaffie should be put out as Apprentice to Caddies Estate and his son George an Apprentice to (Mrs Lane crossed through) Wm. Coombs Estate and Reuben Richards, son of George Richards, to Mr Nicholas Gillingham's Estate and Nicholas Clark son of Nicholas Clark to ffarmer Jno. Kiddles Estate. 5.5.1751 Agreed Ruth Richards daughter of George Richards to be put to Mrs Lanes Estate So out of seven apprenticeships to be paid for by the parish , six are to "estates" and only one to an individual . Odd or not ? TIA, Robert Hillier, Poole, Dorset

Bailey's (1753) Dictionary gives the following "ESTATE [in Law] is that Title or Interest which a Man has in Lands or Tenements, or what a Man is worth in Lands, Money etc". Jim Halsey

It follows then I think that it is quite in order for an apprentice to be bound to the estate, as a prospective asset to the labour force, which seems to be covered by the addition of "Etc"? Kind Regards Roy LD Cox WEB: www.coxresearcher.com/index.htm Member of the Somerset Archealogical & Natural History Society No. 1066 (And All That!) http://www.sanhs.org -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of j halsey Sent: 16 February 2007 19:28 To: Robert Hillier Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OEL] Use of the word Estate Bailey's (1753) Dictionary gives the following "ESTATE [in Law] is that Title or Interest which a Man has in Lands or Tenements, or what a Man is worth in Lands, Money etc". Jim Halsey ==================================== WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello Robert Were these, in fact, pauper apprentices? Our select vestry was mainly involved in catering for the poor of the parish and certainly when the New Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 came in, work houses would put out youngsters to apprenticeships of all sorts. These were not under the same conditons as the old guild apprenticeships as far as I can tell. I think there were few rules and many apprentices were treated very badly. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Hillier" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:56 PM Subject: [OEL] Use of the word Estate > Can any kind lister throw expert light on the 18th century use of the word > "Estate" ? > > In the Parish Vestry Book of Holwell ( now in Dorset , then an exclave of > Somerset ) in 1750-1751 , a number of young people are to be apprenticed , > not to individuals but to the estates of named people . I am used to the > modern use of the "estate" of a dead person , but is this the use intended > here ? There seems to be rather a high proportion of apprenticing to > estates of dead people to be likely , or is it ? > > Was there another use of "estate" at the time which would explain this ? I > don't think the usage implies the modern-style "corporate" estates of > agribusiness or of "aristo" Woburn style estates . Holwell agriculture was > typically pasturing , one of lots of small landowners with tenant farmers > and subletting to dairymen , not of big estates . Thus I would have > expected > that apprenticeships would be to specific individuals , rather than > "corporate entities" . > > Here are the entries - I have not suppressed any apprenticeship entries > from > these years , so it is a complete "sample" : > > 18.11.1750 > was agreed at a Vestry then held that James Line son of Jno. Line should > be > put an apprentice to the Estate that Allin T/Fothervile now lives on. > Likewise George the son of George Richards to Ambrose Damer. > > 8.4.1751 > Also agreed that Wm. Chaffie son of Thos. Chaffie should be put out as > Apprentice to > Caddies Estate and his son George an Apprentice to (Mrs Lane crossed > through) > Wm. Coombs Estate and Reuben Richards, son of George Richards, to > Mr Nicholas Gillingham's Estate and Nicholas Clark son of Nicholas Clark > to > ffarmer > Jno. Kiddles Estate. > > 5.5.1751 > Agreed Ruth Richards daughter of George Richards to be put to Mrs Lanes > Estate > > So out of seven apprenticeships to be paid for by the parish , six are to > "estates" and only one to an individual . Odd or not ? > > TIA, > Robert Hillier, > Poole, > Dorset > > > > > > > ==================================== > WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >