Is someone here mixing up pauper apprentices (from the workhouse) with lads apprenticed by relatives of one sort or another where the masters were paid to teach them the the skill of the trade they were aiming to join? In the case of the latter, the boys weren't paid at all, were they? In the former, they received their keep in an apprentice house. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy" <roy.cox@btinternet.com> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 7:10 AM Subject: RE: spam: Re: [OEL] low pay, 1812 > Absolutely! > > Apprentices getting paid, WOW! 18th century they had to pay the master to > teach them, or at least their parents did if they were known!! > Kind Regards > > June & Roy > http://www.btinternet.com/~roy.cox/index.htm > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eve McLaughlin [mailto:eve@varneys.demon.co.uk] > Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 12:17 AM > To: OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: spam: Re: [OEL] low pay, 1812 > > In message <6b.25ee860d.2d9ec9b1@aol.com>, Grahampollett@aol.com writes > >Things had not improved much by 1889 when my grandfather, aged 15, was > >apprenticed for four years as a seaman. He was paid (quote) the sum of > >26 pounds in manner following; that is to say Two pounds for the first > >year, four for the second, eight for the third and twelve for the > >fourth and last. > > Cor, there's spoiling him. Earlier apprentices got nothing but their bed and > board (and tuition) unless the master felt generous, when he might tip them > a few pennies at Christmas. What could a lad spend such enormous amounts of > money on? Riotous living, booze and naughty ladies? > (Don't answer that) > > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks > Genealogical Society > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > To UNSUBSCRIBE from list mode -- > Send the one word UNSUBSCRIBE to > OLD-ENGLISH-L-request@rootsweb.com > >

Audrey I've just re-read your email and realised that you were talking about when there were workhouses - I was thinking of earlier when the overseers were apprenticing children of local paupers who were still living in their own houses. Lyn

In message <007601c41a9b$44244fe0$8fccfc3e@oemcomputer>, "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> writes >Is someone here mixing up pauper apprentices (from the workhouse) with lads >apprenticed by relatives of one sort or another where the masters were paid >to teach them the the skill of the trade they were aiming to join? In the >case of the latter, the boys weren't paid at all, were they? In the former, >they received their keep in an apprentice house. That is a very specialised sort of apprentice (pauper children from London called 'apprentices' but really cheap gangs of labourers to a group of Lancs etc mills, e.g. the good one at Styal and the horror ones elsewhere, late C18.) It was not what usually happened because it could only work when so called 'apprentices' are grouped en masse and working in a factory. Normally, no master could take more than 2 apprentices, and you don't establish a 'house' on a small scale. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Of course not, but there is a marked difference between the two and the systems governing them as I was trying to point out. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> To: "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> Cc: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 10:37 PM Subject: Re: spam: Re: [OEL] low pay, 1812 > In message <007601c41a9b$44244fe0$8fccfc3e@oemcomputer>, "norman.lee1" > <norman.lee1@virgin.net> writes > >Is someone here mixing up pauper apprentices (from the workhouse) with lads > >apprenticed by relatives of one sort or another where the masters were paid > >to teach them the the skill of the trade they were aiming to join? In the > >case of the latter, the boys weren't paid at all, were they? In the former, > >they received their keep in an apprentice house. > That is a very specialised sort of apprentice (pauper children from > London called 'apprentices' but really cheap gangs of labourers to a > group of Lancs etc mills, e.g. the good one at Styal and the horror ones > elsewhere, late C18.) It was not what usually happened because it could > only work when so called 'apprentices' are grouped en masse and working > in a factory. Normally, no master could take more than 2 apprentices, > and you don't establish a 'house' on a small scale. > > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society >