> > Apprentices of masters learn the trades of their masters, and may be > freed after their terms of service have expired, They were automatical 'free of indentures' but not necessarily freemen of a town or city, which is a different matter. their occupations the same > as their masters'. They then are allowed to trade in the cities or towns > where their masters lived. If they wish to trade in different towns, they > may need to pay the redemption fees charged by these towns. This applies to corporate town (and cities), not necessarily to small country towns. > > But, once the apprentices have served their time and were freed, they > are free to take up different occupations. Not before 1812, when 'using a trade to which he had not been apprenticed' was illegal. In Victorian times, this was notalways so rigid, so a few men may have moved to another trade if a good opportunity offered and they were able to pick up the skills. Some trades were jealously guarded or very difficult to pick up, of course. Those never apprenticed could > marry the daughters of freemen and pay redemption fees for the privilege of > trading in the wives' home towns, no matter what trades. Not before 181`2 - in general, the men who married wives or daughters of freemen were the journeymen trained by that man, who could not believe their luck. Again, things got more permissive in mid C19. But unslilled men (not apprenticed to any trade) would not have been popular anywhere. Oxford, if that is what the question refes to, was a corporate town and much stricter than some. There are brilliant records of apprentice bindings and burgesses (or were 40 years back). EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society