Surprising apprenticeship record

[Merry]

BK6 updated from this thread

Well, surprising to me anyway. Why is a labourer an apprentice master and what is he teaching a girl? Can anyone enlighten me in any way about this?

Entry from Ancestry's collection: UK, Register of Duties Paid for Apprentices' Indentures, 1710-1811

Book for 1730-1734

Masters name, place of abode and trade......Apps name & fathers names and abode

Nathan Crawley of Hitchin, Hertford, labourer Elizabeth, daughter of Abraham Samm of Hertford

Nathan Crawley is my 4xg-grandfather. I'm pretty certain this is him as the name is uncommon and he lived most of his life in Hitchin.

[kiterunner]

Weird. I can't imagine!

[ElizabethHerts]

Do you ever get the impression that the term "labourer" covered a multitude of sins? I have noticed that some people described as "labourer" or "farm labourer" had in fact grander jobs that one would imagine.

I think that we regard the term "labourer" as faintly derogatory, but I wonder if people viewed it the same way in centuries past.

[Merry]

True, I guess a labourer knew how to do a lot of tasks. Were all apprenticeships for 7 years?

I noticed there's a will for Abraham Samm(s) a year or two before. I wonder if this is Elizabeth's father? I wonder who paid for her apprenticeship? Do you think the above entry suggests her father did, in which case the will must be for someone else.


I do wish I could find a baptism for Nathan Crawley's daughter, Elizabeth. She was married in 1737 and it is descendents of her alone who appear in Nathan's will. I had thought, "perhaps he only had the one child", but now I'm thinking "perhaps he adopted Elizabeth Samm as he didn't have any children of his own"?

Probably very far-fetched, but I would have been happier if his apprentice had a different forename!

[Merry]

Oooh, there's another entry the previous year for Nathan Crawley (and wife) and Ann Samm (no father recorded for her). This time Nathan is a Mantua Maker! Maybe his wife was?

[Oakum Picker]

I have seen several where the master is a labourer & when the apprentice is a girl, her apprenticeship is in household duties or words to that effect - don't have any examples to hand.

[Phoenix]

I was wondering that, Glen. Though in those cases the apprentice is usually a pauper, so not within the scope of these records.

How much was the apprenticship worth? That would give a guide as to what it was for.

[Merry]

How much was the apprenticship worth? That would give a guide as to what it was for.

I don't know that, but I now have three records, one with Nathan a labourer but the other two mentioning his wife too (and once by her name, confirming she is Elizabeth someone as I thought) and saying they (or she?) are mantua makers. All three apprentices are female.

[Olde Crone]

Wonder if she was apprenticed as a labourer? Paupers apprenticeships were for 10 to 14 years, unlike a normal apprenticeship.

Mantua makers were the creme de la creme and I think it unlikely that a pauper would be apprenticed to a mantua maker, I should imagine the fee would be very high.

OC

[Merry]

Ooh, so I'm related to the creme de la creme?!!

OK so the young ladies were not paupers!

[Olde Crone]

I didn't make myself clear there - she may have been apprenticed to a mantua maker, but as a labourer, not as a mantua maker. The workhouse was very fond of apprenticing servants and ag labs - nothing more than slavery of course, from which everyone benefitted, except the pauper.

OC

[Merry]

Ah right, well I don't mind in what capacity the Crawleys had their apprentices!!

The main thing for me is that I now know that Mrs Elizabeth Crawley was a mantua maker and I didn't even know her name for certain until yesterday!

She and her husband Nathan are another of my special couples who were never buried!

[Oakum Picker]

Have you seen Nathan's Settlement Cert. & have you checked the Hitchin PRs for the burials? I know you were at HALS recently so you probably have but I have the Hitchin films so could check for you when I'm back on my feet.

[Merry]

Glen,

Yes I've seen the settlement certificate and I'm pretty sure (very sure) it is for my Nathan and his wife (unnamed)

I also got copies of the two possible marriages for Nathan (1707 and 1712 from memory) and at the moment I am none the wiser as to whether they are both him or only one and which one is him if one of them isn't! One is in latin though so I must scan it and put it on here in case I've mis-interpreted any of it.

I have a six month time frame for Nathan's burial and a ten year time frame for his wife, Elizabeth. Neither of them appear in the Hitchin (St Mary?) burial records. I should have looked at baptisms in Hitchin after both the two marriage dates (Nathan and Elizabeth need to have a daughter named Elizabeth who was old enough to marry in 1737!), but i was too busy doing other things to look :o

I wanted to look at the burials (or any records!) for Tilehurst Street baptist church in Hitchin, which definitely had a burial ground at a later date (I think the premises changed in 1840) and may have had one before that. certainly the church existed back to 16-something. Sadly due to some confusion with the archivist lady I didn't have time to even consider trying to find these records :(

I didn't know you were off your feet. I hope you are better soon.

[Oakum Picker]

In my index for Settlement Certs. it lists his wife's name as Elizabeth but I can see your problem as to whether she is MARDALL or SANFORD.

I had a total left knee replacement just under 2 weeks ago so can't drive for another 4 weeks but after that I'll take my film in to the RO & see if there are any baptisms in Hitchin.

I see there is a extracted record for an Elizabeth bapt. in Ippollitts in 1708 with father just listed as CRAWLEY.

I believe the Tilehouse burials don't start until 1785.

Did you check Ippollitts for the burials as that was his PoS?

[Merry]

Apologies if the settlement has Elizabeth's name. I took copies of several and didn't go to check before saying it didn't :o

Thanks for that baptism which I'd not come across before!

No, I have not checked Ippollitts for the burials. Good idea, esp if Tilehurst baptist didn't have any that early.