THE MURCHINGTON RUNAWAYS (Part 2)

by Colin Burbidge

To have one runaway Robert Northcott might consider himself unfortunate, but in 1846 it happened again at Murchington:  

(Western Times 6th April 1846)

 The Throwleigh Apprentices Register shows that James Bond, was assigned to Mr. Northcott on December 3rd, 1835. No parental names were registered.

On November 18th, 1846,  a report was published in the same newspaper: “Reports received by the Poor Law Board on Vagrancy”, in it a Dr. Boase classified vagrants by age group.

“The young English vagabond, probably runaway apprentices, these are from

17 to 23 years old, they defy authority, refuse work, and break windows.

To them gaol in winter is desirable retreat. These are the most disorderly and debauched of all.”

Runaway apprentices suffered a variety of punishments if caught. The Western Times reported some as follows:

May 31st, 1828: “Three apprentices ran off from their master and engaged themselves at Plymouth on board a vessel bound for Van Diemen’s Land. One of them having received severe chastisement from the ships master with a rope end, he contrived to escape on shore and returned to his master begging pardon for his offence and promised never more to offend”

May 24th, 1845: “Mr.W.H. Woodman was summoned by his apprentice Ellis, for ill usage

He had beaten him with a stick and left several contusions on his arm. There appeared to be fault on both sides, and as Mr. Woodman promised the Bench he would treat the lad better in future, no fine was inflicted.”

May 1847: “Francis Legg an apprentice of Mr. J. Smallridge was apprehended by Inspector Fulford for deserting his master. This being the second offence, he was committed for 14 days hard labour, and the master solicited their worships to cancel the indenture, which was done.”

Feb 21st, 1857 “At Exeter Guildhall John Thomas Spry aged 18 was charged by John Rich his master with absconding on January 2nd. Defendant said he was kept without a breakfast on the morning he left, and that generally his food was insufficient. This was contradicted by the complainant. Defendant was fined £1.1s with £1 6d costs which was forthwith paid by his friends. Complainant then offered to give up the defendant’s indenture if he were paid £9. The defendant’s friends paid the money, and the indenture was accordingly cancelled.”

 What of our two Murchington runaways?  Despite a search of the following two decades in the British Newspaper Archives, their names do not appear again in print after the runaway notices. Recaptured and punished, or free and on the run, we cannot know.

THE MURCHINGTON RUNAWAYS (Part 1)

By Colin Burbidge

The following notice appeared in the” Western Times” on April 9th, 1842.

Robert Northcott aged 55, a farmer from Higher Murchington had under his control a group of four young men, almost certainly all Indentured Apprentices.

All four appear on the 1841 census as being resident with Robert & Elizabeth Northcott and their 2 daughters, and all four are described on the census as agricultural labourers.

They were: Apollas Elston then aged 16, James Bond aged 13, John Bond aged 21, and William Lee aged 21.

The Poor Relief Act of 1601 (Old Poor Law) had given parish officials the power to bind a child to a master. Originally children could be apprenticed from the age of seven but in the early nineteenth century the age was raised to ten. The child was originally bound until the age of 24 but this was lowered to 21 in 1778.

Most pauper apprenticeships were arranged to remove the child as a financial burden on the parish. Many children were sent miles away from home to work as cheap labour in factories or merely as unpaid servants (they were not generally apprenticed to learn a specific craft or skill, which required the apprentice’s family to pay a fee). Other pauper children were contracted out to local families for a period of seven years and were often used by the master as menial, low paid labour. However, the child did receive board and lodging until the age of 21 in the case of boys and the age of 21 or marriage, if a girl. The pauper apprentice also gained legal settlement in his master’s parish. An Act of Parliament in 1801 required the keeping of an apprenticeship register, although not many survive.

With the advent of the New Poor Law in 1834, responsibility for pauper children was placed in the hands of the newly established Poor Law Unions.

Apollas Elston took a risk in absconding, for early in the nineteenth century it was, and for a long time had been, illegal for apprentices to resign. A "runaway apprentice" could be arrested and returned to his master, to continue working for room and board and instruction until he was 21. Hiring someone else's runaway apprentice was a tort under the law, and the rightful master could sue the illicit employer and be awarded monetary damages. The following note appeared in the “Western Times” on September 23rd, 1848, showing what could befall a runaway:

“John Cornelius, apprentice to Mr. W. Anning owner of coal vessels, was sent to prison school for a month for running away from his master’s service”

 To be continued……..