You see quite a few advertisements in the old newspapers for apprentices, “Wanted, good reliable boy for apprentice whatever” and that sort of thing. I can’t recall seeing money mentioned. If it was to be a proper apprenticeship, one legally binding with indentures, and if the boy was a minor, then a parent’s signature would have been required. I suppose that if the father was in the trade it would have been easier to get his sons signed up.
Here are some of the joys of being an apprentice in the bottle business.
Glasgow Herald, Thursday, December 15, 1859
CAUTION TO WORKMEN.—Yesterday, at the Justice of Peace Court—before James Craig, Esq., and James Gibson, .Esq., Justices—John M'Lean, apprentice bottle-blower in the employment of Messrs. Borron, Price & Co., was convicted of having deserted his employment, and sent to prison for three months.—Joseph M’Lean, Joseph Pilly, and Charles Canning, workmen in the employment of the above-named firm, were also convicted of having deserted their employment, and each sentenced to two months' imprisonment. —Hugh M’Lachlan and James M’Garvay, apprentice bottle-blowers, in the employment of the Clyde Bottle Work Company, were convicted of having deserted their employment. They were sentenced, the former to 30 and the latter to 21 days' imprisonment.
Glasgow Herald, Friday, April 17, 1874
MASTER AND SERVANT ACT. —Yesterday— before Sheriff Murray—an apprentice bottle-blower, named Samuel Wyld, pleaded guilty to having, on the 16th February last, deserted from the employment of Mr Arch. Stevenson, jun., glass manufacturer, Garngadhill. The Sheriff ordained the defendant to return to his work and fulfil his contract, and to find caution for so doing within 14 days, and found him liable in £3 3s of expenses,
The Pall Mall Gazette (London), Monday, February 14, 1876
A decision of much importance as affecting the relation of masters and apprentices was given in the Glasgow Small Debt Court a few days ago. An apprentice bottle-maker sought to recover from his former employer wages under an expired indenture. It appeared that the pursuer had been imprisoned under the Master and Servant Act, and it was argued that he had in this manner wiped off all scores against him, so that he was in a position to sue. On behalf of the defender it was urged that by his breach of the civil contract which existed between the parties, the pursuer had debarred himself from all claim for wages. The view taken of the case by the judge was that the composition given under the quasi-criminal proceedings did not affect the wages at all. Over and above that composition, however, the breach of indenture had per se destroyed all title of the pursuer to wages of any kind under the indenture.
All the best,