Did families have to pay to apprentice a child to a tradesman in the past?

by Delnilas

I've seen in some books families paying a tradesman in order for him to take on their child as their apprentice - is that true? How did that work? How much did the family usually pay?

Bodark43

An apprenticeship was a contract for training in exchange for free labor. In the typical term of seven years, the apprentice would at first be a debit: he/she would break things and not have many skills. In the last couple of years, however, the apprentice would be skilled, and a supply of free labor. For most trades, that exchange was enough, so fees or "premiums" in the 17th c. were rather rare, in early 18th c. England half of the apprentices paid no fee, and a third paid less than 10 pounds. However, some trades were potentially more lucrative than others, so parents wanting their son to become a goldsmith, silversmith or watchmaker could well be expected to pay a more substantial premium: unless the family was already in the goldsmithing, silversmithing, or watchmaking trades, in which case the fee might be waived. As the apprentice would be skilled and working for free, in the last years of his indenture, there was a great temptation to run away and work for real wages. The premium was something of a security deposit put down at the beginning, to discourage that. An apprentice from family already in the trade would be expected to stay.

But some trades were not what you'd called skilled, yet had apprentices. If parents wanted to apprentice their son to one of the prestigious merchant houses trading to the eastern Mediterranean, Turkey, the fee might be as much as 1,000 pounds.