The following is a Copy of the Indenture of Apprenticeship of Joseph Coles left with the Secretary the 5th of October 1813 viz.
This Indenture witnesseth that Joseph Coles by and with the consent of his Father Benjamin Coles of Crown Street Westminster in the County of Middx testified by his being a party to and sealing and delivering of these present doth put himself Apprentice to George Adcock of Holywell Street Strand in the said County of Middlesex Tin plate
worker to learn his art and with him (after the manner of an apprentice) to serve from the day of the date hereof unto the full end and term of Seven years from hence next following to be fully complete and ended During which Term the said apprentice his Master faithfully shall serve his secrets keep his lawful commands every where gladly do shall do no damage to his said Master nor see to be done of others but to his power shall let or forthwith give warning to his said Master of the same Shall not waste the goods of his said Master nor lend them unlawfully to any He shall not do any act whereby his said Master may have any loss with his own goods or others during the said term without licence of his said Master shall neither buy nor sell nor absent himself from his said Masters Service day or night unlawfully but in all things as a faithful apprentice shall behave himself towards his said Master and all his during the said term – and the said George Adcock for and in consideration of the sum of Forty pounds of lawful money of Great Britain in hand paid to the said George Adcock by the said Benjamin Coles the receipt of which said sum he the said George Adcock doth hereby acknowledge and also for and in consideration of the covenants and agreements hereinafter contained doth covenant promise and agree to and with the said Benjamin Coles in manner following (that is to say) his said apprentice in the Art of a Tin plate worker which

he useth by the best means that he can shall teach and instruct or cause to be taught and instructed finding unto the said Apprentice sufficient Meat Drink and Lodging during the said term and the said Benjamin Coles for the considerations aforesaid doth hereby Covenant promise and agree to and with the said George Adcock to find and provide the said Joseph Coles during the said term in good and sufficient wearing apparel washing and mending and every other necessary except as hereinbefore stated And for the true performances of all and every the said Covenants and agreements either of the said parties bindeth himself unto the other by these present In witness whereof the parties above named to these Indentures have put their hands and Seals the Second day of October and in the fifty third year of the Reign of our Sovereing [sic] Lord George the third by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King defender of the Faith and in the year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and thirteen.

Signed Sealed and delivered (being first duly stamped) in the presence of – Joseph Coles  Benjn. Coles  George Adcock
Alban Ainge 48 Upper Thornaugh Street Bedford Square
D. Shuter, 14 Wood Street, Westminster

[in margin] Recd. 5th Octr. 1813. P.H.

Exhibit No. 11 Somersetshire Society
The Report of Mr. Moore one of the Committee requested to inquire and report as to the conduct of Joseph Coles apprenticed

by the Society to Mr. George Adcock
Shortly after the last meeting of the Committee (at which I was requested to inquire into the conduct of this apprentice) I called at Mr. Adcocks House, and saw both Mr. and Mrs. Adcock who informed me that Joseph Coles had for a long time behaved in such a manner as to render it desirable for them to get rid of him on any terms, that subsequent to the time when he was in the hospital for the cure of the Venereal disease he had been in the habit of staying out all hours of the night sometimes all night and frequently whole days – that he had formed a connection with and had ultimately married their discharged Servant maid – that after they had become acquainted with the fact of such marriage Mr. Adcock had, in hopes it might induce him to become steady, allowed him to live out of the house and to enable him to do so had allowed him two thirds of his full earnings as a Journeyman, and which with Sobriety and industry
would have been sufficient; but that his idle and disipated habits were not at all altered by this indulgence and that some weeks he attended only two or three days in the week and in fact could never be depended upon – that his general habits when at his Masters were Sly, Sulky and in every respect untractable, and that from his general conduct and the evident inadequacy of his earnings to his support, and also from certain facts which had come to their knowledge, they considered their property by no means safe while he remained in their House. They also informed me that having learnt Mr. Jenkins of the Temple was deputed or had undertaken to inquire into the matter, and he not having called Mr. Adcock and also Mrs. A had called at his chambers several times, but without any satisfactory result and in fact that Mr. A. was so hurt that he had made up his mind not to take any more trouble on the subject.
They expressed great satisfaction at my having called

and it was evident to me that Mr. Adcock was a man of a mild and indulgent disposition, and an industrious Tradesman and likely to make an excellent master to a well disposed apprentice.
Whatever were my own impressions upon the above interview I conceived it my duty not wholly to rely on Mr. and Mrs. A. and I requested liberty to see one of their experienced workmen, on a subsequent day after I had digested what I had heard – accordingly five or six days afterwards I called again and had an interview (privately) with a Journeyman, a man who appeared upwards of 30 and a intelligent civil and welbehaved man and as far as I could form an opinion at a first interview not likely to be swayed by prejudice one way or the other – I learnt from him what the conduct of the apprentice was without acquainting him what I had learnt from his Master – and I was sorry to find that upon the most minute inquiry I could make, his account in every respect corresponded with that of Mr. and Mrs. A’s – he also stated that it was impossible to find a better Master than Mr. Adcock
When I had heard the complaint it was proper I should also hear the defence and I conceived the best way to hear that was to desire the boy to be sent to my Chambers, where he would be free to state what he thought fit uninfluenced by those feelings which might have operated upon him in his Masters House
A few days afterwards therefore I sent a note to Mr. Adcock to request that the boy might be sent to me, which was immediately complied with – I then informed him of what I had heard and desired him to state whether it was true or

not, and if true why he so conducted himself – he did not deny any one fact – and the only words he used in his defence were “My Master never speaks to me” he did not attempt to justify himself nor did he make a single charge against his Master or Mistress, and it was quite evident that all the charges aginst him were true – I therefore considered it my duty not only as one of the Committee but as a man to remonstrate with him on his best conduct and to advise him as to his future in the best manner I was able – and also to acquaint him that unless his future behaviour was unexeceptionable he would lose the countenance and consequently the assistance of this Society – I desired him to return make an apology to his Master and by his future conduct redeem his Character and told him that before I made my Report I would inquire whether he had so done
A few days after my interview with him I called at Mr. Adcocks and found that he had attended his work regularly for those few days; but that nothing further had passed except some sulky expression from the boy, that he had lost so much time in coming to me.
I called again at Mr. Adcock’s on Thursday last and inquired how he went on, when Mr. A. informed me that his conduct had since been worse than ever – that what work he does is done so bad it is useless, that he says his Master shall never get a shilling by him, and that he will do him all the mischief he can, besides which Mr. Adcock says he has three or four times found that the Lock on the Door where he keeps his Tinplates, has been picked, which he does not directly charge the apprentice with doing, but he suspects him.

John Moore
15th March 1819

Afterwards it was back to the M5 and back to Devon. On the way I stopped off at a service area to have an early tea (as I had forgotten to have any lunch). The M5 terminated at Exeter and I suddenly had a choice: do I take the left lane or the right; and the signage didn’t give much help. I chose left and luckily it was the right choice—it wasn’t long before I was back at the hotel.

The baptism register for the parish of St Martin in the Fields records the baptisms of six children to parents named Benjamin and Elizabeth Coles: Mary (1801), James (1802), Eliza Price (1804), Katherine (1806), John (1807) and Ann Boyd (1812). Are these children the younger siblings of Henry and Joseph?
The fact that both Henry and Ann share a second given name of Boyd gives cause to suggest that the London-born children are family, and the chronology of the baptisms give no reason to suggest otherwise. The task is to prove it one way or the other.

At a meeting in 1811 the committee decided that ‘petitioners are admissible if either the father or mother, or the object for whom the application is made, be a native of the county of Somerset, and that such object be thirteen years old at least’. Being intended for boys only, with the foregoing age limitation, and with substantial premiums, these apprenticeships differed appreciably from poor-law apprenticeships, and offered substantial inducements to petitioners. The first two petitions were considered in 1813, and the content of one will serve to illustrate some of the motives involved at that time.

The humble petition of Benjamin Coles sheweth that your petitioner is a native of the parish of Mells, near to Frome in the said county, and that he has a wife and nine children, eight of which he has under the roof of his own house. Petitioner has been employed for these ten years past as a labourer in the honble, East India Company’s warehouses, with a fair and honest character as his officers will readily vouch, but through the pressure of the times and his earnings very small, barely sufficient to pay his baker’s weekly bill, and is destitute of the means of getting his children out apprentices, one of which, Joseph Coles, turned 14 years and born in the said parish of Mells, would most willingly have a trade.

We thus have the father of a large family, himself in unskilled and poorly paid employment, seeking the material benefits of an apprenticeship for one of his children. While this petition was granted, the apprentice in question was to be among those who were later considered unsatisfactory. A report of 1817 of the society on the first twelve apprenticeships, listed eight as satisfactory, and then referred to:

Joseph Coles. Very disobedient and now in St. Thomas’s Hospital with venereal disease.
William Maynard. Left his master two years since, and has not been heard of since.
James Miller Hicklebridge. Very bad. His master will give the premium he has received and 10 pounds in addition to be rid of him.
James Coles. Disobedient and struck his master.
(Keane, 1975, p. 2)

This new information opens up some potentially fruitful avenues for research. Do the Somersetshire Society archives hold more information on Joseph and his family? Do the archives of the East India Company hold information on Joseph’s father Benjamin? Will it be possible to find Joseph in patient records of St Thomas’ Hospital?