The term "bound out" is not subject to precise definition, and was very
commonly used and generally referred to any person - usually children of an
age less than that considered to be "adulthood" - who had been placed in the
charge of others.

Other than rudimentary instruction in reading, writing, and "ciphering", the
society and law of the centuries before about 1900 provided very little
protection or training for the young, most such upbringing and training (if
any) in the opportunities open in that world being left to individual
citizens.

So, when the vestry or a court so determined, a child would be so placed in
the home of some citizen (or parishioner) in order that it not be or become
a financial burden to the parish or the county.

Learning, care and apprenticed skills were only rarely provided by any
entity that we now might call "government".  So, the guardians of children
so placed were expected to provide training in some trade or "art and
mystery" in exchange for the obedience and help provided by the child.
Then too, again as Harold mentioned, upon "emancipation" of the young adult
from those requirements, such "servants" were to be given some measure of
reward  -  usually clothing and food - with which they might begin their own
lives.

As Harold and "C" both have written, we know of no instance where a male
child over 21 or a female over 18 were so placed, short of those few who
were permitted to marry,  became severely mentally or physically challenged,
or were declared "mad" or what then were called "idiots".  Thus, as to those
so placed, the researcher should infer that a boy was under 21 and a girl
under 18 when so placed .  But, be careful of the exceptions however, since
many are to be found within the records.

The age at which such "binding" ended varied widely, again depending upon
the decisions made by the vestry, the court and (or) the guardian.  It was
not uncommon for the very young - even infants - to so change in character
or capacity through personality, injury or accident that the court or vestry
would modify the terms of the prior placement.


----- Original Message -----
From: "David Oakes" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: [VA-ROOTS] Court Order Meaning


> On 11/26/06 10:58 AM, "Ralph L Dugger" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > My question is this:  Would Etheldred likely have been an older child,
say at
> > least 10 or 12, when he was bound out in 1746?
>
> After reading through the "Records of Indentures & Guardianships in
> Shenandoah County, Va., 1772-1831" on the Shenandoah Co. VA GenWeb site, I
> would not make any assumptions about a child's age based solely on the
court
> record that you referenced in your message, well, other than the obvious
one
> that the child was a minor. The Shenandoah Co. records come from 30+ years
> later than your example, but the legal practices & community attitudes
that
> these records reflect were probably pretty much the same in both 1740's
> Surry Co & 1780's Shenandoah Co..
>
> It's well worth taking some time to read through at least the earlier
> extracts of these Shenandoah Co. guardian records. Very eye opening!
There
> are quite a few children under the age of 4 being bound out, & even a few
> under 2 years old. There's also a helpful introduction to these records,
> linked on the index page.
>
> C. Etter
>
> Here's a link to the on-line records -
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~vashenan/bly_index.html
>
> And a brief excerpt from the 1774-1780 Minute Book, note the wide range of
> ages just in these few records -
>
> "1779
> Mar 25
> -The Churchwarden of the Parish is to bind Ben Cross to John Jackman. He
is
> 3 yrs old next May.
> -Same is to bind John Hier, age 11 years 15 Sept. next to John Stout.
> -Same is to bind Rurabecker Phillip, age 4 Feb. 15 last to Josiah Leath.
>
> July 29
> -The Churchwarden of the Parish is to bind Isaac Weaver, a base born child
> of Hannah Smith to George Keller to teach him the trade of a weaver. He is
> nine years old Mar. 4 last."
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions
at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.16/552 - Release Date:
11/26/2006
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 6129 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html