***************************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. ***************************************************************************** No disagreement with what has been said only to point out that £80 Scots was £6 13s 4d sterling - roughly equivalent to two years rent of a small tenants holding. The fact that it is in Scots at this late date suggests that it was a customary sum of some antiquity (officially Scots money went out with the Union of 1707 but accounts etc continued to be reckoned in £ Scots until about the 1760s). 'Penalty' for non performance was a normal part of any contract, particularly bonds or obligations to pay. Cases were sometimes brought in the courts when a party did not go through with (his!) promise - there were usually offspring involved. Malcolm Dundee, Scotland -----Original Message----- From: Christine Stokes [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 03 November 2002 18:38 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [SUT] OPR Extract 1806 - Query Edward Quite a question which sent me to my bookshelves! Unfortunately struggling to find the answer but this is my interpretation. I think you have read the document correctly. I do not believe the people needed to have the stated monies - merely binding a contract. If they did not marry they then paid. Guess most would of course have married as the 'ordinary' man and woman could not have raised this sum. I do believe there would have been a charge to marry but feel that it would not have been the large amount you quote. With a sum like that no one would have been married! I have read that in the case of a clandestine marriage the church session could impose a fine - presumably this could have been a higher sum than the cost of marrying. Your ascendants - if these prove to be them - did not marry in the Free Church. The Free Church only came into being following the dissent of 1843 when many of the people walked away from the Established church of Scotland. Prior to that they would have been married by the Established church. None the less the document you have is unusual. Normally the old parish registers of the Church of Scotland do not show this kind of detail. Perhaps this was specific to Assynt - anyone know? It is also worth knowing that it would have been most unusual in Sutherland to actually marry in the church. Normally the minister would visit those concerned and carry out the service at their home or at some other gathering. The same is true on baptism of children. Sorry I cannot be more helpful - perhaps someone else can? Christine Northamptonshire, England www.highlandhearts.com www.sutherlandheritage.com -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 02 November 2002 21:04 To: [email protected] Subject: [SUT] OPR Extract 1806 - Query The following is an extract of the marriage of who I believe are my ggg grandparents which is not very clear and I'm seeking help to correct the words in quotes, and afterwards I have a query: £80 Scots Dec 20th 1806 Then contracted in order to marriage Niel Kerr residing in Loch beanach & Chirsty McLeod in Baddygninan the same to take place in due course of law under the above penalty of £80 Scots; half to be paid to the party willing to implement the 'promise' (unclear - is promise correct?) & the other half to the 'Session' (again unclear) of Assynt by the party failing. Their names and marks were then written below. Is my transcript correct, or could someone help me with the words in quotes please? My query is: I assume that the sum of money was to ensure people went through with their commitments to both the church and to the 'innocent' party. Was this a 'normal procedure with all churches or only to the Free Church (where I believe they were married)? Secondly, was it a frequent occurrence that the 'engagements' of the time were not followed through? And why would that be? £80 even in Scots money terms seems a huge amount - would the people have that 'tucked beneath their mattresses'? edward Limpsfield, Surrey